tv Panel Discussion on William F. Buckley CSPAN January 18, 2016 10:00am-11:46am EST
nietzsche. >> is there a nonfiction author you would like to see, see us an e-mail, tweet us at book tv or posta comment on our wall. facebook.com/booktv. >> chris responded to >> what was the security threat at the time? >> well benghazi was part of a country that had a government but the only place they had
effective control was triply area. outside of triply, it didn't have any control whatsoever. when i first got there, you never saw any police around. everything was controlled by the malacia. 15 days before 9/11, before the attack happened, you started seeing police cars, but even the policemen were answer to the malacia. they would work for the government. >> it's just like afghanistan and iraq. you know, that day being 9/11 wasn't anymore threatening, maybe that's a better question or answer for it. it's always a threatening environment every day that you're there specially in areas like that that don't have a solid government. so, yeah, it's very dangerous but that's why we are there. that's why they bring us in. >> how many personnel such as yourselves, diplomatic security and grs and some cia folks,
correct? cia, cia. >> yes, diplomatic officers which were about six of them and then us and we were the security team. >> grs stands for? >> global response staff. >> okay. >> there's six of us and the actual cia staff personnel, nonshooters is that we call them, 18-19 there. >> less than 25. >> was that a normal staff for a diplomatic compound such as this? >> for us, yes. >> there's never a normal staff and various -- varies on the location. >> at the embassies that i've
been to having five diplomatic security is not normal. >> it's allow number? >> specie with no other security on their site. they had five libyan guards that were hired from february 17 but that was it. you're guarding eight acres. >> it was very, very low specially with high-ranking embassador. it was odd, it did seem odd to us. >> you can watch the full interview at our website at book t.org. >> you know perhaps that i have the record for the longest single to a question on book --
[laughter] so you cut me off. >> we would like to get your attention. we would like to get started. i'm bryan anderson, i'm the editor of city journal. i would like to welcome you on behalf of manhattan institute of what would be a fascinating discussion of william. buckley's book which has been released by encounter books. crime and drug abuse were rising alarmingly, murder was up more than 32% since the beginning of that decade. by some estimates, 80,000 adistricts were living in the city. more than 500,000 people were on welfare. the streets were a massive traffic jam. the two leading candidates for
mayor that year abraham beam and lindsey, with solution, higher taxes and more federal aid, ten-cup urbanism. the 39-year-old editor of conservative magazine national review which had launched a decade earlier, it was doomed to fail. it was worsen. the book recounts that remarkable experience. it remains striking relevant for insights on urban politics and what kind of politics help the cities flourish, some new york would adopt in mid-90's which
may be in threat again today. let me turn it over to my friend jack fowler. [applause] >> thank you, brian. we all have our fears, my major one is this, more than in the nick of time a couple of years back i realized that 2025 would mark the 50th anniversary of bill buckley's historic mayoral run. mike is here so i would get in trouble. i'm happy to be in the company
of so many people who believe bills proved to be something of real lasting imimportance -- importance of major consequence. here we are to celebrate that. before we do, a few thanks. to roger kimmbel who said, yes, many believe to be america's premier political work. we thank niel freeman. to my friend lindsey craig who was dynamic president of national review institute founded by bill buckley in 1992 and which holds in its mission the portfolio to protect and enhance the buckley legacy, nri
cosponsors of the event. a great friend of all who want to see our cities thrive. i would like to offer special congratulations to brian anderson and his team and premier publication, city downwhich just celebrated its 25th anniversary, it is a tremendous, tremendous issue. so was the 60th anniversary issue of national review. so is every issue of national review. [laughter] >> edited by my friend and colleague rich lowery. tomorrow it's their anniversary. hooray. [applause] >> 60 years young our wanna-be mayor would have been proud. thank you for c-span for being here and sharing today's reflections on candidate buckley with its wonderful audience. before i close, in this audience
before me there are two people i would like to recognize, one is my predecessor as publisher who was there way back in 1965, in the middle of all the buckley for mayor maddens. we celebrated our 60th anniversary because of evidence's many years of leadership. and then there's a man who has too many titles, judge, embassador, senator, sometimes that is qualified as the junior senator, author, one of the great public servants of our lifetime and a man who as campaign manager for buckley for mayor lead politician to a third-place finish. [laughter] >> but the most important third place finish ever. i'm thrilled that he is with us today, the honorable james
of the committee for the free world. well that war was won. she dissolved the organization which never happens because they go on and on with other excuses. we said, we won and stopped. of course, there's always a need for the committee for the free world. midge's memoir is an old wives tale. he was editor for 30 years. >> 35. >> beg your pardon? 35. got it. working on my math. speaking of math, he has written great many books, including three or four memoirs all of them masterly. i would like to mention a book that's one of his i would say least known or celebrated books, while we were in vietnam. it's a very important book and answers the question and finally
i will say, please shut your ears, the two people most responsible are bill buckley and norman podhoretz. we are back in 1965, you're just a stipof a girl from minnesota and i want to know where were you politically? where was your head at we used to say in 1965 politically? were you migrating left to right or what? >> well, i was but i didn't know that i was. i thought where i was i was of the labor movement because it seem today me they were the really reliable anticommunist in the country and that was a
leading passion, was anticommunism and one was hard put to come by, people who really felt the same passion except on the left, actually, on the near left. so there i was. i will let him talk about his leftism. mine was slightly different because i came from minnesota and we are very stupid. [laughter] >> you're not speaking of frank franklin, i trust? >> i wasn't there when it happened, but it could have happened. [laughter] >> so where was i? i was a big liberal. i had not the faintest idea that
somebody named ronald regan would come along and lift my heart, not then, not in those days. not then. i had my primary loyalty was really i think to the labor movement, the left, the anticommunist, socialist left. >> the year before goldwater happened, we know he's right and the left said you know he's nuts, where did you stand on goldwater? >> i stood with the left. i couldn't -- i could not believe in the goldwater candidacy. i couldn't believe in the reality of the goldwater candidacy. that's where i was then. but there was one thing that in the end saved me and that was
that i knew that there was something wrong with the left. i was a member of it but always at ease and specially in '65. that's when our wonderful children, the great young, remember the young people, our wonderful young people who were riding in their universities and everything, it was clear that that was bad news, but the only way you could hang onto the left was through the labor movement because it was antiradical. >> midge, in 1965, did you have a sense that new york was going to pot or did that come on
later? >> oh, boy. it didn't come later. it had gone to pot as far as people like us were concerned. we were living in the upper-west side and it wasn't safe. there was crime in the streets and if you -- if you were going to work and then you had a plan for the evening, you did not go home because that would require a trip back to the neighborhood and another transcribe down. you had to be very careful. so things are really, really bad and from my point of view the worst of it was, of course, we had children, and if you had children there was the schools' question and everything you did -- i mean, we worked -- the two
of us worked three jobs each in order to pay tuition for three children in private school and then ultimately four children in private school because you could not send your children to the public school, not where we lived you couldn't. >> so in 1965 bill buckley has been editor of this magazine, national review for ten years. norman has been editor for commentary for five. were you working at harpers? >> not yet. >> did you know, bill the firing line had not started, you didn't know bill yet? >> no. >> had you norman, had you met him? >> i must have. he called me out of the blue and he said something like i'm thinking of writing something about my mid-summer maddens, i
think he called it, and would you be interested in publishing it, and although i was very much on the left, i have a weakness for pretty sentence and i admired buckley as a writer, something people don't stress enough so i said, sure, by all means, and the article never materialized because it became the book. so that was my contact with him. in later years when i got to know him well and i confessed rather sheepishly that an article, commentary 70th anniversary. another one. >> yeah. >> when i was a junior editor commentary in the late 50's we ran an article which i had actually commissioned from mcdonald about the first whatever it was issues of national review. it was very severe.
