tv 2018 Tucson Festival of Books CSPAN March 11, 2018 2:59pm-5:00pm EDT
see that intensification and polarization recall hyperpolarization and the complete loss of civility in politics one of the interesting things that you point out is that the beginning of polarization goes back to 1964 nominating goldwater or when the democrats nominated mcgovern so this is all accelerated but there are some streams of history you could add to the conversation that would be valuable? >> so to address charlie's misinterpretation of reagan on amnesty but one thing that has been missing from this conversation is the absence of the discussion of hillary clinton when she called millions of americans baskets
of deplorable's that sealed her fate that confirms kathy's point about rural america or maybe even suburban america feeling alienated that she was the out of touch elitist that the two parties for many years operated in the state of equilibrium that if the democrats nominated adelaide stevenson you would take the more conservative if they nominated understand it is subjective but the more liberal john kennedy then they would pick the more conservative linda johnson which both is a fallacy. the same thing with the republican party. if republicans nominated in
picking a conservative running mate or gardener was considered more conservative eisenhower would pick nixon nixon was perceived as more conservative so the reason was there were many elements of both parties republican party is more simple to understand because basically more modern and conservative elements the others because of southern democrats so was a more complex formulation but the changes beginning 1964 with goldwater breaking through the establishment gets the nomination.
. . . . if you think over time is that in 68 the republican's were unified and the democrats were divided. seventy-two the republicans were united in the democrats divided. seventy-six democrats were divided and the republicans were united in 80 the democrats were divided and republicans united. the united party tends to go on to win in the fall election and the dividing party goes on to lose sole purpose of the convention is to send a message to millions of voters that we are unified and we have the solution for what bothers you or ails you.
sixty-four, barry goldwater should've poked nelson or bill scranton or some other moderate republican to produce a unified convention in order to at least have a fighting chance against lyndon johnson in 1964 which was nonsense that the country would not stand for three presidents in 11 months. they were not vote against party of the martyr presidents. he picks the little-known congressman from buffalo new york, bill muller and goldwater was asked at the time why he picked bill muller and he said because he paces off lyndon johnson. [laughter] which probably was the case. goldwater knew he had no hope of winning whatsoever so he was going to run an ideological holy quest. this sends begins to process redefining the two parties and
that sends them into the party but conversely conversely moderate democrats into the republican party so for instance john connolly the democrat becomes a republican and strom thurmond becomes a republican and john lindsay, the republican from the democrat and other cases where liberal republicans joined the democratic party. this starts a long process. it's extenuating by mcgovern in 72 because again, mcgovern is the nominee logic dictates he should take a more conservative running mate but of course the convention is a disaster because of eagleton and he was also a liberal and in the sense because the process of sending more
conservative democrats out of the party and attracting more liberal republicans so bite 1980 and after both parties have pretty much nominated only right of center are mostly right of center nominees and the democratic party is nominated mostly or all left of center nominees so we have now the polarization of the two parties that didn't exist that used to have conservative democrats and republicans so they could talk to each other in compromise. today you have these two polarized parties that too don't talk to each other except to yell at each other and that is where we are today. i see good things to it and bad things to it in compromise can be a good thing. not always. >> will get to where i am wrong on immigration. >> yes,. >> don't want to get to the point. [laughter] >> you should be taking notes. there will be a test. >> okay, guys.
kathy -- >> the fundamental misunderstanding of reagan's amnesty bill was done in the shadow of the cold war. reagan was not going to hand mikael gorbachev a huge pr bonanza by forcefully evicting 500,000 americans from illegals or guests whatever you want to call them from the united states when he's lecturing mcgill good job on the virtues of freedom and democracy. that was number one. number two is that many of these refugees, not all, but many had fled communism in nicaragua and cuba and also we had a wet foot policy where we accepted communist immigrants from communist countries who are looking for political asylum in the united states. to say that reagan and i go through this all the time there's a misunderstanding and it's much more sophisticated then you were previously.
>> that is your cue, charlie. [laughter] >> i wasn't sure what question you asked him but it had to do with stability. [laughter] and when perhaps when we engage in that. at some point maybe we'll talk about the role newt gingrich played in all of that because as you go back i also have gone back historically and what were those moments and what was the recessive gene and conservatism that popped out in donald trump when you're talking about a george wallace or pat buchanan or the way that newt gingrich had to pacifier politics so deeply and i'm not sure if i'm referring to but the final speech where ronald reagan gave to the country and as i read this you imagine donald trump saying anything remotely like that -- is that i've spoken of the shining city on my political life but i don't know quite make it what i saw when i said it but in my mind it was a tall, proud
city built on rock, stronger than oceans, teeming with people of all kinds, living in harmony and peace, a city with freeport that comes with commerce and creativity and if there had to be walls the walls and doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here and that is how i saw it and see it still. i apologize for my lack of sophistication and understanding but that strikes me as a vision of america and a vision of immigrants and free trade. it seems completely alien to much of the politics and the political rhetoric that we have today. [applause] >> the title of our panel was what is the future of american conservatism and we will come to a question to all three panelists about how do we get to where we are where we want to
be. i also want to acknowledge that would be quite possible to put together panel very similar to this in terms of where liberals are today. our focus is clearly because of what we're doing but the dilemma for both parties is deeply entrenched at this point in terms of the inability to be respectful of each other is human beings. i'm going to ask kathy, and only kathy, specific question and now wait -- you took that the family that i meant it. [laughter] usually did. >> we are just getting warmed up. [laughter] >> is an element that she learned after she wrote the book and returned to those same coffeehouses and gas stations to talk with people who had voted for trump to discover whether they felt that what they believed trump would do whether he had delivered. in terms of the depth of the disengagement of millions of people from our system i think
what kathy learned is very important for all of us to hear. >> i asked folks so, now that donald trump is elected president what you expect to be different around here four or five years from now? what will change? almost universally the response immediately was nothing. nothing will change around here and what are you talking about? one guy even said look, we've been living in poverty for decades we keep telling you that and don't you hear us? residential elections don't affect us or our communities. what it said to me was even when people feel like their candidate one these folks were still feeling so disconnected that it wouldn't change their mind and one thing i want to for other
that i heard and i didn't hear from folks in small towns and rural communities but in the many different people i've had a chance to spend time with since the election was that i want to bring to the attention that that sentiment a feeling so disconnected from your government and so unheard an invisible is not unique to rural wisconsin and it's not unique to rural america. we hear it in so many different places in this country that sentiment of i'm not getting my fair share of attention of resources or respect and it's something that is in many pockets of the country. it is very sobering to me. you. >> thank you. [applause] >> one final question to the panelist and will open it up to you. our goal here was to take a look
at what is the future of conservatism and the question i will ask could apply to both liberalism and conservatism. the way to frame it in a way that i think is how we see it at the institute of many americans are thinking about whether red states, blue states or purple states -- what do each of you believe it will take to reestablish the social norms of civility and respect in our politics? anyone of you can begin. >> sure. that time when i wasn't falling asleep in high school physics i remember the professor saying power cannot be destroyed nor created but only moved around. that is what we're talking about today is that a lot of people believe and this is the nexus between elizabeth warren's beliefs and my beliefs or conservatives an intellectual or
libertarian conservatives. there is too much power concentrated in many people believe in washington and in corporate america and wall street and various institutions and that it what what donald trump represented and that he understood or at least is campaigned was that people were yelling at the sky because they perceived that the power had been taken away from them by big government and big corporations. i perceive that, you know, we are now the third most populous nation in the world and we have over 300 million people. behind only china and india. this is a broad country and vast and diverse and it's an antiquated idea and this goes to civility. to think that you can govern this country from one corrupt
city by the potomac river and that the only solution for everything for more efficient government and civil discourse, more power for the individual is to return power, 21st century federalism to return power and authority to the states and localities and ultimately the individual where the individual has more input in their own government practices in their own behavior and all those other things is that simply impractical and this is the failure or this is the conservatism and that's the other thing -- everyone needs to understand that there is a distinct difference between the republican party and the conservative movement. the american liberalism and democrat party tend to blend together more closely although they separate at times. conservative movement has been very distinct apart from the republican party for 40 years and resulted in the republic and
party was the dominate was gerald ford for the conservative movement was behind ronald reagan but even when reagan became president the conservative movement sometimes broke with ronald reagan. anyway i got off on a tangent but that's a central point for you to leave here is to understand that conservatism is american conservatism is timeless if you believe in individual rights and freedom and dignity and privacy because it stems from the individual and the american conservatism is derived from the enlightenment. if you want to lower, i think, the amount of vitriol and if you want to lower the amount of yelling and screaming and hatred and nastiness is to give people back power and take it away from the elites of corporate america in government and that's the best way to bring around civil discourse. thank you. kathy mark. >> i would recommend to bring back civility and respect to our
democracy that we establish a better ethic of listening and encourage listening. by that i fully acknowledge that right now it's not safe for everyone to listen to their opponents. take for example i will just take for example the very obvious existence of racism in this country and because of that it's not safe for some people to listen to those who think they are something less than human but i do think listening is extremely important in a democracy because basically what a democracy is as a form of government in which we are making decisions about each other and about how to govern and guide the lives of other people and if we are doing that with very little understanding of the humanity of the people whom we disagree with we are in for a wealth of pain which i think is what we are experiencing right now.
