tv 2018 Printers Row Lit Fest - Jonah Goldberg Suicide of the West CSPAN June 30, 2018 11:10am-12:01pm EDT
describing his childhood in syria under the assad regime. christopher wall and walter look for with that the current state of international and domestic terrorism in the future of terrorism. in the promise of the grand canyon, john ross recalled the life of explorer john leslie powell, the first person to navigate the entire colorado river through the grand canyon and in the northland travel writer porter fox explores america's northern border. also published this week the story in chamberlin writing the history of the cold war in, the cold awards-- cold war killing field and in 1968 richard feynman expense help her chest that throughout the western world impacted politics sports years to come. look for these titles and bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future on book tv on c-span2.
>> for the 34th annual chicago tribune printers faster, to give a special thank you to our sponsors. today's program will be broadcast live on c-span2 look to the. there will be time at the end of the event for questions and answers, so if you have questions you want to ask we ask you use the microphone located at the sides so the audience at home can hear your questions. before we begin today's program we ask you silence your cell phones and turn off your camera flashes. please welcome our introducer margaret, editor of the charlotte tribune. [applause]. >> thank you all for joining us today for this session. mr. goldberg's book is for readers serious
about understanding the political world in which we reside in his new book helps those to understand why he sees trump is him as a pretender to reagan's popular. it also helps explain why he believes that a current challenge for conservatives is to figure out how they can apply reagan's principles. one way to think about this it is that it didn't just happen. this is a patient explanation of a set of beliefs to eliminate the beliefs we see now. please welcome bruce and jonah goldberg. [applause]. >> thank you, margaret. thank you for braving the chicago elements today and thank you jona for braving no hair and the chicago elements today. he made it. i want to take you through the argument of the book, but let's go
right to the spoiler alert. "suicide of the west", graham title, no? no question mark. >> first of all, thank you for having me and thank you for doing this including all the chicago conservatives and, i mean, that literally. >> show of hands? [laughter] >> not the way joe biden means literally. one of my favorite things about america is it can choke on a gnat, but swallow tigers hold and i'm still an optimist, but the point of the title, i mean, i agree it's kind of a grim title, not quite take a bath with a toaster, but it's close. i didn't say deaths of the west or decline of the west, i said suicide of the west in part
because and i hate using the word suicide now given the terrible things going on, so let's just stipulate that those are tragedies and all of that, but suicide is a choice and there's a reason why the first sense of the book is, there is no god in this book and the reason i say that is not because i'm an atheist. i'm not an atheist, but because as my dear friend charles krauthammer likes to say decline is a choice. we has a civilization, as a society, as a democracy, we have the power to turn things around if you choose to do so and so just as there is no god in the book there is also no cold personal forces of history, no right side of history, no sort of marxian, we as a society can argue based on principles about what is
best policy, what is the best course of action and it takes persuasion arguments and passion to do it and so what i'm trying to do is join in that efforts and i'm also trying to model behavior-- i don't mean to be sanctimonious about this, but i paid my dues doing the whole their tears are delicious kind of conservative argumentation what i'm try to do here is make a good-faith effort to persuade people on the right and the left who disagree with me and say that-- and show the persuasion and argumentation, which are essential to politics and is still work and it doesn't all have to be this smash mouth stuff. >> of the natural state of mankind is grinding poverty punctuated by horrific violence permit 80 with an early death work you are usually funny guy in your column, by the way.
you have this state of affairs and then a miracle happens. >> yes. so, 250,000 years depending on whose numbers you use humanity we split off from the neanderthal. everywhere in the world the human being lived on no more than about $3 a day, twitter $50000 a year-- 250 years like this statistically zero economic growth for most of mankind on earth and then all of a sudden once and only once in human history as it starts to change about 300 years ago started in england where some people want to argue its holland and if there are dutch jingle it's in the room that want to fight me on this we can have that conversation in the q&a, but basically it starts in this remote corner in western europe and it goes like this and like this and the reason i call it a miracle is first of all because it's miraculous.
