>> host: final question for you, brian. if we lose conservative talk radio whether you listen to it or not and whether you agree with the conservative point of view or not, what we lose? >> our heart and soul. we are no longer america. simple as that. >> host: of the great ironies here, the founding fathers, the reason they began this space experiment was based on two things, freedom of worship and freedom of speech. and this is why it is so vital to protect talk radio and in particular conservative talk radio. >> guest: the government has no right to sit in the editor's chair or to control content through regulation, period. >> host: this is about protecting the first amendment, our bill of rights and great constitution. brian jennings, thank you for joining me today. >> guest: thank you. >> host: the book is called quote go censorship the threat to silence talk radio the new fairness doctrine exposed." the author is brian jennings. i am monica crowley.

thank you so much for being with us today. .. >> i guess i thought i would talk or a bid to while some they also like to do we have a small group feel free to fill

in but how many of you watch cnbc? many if you are cnbc viewers we may have a pretty educated viewership so i am curious five like to do this in small groups or large groups how many of you think the economy has seen its worst days and will improve? okay. how many of you think we will see economic growth in 2010 not adjusted gdp being flat but actual growth? not too optimistic. we are in new york how many of you think we're in for a very tough time or we have seen the worst of it? do things we have seen the worst of it? okay. finally, how many of you think

this shows her israel? [laughter] nobody? nobody? i will tell you at the end you have to stay. i wrote the book is still wearing hour documentary house of cards three spent over one year on that it was late 2007 a lot of people who i had been speaking to i began as a banking reporter in 2007 as you get older so do your sources and then move up in institutions where they work and many are senior executives at the nationsbank's probe almost two real the -- two years ago right now when a credit crisis began many were telling me this will be very, very bad yet if you recall the stock market did not break for days reflect that of all through the fall of 2007 right through

october, november, things were quite good. we were headache day she hitting our all-time high in the stock market but people said the stock market does not get the credit markets are not functioning we'll have a significant recession we started to see some elements of that so i decided at that time it may be appropriate to begin work on a documentary so we did. that process took a 13 or 14 months and that aired a and it is house of cards it aired february 2009. documentaries are great they are a lot better than being able to report done something for two minutes but even they have their limitations although as generous as cnbc has been to me when our 22

minutes was house of cards with advertising but there were so many things left to say about this crisis and so many more dots to connect not as many people unfortunately read books as watch television so but i felt their ruby and interest in trying to understand in a broader context what happened and going into more detail of the somewhat complex topics such as collateralized debt obligation which i have devoted one chapter two in the book hopefully it is not too tough to understand a lot of wall street people said i thought i got a but i only really understood how they were constructed. the risk that was inherent and

how it worked until i read your book. something else i tried to do was explain to people who the banks ultimately suffer the losses that they did bricker think we did that to a certain extent but in the book you have a lot more opportunity to go into a good level of detail without boring "the reader". and by a used maryland or citigroup but being on its knees as it was ultimately sold to bankamerica i thought that would make a good example. that is what i tried to do in the book there any number of things that i think that are significant in terms of the focus but they're things that was trying to do to combat the

necessary for example, fannie mae and freddie mac to the economic crisis this is what we were hearing but it is not true. fannie mae and freddie mac did many things but if you read the book i think i tried to explain that there was in fact, the absence from the market bridges that allowed wall street to move and and cause some problems that we're still suffering from rather from their irresponsibility from offering subprime mortgages was tried to gain back the market share that they lost to wall street i do point* the finger squarely at wall street and i do think wall street there are many

culprits common many, many culprits but wall street is chief among them and their lack of leadership among so many of the firm's and a lack of understanding of the risk that was being taken on buy so many of the firm's again i focus on maryland very tough but very smart man who ran the firm with an iron fist but ultimately was forced to resign in october 2007. he is an interesting story but it was not even close frankly the risk that was undertaken by the firm that he ran program may have been kept from him in part mortgages, mortgage related products by far became the largest engine of growth it