i advocate listening not so that we all watered down our opinions or moderate them but that we clarify our own opinions and see people hold different opinions as fully human and as fully human as we ourselves are. [applause] >> i want to reinforce what kathy just said in the listening is important but the question that you asked though i don't know what it will take to restore it. it is urgently important and it's not just a matter of good manners. you cannot have a functioning democracy if you are not willing to talk with one another and listen to one another and acknowledge the humanity and legitimacy of other people's points of view and that is what we're losing. i sense that rather than things getting better they are getting worse and i think it's urgently important that we have the kind of dialogue were having today.
to have a center-right and centerleft bill to talk with one another and to respect one another is very, very important because we don't do that then we will pull further and further into our own corners and frankly i do think that culture matters. the politics affects color and culture and the rhetoric of the president is having an effect on the level of civility. i am watching how many of his supporters and followers are modeling his behavior on social media and in personal interaction and that's one of the moment you step back and there's a debate, by the way, on the right particularly whether or not civility is a sign of weakness and whether or not talking about civility is simply a code word for surrender when what you should be wanting to do is smash your face and win. there's a i recommend a very thoughtful piece by david french in national review where he makes the case for civility and
again don't make the mistake of thinking this is simply good manners. it is the lifeblood of democratic debate and dialogue. >> thank you, charlie. [applause] in the remaining time we have we love to take questions from you in the audience. there it microphones on both aisles and we ask that you keep your question really short so that we, in fact, can take several of them. start. >> thank you for being here in trying to clear muddy water for us. i have a question and something i don't understand. i understand fiscal responsibility and taxation and global conservatives but in their certain issues i do not understand how they became conservative or liberal. abortion and why aren't more opposed to it and why aren't there more conservatives in favor of choice? things like control why aren't
there more conservatives want a stronger gun control and more liberals want to be armed. these don't seem to be issues that fall into liberal or conservatives but the conservatives have taken the one side and how do we get there? >> i will take that because we talked about this in dinner and i had a head start here. part of it is because choosing the sides where ideology has become the fixed-price menu where you have to take everything on the menu. what is a flat tax have to do with your opinion on gay rights for example? what does your position on free trade have to do with your position on guns? there are overriding principles of small government but one of the liberating things i think for me has been to realize you don't have to agree with everything. you don't have to check every single box. you could exercise independent judgment on a lot of these things. you ought to have principles and the timeless principles that i
think have citizen in good stead but this is part of the problem. in politics in particular if you are a democrat you must buy all of these positions and if you're a republican you must buy all of those. if you could break the ice and begin to have a conversation where people go okay, i disagree with you on this but agree on this and may be unwilling to give on that. >> thank you. i'll go to the next question. >> i agree with what you said fundamentally but i'm pretty much confused because it seems like the trump nationalism is going towards let's make the rich richer yet catherine, what you described is they want respect and more resources and more attention and it seems like it's a dichotomy going in different directions. the fundamental question i have is what do you see as the importance and the role of money in politics and the conservative movement is going with that.
>> kathy, want to take that first? >> briefly. i guess the answer i will give is to help explain why the folks i describe might be voting for a candidate who doesn't look like he will do much to bring resources to these type of communities. as i said these folks are not expecting much to change in their community with the trump presidency but instead what they heard was someone said you have a right to be upset and you do deserve more and it is their fault and gave people targets to blame, concrete targets to blame. immigrants, muslims, urban elites, he wasn't saying i will bring more stuff to your community but saying i will drain the swamp and do something completely different in changeup the slow resources that you don't think it's fair.
>> greg, we've, it -- >> i like to go back to this gentleman's question. >> please, keep it short. >> generally they break down on the concepts of freedom and justice which are the two organizing principles in the two-party value system for the public in party is generally organized or these conservatism generally organized around the concept of freedom hence the second amendment or freedom for the unborn individual or other issues like that is that but it's not perfect and it's imperfect because there are exceptions. justice has become the evolving organizing philosophy of the democratic party and the conflict always is that the freedom for you to make a dollar but the redistribution to text you and give it to another individual is how you perceive it and they will always be in conflict with each other. one man's concept of freedom conflicts often with another man's concept of justice. generally it's not scientific or specific but it breaks down to
those two concepts. >> how many people here are in favor of freedom? [laughter] how many of you are favorite are justice? [laughter] >> that's meaningless. you didn't ask them anything. in an abstract sense they would it would be something but. >> it meant something to them. >> oh, you are a talkshow host. [laughter] >> moving on. the gentleman on my left. [inaudible conversations] >> you spoken in middleton -- >> i thought you look familiar. great to see you. >> i have another what will it take question. we've established that we have a dangerously narcissistic post literate which i thought was interesting case of arrested development in the white house.