lives get longer. people have more wealth and literacy starts to go up. virtually every metric that we are supposed-- that people claimed politics is supposed to address, alleviation of poverty, reduction bigotry, improvements in public help all start to improve, not perfectly, uniformly without problems but they start to go like this and is continuing to go like this today. right now this moment we live in the greatest moment of poverty a meat-- alleviation of all of human history. in the last 30 years hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, not because of un programs are coming un programs do their bets and that's great, but the reason why we've seen hundreds of millions of people in china, india and africa being able to eat
nutritious meals for the first time i lived into old age for the first time and read for the first time is because the spread of these ideas of a liberal democratic capitalism and not without problems that's what's been doing it and that's why despite the gloomy title i try to end the book by talking about the importance of gratitude because this miracle, the thing that happened is not natural. poverty is natural. early death from violence or some diseases natural. what's unnatural are things like democracy, human rights, property rights, capitalism. these things were essentially invented and invented by accident and that's another reason i call it a miracle because it inexplicable without real good explanations, but we know it did happen and i think it's something we should be grateful for. >> all these good things happen around the world and the us seems grumpy. you hear people say what is it a billion people that have come out of the depths of a poverty around the world and yet in the us it has
plateaued that their gain is our loss, which we see in the political argument now. >> yeah, look globalization has come at a price. i don't want to say that globalization and immigration in these things do not creates losers and i don't mean losers in terms of like hot, hot, high school you are a loser. i mean, people to get the short end of the stick. globalization and its other forces are powerfully dislocating and settled communities and the ways of doing things. that's all true, but first of all let me say philosophical matter the beauty of capitalism is that it's non- zero-sum. in a state of nature for hundreds of thousands of years in our natural environment, you had a barrel-- a bushel of apples and i wanted your apples the way i would get you-- or apples as i would hit you up the head with a rock and take your apples and
with the rise of the market all of a sudden the way i get your apples as i give you money. you like money. i like apples. it's win-win and we have also benefited enormously from globalization, but it's hard to give credit because it's largely invisible to us. we emphasize the negative. also, the one thing capitalism is not good at is fixing any-- any quality because while everyone does get richer , some people get richer faster than other people and we have a well-documented tendency in the human brain to resent people who seem to be getting a larger share of the mass than we did and income inequality really pings our tribal brain in a very bad way. the thing is communism, which is basically what tribalism really was is
really good with the problem inequality because it makes everyone equally poor. >> david brooks-- he was generally favorably about the book, but he said that the focus on relentless individual is that neglected, good. >> yeah, so i went to be very delicate about this i'm a big fandom-- fan of david i like david. i know david and i'm grateful for the call and david wrote about the book. david is flatly wrong in his reading of that part of my book. big part of my argument is about the importance of civil society, family and be dating institution and i did not advocate hyper locket individualism. i think a lot of ways locking in individualism as he described it is a problem and one of my favorite lines comes from the intellectual who said every generation western civilization is invaded
by barbarians. we call them children. [laughter] anyone who has had a kid knows the fundamental wisdom of this insight because one of the things i think confines conservative of his insight human nature has os-- history. you took a baby from new rochelle and sent it back a thousand years to live in a viking village adopted by viking family it would be raised to plunder the english countryside. if you took a viking baby and send it to new rochelle to be raised it would grow up to be an orthodontist. what, i mean, by this is that babies are not born in the united states or western civilization, they are born into families and families are the things that primarily-- babies come with a lot of you know factory preset software and it's a wonderful book by a guy named paul
bloom from yale called "just babies" where he surveys on how much software babies are born with and it's amazing. babies cry shockingly early age with an accent french babies have a french cry, russian babies have a russian cry, russian babies, english babies will be attracted to the english language and distrust of foreign language almost from birth because they have been hearing it in you to row. babies bond with the sort of ethnic facial pet of their parents and this gives to one of the clichés i can't stand which is children have to be taught to hate, just not true. we are born with a deep distrust of strangers evolutionary adaptation that allowed us to. darwin writes about it. what we have to do is teach people not to hate and that's one of the great things that