was the largest -- largest mortgage brokers masquerading as an investment bank but o'neill did not come to grips with that until summer 2007 from this period i already mentioned what has been a solo golfing excursion in the essentially taking days in late august, september 2007 alone playing golf many people wonder why in the world would stan o'neal do that while it seemed that the world was starting to melt down? i believe it was because he finally understood that his firm was in serious serious trouble and he was trying to collect his thoughts and figure out what to do. ultimately one year later it would be sold at bank of america at 40 billion do it -- $40 billion it is still

being looked at very, very closely with bernanke testifying in front of congress why they're spending so much time and is not clear to me but bank of america paid an enormous price it collapse september 15/16 of last year but it was not for bank of america coming in. things to do it do seem better these days the road the epilogue in spring of this year it is funny how things seem to change i'm not sure they truly have we will still suffer from 10% unemployment for some time to come we of seen a retrenchment of the consumer at this point* and there are so many questions about this recovery that seems to be reflective in the dow jones being and 9200 is real. goldman sachs is back to make gains a lot of money but wall

street is changed whether it is forever is a larger question or change significantly i find myself with far too many questions and not many answers in terms of the larger issues if wall street will truly reform itself four has been or will be as a result of the regulatory actions taken by the obama administration. i do not have much more to add i look toward your questions and i encourage them if you have any please feel free and again i very much appreciating your being here. >> we will bring over a microphone so everybody can here. >> assuming we pullout of this

recession, without the irs -- iras it disallowing the deduction with a bigger drop been a real-estate or what about the final depression or the bigger depression? >> is that what we're aiming for? [laughter] i tried in my reporting everyday to understand what i think is happening and provide context for my the worse every day and in that effort i talk to as many people as i can and get those many opinions as i can put people i have come to respect but i find this very confusing you see the stock market going up almost 50% from the march low an incredible a move in a short amount of time and -- but think we and a lot of ways but i am not sure what that is reflective of.

i am not sure when this will end delicate the consumer as the key barometer and people i do think have retrenched of course, we got way over our skis in so many ways with household that, square footage of palms, they all just go like this were a very long period of time and we do seem to be in a period where that is changing with the savings rate that was nil is becoming something significant something that we all wanted our people said we needed but now people say can we wage a little while longer before people start saving money again but 70% of the economy is led by the consumer and this very large rally that has been sparked in part i talk to a lot of ceos and executives at companies and there is no doubt they have been able to

cut costs and shed jobs to get ready for what they saw coming so earnings are better than they have been anticipated but they don't have a great deal of revenue growth and when i talk to them now they are not the best judge they get very negative that the bottom and euphoric at the top it is very typical and happens oftentimes but many are still very negative they have not seen any real turn in their business i keep hearing at the rate of deterioration has slowed or stopped so perhaps we have hit a bottom but the larger question consuming the role the consumer plays will we see any real growth? the stock market does not seem to be expecting in six-month companies will start to have higher revenues and i don't know the answer i have not answered your question but i don't know who can say when this recession will end but my guess is we could be in for

another tough time before we will truly see the end. >> i am just wondering how do see the national debt the very much growing national debt playing into our economy? >> a long-term question a lot of people say how does that were? are we printing money? yes. we're increasing our deficit enormously and the national debt and ultimately it could be inflationary with all of that money and all so it will be as politicians like to say a burden for a hour children it is a bad thing but some of the structural, some of the things that have taken place that caused this crisis are things that became structural overspending here in the

united states, lack of exported goods that resulted in huge imports, huge dollar surpluses around the world, certainly in the asia and middle east with petrodollars recyclers they have to buy dollar-denominated products and wall street was happy to come up with any opportunity it could to sell it to them. that is a 20 year in the making trend. china has $1 trillion. all of this going to a larger point* of how we ultimately get back to a point* where we're exporting more than we importing? the president talks about a but it is hard to imagine when or if we will ever get there and ultimately i think it does lead to aid to munition in our lifestyle. it is not good but it is a long time coming and it continues. the larger trends are still