and i confessed to bill that i was the author of the title of that piece, which was scramble egg heads on the right. [laughter] >> i don't think he ever quite forgave me for that. [laughter] >> the other thing he never quite forgave me for was something i did to the junior senator. it was in those years a very close friend of mine, ran for senator for the u.s. senate in new york in 19 -- what was it? >> '76? >> yeah. '76. i was what somebody once called -- [laughter] >> i'm not going to translate it. if you don't get it, that's just too bad.
[laughter] >> and we were very close personal friends and i was helping him to the extent that i could and he had just won the primary against by a hair, by one point or something like that. >> she wore a hat on her hair. >> she always did. here we were running against jim buckley and in a speech that he gave, i don't think i wrote it but i read it and i suggested that we say we've just beaten the radicalism of the left and now we are up to the radicalism of the right. i later learned that jim buckley -- he doesn't get angry at things. >> he's to pure.
>> bill was furious of calling his brother a radical as a right. >> you soon were to be called a radicallist writer yourself. >> that's right. >> some people think that there's no position to the right of me, that they don't know my children. [laughter] >> bill and i became very close friends in the last, what, 20 years of his life, 15, i don't know. but it was a very warm. >> when you became a writer, would you participate in the series, why don't you go back to your old neighborhood in brooklyn where you grew up. you said i wouldn't go back there informs in a tank. try to remember in 1965. the neighborhood that you grew up in, was that neighborhood then relatively peaceable or had
it become something like a war zone? >> no. brownsville in brooklyn and it got worse and worse and worse and i believe today the neighboring neighborhood east new york have the record in the history in the world of number of murders per population. >> when you grew up, were you carefree on the streets or was it dangerous? >> oh, no, it was dangerous. i myself got beat up a few times once very seriously by a black schoolmate actually. i wrote about that. in 1963. the -- i can describe the feel of the upper west side not being safe, well, we had a car at one
point and the firest garage, the east side of broadway, we lived on 105th street between broadway and west end. if you parked your car as i often had to do around midnight and walk from there to 100th street, cross the street and up to 105th street it was like a mind field. there's a gang hanging out over there. more dangerous than the one over there. where do i cross and which one do i take a chance for? that was the way i felt. >> did you think about decamp to go washington and elsewhere the way your friend the cristals were and were you bound to be in new york come hell or high water? >> well, that's true. irving cristal took place later.
>> okay. >> and things got worse in new york. >> midge, back to '65 were you a lindsey man so to speak or bill or neither? >> no, no, certainly not. i don't remember. probably i didn't even vote, but if i would have had it would have been through alabama because what could you do? >> i think i probably voted for lindsey but i don't remember. i never liked him. >> personally? >> as a figure. i mean, i knew something about him that put me off. handsome. yeah. the portrait of lindsey in the book in the unmaking of mayors is the best thing about the book in my opinion is just delicious. bill never ran out of clever in terms of phrase h. [laughter] >> he described one after
another. >> he later in a kind of gesture bill invited him. [laughter] >> he wanted a interrepublican fight, so to speak. >> trying to establish that the liberal republican was more liberal than republican. that there was basically a dime's worth of difference between lindsey on the republican ticket and alabama on the democratic ticket. and that's true. they had virtually the same platform and bill was partly to establish the credentials of the conservative party as a genuine alternative. not necessarily in that election but as a fourth in new york sta.
bill was right, lindsey became a democrat eventually and did very, very badly in his quest. he ran for governor as a democrat? senator or governor, i don't remember. >> he definitely turned which was honest of him. >> oh yeah, he made an honest man of himself. >> hidge, it's been a long while since i read bill's books, i think i devowerred them in 20's and 30's, the unmaking of a mayor was the best nonfiction book, my favorite novel was stained glass. do you have a view of this? do you remember the "unmaking of a man"?
i don't remember. oh, yes. it dazzled. i don't find it more dazzling than any -- than anything else written by bill buckley. dazzling is the word. >> i think it's one of my -- i think it's one of my favorite american political books. he was a political animal, wasn't he, certainly in that book and that period? >> yes, and -- and he was in the end in my own life, he was the kind of political animal, he was what one would consider a political animal, which is to say he translateed into thinking about things, what his sensibility had known all along
fi -- if i can put it that way. it took a long time to get there. really not until really -- i mean, certainly i was against the left and -- and i knew that that was bad news and but was fishing around for alternatives, so there was -- as i said the labor movement and then there was something called the social democrats u.s., which was a splinter off the socialist party and if you were looking for something unfindable as i was doing you ended up with splinters of splinters until -- and i have to say it was not buckley, it was ronald reagan who came along and by then one knew that -- that one had found one's political feet.