families of western civilization is supposed to do and that's what civilization does. takes the property of human nature and it provides software updates, so that we don't raise kids to be viking plunderers. we raise them to be good citizens in our civilization. civilization is a verb, a process and when you have the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of the mediating civil society what happens is we revert back to our initial program and we think more tribally. we act more tribally. anyone who's done any research or looked at the role of inner-city gangs going back to the irish of the 19th century or the crips and bloods today understands that a big part of the reason why people join these gangs as they are looking to be part of something. they're looking to be part of a group, have a sense of meaning and they do that in large part because the other institutions in society
schools, family, religion are doing their jobs and so david just missed a chapter or something when he says i'm focusing on locking individualism i don't. where i do focus on locking it on the side of individualism is that for a nation, for liberal democratic nation the concept of the sovereignty of the individual is essential when you're setting up the rule of law and how you will run a greater society, but when you talk about the microcosm of the family, we are not rugged individualist a family is-- in my family i'm essentially a communist. i do not charge my daughter for food. i do not put price tags on step in the fridge. i don't charge her rent. yes, she's only 15. in the family it really is for each according to the ability and need. in the larger macrocosm
of the extended order of liberty, the grander society where you have to operate on contracts, trade, commerce, these sorts of concepts, treat people as individuals, but in the family and little platoons of life we don't do it that way. we want to be part of a group and the whole way you keep civilization of liberty healthy is by having that right balance. the further out you get in the more you organize a big society the more you have to sort of recognize individual rights. >> this general distrust as we returned to tribalism, this distrusted institutions, we just blame the kids for it? i think we can call them more meals, kids. you cite some numbers. there is a big gap in age and distrust of
capitalism, distrust of democracy. they don't believe in free speech rights and they don't really know what the first amendment says. why is there that age gap in this fundamental beliefs of trust? >> well, so if you caveat. first, i'm a big opponent of youth politics. i don't like generational politics much. so, like i can't stand when people talk about the greatest generation because if you stormed normandy, you deserve to never have to buy him beer again. you are a hero. if you were in the drunk tank in p aurea when everyone else your age was performing normandy there's no transit and property that says you are great also because you have the same birthday as the guy and same thing goes with millennial's there are amazing young people out
there, marines, starting businesses and all the rest and there are some millennial's out there or whatever we want to call young people today who are just frittering away their lives playing call of duty on the couch and their parents basement and it sort of unfair to say they are all one or the other. with that said, there's a well-established binding in social science literature that says ignorance and stupidity highly correlated with age, we are all born morons and we only get over it as we get older and some of it is a natural timing i'm jen at some a used it to say gen x doesn't know anything and they used to say to the baby rumors and some are just endemic to it. that said, the bigger part of the problem of my friends says we have a civics crisis guests. we don't teach people how the system works. we don't teach people how to be grateful for what they have inherited
the idea there should be a partisan valence, the concept of free speech is insane. suicidal choice we are making to do that in the way we teach history so much in this country is that we teach that american history or western history is only one story after another of things we should be ashamed of and there's a lot in our past that we should be ashamed of, but we should also be really really proud of how often we have overcome those things that we were ashamed of. take slavery, slavery was a moral horror and also profoundly hypocritical of the founding fathers to say all men are created equal and yet still have slaves and not give women the right to vote. i want to teach that step, but i want to teach that stuff to show what an incredible story this country has that we overcame those things and we fixed those things. we are not done fixing them for we still have improvements to do, but
every civilization since evolution had slavery in one extent or the other. what was remarkable about western civilization particularly, you know england was better than we were, but it wasn't that we had slaves, it was that we got rid of slaves. we shed blood to get rid of that evil institution and yet the way we teach so much in our history now is we teach no, it's just our worst moments. like the mark of cain forever and i think that a lot of kids are being taught-- when you don't teach gratitude, the awesome-- opposite floods in the opposite of the gratitude's entitlement and resentment and people are taught from an early age in this country in large numbers through college that they are owed something from this country, that they should be resentful of this country that it hasn't done more for them. .. is a real problem and is a
suicidal choice in our culture. >> a few look at the practical implication like free trade, where we come -- bill clinton was a free trader, manasseh -- nafta, obama talks like a free trader now we have a republican president who almost talks like a democrat on trade protectionism. book in the 90s a great political cartoon when nafta passed and color coded north and south america and mexico was labored manufacturing and the u.s. was labeled retail and canada was labeled parking. but -- those guys did burn down our white house, so, you know.