there they do not go there -- away in one or two years and we're dealing with some of them now the fact we have built up huge deficits, trade deficit stood come home to roost in the sense and the fact that all but we rely on so many foreign governments or foreign institutions to fund our debt. and we still do and they believe the chinese are still big buyers of our treasury. >> that wasn't what point* does a becoming the chinese interests not to buy so many dollars and at what consequence will of have for us? >> i have asked myself that

myself many times i have 10 lucky to see secretary geithner next to me he has come out many times off the record to chat with us i think there is a belief that they won't because if they were they would get hurt very badly as well. in other words, they will not start selling certainly will they by last? that is a possibility and ultimately that will results with interest rates having to go up we have not seen it yet with all the money we are printing a debt we are selling we have not seen any significant and ability some lately have been a little soft but really the ability to sell a lot of what we have two chinese are buyers of the treasury's and the obligation of fannie mae or freddie mac. issue was -- if there were to actually sell the impact would

be so bad and they think very long term. it is the threat of it that gives them more power rather than the fact that they will actually do that. as to the other side of buying less of our debt which is more likely and would ultimately results if we cannot find somebody to replace the chinese for all it interest rates to go up that will ultimately happen not this year but when we accept this period from all of this money inflation will come back and we will all look at much higher interest rates which will also be something we're dealing with another legacy of this period and crisis. >> i can hear you but other people cannot.

>> pointing the fingers toward wall street st. i believe it is the people's while not being educated you think they learn about what they're doing they would make better decisions? >> what do mean? >> purchasing a home like the mortgage is lower interest-rate, and two years later what they made educated choices. >> sure. the question and aren't homeowners to blame for making very poor decisions? >> there is no doubt any number of home buyers who i spoke to who took on mortgages they could not afford and should not have been kevin wahl street was happy to fund the mortgages. the way it worked wall street has a pool of money it buys the mortgages from the

originators who were on the ground making the mortgage those flipped over a period of time and particularly in the 2010 by for 2006 period there were no standards you probably read about it and i go into some detail and it is amazing how many products were created. the one is the stated in, loan you actually did not have to tell the person that was lending you money how much money you make. there was nothing that could allow people to be more irresponsible than that. should they be more responsible of course, they fully understand what they were getting into? some did and some did not remember it is another, more of a misunderstanding most of subprime was for refinancing not for the purchase of a new

home. it was for someone who owned a home to put in a pool, buy a car, a new coach, that is what more than half of all subprime and then alt a day during this period was four. cash out refinancing because the equity had gone up and frankly more than wants over and over again to avail themselves of the equity in their home and take it out and take on what we called the subprime mortgages. or the alt a. i think some of them did know but they assume does everybody did that housing prices would never actually go down. i sat with alan greenspan through this book and for our documentary and he said why

would you question of this asset class would decline? it had not for 50 years burkett was simply a denial based on history that housing prices would ever truly decline and added that the hearts of so many of the decisions that were made weekend about these mortgages a reno they cannot pay them back barely once it is clear of the us and some guy has bought the mortgage-backed security or cbo in china or norway it is not important and frankly housing prices will not go down so they can refinance and play the game over and over but you get to a point* where you need to refinance because the mortgage will would just because you had it for two years, you can do that because housing prices will go up so we will give you more money so that is also at the root misunderstanding on the part of some?

absolutely no doubt they did not understand and a believe that housing prices would never go down which we now know is that leave and a willingness for wall street to allow the mortgage brokers to extend any kind of product that they liked to anyone perk we're at a point* where anyone could get a mortgage a profile a gentleman in the book he was an immigrant from mexico nice family, three kids, he worked in an embroidery factory, he made, he wanted to start his own company wanted to start various jobs starting a factory his take-home pay and a given month i believe was about 3,000 and he said he earned it was $900 per week. sold $30,600 he said he earned a lot more he got a $588,000

mortgage to buy a house. that is what we were dealing with at that point* unfortunately for him he is no longer living in that house as you may imagine was the responsible? sure. do want to reach for the american dream works every time somebody would give it to you, you'll probably take it and it takes all lot on the part of the people who were unsophisticated to say no if somebody says just signed right here i will give you to mortgages one for the down payment and one for the house that will allow you to borrow 580,000 and live in this beautiful place in california. >> wall street certainly had an impact in america but also a tremendous impact on other countries. i have two questions.