>> well, midge, i often quote you about something but if i'm wrong, i have apologizing to do, when you became trusty of confederation, you said there comes a time to join the side you're on. is that true? >> yes, except if i can correct you. >> please. >> you must always join the side you're on. [laughter] >> by then i was certainly on that side, but that was 1980. >> do you have a favorite buckley book? >> yeah. i can't remember the name of it. [laughter] >> maybe i can help you. i want to hear you speak about the "unmaking". you wrote a defense of bill's memoir. >> that's the one. >> bill quoted you at length, of
course, in his next edition. >> that is my favorite book. it's the most eloquent tribute to the virtue of gratitude that perhaps has ever been written and the lack of gratitude the sin of our culture, and the reason i wrote that to it was sincere. a lot of people said i was crazy it had been attacked in the most discussing vulger terms. one of the things bill was saying all along was that every one of his blessings is which
you could see, in fact i remember this happening, some of the press all in love with him despite the best efforts to hate him. the leading example of that was marie campton was then columnist for the "new york post" and a very elegant writer himself. he began by attacking buckley and ridiculing him and so when. he ended by swooning over the elegance of buckley. i think they became quite close friends. >> a published captain in "national review." >> campton was like myself, a sucker for a beautiful sentence and a pretty face. >> as you remember, those most famous line about camping was demand a recount. he said this when asked what is the first thing you do when you
want but it was quoted so often to go later on the with want about the boston telephone book and the harvard faculty, he referred to one of the other of these lines as his prelude in c. sharp minor because there was this prelude along with many other things but his prelude was a famous everyone played it and they demanded he played. he wearied of it. so never bill hard demand a recount come he rolled his eyes and said, my presidency, c. sharp minor. >> was almost another one almost as good but -- >> about stringing a net under the windows of the "new york times"? >> exactly. he had lunch with the editor of the "new york times" on what, the seventh floor of the times building. when he emerged that gave him a hard time. and when he emerged there were a lot of reporters on the street and they said to them again, how did it go? what would you do if you were elected? and he said the first thing i would do is string a net under
the seventh floor window of the building to catch them as they were jumping out. [laughter] >> he was a compassionate conservative. [laughter] >> midge, in 1965 to the degree you can remember i wonder how balkanize with your politics? you often had your jews and your italians and to blacks and hispanics. it was a small constituents and i'm sure that's too bad, but once there truth to it? >> there was undoubtedly truth to it by don't think it was so much ethnic, although it was certainly racial. and it was ethnic the extent -- to the extent that the hispanics
have now taken over neighborhoods of the city and were creating problems. i don't know your we lived in the heart of a hispanic community. >> on the upper west side? >> on the upper west side, 105th street. 105th between broadway and amsterdam. excuse me. if i think back about as i was thinking back about it, as i was reading the book about, because i had not read the book, bill buckley's book at the time it was published, but last week i was reading it for this location. the main preoccupation for me
and i think for my neighbors, and most of the people around, was the schools. the schools, oddly enough, the only people who are making sense really about the school was the teachers union, which was then under, was then being led by a man named albert shanker who is a very sensible person, unlike his successors who took that union and made it a public enemy number one. but what one thought about all the time was, where are you going to send your kids to school? where do your kids ago ask how did you solve this problem?
how did you, and i think that problem is still around. >> you mentioned al shanker at when i was transitioning from left to right long ago, for a few days i wanted to hang my hat on people ask shanker but there's about four of them so you just couldn't. >> let me get in on this ethnic -- one of the things i was surprised to find in "the unmaking of a mayor" is the frequent references to a book called beyond the melting pot, written by nathan glazier and daniel patrick moynihan. i published i think three chapters of the book in commentary before the hardcover edition came out. this is an extremely important book, and bill recognize it's important because i think he was, he was not aware of how
balkanize the electorate had become until he was running. he makes a lot of fun of the food you eat when you're running for mayor. for jews it was -- that's what he fixated on to our remember his county for the absence of the lindsay in some debate there is must be having. yet heard some far reaches of brooklyn where the was in unbeaten -- [laughter] anyhow,. >> really belongs in the golden treasury. >> decided that book a lot, in "the unmaking of a mayor," and rightly so because this book challenge the idea that america had successfully melted all the different ethnic groups into one composite american.
one of the earliest i think books to argue that there was a state beyond the melting pot, which is the rise of ethnic consciousness and -- >> remember dinkins didn't like helping pot and he inflicted on this phrase gorgeous mosaic. >> right. moynihan and glazier did not exactly take a position in favor of the merchants of ethnic consciousness, which is a disease mutation we lived there, became multiculturalism, but that was far into the future. i think bill shape some part of his campaign in the light of what he had learned from that book. >> 1993 comes along and things are so bad in new york that people in their desperation turn to this republican prosecutor for mayor, giuliani.
we have the giuliana results. we have 12 years of -- continues and is fortified. with his 20 year i was a golden age of rudy and gloomy ending the election of de blasio and when he was elected i was talking to my rent on a podcast into something about the communist. i said sure what you mean small see? whatever. support of the sandinistas, honeymoon in castro's cuba and so when. is it déjà vu all over again in your mind? >> yes. >> you go first, norman and then we'll end with midge enter into the audience for a few questions before this panel concludes. >> very much so. de blasio's administration resembles that of the dinkins, the we don't have a giuliani to challenge him.
i wrote the piece as it happens, i forgotten, i lift -- i looked it up. it appeared in "national review" in late, before giuliani, and to they begin with the following, something like this, something evil is happening in new york city. the evil that i was talking about was the attack on the police, déjà vu all over again, here we go. every effort made to hamstring the police. i went on to argue the number of lives that have been saved by various police tactics and so on. that was basically the way, that's when the exodus from new york began, that very piece i think was called my new york. i talked about how -- >> that was the end of giuliani, by the way.
usage they get the word evil, you said i reach for the strongest of all epithets. >> thies. >> midge, do you have that 1970s feeling all over again but surely it's not that bad? >> gets worse. >> i think it's worse. >> really speak with yes. first of all because there was a the 1970s, and we had gone through that experience and we get calm, we come out the other side with -- >> now do it again. >> i myself don't think that giuliani's successor is altogether blameless. i don't think that that was, i think there was a kind of slip, there was slippage in the, okay, nevermind that.