>> this has been hashed and rehashed. >> what will it take for our other wisconsin, paul ryan who i think we had a high level of pride in and what will it take for him to say was that 10% corporate tax right and is that all it will take for me to debase myself and to turn away from the values that i am supposed to support? what it will take? >> i like you, charlie, we will start with you. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> and very good friends with paul ryan i describe my relationship now as we are taking a break from the other and we are seeing other people. [laughter] the gates poem that the the left lack conviction because the
right art [inaudible] i think he's a fundamentally possible man who was made a bargain that i'm willing to overlook things and willing to enable in order to get certain things in his agenda. i understand that and understand real politics there and i'm not sure he do the same thing if he wasn't speaker but the problem with that is that the price gets higher and higher in higher. what profit does it for a man to gain the whole world if he loses a soul but for tax cuts? for lower marginal rate? i still think and hold out hope that i generated unfortunately a controversy when i had a moment of candor within your transporter is that i'm only getting sick and tired of saying that paul ryan must really be upset about this or be thinking about this because of who he speaks out but remember he was one of the few people who is willing to draw a line and speak out in the primaries.
i don't know the answer to your question. it's heartbreaking to me to watch what ryan and other republicans have decided to rationalize that have been willing to do it again we haven't gotten to the fourth act it. >> i apologize but i think we have time for only one more question and we are generating more questions but we do have to keep this tight in terms of time. >> i have a philosophical question about conservatism in general. the idea that i believe newt gingrich was proposed something very similar to what is now the affordable care act that went and became romney care and also, to apparently in the 60s the republican party or conservative area of the party they proposed a universal minimum income at
one time as a means of not having to deal with all these various different social programs and i'm wondering how that evolved to be against all these various different things at the present time even though you know that kind of thing solved problems even for them on the conservative side. >> conservatism has been evolving over many years but you are absolutely right. in 1971 the nixon administration proposed a minimally guaranteed household income which caused a split in the republic party. the group became known as the manhattan 12. they met at bill buckley's townhouse in new york city and signed a letter announcing they're split the nixon imagination led by bill buckley, jeff bell, stan evans and others. this is beginning of the break with richard nixon even before watergate. as far as the healthcare, yes, heritage administration and newt
gingrich signed onto an early version of what they later opposed but again he was one of the things that you compel people and it's a violation of personal freedom but compelled to pay for healthcare even though you might perceive it's for the better good. that was one of those tricky issues the republican party was wrestling with and of course, pharmaceuticals and others were involved in contracting money and healthcare operation so it got very, very muddy and it's pretty well set now and its concept of freedom versus justice as the to organize the two philosophies of the two parties. >> if you are really short and one person can respond given this minute and a half we have left. >> in your discussions with rural america in wisconsin i assume most of those people are european descent people, other words, whites. i'm from an all-white state, vermont, no cities largest city
is 60000 people and in my state we perceive that many of the voters in other parts of country found the trump slogan of make america great again were in fact responding to an appeal to make america both white again and question again. could you confirm or deny that and i'd be interested in that. it's a question for you resear research. >> how many seconds? >> it's in a great and important question. no doubt that racism was a part of these conversations at times. but i am pausing because it's complicated and i wanted to be compensated meaning that i don't want you to hear what i have to say as all these people are racist and that explains her views. yes, there is racism in their views and there's racism in suburban and urban views and the
way race works in this country is through pretty much everything so their attitudes about the economy and being overlooked in being disrespected and yes, it's partly intertwined with her sense that it used to be the case that a white person like me had a good quality of life and seems to have gone somewhere and i'm not sure where but if someone is coming along and telling me it's the fault of people with different skin color in times that can be a compelling story. it is too simple though to say that what drew people to donald trump was racism and a desire to have a white country. that is just not accurate for the views of the people shared with me. it's much more complicated and bigger than that. it's a sense of the life i thought i was working towards that i was playing all the rules in order to get is no longer available to me and there is
many, many things that play into that sentiment and thank you for raising racism because we shouldn't ignore it. [applause] >> i think the phrase the kathy used about the situation we are in is complicated, is very big and we are in a time in which not only our political leaders but many media personalities are in fact modeling this kind of instability and disrespect that keeps us divided and unable to experience one another's community. institute has initiative called revise ability where we the people will have to push back against the kind of modeling that we are seeing and we hope all of you would go to that website, www. revive stability .org and help shift this norm. thank you all very much both here in the room and it c-span.
>> this is the tv on c-span2, live coverage of the tucson festival and if you've been watching you saw craig surely is one of the authors on this panel on the republican party. he is making his way over to our set to take your calls. 202 is the area code 748-8200 if you live in east and central time summit 748-8201 for those in the mountain and pacific time zones. we will take those calls in just a minute. it's a beautiful day here in tucson and another big crowd here at the festival. where on the grounds of the campus of the university of arizona. while we are waiting for mr. shirley to join us to take your calls we want to show you a little bit of what he had to say earlier in the panel. >> sometimes i think i write books to keep off the streets and out of the pool halls. [laughter] reagan and gingrich has been
very misshapen and misrepresented by history. by both conservative and liberal historians. it was my idea and my dedication and an old friend of mine was writers that you write what you know about but my wife and i worked for reagan for years and we were there at the beginning of the revolution and the republican national committee and independent expenditures supporting reelection and my wife iran seatback the year reagan was there and it is not what it used to be. we used to have panels, intellectual debates about so the fence. [laughter] and balanced budgets versus tax cuts and things like that. both men were and are controversial and because of that it invites speculation and invites disinformation. i wanted to write about reagan because first of all his legacy was in danger of slipping into
irrelevancy and i wanted to -- i books are not opinion but all fact-based. i interviewed everyone from jimmy carter to walter mondale and everyone in between. these are books of history and works of history and these are not works of opinion. everything is documented and annotated everything like that. i find them compelling figures of history. reagan because reagan revolution truly was a revolution against the established order and against the status quo but there is a dialect to american presidential history in every generation or two there's enough people among the population against the established order. it starts with jefferson against adams in the sedition acts and goes to jackson against the bank of america and lincoln against the institutional slavery. teddy roosevelt and the institution of the trust. frequent roosevelt and the
institution of wall street and reagan against the washington institution and a small part of the banks. there's mostly anti- washington and it's about regaining power to the american people and trump falls in that dialectic which makes 2016 election very interesting. trump himself may not be a figure of history. it took andrew jackson 150 years for a decent biography to be written about him and may take 150 years for a decent biography to be written about donald trump. set aside all the flaws and character flaws which are many and his election in and of itself and his nomination in his election are important from the standpoint of history interesting from the standpoint of history. i'm not going to add anything here except to say reagan
remains a compelling figure of history and even trump does not understand him. trump the other day attacked him in pennsylvania on his trade policies. reagan was pretrade and the republican party was pretrade party and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of reagan's trade policy though. reagan and his core was anti-communist. reagan at a score wanted to be the soviet union and reagan at his court knew that free trade with china and mexico would strengthen alliances and strengthen the economy and make them more resilient with takeovers with what the soviets were attempting to do in central america in nicaragua and for trump to attack reagan on trade is a fundamental misunderstanding. >> host: the tucson festival of books is held on the campus of the university of arizona where book tv is live and we have been
live all we can. we have several more hours of the best coming up and we are pleased joining us now is one of the authors speaking at the last panel and this is craig surely, his two most recent books are about newt gingrich and ronald reagan. craig surely, is her anything about the republican party their conversation they're having about it self when reagan was president for george w. bush wa. >> guest: it was more intellectual than. it was great debates in the 1970s and the 1980s about what american conservatives search for and what the republican party stood for. he seemed to be more personality driven today and less about what is our policy on taxation and vis-à-vis the soviet union -- to support the mx muscle? abortion was only beginning to
coalesce with the consistent republican or conservative position on it so the debates of the 70s and 80s were great intellectual debates which ironically came 200 years after the great debate of the founding of this country was set to remain a british colonies or do we reject the elitism of london and strike out as a new independent nation. >> host: is it donald trump's party today? >> guest: that is a great question. the republican party in the conservative movement remains distinct and apart from each other. even when reagan was president the conservative movement sometimes broke with reagan over tax policy in soviet policy and missile policy and things like that.