hasn't reached the peak for other countries? is there a wave of problems to come and the second part when you would discuss this with other people? did they have any impact on wall street or on other countries that the banks are going down, companies because i am from germany americans taking the leadership here with the problems they're having a tremendous impact in other countries so what impact does it have on the discussion? >> first of all, this is a global phenomenon. europe participated quite boldly as well ubs has taken a 60 billion or more and losses it is write-up there and more

or less has been bail-out by the swiss government deutsche bank reported a loss talking about german banks for significant write-downs. europe and western european banks are actually i believe in worse shape and in some ways than our own banks in part because there is not the willingness or not as much transparency a lot of european markets and the banking system in terms of taking the write-downs that we have seen here. another problem with western european banks is what is essentially a widespread defaults in eastern europe and enormous amount of lending like latvia, a czech republic, estonia, poland, for western european banks the big western european banks do not

get me started with the u.k.. there is an incredible amount of responsibility that was equal to and not necessarily a result of the u.s. banks forcing them to do with with the liquidity and money rowling grant -- around for people willing to lend enormous sums on the part of mortgages and also corporations and people who want to take companies private and to do so on very, very lax terms. europe is suffering but will continue to suffer and again when i talk to u.s. regulators they are more concerned because they don't feel european banks had been as honest and taking their hits then you have the eastern european component that our own banks don't have for it is

very questionable if other european banks that have lent tens of billions of dollars will ultimately be paid back. when we look at the global, it is interesting. europe right now is not coming back at all and you will hear, when i talk to the ceo of a cover media fairly closely there is a little bit of hope in the advertising market with the state's budget and europe, viacom, time warner common nothing, as bad as it has been. so we forget europe's economy has hit hard spain had an incredible housing bubble of its own but the unemployment rate is 15 or 16%. but that being said there is the other side of the story that we relied on european investors to buy all of these securitize products from

lehman brothers, maryland, at bear stearns, citigroup for creating and there we have we have exported mortgages it was one of the leading exports of our country so we should take some of the blame the u.s. will lead the world into recession because we consumed so much and when we stopped and then those countries are finding their economy being heard now china chief amongst them now china has done an incredible stimulus to stimulate its own country which is amazing. >> [inaudible] how long do you think that monitors aging can last before the u.s. hit a wall? >> what do you mean by debt to

monitor the setian were you talking about? >> turning bonds, about bonds and cash the federal reserve turning bonds into cash. >> you mean creating money and increasing money supply? i don't know when that day and is. it does. right? >> a time frame? >> i cannot give you one. it is not something i am familiar -- familiar enough it is an important question and it is one that is being asked a lot but i do not know when that day comes but we will know it. >> . >> what your thoughts to rebalance a cit?

of iraq that is a lender i was reporting on that is a lender to small and medium-size businesses it bought t.a.r.p money with government assistance but it was in a position where but it had to file for bankruptcy because the fdic would not allow it to do certain things it thought it would be allowed to do that would preserve its ability to be likud and have money on hand to pay its bills. i do get it. sheila bair is somebody who did not show up an hour documentary interestingly because unfortunately that is the way things go by is featured in the book she is very impressive i understand refusing to help cit they have

the bank in the midst of this transition and it was a company that borrowed in the capital markets then lent money and had a lease it of lease a plane and give you the money or provide a the least but the business stopper they cannot borrow money in the capital market as a result of the credit crisis of labor transitioning to a bank or they would take deposits and into the business that way to them what would happen if the feds do not play along or left us issue debt that would be guaranteed? that is another program. what if we cannot transfer assets from the holding company to the bank? we can get them off of our