this is absolutely intolerable, and i think it will not be tolerated. but how much damage has to be done before we get ourselves out of this present situation speak with maybe the editor of "national review" rich lowry will have to run for mayor next time. [laughter] let's have a few questions. don't be shy. raise your hand. yes, ma'am. >> thank you. i'm jan rosenberg, recovering sociologist and real estate broker. and i hear the question that midge raised all the time, or the concern about school year and i would say that that is a major preoccupation of families i meet everyday in brooklyn looking for homes. and the difference is it's not déjà vu all over again, because now we are forbidden by law to
mention anything about public schools in the area in which we work. that's to prevent the kind of steering, casting aspersions on local schools, and so forth. so it's even worse in some sen sense, and parents are thrown back on the resources on the internet and so forth, and networks of information. but antarctica but if you don't know people in the neighborhood you are considering. is a really paradoxical situation i think. >> yes. next. who else? yes. [inaudible] >> -- inappropriate hopeful, but since giuliani's mayoralty it has robbed subsequent mayors of the excuse that new york is
ungovernable. so does anybody see this as a possible ray of hope that de blasio will be a one term mayor? >> that such a good point, thank you. norma, we know the city does not uncover novel. reagan proved that the united states was an uncomfortable and giuliani did the same and the city, right? >> yeah. well, de blasio is not a one term mayor. i agree with you about the uncover nobility issue. de blasio estaban one term mayor. the new york city will deserve everything it gets. what it will get will not be pretty. one more, please. >> thank you, "national review online" and alice network. i was surprised to hear comments about having to look around for better schools outside the government school system way back in 1965. i thought the problems of the school started later i'm wondering if --
>> me, too. >> i thought maybe 40 or 30. were you concerned about safety or was it a matter of instruction or discipline? and with school reform part of the buckley's mayoral platform? and if so could you give us some details on that? >> i assume you are addressing this question to me since i've been carrying on about the schools. it was a question about safety and instruction, both. schools were not particularly safe or they were made safe. once i served on a commission of the governor of new york state to discuss youth violence. all, god. >> is there any other kind of? >> one of the things we did was visit schools in brooklyn and albany and all over the place. we went to a school in brooklyn
and there were cops outside the front door, and kids had to go through a gate, and the cops would stop them. so it was an issue of safety but it was also the fact that the level of instruction in new york's public schools, which had once been very high, was abominable. that's the only thing, that's the only way to describe it. awful, terrible. and so i gave the public schools a try with one of my children. we have four, and this was number three. there was a very pretty looking school building not far from us and so i took her there, and i went to visit one day and i said, i can't send the kid to this place.
she was just sitting there looking out the window while some moron woman -- [laughter] -- was theoretically the teach teacher. and the teachers union had by then been that, even though al shanker himself was a good guy. you couldn't come it wasn't fair to send your kids to a public school. in manhattan. and we didn't live in the worst part of manhattan. so i can't imagine what parents who lived in harlem went through when they sent their kids to the neighborhood school. >> after midge, no one will talk like this. this makes it sort of sad. because you are a unique. let's wrap up with this.
midge, did bill buckley make you laugh? did you ever fight with him? rpg mainly just reason with them? did you two at each other or did you really get into? >> by the time i was on speaking terms with bill buckley, i thought he was simply wonderful. i mean, there was no difficulty. and i was, several times, on his television show. >> i remember well. >> and that was really something wonderful to watch because he never ever even the slightest disturbance, but he would whisper to me, this guy is a moron. [laughter] or you take the next one because i can't stand it.
[laughter] this went on -- >> i remember you would be examined of the program often. >> yes, i was. >> into the gossip about it afterwards. he was so, he was so, he was so creamy a person to have a regular relationship with. >> norman, did you joust with bill in person? >> as a matter fact i did, quite a lot. and often through letters. one of the last letters i got from them after a long letter i had written, i guess was an e-mail by then, i do know, chiding him for a columbia done, and i was expecting -- a columbia done. was expecting a detailed response.
a semi-backing e-mail saying it always saddens me when i displease you. [laughter] how do you like that one? >> that's great. who could ever think of such a thing? >> is one other little anecdote. one year, everybody must know what that is, what happened was it was like davos in hosted by conrad black and taranto. conrad look at the guest list would accept the invitation to host and he saw there was not a single conservative in there, so he rounded up the conservatives he might be able to include, and that added up to bill buckley and me. so we went there, and it was incredibly boring. i mean, they were crowned heads
and prime ministers and foreign ministers and ceos. at one point bill last this each of which had been assigned and came over to me and he was, he was laughing hysterically. and i said, what's the matter? what happened? what happened? he said i will not be the person of the name of the person who said this to me but very, very eminent prominent person said to me, he said to bill, you know, i have been come he said, proudly, to add one of these comforters for 44 years. bilges broke up at this. the idea of india was wonderful -- bill just broke up with this. the idea thinking it was wonderful to be at this conference for 44 years. as everybody knows he was a lot of fun. apart from that dismissive e-mail i got from him, we did
joust both habitat and through the mails. i'm not famous for my humility so i will brag and say i think i even had some influence on him over certain issues. in fact, i'm sure of it. >> i know that's true. we are going to a little shift changer a little shift change your come to ship the panel. it will not take very long. thank you so much to the stellar couple, number the doors and midge decter -- norman podhore podhoretz. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> please take a seat. we have seats up front. anyone who is in the back please feel free to come up front, and the second panel will be moderated by the editor of "national review," rich lowry. >> good morning, everyone your if i do anything else or to thank the national institute, the manhattan institute encounter books for republishing a nine, and our esteemed publisher jack fowler who conceived and executed this project. thing so much, jack.
[applause] >> let's hear it for jack. >> jay mentioned in passing the possibility of me running for mayor, and this is an idea that has been thought of before mike long, the chairman of the conservative party, actually suggested to me a long time ago now. mike is amended many good ideas. this wasn't one of them. i did briefly think about it and gave me a little insight into how professional politicians operate. because during the time when i was taking about this, it got into the newspaper and ask in my apartment building in union square. i was going down in the elevator and this woman in the elevator recognized me and said are you rich lowry? are you thinking of running for mayor? yes, i am. and she buttonholed me in the mailroom, and she wasn't sure the only conservative who live in my building. unfortunately, was a little bit
mad. she regaled me with all these conspiracy theories about the clintons, most of which agreed d with and you can buy which agreed with him to confide in my book legacy, paying the price for the clinton years. i thought this conversation was going quite well. as we are about to depart she asked me i'm just curious what your position on rent control? as anyone, rent control is one of the worst socialist boondoggles known to man. i was about to explain this to her when she said, the only reason i ask is because i live in a rent controlled part. if you oppose mud control you will never ever get my vote. this instinctive panic gripped my gut. i knew i was losing my only voter in manhattan, so i said, rent control is a very complicated issue. i think we really would need to form a blue ribbon commission to study the issue, and certainly if you are going to be any
changes to the red controllers union in new york would have to grandfather everyone currently living in a rent controlled apartment that she was quite satisfied with this answer i walked down to the street quite pleased with myself but i was a look-alike barack obama, i got game, baby. i am lebron. i'm good at this. that i realized i had just been thinking of running for office for 72 hours and i've already sold out. [laughter] that's when i realized politics is best left to the professionals. i think one of the things that must have been so electrifying about the buckley for mayor campaign is that it was an introduction for so many people to bill buckley's dazzling personality. and we are consumers. we believe in ideas. we think rightly that ideas move the world, but there's no underestimating the effect of charisma in public affairs.