i would say the republican party, yes, because their public party is the party of whoever the nominee is and adopts positions of whoever the nominee is in the public party was richard nixon's party and it was george bush's party and donald trump or dwight eisenhower's party so the party is donald trump's party today. i say conserve the moment is i wouldn't say yes, sir no. it's up for grabs right now is whether or not conservatism is going to follow tropism all the way down or not. >> (202)748-8204 and (202)748-8201 if you want to call anticipate in our conversation with craig shirley. >> guest: you don't register by parties in virginia so i'm a independent. >> host: do you consider yourself a reagan republican. >> guest: yes one is reaganism still alive? >> guest: i think so. reagan's evolving philosophy is american conservatism at its roots in the enlightenment and
the belief in the rights and dignity and freedom of the individual and that is where reagan and the conservatives ended up in the 70s so by 1980 the organizing philosophy of conservative movement and later the pumpkin party was freedom where is the organizing philosophy was justice and oftentimes these conflict with each other. one man sense of justice complete with another man since freedom and this is what the debate is really about more or less going back to the time of washington and the framers in the founders is that what is just and what is free. these are the great debates. i believe reaganism, yes, it is still alive in the conservative movement and less so in the republican party. it is open to question whether or not because the public and party was very much abraham lincoln party and very much ronald reagan's party and it's open to question whether it will become donald trump's party. >> host: what's your take on this industry of republicans
criticizing donald trump? >> guest: i think it is healthy and vital. the discourse is healthy for both parties and both parties need to have these internal debates to see what they stand for. this is the beauty of the platforms which have been taken over by the consultants now. it used to be the week before the convention was platform week and the convention delegates were selected for foreign, domestic policy and these were housewives, ministers, religious leaders, military leaders, small businessmen and normal people from all walks of life would get together and they would take testimony from captains of industry and ambassadors and cabinet secretaries and then they would write everyday americans would write these very wonderful dedicated complicated platforms that became the basis for the party in that election year. there was also debate going on
and inside the democrat party where we stand on tax policy and the same thing where do we stand on henry kissinger and where we stand on the health safety records and with our position vis-à-vis the soviets -- there's been more debate on the republican side then remains today and more debate on the inside the democrat party has been more unified since 1932 in the republican party has been more divided many times since 1932. >> host: let's hear what our callers have to say. we'll begin with gail in harbor springs, michigan. gail you are on book tv. >> caller: hello, craig. i first want to say you are my kind of republican. you are attitude is one of openness. you don't appear smug and self-righteous and i am a trump supporter and i'm proud to say that and yes, they can question our president and talk about his
politics but i do believe that one day he will come as a great president for the united states. i have watched him since the late '80s and i just find them to be a bright light. i appreciate you taking my call and thank you again. maybe one day you will write a book on presidential. thank you. >> guest: thank you for that. i've been considering writing a book on the 2016 election. it's a very, very important election and there's a dialect [inaudible] from jefferson to jackson to lincoln to teddy roosevelt, to bring glenn roosevelt to donald trump. in each case the american people rose up against the elite and in the case of jefferson was
against the sedition acts and just in case it was bankamerica in lincoln's case it was slavery. today was a case it was [inaudible] and in reagan's case it was against the washington and i believe trump understood the way and the power has been drifting from the people and localities to big government and corporate america last 50 or 60 years. i think part of the frustration on the part of trump voters is that they feel their powers of slipping away to big corporations and big governments and they have less opportunity to determine their own destiny so this in trump understood this and tapped into it. that makes his election very, very important in the context of american history. >> with you from michael in fayette, alabama. good afternoon, michael. >> caller: i want to thank the
panel for mentioning first of all politeness versus today's harshness in political discourse and i want to beg on both of you at c-span2 have an early morning washington journal episode or a book tv episode or something, anything, about nonpolitical rudeness and use of bathroom and sex slang to ordinary -- >> host: thank you for that, do you question. >> caller: my question is this. i love how craig shirley in the others mentioned that you don't have to be a conservative to check the conservative box on everything they believe and as a born-again christian political liberal as i guess you could call them peace and justice. based i want to ask what
millions of our black sisters church nominations, sisters and brothers, a catholic sisters and brothers in our jewish sisters and brothers are wondering how did there has been conservatism and liberalism insanity ever since the protestant reformation but how is it that. >> host: michael, i have to apologize but get your question. >> caller: electronic broadcasting and have so. >> host: let's talk about the question right. >> guest: sure, the christian right is it came to prominence in the 1976 campaign and jimmy carter he got something in the order of 60% of the evangelical vote in 1976 and of course you remember carter campaigned as a born-again christian and campaigned from the pulpit and he talked about the government will of love and peace for the
american people. in 1976 he did a national telethon there were hosted by the reverend robinson and by 1980 they began to move to the right and reagan was making open appeals to judeo-christian values and they were disappointed in carter for a lot of reasons, soviet policy, economic policy and they pretty much had been on the right more or less although bill clinton is surprisingly did well when president george bush but it is not monolithic. per se although it tends to be more conservative and more republican but it illustrates that there born-again liberals out there. >> host: next call is terry right here in tucson. terry, your to be. >> caller: glad you are here in tucson. i enjoyed your participation. i'm struck by your response to
an audience question about freedom versus justice and i thought it was a bit simplistic in the sense that most women that i know of who are what we call pro-choice would argue that it's a freedom and matter, it is my sense is that general conservative are for freedom except when it goes against what they believe in and can you elaborate on your response to that person? >> guest: for get an answer from craig shirley what is your view upon trump? >> host: i guess he is gone. sorry about that. >> guest: the color is a valid point. these are much more completed than they appear. i only use the concepts of freedom and justice to illustrate the difference between the two great competing political philosophies in america today.
there are pro-life democrats and pro- abortion republicans and we've seen it over the parties many, many years. nothing is simple in this world and nothing is complete in this world and nothing is pure in this world. there are many, many complexities but i just did it to make a rhetorical point. >> host: craig shirley, one of the narratives in washington is that both of the parties have moved to the left or the right. >> guest: no doubt about it. the time and i do this for 41964 there was more conservative democrats and more liberal republicans and they were talk to each other and they could compromise on things but since 64 goldwater's denomination they picked equally conservative bill muller and governs nomination and 72 with shriver is at the two parties had been moving steadily further and further
apart so there is less room to negotiate and less room to compromise. there's occasionally when you get a democrat like bill clinton elected can negotiate with someone more right or center but traditionally the democratic party since 64 has nominated more liberal nominees with republicans have more nominated conservative nominees. it represents an honest choice to the american voter. >> host: next call is tony in winter, california. tony is not answering or responding. we are not hearing him. we will move to georgia. were going to try robert in stone mountain outside of atlanta. robert you are on the tv. please go ahead. and does anybody else -- i'm not
hearing anything. i apologize something is happening there with the phones and i'm not sure what it is. craig shirley's two most recent books, citizen new, the making of reagan conservatism and reagan rising: the decisive year 76-80. what was ronald reagan doing in those years when he lost the first presidential nomination. >> guest: he never stopped campaigning. it is interesting is that he gave the last speech in the kansas city convention in 1976 and he just lost the nomination to gerald ford against a scanned 70 delegate votes out of 287 cast and was supposed to be bitter and angry and deep down he was but he gives a remarkable off-the-cuff speech live on national television for 17000 cheering republicans gives this masterful address and a woman in the crowd explains to reagan supporter says and she's a board supporter and she says we
nominated the wrong man. reagan is out on the hustle that paul campaigning for republican candidates in the fall of 26. every place he goes cabdrivers, maids, police officers, airport attendance and every place he goes people are saying you have to run one more time. do it one more time. i'm convinced that the reaction to his impromptu speech kansas city and the subsequent outpouring that people urged him to run is what held him to run in 1980 because he was 65 years old in 1976. it was considered four years ago a pretty old man and the a lot of political obituaries written about him after he lost the nomination and that he would be told by 1980 but the outpouring i am convinced convinced him to run warmer time. >> host: nancy, redondo beach, california. go ahead with your question from craig shirley.