paving them. >> you get the sense the general feeling in the country is we're the parking lot now. oh due you combat that? >> well, the problem is it's just not true. that's the biggest problem with it. and, look, we can talk but immigration if you want but an immigration large scale immigration creates real dislocations and there are legitimate positions, national review, we have been sort of hawkish on restriction, on immigration for very long time and i can walk through all of that if you want, but the simple fact is that most of the jobs that people are blaming on these either that we have outsource evidence of imported workers for have been lost to automation i. we are mow productive in term of manufacturing than we have been it's just that we require fewer people. mcdonald's is switching to robot kiosks.
those aren't immigrants, those are machines, blame skynet, and so part of it -- also, i have a friend, scott lincicome, a trade expert, and i'm constantly worried he's going to start cutting himself whenever donald trump started talking about trade because trade deficits are one of the great boogie men of economic illiteracy in american life. i'm not saying there aren't things to be concern but in general the trade deficit is inverse of service. those dollars have to come back and get invested in america, because those dollars are american dollars, and eventually virtually all of the dollared that go abroad must come back and the must be spent on america. one thing that drives me batty
is to listen to donald trump simultaneously complain but trait deficits while also bragging about investment surpluses. if we got rid of the trade deficits we would lose the insurpluses. i think some of this just simply has to do with the bad news bias. it's a problem in journalism, problem of our own brains, the cavemen who heard -- who hears a suspicious roar coming from a cave, and says, huh, that sounds interesting. i'll check it out. tended not to pass on his genes. the one who said, huh oh, that sound scare, i'm not going in, tended to live another day. and it's a well talkedded finding in neuroscience we ten to focus own the downside of thing. trade is one thing and is so immigration, we look for boogie
men, when you have -- what is the republic party itself if it can have so much disagreement? >> a while back, it's a little unfair but a radio host, guy asked me, would william f. buck lee recognize today's republican party and the only thing that came to mind wad, well charge ton heston recognized the statue of liberty at the end of planet of the apes. recognition is not everything it is chalked up to be. what -- it's inevitable, trump is like a magnet next to a compass. all conversations go that way eventually. >> we held that for a long time. >> we're not whens of the resistance but we resisted. the remarkable thing to me is not how we're having a war on
the republican party about trade in the sense that you mean it but it's sort of the reverse. this is first parch public policy-that a sizable number of republicans are standing up to this stuff, and one of my hopes, one of the major -- look, people who are here know who i am, know i have my problems with donald trump. donald trump did not create most of to problems we have. he is one of symptoms and is making some of them worse and some better, i think, or at least his administration is. but the -- one of the more serious structural problems in our country is that the founding fathers never would have dreamed that the legislative branch wouldn't be a jealous guardian of its own power. we don't have three equal branches of government. we have a -- the congress is supreme. it's the one that passes the
laws, the one that has the power to declare war, it is the one that is in charge of trade. and for reasons, some of which having to do with the cold war, some having to do with just scree abject, sausage spine cowardice of politicians, congress has outsourced it's responsibilities, the bureaucracy so many people in congress do not want to be legislators. the problem on both parties. i think it's wore in the republicans but a problem with both parties. their want to be pundits. they don't want to do anything that costs them a slot on fox and friends or morning joe. they would rather complain about something the president is doing than actually write a law and take responsibility for it. and so a lot of the problem wed have, one reason we "trump is this was a problem before trump came along, barack obama ruled,
a lot of executive orders, dade lot of things he himself said were unconstitutional, and broke a lot of faith and confidence in the system, and we have basically a parliament of pundit right now in congress and it's a real structural problem, and one thing i would love to see is for congress to claw back its trade authority. president trump is imposing a lot of tariffs on the assertion that canada and our european allies pose a national security threat to us. that's just ridiculous. and he shouldn't have that -- he has that authority because we gave him the authority to decide what a national security threat was, i guess during the cold war. congress needs to take that back. >> for any party, or agenda disif you hey the white house your agenda is set by the white house. is is really a chance that you think the republicans in congress would try and assert