john adams who coul could be a y son of a gun wrote a letter once sang roughly that george washington gets all these prized possessions just because he's a foot taller than everyone else in the room. that was too grudging but there's a little something to it. people are drawn to them or at least in awe by him. and bill buckley had the same quality. my introduction to him came through his long running program firing line when he may not have been a foot taller than everyone else but he felt that way. as soon as i learned he edited this magazine "national review" i ran out and had to get a copy. that was my introduction to "national review." soon thereafter started smuggling "national review" into my high school classes and hiding it in my hide it in my textbooks and read every class. what playboy magazine was to most well-adjusted american teenagers of that era, "national review" was to me. i think one of the most amazing
things about bill buckley's campaign 50 years ago is just how contemporary it feels. bill would instantly have recognize bill de blasio's new york as the embodiment of this axiom that liberals don't care what you do so long as it's mandatory. the issues in the book are so familiar, you are tempted although i know it's not true, but you're tempted to believe we have not made any progress at all. it's about taxes and crime and welfare and the cabs does billy trying to preserve and exploit their monopoly. and, of course, media bias. i have to say years ago when i first learned that bill buckley was also on top of advancing a bunch of conservative policy positions on all thes these iss, and advocate a bike path, i was kind of crushed. i assume to bypass with the cost
of the frivolous letter i remember howard dean in 2004 explain that he left his church, the episcopal church, in burlington because it had opposed a bike path. eddie said that the church's opposition to this bike path wasn't very godlike. which always made me wonder what is god's position on bike paths? is there a verse in leviticus i missed that explains what this is the? but every time i visit one of the areas where bill buckley was president. every time i'm almost run down by a bike or on a bike path always think couldn't you have pleased at least on the full buckley and make the damn things elevated 20 feet above the city as you wanted to do? we will talk a lot about appreciate it bill was. i think on one thing that he wasn't so appreciate it and afterwards to be a makeup american rights how the republican party potentially could dissolve into factions that would be adamantly doctrinaire, inadequately loved
him insufficiently thoughtful, and probably angry, self-defeating way sectarian. i think we would all agree there's no way that could happen. [laughter] we are joined this morning by two wonderful urban experts and public intellectuals and contributors to what i very fondly consider the second finest publication in the english language, "city journal," steven malanga and fred siegel. we are going to talk all of it about this, the political and policy consequence of bill buckley's campaign going forward. steve, why don't we start with you and wanted to share some thoughts about the impact of bill's campaign on the politics and the policy of new york city and other urban areas speak with one thing i'd like to start with which is important as we talk a lot about the political setting
and also simply the mood of new york city. it's important to understand the national said it and the national mood at the same time. because buckley's book is actually managed to be about both conservatism at the national level and at the local level. when i read and reread this, i'm astounded when i read the book at how wonkish he was as i think norman said on local policy. there was a dramatically different picture nationally. and that is of course this is 65. john senden reelected. this was the beginning of the war on poverty -- johnson had been reelected. this is a sense we could spend money and solve any particular problem, or different approach at a different feeling than the feeling in new york. 1965 was the year of the passage of medicare, the creation of a national endowment for the humanities, national endowment
for the arts and the forerunner of the legal services corporation which created 262 public libraries that lawyers would go run the country suing public officials. david moynihan called is the beginning of the professionalization of reform. today we may call it the institutionalization. this was a national mood is we're going to fix everything including the cities. sargent shriver predicted at the time we could completely eliminate poverty within 10 years. lbj himself said about cities that we're going to invest in urban renewal and create cities of a spacious beauty. the thing is when i tend to read the book i think of was, was buckley more worried about the fact that lindsay might succeed in new york and become a national figure and drive the party to the left, or was he more worried that lindsay would
become mayor and be totally inadequate for the job and destroy the city? you see both of those threads running through it. in particular one of the things that lindsay almost created really which is the most disturbing thing for an urbanist, this sense that the problems of american cities and we would hear this for the next 30 years, the problems of american cities could only be fixed by intervention from the federal government and the state. the notion of the uncouple city of course arose out of the. this reverberated all the way down to david dinkins mayoralty. eddie became a platform for people to blame republican presidents for not doing enough for the city and it was giuliani who began to reverse that by saying the cities on the center of innovation in america. that's cities greater america. why can't this album problems? buckley mightily fought mostly about that. if you look at any kind of grand
way, he said that lindsay's agenda was nothing more than the federal government is going to bail us out, the state. and, indeed, before lindsay was elected mayor, state and federal aid was 27% of new york city's budget. by the time he was done it was 50% of the budget. and the irony of course is that none of the social problems talked about in 65 were cured by any of this money. the city went broke to boot. it's just like a double bogey. buckley instead talked about local solutions to a degree th that, i don't have some of the items on his agenda just to give you some quick ideas because they will seem awfully similar to first of all, let me tell you he advocated to eliminate rent control. unsurprisingly. but he talked about expanding
the police force, tightening probation and parole, and the opposition to it was in the civilian review board which was going to oversee the police department. on wall street talked about putting two people to work in the parts which is exactly what giuliani did. the vigorous campaign to build welfare eligibility, this is something giuliani did and what he did he was asked created by the "new york times" admitted asking people to come in and verify they were who they were come hundreds of thousands of people dropped off the welfare rolls. buckley did other things. he really was wonkish. express bus lanes, freeing taxis to think of our passengers. he would've loved uber and the manhattan bike lane. on housing, opting out of federal urban redevelopment programs.