>> caller: yes, actually, he mentions big corporations and big government and is your opinion that corporations are taking advantage of the average worker because that is how i feel. i noticed you brought it up and i was wondering what your opinion was. thank you. >> guest: that is my opinion and i have to think it's a fact. we look at the behavior of wall street and the big banks in the recent meltdown of the whole housing crisis and mortgage rates and all these other things is that i don't think there is any doubt -- at least in a way it doesn't matter if it's real or perceived to be real but people like yourself and myself and others perceive it to be real and in fact, it is real. i think it is real. i think whether it's healthcare or people to proceed with healthcare or wall street people frustration with so many segments of the private sector economy which is all consolidated in grown and big in walmart putting small-town companies out of business is
that there is a sense of frustration on the american people that these big corporations are running their life. >> host: craig shirley, did you support in the primary in 2016? >> guest: my farm worker scott walker and then later for john kasich. >> host: shirley bannister. >> guest: and that is yes. it's a conservative marketing firm where we work with think tanks in publishing houses in candidates and individuals and things like that. it helps advance whatever mission or cause for philosophy they want. >> host: went from scott walker to governor casey. why did he not catch fire? >> guest: that's a good question. he's very intelligent man, very capable and successful governor. i think quite honestly in part he had all these consultants around him and sometimes that consultant, you know, an old boss of mine once told me never forget the first three letters
of the word consultant. [laughter] con. they were getting in the way of him making effective message. i think most of it was hesitancy on the part of the campaign and plus, once dropped stepped into the room he just looked up all the oxygen. people like ted cruz and jeb bush who in other times they were viable candidates but they could be elected nominees they were pushed by the wayside by this colossus who stepped into the party and seized the nomination. >> host: to see that early on? >> guest: no, i didn't. my wife did. they say that he will peak at 7% and i was the one of those who said yeah, hope he gets 70% will peak at 90% and i would say this and my wife would say i don't think so but i think there's something going on out there and
he understands what's going on. my wife is more politically [inaudible] that i am. >> host: jim in mooresville, pennsylvania but hello, jim. you are on with craig shirley. >> caller: today gentleman. mr. surely, it's a pleasure to talk to you. you're a conservative voice. , died in the wall liberal democrat just to give you perspective from where my question is coming from. i am interested in newt gingrich's role in the impeachment of president clinton and whether you could give some historical background on that and even your opinion. thank you. >> guest: yet, excellent question. i talked to newton about this extensively interviewed him every sunday morning for several years, well, we would meet in the cafeteria when his wife was in the choir at the basilica and i would interview him for an
hour or two every morning. i asked him about this. >> host: this is your book, citizen new? yes, and he said it was the biggest mistake of his life that they pursued that the clinton stepped into this mess and that the republicans pursued him because they had already enacted lot of compromise legislation to the betterment both president clinton and newt gingrich believed the betterment of the american people watched the contract of was enacted and signed into law in the forms of congress and a balanced budget were achieved and what their form was achieved and there were things that were done because they were able to compromise. when clinton stepped into the monica lewinsky mess and when the puppy is pursued him relentlessly it drove clinton to the left back to his base because he needed their support to survive impeachment and the right became dominated by the conservative forces that wanted to pursue in between. all these things and all these forms that they wanted to enact all got pushed by the wayside
because impeachment dominated the last two years of the clinton presidency. >> host: craig shirley, two most recent books are citizen new to the making of a reagan conservatism, reagan rising: the decisive years. he has also written about world war ii and several other books on ronald reagan. go to pcb .org and type in craig shirley you can see all his past appearances on book tv. the coverage continues now from the university of arizona and we are on the campus here outside but inside another author discussion is about to begin and this is on politics. joshua greene, david k johnston and nancy mclean will be talking about politics and both of those people, joshua greene and nancy mclean will be joining us later for phone calls. this is book tv on c-span2.
... >> this is the tenth annual festival of books thank you for science advancement for sponsoring the session which will last one hour that includes questions and answers please hold your questions to the end following the session joshua greene will participate in a booktv interview and this he spent tent it will last
between 20 and 30 minutes the other panel members will proceed immediately to the signing tent. books are available for purchase at this location any book you buy at the festival supports our literacy efforts. because you are enjoying the festival we hope you are member of the friends or a sponsor out of respect for other members please silence your cell phone and now i will introduce the author i know we all want to hear what they have to say. joshua greene is a bloomberg national league correspondent former editor at the atlantic from washington d.c. and the book that he recently put out is called double bargain.
[applause] david johnson is a longtime investigative journalist working all over the country most recently at the new york times now the editor-in-chief of a website called d.c. report.org he has had the fortune to cover trump as a casino guy in atlantic city and if you want to take a look at the files related to trump and his connection with a certain drug trafficker i am sure he could share that with you. from rochester, new york. [applause] and nancy mclean is a professor of history from public policy her book
democracy in chains is a finalist at the national book award l.a. times book of the year and you live in durum north carolina. [applause] i should introduce myself i work for the arizona daily star and i am a columnist there. [applause] let's get into it quick to have as much discussion as possible. i did mention david johnston's book the making of donald trump it is even worse than you think. [laughter] published this year. so starting with nancy, her
book is about the growth of the libertarian movement from the coke brothers -- koch brothers but how james buchanan started this movement in the 50s and one thing it was really curious about after reading this book the way the trump presidency embodies that libertarian movement that controls the state of arizona? and how does it depart from this libertarian strand of thought? they make a wooden sage and one -- james buchanan started the movement but in virginia with pre-civil rights set out to develop a new school of economy and philosophy to counter the progressive era and the emerging civil rights movement
by taking dead aim at popular trust to believe that elected officials served the common good and trying to do right by the people so he managed to get a nobel prize for a new school of thought but not that he started the libertarian movement but he supplied those ideas that makes charles koch money so available so my book argues it is the weaponization of james buchanan school of thought to enable that success i believe we would not have donald trump in the white house had it not been for the steady application of this strategy coming out of buchanan's ideas to enable the trump victory. but i'm happy to come back to
elaborate but i will stop there. >>host: for joshua greene, one of the weird things about the trump presidency and channeling bannon's advice along with his own intuition on these populist ideas, how does that fit with this kind of libertarianism getting into office? >> this is a fascinating claim with his first year as president he was elected based on a set of ideas that is in opposition to the political philosophy that nancy describes from buchanan originated her weapon eyes trump during the campaign was banded as a populist who differentiated himself from the other 16 republicans running for the nomination all of whom were tackle lighted with buchanan whether or not they knew it but trump stood apart to say i'm going to
support things like middle-class workers i will not cut your government benefits in fact it might make them bigger he said he would not cut programs like social security or medicare and medicaid and went a step further and actually ridiculed his opponents on the stage for being pundits of the koch brothers who supported them. there was a real interest in my profession with the ideas that seem to be emerging this third way populist republicanism filtering up through the tea party taking over a large chunk of the republican congress now manifesting itself in a bizarre and republican nominee who at the time spoke to the weakness of the republican orthodoxy with the ideas like tax cuts for the wealthy and
foreign policy that worked for ronald reagan in 1880 but 35 years years later lost their appeal to the increasingly old boy elderly world populist republican base but wants trump was elected is not the policy he chose to apply. essentially with the very people the inheritors of those ideas that nancy describes in her book it is almost like that they would design legislation in the case of the obamacare repeal he didn't sign but the indirect opposition what he promised to do on the campaign trail. >>host: david you know a lot about trump's career before he became a politician.