that kind of authority while they're in control? >> i think one of the greatest disconnects in public life today is what republican congressman and senators say off the record and mat they say on the record, and you hear more people saying off the record -- you hear people saying off the record and more people saying on the report that -- corker said this -- maybe we need start clawing back these authorities. it's very hard. donald trump has a real hold over a big chunk of the republic electorate and it's not a policy old hold. it's a personality hold. you look at the republicans who have gotten in trouble with donald trump and it's not because they didn't vote with him. it's thaws they criticized him when he dade or said thing he is -- that's i would jeff flake
is leaving and bob corker is back and steve ban nonwas trying to get rid of mitch mcconnell, and rand paul figured out the secret sauce to obstruct the trump agenda in congress but just fans over trump in public and so no one says he is part of the problem. and as long as trump commands a big chunk over the activist base who control the primary, who in fox news, who have the enthusiasm and support of the activist groups very, rick for congressmen to break with the president. hard for congress these days and polarized times to break with the president anyway, which is another problem. 40 years ago i if asked you if you republican or democrat i would have to ask a followup question to figure itself you're a liberal or conservative. today because partisan i.d. is a profoundly telling label about your entire world view in the
aggregate sense and that's another part of the problem. >> you're a conservative writer, conservative thinker and a conservative movement. what price to due pay for being so critical of donald trump. >> i don't call myself a never-drummer. i thought that term lost relevance after the election. and i think you had to sort of call them as how see them. i call himself a trump skeptic. i think all those semantic labels are tempest in a teapot. i just take the position that -- no offense, you're a grand poobah in the world of journalism, i think most talk of journalistic ethics is a justification for the guild that run this columbia journalism school and northern and these kind of thing. one thing i take seriously is part of my job not to lie.
wont say thing its don't believe to be true. and one of this most painful things was to hear from longtime fans and friends who are essentially disappointed in me because i failed to live down to their expectations. and they've thought that, well, once he is actually president or once he has the nomination i would have to fall in line and just become sort of a guy for the rnc. that's not my job. it's cost me some friends, it's been very disruptive of what you might call my bonus mod -- business model. coming out with a book not but trump but had trump stuff in it or just being perceive as being anti-trump is not a great way to sell -- for a conservative writer to sell conservative books. >> i do hear from a lot of readers who talk about bias in the press. i can argue with them about objectivity of news coverage that we do. i think we do a good job on that. one area in punditry, it is
difficult to find a columnist of national stature who want to defend trump. you see -- who do you most like to argue with who would be qualified as a trump support center. >> oh, well, national review even got a few. victor davis hansen, does some excellent work in that regard. i think that on specific issues like the fbi stuff, andy mccarthy at national review does great. there are writers at the federalist that are all in for donald trump. but i'm kind of hard pressed to say -- part of the problem is that if you -- there's this egg-heady journal that launched a year and a half ago dedicated to fleshing out and defending
the philosophical and policy agenda of trumpism, and it turned into kind of a disaster because the problem is don't think there is a core -- there is a consistent ideal core of trumpism. it is more of a psychological phenomenon than an ideological phenomenon and if you put all your bets on saying trumpist policy x is the right policy, in three or four days, trump can complete he reverse himself on that and if you're an intellectually consistent thinker or writer, what do you do? do you then criticize president trump for changing his mind? or do you defend president trump for being flexible or being this -- or this -- it's 14 dimensional chess. you get a lot of those kind our arguments because you can't follow a straight narrative on a lot of policy stuff, and during
at the primaries, donald trump was for single pair, against single pair, for a lot of different things. ideologically he is sometimes like in the escaped month can i from a cocaine study. very -- escaped month can i from a cocaine study. very difficult to predict what he will say or go and so people are forced into the safe harbor of defending the man rather than defending coherence of the policy. remark whether i consistent on trade stuff, has been since the 1980s, but the 1980s called wants i trade policy back but he has been consistent on the need to take the oil, whatever the hell that means and beyond that the brags but the fact he is very flexible on ideological and policy questions and very rick for someone' in my line of work to defend this idea of trumpism beyond its role as a phenomenon, an entertainment or populism or