balance sheets and clear things off and free up some capital. but i a understand she did not want them to transfer these assets to a bank because she did not feel there were valued properly and protecting the fdic and the fund because that 1/2 to bailouts this bank to pay back the depositors why do i want to do that? there are a lot of businesses if you have not paid attention i do not blame the but it managed to get a deal with the bond holders that has given its a window but it is still very possible it will file for bankruptcy, chapter 11. if that day comes it will be a very bad day on small doesn't -- businesses to take

receivables we give you the money for receivables and we pay you and you give us the interest-rate this is allowing some people to prepare but i get it and i was glad to see it. it is enough but the only problem is we've lose 2. $3 billion of it goes bankrupt but it is refreshing to see the government say no for a change. >> do you have any thoughts if you want to get into public service the a prerequisite is to work at goldman sachs is there a chance every regulating the industry under those conditions? >> goldman is really interesting a fight to do another documentary i may want

to choose goldman sachs of they will let me get in there i doubt and of course, there be no pictures like quarter you going to show people? people at desks all day long? not very exciting. [laughter] is a fascinating firm. i know many people from there i have followed it closely it is a strong culture it went public 1998 and many competitors said that will be the end wants the partner's cash out and they take their money the culture will cc and they have been dead wrong. they have this team belief that i have not seen in other firms they always go out with each other constantly bear altogether altogether but it does allow them to communicate and they have been many ways they give more power to their risk controllers and other firms. goldman did not screw up in

terms of making bad decisions and taking on risks. they were on the brink do not get me wrong they needed the u.s. taxpayer money at as much as anybody's september 18 goldman sachs was going to go out of business as was morgan stanley and everybody it was going to go. it is not like they did not the desk, they did but is a unique firm but that being said it is a devious firm no doubt. there is a path to power there and many people question and wonder how much influence goldman sachs has as a result of some of the people going to serve. i ask those questions to but they have a lot of smart people i do think they have a unique culture they do have some institutional strength

that is not shared by many other firms on wall street that allow them to succeed particularly in this period and as i said it goes and they will communicate across business lines. how was it possible that citigroup, cindy -- citigroup sandy weill started with commercial credit. that was a subprime lender that is what their heritage was. how did that happen? added:toulouse $70 billion becoming a ward of the state at 34% when the roots were in the subprime? chuck prince was general counsel of commercial credit he knew something about subprime but the reason i mention it is because this city there was not a ability

to communicate across boundaries or understand we have these other guys who buy this stuff and we keep packaging these up but we keep the others and nobody was there to say stop. a long winded answer which i have not even answered about goldman. they're very powerful, talented and it's interesting with goldman there's a lot of criticism they made a lot of money and will pay out a lot of money, they always have come back to business, a lot of that is proprietary trading not necessarily creating and dave value but themselves to not even raise capital which is what investment banks use to do. they traded for commodities. we will see what happens maybe i will do a documentary on

them. >> i was with citigroup and 97 when they did the merger with travelers i should say when they did that with citigroup and then at barbarians with the gates of the investment community i was a retail stockbroker so it has always had some blue haze over it for lack of a better phrase but my question would be leapfrogging into 2004 with investment bankers, why were they allowed by the sick to go to a 40 /1 leverage and going back to the derivatives market with greenspan, route 10, lawrence summers, why didn't they attempt to put

some controls on the derivatives market with a had a chance? >> those are all great questions and what you're getting at is a complete failure of the regulatory agencies that is implicit in your questions and i agree survey wall street is to blame but there is no shortage of culprits. the sick did not do anything. i do not you think they were regulating the investment bank's the way they should have. i remember sitting with john thain and not that long ago, last spring probably. he was laughing about how he never heard from the sec, and never heard from them. geithner would call him even though maryland was an investment bank geithner at the new york fed would call at least wants per week but not chris cox, not anybody at the