so as you see him actually govern to the extent that he does as a president, that he is not very hands-on so how does his personality and career predict what you have seen in the last year? >> guest: donald ran for office on the platform that i alone can save you i am your economic savior i will improve your lot and that should resonate with people i wrote a trilogy of books out the bottom 90% were having their pockets picked through laws nobody knew about and regulations i turned into plain english and in the year 2012 the bottom 90% of americans had a smaller income in 1967. so it was easy to appeal to people even at the 90th percentile.so combined with
this donald is a master salesman he is terrific. he doesn't know anything. but he knows intuitively how to appeal to people. these public choice ideas that james buchanan was at the forefront of developing and what happened after watergate with campaign finance laws backfired the idea behind them was to clean up politics, get rid of lots of cash i remember i covered the legislative legislator out of michigan one state senator said he would give speeches to people and they were just stuff money in his pocket it would put on the table and count it. there was no accountability. along comes the abuse of the 501c for organizations created
for a very specific public purpose and then the well-funded groups who lied what it was about i don't know how many of you know that the irs targeted conservative groups? you have to have the irises permission to be a 5o1c4 you just file paperwork afterwards those who decided they needed to be on the lookout application's indicated they would be partisan and therefore illegal essentially the equivalent of a building inspector who said this will fall down and be a fire trap we will not approve it until they comply with the law everybody thinks otherwise because the initial news report came from the request from daryl isa only to examine conservative organizations once the news media gets the narrative it is hard to break that narrative donald trump
was masterful to take these opportunities that arose that bannon's theory the memo the attacks on news media, campaign especially campaign finance laws concentrating power what i call the political donor class. >>host: you were hinting at some specifics that you saw trump governing that flow from this libertarianism? >> some of the media has done a disservice to have add they think the koch brothers was a story through 2015 after 2016 became donald trump all the times they were not helping to put those stories together but some journalists have been very good at this pointing out trump is surrounded by people who have come through the donor network like the vice
president, white house liaison to congress five years heading freedom partners chamber of commerce, his personal attorney, you could go on and on and that ct ten so i think of him as the distractor energy while he distracts us the whole coke --dash koch agenda is moving through the judiciary and the states controlled by the radicalized party i don't want to upset my cental panelist but to take a timeout on trump stop paying attention to him just for a week you'll probably feel better. you will improve your digestion but if you look at the places you care whether epa or department of labor or the courts there is so much
going on we are not paying attention to because we have been distracted. also on the question of populism i do wish that media new history because right wing populism my first book is on the kkk and the whole phenomenon of reactionary populism james buchanan style himself and herded the original populist category to call the people parasites in the wealthy citizens and corporations and through those ideas reshaped the right and our political landscape so absolutely you can have a populist language with libertarian economics and we are seeing this more european callers are writing about the resurgence of ideas in austria and germany and they are not disconnected from the libertarian maybe a family feud but not two different
strains the same vision and same long-term strategy and tactical disputes that coming from the same family tree. >> i like to amplify a point. one of the difficulties that the ideas they have the policies are not very popular with the public the point that nancy makes in her book and what trump has done is to style himself as a rhetorical populist to allow the right wing libertarianism filter through two different agencies, some of the legislation that congress has passed so he hit upon a model of salesmanship to allow these ideas to move forward when if you look back to the campaign that kennedy tested for these
ideas openly were not the ones that succeeded. >> nancy is exactly right we focus our to much on the tweets that is why my friends and i started d.c. report.org it's free no ads we do not share the mailing list we cover what congress and our government do not what the politicians say. this is the real deficit in the mean -- mainstream media there is a superb story about worker safety but there isn't any where two workers per week are dying in the trump administration keeps delaying the rule why isn't this frontpage everywhere? she is right he is a master of distraction if he gets his way he thinks is something then he is brilliant with a different
way to cover this he does this is whole life and the originator of a lot of fake news that is what gets his career going. >> as a historian what is that populist style being used to do? if you look at bernie sanders he speaks to the populace but it is clear he tries to get healthcare for every american. but in one case you see that populism but in donald trump populism is used 24 meant racial division to make white people angry make them feel like things are taken from them the legitimate and also using that populism to discredit knowledge and education, empirical information and climate science this whole political
project based of the fossil fuel industry you couldn't imagine they could do anything good is against any type of government action to address our planet and discrediting climate science people are doing very good work they personally discredit them as well as try to promote smog about the reality to our planet and trump is part of that if you look at his epa and scott pruett it has undermined what the people want which is clean air and water. his populism is used towards a different and i don't think it is adequate for journalist just to say populism without saying what that is used to do. >> very interesting. [applause]
>> so with this koch style coming off of bannon with those priorities. >> i think of the wall and illegal immigration but steel tariffs are a recent phenomenon? >> yes. i think of the trump style populism is essentially having two components. there is the racial anti- immigrant anti- muslim component no question even after bannon left will move forward on that very hard he campaigned on this and is doing bit long -- is doing it. economic populism you did see that with the steel tariffs but first there really wasn't much action taken to promote the working-class reforms that people like bannon and trump had touted.