sticking it to the man or making arguments it's justifiable because -- whale install my book, ecstatic -- this thing thing to think something i worse doing bus it make yours enemies upset, problem on the left and the right. so it's tough, and there's some people are better than others, but it's not a genre i am a big fan of. >> we'll take questions from the audience in just a minute. with the republican party would they be better if a with a wave election against the republican party? what kind of -- what would the outcome be? >> well, there's an old rule in politics, always better to win. and i certainly think, if at the democrats take back the house,
they will -- i think it is impossible -- it's like trying to get my dog not not chase a squirrel. they will go after impeachment, and that is actually a tougher thing to game out because depending on what the underlying facts of what mueller and the house find, that could be seen as grave overreach during a time when the economy is doing well and that could actually help donald trump, or if the facts lead to a logical conclusion, it could be the end of donald trump. i don't know. i think as someone who never a really cared much about calling himself a republic, always by republican by default. i don't invest a huge moment in the fors of the republican party one way or the other, but certainly a lot of conservatives -- i'm not one of them -- who just decided they're hoping that the republicans get routed, and the people like max and jennifer rubin and those
guys just simply want to see the republican party destroyed because of the original sin of embracing trump. i think for me personally, if there's anything that the last couple of years has taught us, is making straightline political projects about what the future holds, is the surest way to get the universe to make a fool out of you. i mean, if you just look at the way the last two and a half years have gone, it's the writers of 2017 and 2018 -- it's like they were dropping acid in the writer's room. by this time next year we'll all remember fondly how well we did in the great u.s.-canada war. and so just very hard for me to predict one way or the other. >> question. >> mr. goldberg, how much of -- you mentioned about congress not doing their job and their inability to legislate. how much of that power do you think they could get back if they actually pass appropriations bills and a
full -- and a full budget every year? >> that would be -- i don't if it would be step one. step one would be getting some blood hounds and finding their spines. it would be nearly top of the list. right? the congress has lost the interest in really controlling the power of the purse, and for structural reasons as muching a anything else, both parties are more interested in running like, parliamentary parties where they just try to cram through what they can when they have the power, and i get that and there are some policies i'm glad the crammed through, but if we're going to bet back to get something semblance of washington working the way it is supposed to, then congress has to take responsibility for its role and actually do budgeting, do hearings, and do appropriations, something close to the right way. >> interesting situation. once again we talk about this trump country. i was wondering, who would vote
for this guy anyway, the way the act, is inconsistency. and doing a little research and travel out of kentucky, for example, and talked to some people down there, a red state and everything, and and the big industries like cole mining and tobacco and bourbon and things like that. some idea what is going on. and i remember the movie called "deliverance" and remind med of what trump country is all about. and everything -- >> well, is that the question? >> yeah. i mean the question is, we know -- new york has trump country, mr. trump is from win. who would support this guy? who would be -- true republicans don't pack him up and actually hijacked the republican party by getting the forgotten americans. >> i'm delights someone brought a dog. i want dogs imposed in more
aspects in every nook and cranny of our lives. so, just to be -- look to be fair, i'm not sure that it's really fair to say that the trump -- the prototypical trump voters is the squeal of the pig in deliverance. i have trump voters in my family. i think at the end of the day trump did actually unify vast swaths of the republican party because he had two important mandate, one was not to be hillary clinton and the accomplished that on day one and the other one was the judge stuff. and those their oonly two things. you talk to everything republic, that's the only two things they all could agree on and then everything else was potential argument or disagreement. there was a solid core of trump supporters who really were the
shoot them on fifth avenue people and then other people who say, yeah issue don't really like him but better than hillary or whatever. but the -- i think democrats get themselves into really bad places when they assume that if you voted for trump, you're an evil, dumb, stupid red neck hick racist or whatever because i don't think that's time think hillary clinton did a -- hillary clinton was a bad politician. i know she is a native daughter of illinois, but -- and arkansas and new york now. [laughter] >> but -- >> good point. >> but that deplorable thing was a bad idea, and democrats -- something like 8 million people who voted for barack obama also voted for trump. that alone should tell you that