this is the robert moses to factor in reducing the cost of new housing by ending the monopoly by union only construction companies. if you look at his agenda, the one area that buckley didn't anticipate largely, the future was on education. this was a crucial area. he was grasping like many other people although milton friedman had raised the issue of choice in schools. i didn't think of something that resonated. what a buckley said about the schools was we ought to have local control. fred can talk about that later and give you an idea where buckley was coming from. the second thing he said was that the schools should not be essentially for extreme edition, and the kids should not be subject to the social engineering. he was talking about a lot of programs to essentially integrate the schools in ways
that had kids being moved all around the city. but otherwise much of what we see as the urban agenda of rudy giuliani as actually the nucleus of it is in buckley's book. he articulated a strategy or conservatism, and he struggled as we all have, to try to have a philosophy which doesn't focus on simply getting things to people. how do you respond to that? one of the things, the way he described it was my agenda is guided by the principles of a free and compassionate society, a free and compassionate society, respectful of the rights of the individual, the limitations of government and the needs of the community. i think that is probably one sends that perhaps describes
what we try t tried to communico people. i'm just going to stop there. >> steve, on not asking you to explain the interest of bill buckley's campaign, but were these come if he talked to urban, certain urban experts at the time, would you of heard of these ideas? with it at all in the ether or is this bill buckley's intuition coming up with them? >> two things. obviously, all ideas kind of have a background in a certain kind of philosophy. when buckley talks about things like we have to, you know, crime is the crucial issue right now because you can have a city where people are afraid of the first order of government is civic order. that was something that was more widely accepted than i think in some time subway in the late
'80s and '90s. if you said those things you were accused of essentially promoting law and order. i don't know if, one of the things that i know from the history of lindsay, lindsay denigrated people who use terms like law and order, including buckley. by 19 cdt competitive people are trying to bring a prague spring to america. analogizing between the soviet army would into czechoslovakia and occupation by police in our neighborhoods. this is at a time when linda to overcome there were 680 murders in new york. there have been 302 in 1965, 10 years earlier. by the time he left office there were 1200 murders in new york. so he continually undercut the
police themselves which is kind of philosophy operate active passive policing. what buckley did was just in some ways talk plain sense. the difference is that his solutions were free market solutions come if you will, and that i think struck people as unusual. how can we governed using the principle of the marker place? >> so if i were a conservative in 1965 and i decided to think really hard about urban problems, would i be likely to come up with something his agenda prior to the advent of the manhattan institute and the "national journal"? >> the irony is i think institutions like the manhattan institute were sometimes dare to put these ideas forward and reemphasize them over and over again until the time is right.
idea what i would say is half of buckley's ideas and identity five just seems sensible, which is one of the reasons why the reporters came to like him -- in 1965 -- he was talking since a special about crime. lindsay's responses, it was the most vacuous agenda that you could imagine. buckley said at the time that you have to see lindsay's agenda, not to believe it. [laughter] and then he said, i love this line, he was actually quoting from a literary critic in referring to someone else but he said, to try to see consecutive thought and logic in lindsay's agenda, you are going to have to settle for consecutive pagination. [laughter] >> so a large element was just
rejecting the pieties at the time in favor of what was widely recognized as common sense, even if he did have expression. >> absolutely. that's one of the things that's most stressing, by the late 1980s those things which buckley would've sent our common sense, it is the first job of government, especially local government, to ensure the civic order, had become code words. about the time, they just made sense your. >> fred, let's get you any. your thoughts on the impact of bill's campaign and, obviously, feel free to bounce off anything you heard from steve. >> it's important to remember that the buckley campaign follows the goldwater debacle or conservatism is in the tanks come into tank. it has collapsed. the republican party has collapsed. buckley was a pick me up. his attitude, the way he carried
himself, it was a wonderful tonic for people watching this. i think the important thing is to understand the existence been other world that no longer exists, and world of technocratic liberalism whether the assumptions were that experts could really solve virtually any problem under the sun. and if you didn't agree with those experts, you were a racist. during this campaign which steve is right, a lot of it is common sense, he and lindsay compete with each other for describing ugly as kind of a neo-nazi. they always point to the fact that buckley was opposed to the 1964 civil rights act. domestic candace parker his opposition was based on the notion that federal government would become too powerful. but the city doesn't local part and crime doesn't explode until later in the '60s. lindsay intentionally expands
the welfare rolls. we have a black male unemployment of 4% in the late 60s. imagine that. lock male unemployment 4% -- blackmail. he wanted it to be much higher, he joked, but it wasn't a joke. the creation of a welfare culture and underclass the most out of it had not yet occurred. the other thing that had not yet occurred is of bicultural and had not flowered yet, or i should say it's poisoned fruits have not yet blossomed or the emotional grounds will still come, toward the city a partner and was little i could the civil war. i won't bore people explaining how shanker who oppose this but it occurred anyway. when it happened people were forced to choose sides. most of new york intellectuals chose the site of the black nationalist who taken over the
schools. there was this fellow went on to a long and established career as if over for us at university of massachusetts teaching education because he had done so well in new york destroying schools, he was thought to be ideal to teach other people how to do it. at that time i'm living in new jersey. it's not so far away. i still have relatives, and i'm trying out for the college football team. i was larger than. but i felt as i felt it in my relatives. wiwhen they got on the subject, when they sat around the table at the subject came up, it was warfare. people could speak to each other civilly. it was so intense. the idea that white teachers were purposefully missed educating african-americans so
as to keep them down, took hold. it's still there now. >> can i jump come is it all right if i jump in? >> absolutely. >> let me jump over all disaster of the late lindsay -- >> too much ground to cover. >> the late lindsay years, the city lost a half million jobs, half a million jobs. that's larger than the population of most american cities. some people argue it's 600,000 but it's an enormous sum to the city lost half a million. there's a quadrupling of welfare and the schools have collapsed. it was quite a set of accomplishments. the rudy campaign was personal, it was a lot of fun. i was editor of the city to at the time and is working on the giuliani campaign at the time. mitigation of the "city journal" would come up i would run over
to the giuliani camp, literally hot off the press in my hand, handing out, read this country that. people would sit down and it was enormous exciting. a lot of what people were talking about came out of the buckley campaign. some things have changed. the dinkins administration exacerbated the problem of race in the city, a series of riots, and jews called it -- i think they're accurate. that wasn't there in 65. it was there, it wasn't there in 65. when people were sitting around the table and talking about the welfare, the bike lanes, the city, just remember in 1994 the city was on the verge of bankruptcy. literally on the verge of bankruptcy. dinkins brought the city to bankruptcy by the threatened mario cuomo, if you allow the
financial control board to take over, i will play the race card. and so cuomo backed out and julie annie was handed this. giuliani moved quickly on welfare reform as a fiscal matter. people like what buckley said, they like the idea of welfare reform which was in the air at the moment but it wasn't an out of this is a nice idea putting people to work in the park. this was a matter of necessity. it had to be done. welfare rolls had to be reduced to the city budget had to be reduced. this is just informal. people sitting around talking. the thing that got, the giuliani campaign, the most excited was the fact that buckley talked like a fact and moynihan would pick this up, the fact that new york sent more to washington than it got back. this was a revelation. new york liberals believed washington was a source of semi
free money. i did we're sending more than we're getting back was inexplicable. except for the fact that major interest groups did well on this deal, the teachers union, welfare workers did better on this deal, medicaid, the people who spent, and the city as a whole. the city as a whole lost some interest groups gained. there's a wonderful metaphor that buckley used of this guy being black and by crisscrossing funds going one place to another. that was the case. it's still the case. i was in a conference call yesterday with people in washington about what's to come. senator buckley's new book was one of the things that was mentioned. what people were talking about is this fantastic in one of the things come is this antacid chart listing all the anti-poverty agencies in
washington, over 800 of them. anthony pigott how they were related to each other. went to grab the giuliani people was this image of many crisscrossing. why are we doing this? we have to solve our own problems. we are not going to get help from washington. that made liberals crazy. i say this on the basis of personal conversations and on being on platforms with people. they didn't boo me to try harder, fred. [laughter] >> let me ask you on race. our race relations better or worse today? obvious they are better but we seem to be talking ourselves into convincing ourselves that they are worse. >> i think that's right. the contrite and his of ideological crises, prices over a nonexistent rape academic on campus, the efforts by the white
policeman -- these are contrived controversies created by the end of the obama years. the sense is that we don't get it done now it's never going to get done. but there's an element of continuity here. because in each case crises was a sort of liberal environment. in the case of, i want to disagree all of that with midge and norman come and i will dock as i say that, the city as a whole come it was anything like it would be five years later in 1970. the reason i say this is, the "herald-tribune" in 1964 ramp a long series of articles on how new york was a disaster, get out now a center was the message. and it was a contrite in this.