it is worth saying not because there wasn't a debate inside the in the -- advanced ration. there was. bannon proposed increasing taxes on high-end earners and flirted with endorsing janet yellin with breitbart news that is interesting because she was devilish on monetary policy so the problem is he didn't have any effect on trump with economic policy and his ideas were quickly shouted down in the west wing so instead you have the amalgamation of the them pull live on -- impulsive decisions like the muslim band coupled with the right wing libertarian ideas that nancy writes about an establishment
leaders like house speaker paul ryan and mitch mcconnell push to enact. >> anti- illegal immigration rhetoric and related rhetoric, is that what keeps his presidencies sustained? in the sense that is what keeps his supporters attached? >> i do think that is part of what keeps his supporters loyal. he has a visceral understanding who his voters are, what his base is and what issues they react to. certainly they react to attacks against illegal immigrants settling trump gets elected if not for that issue which is one of the stories i tell but also i think he understands you don't necessarily need to deliver clear policies even what you
campaign on but you can substitute attacking nfl football players who kneel as a response to police brutality and kick up cultural battles that are greatly amplified by talk news and right wing news media when we write about him we draw from the standpoint of comparing favorability numbers to presidents of earlier administrations but he doesn't do that well but on the other hand he has managed to maintain somewhere between 38 and 44% viewing him favorably not because he is doing things to deliver but because he has managed to keep them loyal by pushing things like laws to demonize illegal immigrants or attacking companies are
undermining companies with tariffs and sparking cultural battles like the nfl and his newest is to try to move forward make death penalty for drug dealers like they do in the philippines. on some visceral sense this connects with the base voters and they will stick with him even if he doesn't deliver what he has promised. >> also to bring in religious rights 80% white evangelicals who supported him and have shown very different metrics to his character than president obama basically got a pass by the white political leaders and he has delivered some things they value in terms not only carrying the
koch agenda are also against women and homosexuals but that is important there is a lot of discomfort in our country as people fear for the future people worry about their children so parents anxieties about their children's futures are a profound source of power and we have seen a lot of that in a lot of political leaders taking advantage of that. so the president of american for prosperity used to work with ralph reed in the religious right and is very good at nurturing that relationship to make sure the white evangelical base, out for the rest of the agenda that is important because the policies are not popular so in
my state of north carolina we rely on prejudice to get people to the polls whether gay people or immigrants or others that's where some of this has come in to be very powerful. >>host: talk about the devoted base you talked about his con unraveling i keep wondering if it really well as long as he has the base and continues to show or up power to get judges appointed? >> as it unravels it just means he is not in office doing what he said he would do on the campaign trail he may serve two terms i may not live long enough to see it but we
could see the end of america as we have known it because of these ideas and what is happening in our society we have people who call themselves christians supporting a man who has said repeatedly that those who follow the teachings of jesus christ are fools and smocks and idiot and his personal philosophy in life is revenge. if somebody slights you or declines you a favor then donald says they should be punched in the face 15 times and he talks about what gives him pleasure is to destroy the lives of other people. none of those are reconcilable with any version of christianity left back. [laughter] and those who fold meant disdain at a minimum of the
four anybody who reads the new testament knows that is anti-christian to support this man so i see is a complete separation with no underlying principles we have known for a long time of a great political scientist they go from pocketbooks people vote emotional responsible mode -- responses bottom 50% live in economic terror. you can drive through big parts of this country you will see no evidence of economic activity but a lot of people tweaking on meth. it is easy to exploit this to people one of the underlying causes is campaign-finance if we don't change it we will be a government of the rich by the rich entirely another element. [applause] and another element also
important is that so many people since watergate have disengage from politics. people say they are all dirty and they are all corrupt you bring up two different people the moral equivalent they are all terrible. i would like to live in the america that follows the ideals of the founders and the framers logic and reason and open debate especially supporting and protecting the debate from those people whose ideas you just hate to make sure they are heard but that is not what we are seeing. i am very concerned i say at the end of my current book donald trump is not the disease he is the symptom. the disease is americans are giving up democracy without realizing it. we have seen some revival with barack obama it woke up the
party type and the people who the book rich people's movements those who identify with the rich going on over a hundred years and election of trump has woken up centrist and people on the left now whether that will actually translate into action is another issue because the koch brothers have a well-funded machine i respect them for that they walk the talk they are very strategic and good husbands of the assets they own. but their ideas will lose in the open free marketplace with competition for ideas. i cannot articulate what it is the democrats stand for except not donald trump. >> so then what brings about this? i don't know if you are
exaggerating to see. >> so what are the specifics of your concern? the money will force the collapse? >> one of the things that help donald get elected the other disconnect between what is going on in washington or the small in the lives of ordinary people my trilogy is about all the laws passed were every day they're all still valid in print the government reaches into your pocket takes a penny here or dollar here if you can get one penny a day from every person in america you have $1.1 billion there is an industry that does that by regulation that i have written about i say three cents a day congress has a study they say two cents a day.
what is a billion dollars? washington is disconnected. why don't we have universal healthcare like every other modern country? why don't we have an education system designed for the economy of today not 19th century industrial economy? why do we have roads falling apart? because of the complete disconnect by the political donor class power. that is what is happening. if we keep going down this road people will thoroughly give up on democracy if you want to worry then your liberties is what you will lose. >> let me add onto that one of the things my book talks about is the operational strategy in the single most important finding is i have seen these full one -- folks to say again
and again they understand the majority will never agree with them barry goldwater 1964 election everything else has reaffirmed that that politicians that are accountable will not push through the radical libertarian agenda. >> but then they discover madison avenue. >> but you can and urge those on his team if you don't like the outcome over all long. of time and stop focusing on rules and the personalities and the parties and thank you can change the rules to get different outcomes that is what buchanan contributed that is the idea that charles koch has weapon eyes so successfully started with a bang with scott walker in 2011
he didn't campaign saying he would take away collective bargaining rights if he had he would not be elected he said something else then he said we dropped the bomb. he destroyed the unions or tried to or significantly weaken them but from there the red states that are totally dominated not only measures to weaken public sector workers taking aim at teachers but voter suppression that we have not seen since the destruction of reconstruction and also the most sophisticated and radical gerrymander of history to make sure these rent-controlled states legislators are choosing their voters so they are grossly misrepresenting the electorate to go through
these other radical rule changes not just a question of ideas but the rules have been systematically changed and we are seeing that look at wisconsin 2016 election nobody would predicted it would have gone for donald trump but it did because the unions lost 40% of their power and there is voter suppression et cetera. we have got to be paying close attention to the radical rules change going on the ultimate rule changes a constitutional convention in 28 states to give you a sense of how radical this is we have never had a state constitutional convention under article five but they have lined up 28 out out of 34 states needed to call a convention which by definition is runaway in six republican-controlled states that have not yet authorized the convention but i believe
sorts of new field organizing technology. i know if you know what happens if republicans had a two/one advantage they were absolutely routed on election day literally was a single vote with just ac change that signifies or suggests what could happen if republican continue along these lines. i do agree gerrymandering has been a key republicans expanding our cat pennsylvania in supreme court says you've gone too far and based on that map it looks like it will be more fair. so it is possible to stop these laws from going ahead
that would be for democrats to win back house of representatives. [applause] >> we will start taking audience questions. >> but the koch brothers were not really trump enthusiast. but he ended up landing them or servers through bn and so explain is that where his financial support comes from so i told the story and devils bargain how they pull off this incredible upset nobody saw coming into big part of that story is how they use money in
much the same way buchanan did to come up with a set of foundations and ideas to deploy against a mcgrath and clinton how many remember the book clinton cash right on the eve of the campaign? essentially a book of opposition research masterminded by bannon and funded and produced by a nonprofit organization called the government accountability institute dark web data scientist put together this information funded by the mercer family they also funded breitbart news all of these things work in conjunction to help elevate and elect donald trump as an example of power and money and how they can
prevail even though clinton did get 3 million more votes than trump but the mercer's got got him elected that partnership has fallen apart when trump turned on steve bannon now he is off in europe with european fascist with the elections over there so it isn't going forward maybe they will have as much power maybe the koch brothers have reasserted their control partly through the vice president and congress and trump himself doesn't seem to have any interest pushing any ideas of his own. maybe tariff. but by and large they can get what they wanted but it shows the power billionaires can have organizing to use the foundations and fortunes to bring about political outcomes that don't necessarily have
majority support. >> talking about dark many, it will -- money what type of facts are needed for a case to go to the supreme court to overturn citizens united? b mecca don't think there is any political possibility with is a frame court. through a series of decisions and the hobby lobby case but we have done is imbued corporations with increasing power they are vessels for creating wealth and organizing and encouraging risk-taking but this supreme court has literally held corporations have religious right so we trade you for profit. >> i have always been
concerned about education my background is in economics and in 2008 when we crashed one of the problems of finding solutions by then keynesian economics was discredited in economic universities but on this campus we now have the koch funded freedom center they push economics and also to distribute a textbook called ethics and entrepreneurship i happened to read it and that scares me because it talks about ethics and economics they don't mention 1929 or 2008 you have ratted -- you have read the textbook?