the glib, easy, well, that's because they're all racist thing, maybe by a little facile. >> yes, sir. >> very much enjoyed your book "liberal fascism" and look forward to reading you current book. there's an old adage that conservatives think people on the left or wrong and people on the left thing conservatives are evil, and the last statement personified that. tens of millions of conservatives in the country and to paint them with broad brush strokes doesn't serve our body politic well at all. that said, my question is this. like many americans, i was terribly disheart inned in and reeling yesterday at the tragedy news but charles krauthammer's term cancer. who -- terminal cancer. the names -- the named that would be elevated to the
mt. rushmore of conservative punditry would he krauthammer, yourself, victor davis hansen and dennis prager. that's a personal opinion. nobody cares dish. >> i agree with 50% of that for sure. >> but what i am interested in hearing about is the other 50%. that is to say, who living or dead are some of the seminal thinkers that you would put on thatting than peon. >> well, charles for sure, and i didn't grow up reading victor or dennis, i'm friends with both of them. but my stuff was sort of baked in by the time i started following them. but krauthammer i read from very early age, george will, william f. buckley, for me, guy that most people don't really dishes not a household name anymore
butter irving crystal. i had disagreements with all of them, but those guys were big -- tom sole another, a big influence on me. the biggest influence on me was my dad. my dad was very cerebral guy. irving crystal reminded me of my dad his idea of a vacation was going from one side of the koch of the other to read a different book or magazine or go to europe to look at museums and his idea -- one of his only favorite hobbies was going on lock walks with his sons to talk about how bad communism was. but those guys for sure. i can come up with some other names pretty easily but -- just since you brought up charles, i don't want to talk about him too much because it's a bad look to cry on c-span, but the news but
charles krauthammer is devastating and the thing that people dish know that charles had sort of this dr. strangelove persona, wry and -- a more decent and humane and -- mench like -- he is an amazing man it and is a hole that i don't think can ever be filled without him in our public life, and it break mist heart what i is going on with him. [applause] >> you talk but people in the republican party not getting along well but when we have stick lie the iran deal where the burden of proof was inverted, isn't that the kind of thing that happens that's going
to create infighting? >> yeah. but the thing is, i don't know that there's anybody on -- in my circles in republican circles cs who thought when the iran thing was done wasn't either table on process or policy or on both. that's one that that unifies a lot of people on the right, and i think that one of the -- it's funny, a lot of liberals get furious whenever i argue or tweet or say that they have -- this is a big point of the book, they have their share of blame for why trump seemed like this savior to a lot of peopling are both in terms of response to identity politics and political correctness and i have criticism of seem him as a saveyear but doesn't mean the feelings weren't legitimate and some
things that barack obama did, he said 24 times that he couldn't do daca because he wasn't the inning and the constitution forbid him to do that. then we the politics seemed trying do it, he did it anyway. that's impermeable. you take an owing for the constitution and then say on the record, doctors times do not have the constitutional power to do something, and then for political expediency you do it anyway, you violate you're oath of office which seem is like impeachment was for, and the way the press covered that, as if, oh, look at obama, owning ownine republicans. bred a certain amount of we can't -- this what i call on the right, this -- we have to use their tack tacks and fight -- tactics and fight the same way am big reason why trump -- he fights kind of -- persona was appealing to some people. >> unfortunately we're out of
time. i'm sorry, we have a longest've folks to ask you question, the book is great and fascinating. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> books can be purchased outside of the odder toum and might be -- odder toum and might be able to ask few questions then. [inaudible conversations] >> we asked members of congress what they're reading. >> a very hectic lifestyle and i'm on the plane a lot and i'm always in the middle of a book.
i'm reading a book called "the train at crystal city" but a the internment camps in texas during world war ii where they said families of japanese, german and italian americans, a great book. also still reading "a world the disarray" but american foreign poll right now and the future, and then visiting a few books i loved but a haven't looked at in a long time, the purple decade by tom wolf, which came out in the early 1980s,a collection of some of his best works and then a book by joan didion that came out in 2005, call we tell ourselves stories in order to live. some of her best work. >> become of the wants to know what you're -- book tv wants to know what you're reading sensed your reading list.