much out of whole cloth but that helped elect lindsey. is a similarity between lindsay and turn one. de blasio got elected in part because of the articles of the "new york times" about stop and frisk, even though stop and frisk had already been dramatically reduced. it didn't make it into the times on paragraphs 29 page 32. but the fact that there were reforms they called for it larger already taken place was beside the point. they were letting off steam. now, lindsay won narrowly in a three-way race. de blasio won narrowly in a three-way race. three-way race with de blasio was -- there really was no general election and there never will be another giuliani. let me explain why because this goes back to buckley.
buckley was a master at constructing the pretensions of technocratic liberals. that liberalism doesn't exist today. of technocratic liberals believe that they could prove that the programs worked. they don't do that today. they don't do that. they accuse people who oppose them of racism, sexism, whatever. what you have today is what buckley calls the john birch affect. i'm going to read something. this is brilliant. the left of it is left of john birch society. lindsay was famous for reading the john birch society out of concerted movement and one of the best things he ever did. the birch fallacy that buckley once exposed how to define the
birch policy, buckley once asked? is the assumption that you can first objective intention from objective consequence. we lost china to the kindness, therefore, the president of the dreaded and secretary of state wish china to fall to the kindness. so today there is suffering in the inner-city. that suffering is assumed that the intentional. someone wished this to be the case. another version of the birch society which is printed on city council, out of how many people are aware of the city counts as way to the left of de blasio. de blasio was stuck with bratton, thank out. god. we are hanging on to that thread. a doctrine of implied suffering. which is a version of the birch affect. if there is suffering from some most wanted that suffering to occur. if their suffering it's there
because rich lowry and the "national review," brian anderson and the "city journal" wanted that suffering to take place. you can't argue, and this is not designed to argue. so what i would say is bill buckley was brilliant and deconstructing a rational enlightenment version of liberalism. that doesn't exist anymore. the left became anti-enlightenment, postmodernism. some of you may be similar with, there is anti-enlightened, anti-modernism. the crazies on campus, they have been taught that there is no rationale. it's a kind of double game on the campus. i'm when we have no rational basis for, judgment. on the other hand, my judgments are right. they are right because they flow from my identity. i think buckley would be puzzled
by what came. he was a master of deconstructing one kind of liberalism, but over the past 20 years another kind of liberalism driven both by doctrine and demography, fast immigrant population is coming to the city. has created a new kind of liberals and also liberalism that's national in which you don't have to make arguments. you have to argue in terms of cause and consequence. you have to argue in terms of your virtue and the malintentioned of the people you are denouncing. so you notice any of these issues on campus somebody didn't do enough, the dean engaged in implied racism because he didn't react forcefully enough, ever, he must'v must have wanted african-american students to do badly. forget the fact there may be a mismatch of the students come
accepted at colleges, maybe too hard for them. all that is thrown out the window. but i would argue is we need a new bill buckley. the old bill buckley, a bill buckley was a guide for so many years come a guide for the giuliani campaign. that bill buckley doesn't apply to this world because he wouldn't have anyone to argue with. i will end with this. black lives matter is marching down the streets, and my youngest son, jake, as through good police work discovered, he wrote this for the "daily beast," that the black lives matter people with people who are shouting till the cops, tell the cops. which they been denied. now i've going to talk these people unaccounted in an essay you do know the number of african-americans killed by the police has declined dramatically in the last 25 years?
if so, why do you think this is such an issue no? their response was, it doesn't matter. i feel, i feel that, it's gotten worse. what, i don't care what you say. just move aside. there's nothing to see here, move along, so to speak. it was terribly upsetting, that you can't argue in a rational -- this goes back to the double game of postmodernism. the arno foundations, my truths are ridiculed. but that ends up with is okay, i'm going to impose myself by virtue of force. not message of armed force by force of federal regulation, or the force of campus regulation. we are just going to shut you down. now i will shut up. >> thanks so much, fred. i'll throw one more question to steve and then we'll open it up
for questions from the floor. steve come hearing you and fred and norman and mage talk about the rise of rudy giuliani, it makes me wonder, is it true that you have a crisis in new york to get good governance? as long as it is a slow steady descent that doesn't scare the horses, that it's going to be the liberal status quo speak with personal new york is a very transitory city. the population turned over very quickly. and so people forget. those of us who have been here, many people in the two have been here, we remember vividly. but what happens is young people, they never even experience it. they simply don't know. that's number one. those are the same people who, as fred described, what they are learning in our educational system is essentially what feels good to be the policy. again if you read the buckley,
think about "the unmaking of a mayor" that i find so interesting is him trying to struggle to save the people this is why conservatism makes sense but although he is not saying it in that way. this is why people who promise to give you stuff, you know, are not your friends. one line he drops out, which certainly i think should become obvious to new yorkers at that time was, always live -- always look a gift horse in the mouth. so this is the problem that we face. you said and it's interesting what you said is doing a crisis to good governance? ..