because we don't want our young raised but one of the highlights why neanderthals became extinct is they were not entrepreneurs left mac so we need to focus on the education part. >> you are so correct i know you have experienced it they already have more charter schools also at the same time your teachers are the worst paid in the country with the third-highest class-size so you have a big struggle in your hands with schools but particularly in the states talk by the radicalized republican party this libertarian cause they talk about school formed a full test language make no mistake they want to undermine public education with individual
savings accounts for your children except a few charity cases is what i have read but with universities they are a crucial part of the strategy connected with dark money the good news not quite that people in florida but they have built a group called on koch my campus i urge you to write that down and look them up and support them they are brave young people started out at george mason how public university has been weapon iced students came together to see how academic integrity was corrupted and went dark donor
money was doing they are brilliant researchers and they are organizing the more people they have the better they could do their work but this coke -- koch cause is undermining higher education as we know it to turn to their purpose to discredit genuine scientists like turning point usa and engorge the centers. in arizona news is starting to come out your tea party nominated state legislature your governor use the power over the budget to use taxpayer dollars to engorge this koch center and a rival curriculum to the real curriculum. i urge everyone in this room to pay attention to those issues look at university of
arizona and university state they have good documentation. [applause] >> i am concerned about the language that we use here the question or use the words anew picked it up, discredit. nobody has discredited anybody else they have suppressed them. it is important we do not cede ground that we should not cede. the system has become so corrupt the university of california los angeles accepting a gift at its business school from a man band for life from the securities market milken one who said this is wrong a market oriented republican professor was basically forced out now teaches at cornell do
not see the ground suppression is what is going on not discrediting nobody us change the basic underlying theory of economics it is the promotion of a group of ideas that look elegant on paper nothing to do with human behavior. [applause] you might look at the athletic department. [laughter] i have submitted reports on the police not doing their job with violence and i was attacked by two immigrants because i look to university i brought a two-page report to the mayor's office they just did not even act that wasn't even allowed in the office i went to your paper that the
security guard gets to decide if i get to do that. now you don't like that because it is against your paper. but the question is the institutions that enable corruption so we have federalis federalism. so here is my question. connections to states keeps a federalism. so maybe the subtext might have been is this convention of states thing really that federalism itself cannot take
the extent of the difference that is going on? >> across the country? >> i think i understand what he says it is also being pushed across the states it does not come naturally from federalism that is why conservative jurist such as berger and alito i'm sorry i'm sorry said it is a crazy idea it isn't just critics on the left i will refer you to the website of common cause a group that has written a lot about this constitutional convention they have four states including new mexico to resend their authorization but the problem is there is no more states to resend.
>> and go to d.c. report to reader piece on federalism how jeff sessions has stood that on its head. >> in your book you talk about buchanan going down to chile and how they destroy the economy down there. does that translate what could happen here? and also we need to expose alec. >> one of the things that got me more interested in buchanan is that i learned in passing that buchanan virginia school had more impact on chile under the pinochet dictatorship than chicago there has been a time
written about friedman in the chicago school but nothing else about that snippet with buchanan so i found out indeed he did have a more lasting impact because he was brought in to advise on a document the constitution of liberty the dictatorship new they would have to go back to representative government but they wanted to lock in what they had achieved all peoples power was decimated including no free press one was social security reform so they privatize the whole social security part of the country they took their pensions put them with financial firms that behaved about as well as ours do so they lost her life savings they gouge people it is a terrible system but also nearly impossible to reverse that because of the constitution and that buchanan advised on because i don't
think the past is prologue people need to understand the history to understand what the right would like to do after buchanan got back from chile the cato institute made social security privatization the agenda item so i do believe what these. is a deadly dogma in the case of climate with our planet and trying to prevent action but also in the kind of world they can bring in the world they want i believe as a historian and citizen it will be unsustainable for the rest of us socially economically environmentally and psychically it will be very difficult to live in that world. [applause]
>> doesn't the threat of a runaway convention serve as the check? with the senate president here the archconservative member of the freedom caucus he was opposed to that because he feared the idea of a runaway convention in other words maybe you want a balanced budget amendment with the second amendment repealed or altered does that not serve as some sort of protection? can mckay have heard including the provost of illinois dean of the law school absently no way keep the state from being a runaway convention and she said on the panel if they want to repeal the bill of rights
they could do that. it would be that runaway but they do have ten liberty member -- amendments and then does do away with the 17th amendment that the states are controlled by corporate power. there is so much happening i know people are strapped but as a historian i believe we are at a fundamental turning point in our society what happens over the next few years will be decisive and it is really time to pay attention and alert others and if you are concerned what is going on work with many different groups doing the good work. but this is not a time not to pay attention. >> i want to ask more about the push to repeal the 17th
amendment. do you feel this is part and parcel of everything you talk about? does it have a chance? there was a column this morning and the star by a local conservative commonness that he doesn't like the legislature wants to let political parties pick the senate candidates he wants a legislator to pick instead of us. how do you see that? >> there is a clear well-funded drive to have a constitutional convention we repeal the second amendment we require you to own a gun we turn ourselves into a theocracy a supreme court justice that we have not fully incorporated the first amendment therefore we could be a bureaucracy it is a very dangerous idea but i know this lady has been patiently
waiting. >> i have something else depressing to add. [laughter] do you have any commentary of sinclair broadcasting in all of this? >> i can speak on this is the only journalist in america has been forced the only station to be forced off the air they do vastly worse than the gross telecasting. sinclair has made an utterly corrupt deal to give them more of a footprint than fox. this is part of a larger fundamental trend one of the problems with capitalism the weaker competitors fall off. trumps casino was the first to fail and tort monopoly. if you don't have rigorous enforcement because of
antitrust laws but laws of competition you will tend toward monopoly or worse do a lot please or triathletes because two or three firms can raise prices higher and limit the marketplace more than a single firm. it is an awful deal we need to change the law i would argue you can own seven stations and not own a newspaper in the same market. we need to promote robust competition particularly in new news. >> one quick thing there were some reports the last few days saying sinclair broadcasting may have taken over all the loophole newspapers forcing the local editorial boards to carry pro tromp propaganda to
take advantage of the fact so this is another place knowledge is power if you have a sinclair publication make sure you are on top of them about fair coverage but it is frightening. >> one more question. >> i got the go-ahead. i will be short. what really worries me then we could stumble into a nuclear war. that if we have a nuclear war