>> you raise an interesting question about the change that has occurred in a way in which liberals tend to respond to public conditions and you made the point that buckley, indeed a new buckley or a buckley who obviously could respond to the post structural latitudes that exist. what precisely are you getting at? i'm curious about this because it seems to me if there is a new argument, what is that new argument? what would buckley 2015 say to the liberal agenda? you are no longer relied on evidence, truth, so what is the argument to be made on behalf of a conservative decision? >> the argument that has to be made on behalf of the conservative position is that feelings are not the basis of politics, evidence has to be debated. we have to argue for modernism, argued for a return to the enlightenment even if the campuses have given up completely on this and are
completely hostile to it. buckley's as steve said is right it was common sense. there is cinematic common sense and the place where you see this take place right here in new york is the question of the homeless. people might think the cops are evil sons of bitches, but they do not want homeless people urinating on their front porch and they want something done about it. so, the common sense question, why is this happening. arguing back from policy to a commonsense argument, and in peer-- in the article are human, and enlightenment argument, but i think it's difficult. when we get to the national stage it would be very difficult for anyone to layout a kind of buckley critique because the opening specific policy of the current national administration
are so massive that they will probably be pie to those specific phase, obamacare, syrian, a rod, etc. etc., but if i had my rather's i would want a local and national buckley, someone who could conduct themselves with the wit. i still remember my relatives who were all to the last of john lindsay. my relatives thinking this guy is funny. this is a little bit of what we say would donald trump. donald trump is a reagan democrat go buckley. his version of humor doesn't have any of the wit of a bill buckley, but it is sort of talking against what is taken to be the revealed wisdom of the moment. i will shut up in one second. the attempt by obama to bring-- >> as long as you don't say
anything in favor of donald trump again. [applause]. >> i'm just kidding. just a joke. i love donald. [laughter] >> i think he is the greatest billionaire that should run for president's. i'm sorry. i lost it. >> could i say something? i think the responses easiest at the local level and as someone who spends a lot of time looking at the state and local government, the government closest to people in and that you actually want to work as local governments. when bad policy threatens you at the local level, that is the time you get reform first and i would point out that we should see this around the country. it is not coincidental that there are 30 republican governors-- 31 republican governors that 22 states now have republican governors and legislators.
what's closest to people is the level of government. we've seen more reform at the local level in this country than i think people would imagine. translating that into reform on national issues is harder and one of the ways you do that is the you have a party that actually captures 30 state houses. >> i thought that going into this election, but maybe not, but i think things change first at the local level and it's from the ground up. i don't know if that is a hijacking view or just me. >> other questions? all the way in the back. >> hello, victoria. i wanted to ask for someone who is a conservative with libertarian leanings who is those of us who feel for the rights of the individual where we are concerned about civil
forfeiture in the arming of the federal bureaucracy with a swatch of teams and searches that happened, warrantless searches and who was sane way to minute, what is happening with our police department and one of those concerns trying to say, well, where are the rights of the individual, they are getting out of control and then the black lives matter and those folks come along and a sort of squash what-- with their rhetoric and their terms they are using to what you were saying a sort of the writer's him of side of the left and now all of a sudden as a law and order person, yes, i am in favor of the police and, yes, i was always brought up to respect the police, but i have these concerns. where does that leave those of us who want to see some reform with sort of a police state with especially on the federal level and with these warrantless searches tracks now where does
that leave us because we are not -- we want to defend the police with a black lives matter crew and this anti- police movement, but yet there are reforms that are needed. can have all these warrantless searches and throat done grenades and shooting dogs and these warrantless searches and what's happening and what an are was uncovering what's happening in wisconsin, with the police and the prosecutors against the scott walker's political supporters. where does that leave us? how do we counter that? >> where can a civil libertarian land between the status quo and black lives matter? >> buckley actually handles this in the book when he talks about the rise of the civic disorder in new york and he talks about the surest way for people to lose their rights and for rights of the trampled on is in fact
when government doesn't do its job and we have civic disorder. if you read the united states constitution it actually has an grants emergency powers in cases of emergency, so the surest way to lose our civil rights is in the situation where we don't govern effectively end the people call for those kind of emergency measures and buckley talks about that in particular. these are the left nor the right has, i think, any exclusivity on trampling on rights. we see it from both directions. good, solid governance is one of the things, sensible governments that doesn't look-- it was interesting, a writer from-- kevin drum made the point we should stop laughing at republican governors who say right now, we have to reconsider the immigration issue because sensible americans look at what's happening in paris and
say maybe we ought to at least ask are we screening these people. maybe we ought to stop and check and maybe that makes sense, so we could write endlessly about both sides of the equation in one form or another wanting to trample on rights. this is what good sensible government is meant to avoid and even the founders though into the constitution emergency powers and so and buckley clearly was worried about the dissent of new york into disorder and he addressed that specific issue. if you think the client-- because lindsay was constantly bringing it up, if you think what i am talking of about is traveling on rights, we till you see what happens when crime gets out of control in new york. >> can i ask you something else and then we will conclude. we have another anniversary this year that on the one hand report to do either of you have any hope that we can check the
unraveling of the family? >> first of all, lindsay buried more hand for the second time. we all know what the response was and 65. four years later when nixon is elected he makes daniel patrick more hand his advisor tries to revise this idea. lindsay comes out as is the notion that the legitimacy and the breakdown of the family causes crime is ridiculous. helps to bury more hands report for the second time. we are at the point now where we are beyond just civil solutions to this. this is a cultural revolution that is no longer about the black family as we know. it's about the hispanic family and the white family, charles murray's book on this is, i think, the lumen 80. there is no government solution
to this. there is rather a recognition of the problem and a sense that this is bad for society and for kids. is a big big long long road back and in the dream of a nightmare, the 60s legacy to the underclass is very much about what happens when attitudes change among the upper class and they have the resources to recover, but the underclass and i would now add the blue-collar middle class don't have the resources to recover from things like broken families and we are seeing the impact of this. so, i think it's unquestionable that it's astounding that we still debate this issue rather than try to address it. >> the ironic situation is the upper-middle-class refuses to
preach what it practices. what it practices is strong families, enormous attention to children, but it won't preach that because to preach that is to be critical of someone else and that would indict them again, one of the racism, sexism etc. etc. so, the most important thing that will happen is that it might provide some solace to this bleeding is to-- the deconstruction of this postmodern frame. so much of it upper-middle-class and brought into. the other thing that comes out of this, the lady from wisconsin reminded me of it is the intense polymerization at this produces, so the democratic party now could not win without the votes of single woman. that was the cartoon about julia last month. she spends her whole life married essentially welfare mothers are married to the government and there is this kind of serial monogamy that they engage in.
the people who live in states where married families are still predominate, wisconsin, they are moving-- utah, are moving in the other direction, so we are having this terrible polarization because we weren't able to deal intelligently and honestly. let me bring up a word that has not been mentioned so far. i see my wife over there and the word is feminism. feminism has certain virtues. she kept her name and that means when people ask for mrs. siegel and they are selling something on the phone i say there is no mr. siegel and hang out. but, feminism is another basis for not being able to talk honestly i'm an not being able to talk about empirical outcomes. in wisconsin i don't know if people realize this,