sec so nobody came through and i think that goes to the point* that it seemed to be no-holds-barred of the one below-average 30 or 40 times, a go-ahead. goldman sachs is only levered 14 times that may change for quite a while. we will see. that is what crushed everybody i try to explain that in the book but again for anybody it can sometimes be a complicated concept but they had a $1 trillion balance sheet they were leverage at least 30 times you can be 30 times lovebird to assets of their u.s. treasuries but subprime mortgages or cdo's? that is not so good if you're lovebird 30 times and have a loss of just 3% or 3.5% you

have wiped out your equity that is what happened maryland wanted to replace it remember the cap of raises late 2007, the sovereign funds? it is amazing so much money came and yet it was wiped out again. total failure on the part of the sec which we have seen so many other ways, bernie madoff, right? it is just criminal almost in a way. and as far as the way to regulate credit default swaps to allow for the creation of an enormous market place with the collateralized debt obligations to know it gets complicated and even more with the synthetic ceos that made

up cdo's on mortgage-backed securities but it had an enormous impact in 2000 it could have been regulated but it was not kilogram through a bill, a writer on the omnibus budget bill the election was over, after bush had won it was a lame duck congress nobody knew what was then the bill it completely deregulated everything in terms of credit default swaps. he claims i did not buy just said they should not be considered an insurance product there is debate about it but the fact is the cftc especially under, i forget her name wanted to but it never happened and the failures go way back in 1996 we repeal glass-steagall under the clinton a ministration at the urging of sandy weill so he

could get his deal done and combine citigroup with travelers. we will see of the obama administration and gets it right with regulatory reform i do not know the answer it will be interesting to see what happens or what is allowed to happen or whether or not it works. the sec really was very shoddy. other questions? the lady in the front has another and then back to gentlemen and then she is the last question. >> there is intense dispute between democrats and the blue dog democrats concerning the economic consequences of the health reform legislation. apart from the human aspect of

bad had to come down on the economic consequences of what is happening? >> i am afraid it is one of those questions i cannot give you a great dancer i spend a lot of time, talking to hedge fund managers trying to understand the implications for any number of investment professionals what will this mean and where are we headed or will it cost us money there has been a lot of focus and the small business provision and tax is applied ratcheting up depending on your revenue as a small business when you offer health care to your employees and whether there will be a significant impediment to job growth so they will be saddled with this tax. i don't know the answer and i will be curious to see what develops from here and

ultimately a something does get past it will be a long time until we know what the economic consequences are. on the whole idea of additional taxes it is interesting per earlier i mentioned in the consumer we're also dealing with the crisis and the state's three although the president knows a new york state with the sales tax going up and we will all suffer so one does have to wonder where the economic growth will? if you rely on the consumer saving more money and getting taxed more what will happen? that being said i am the upper west side your i am not against taxes i am happy to pay plenty >> how will buying your book help the recession?

[laughter] yes. do your part. it is expensive by it minute. talk to wily there are people around here. but thank you for buying my book. i appreciate it. did you have a question still? we will end with this young lady. >> how did bernie madoff ruined the economy and a semi how did he have a deep impact from what he did? >> the question is about bernie madoff's impact on the economy i don't think he had a significant impact on the economy but he did on trust and an incredibly significant and terrible impact on many, many people. with the overall economy i do not think there were is in the real impact from him. he was big but not that big. that being said, i think he

did take another shot right out of then the trust in the financial system which could have a long impact but time will tell about that. thank you all for coming and being here and asking such great questions i will be happy to sign the book. [applause] >> david faber is a cnbc reporter and a contributor to squawk on the street. two find out more information visit his web sites.

>> host: speed 13 who lives in xm land? >> guest: in my book i argue we all live in "nixonland" of the whole idea is we have two groups of americans that 82 other left and right, red and blue one side barely considers the other side american and a big part of barack obama appeal was to transcend that thinking know whether that will work or not is the question of this administration he did passe it stimulus bill with the zero republican votes as it is a way to think about our history going forward are we still living in their radically bifurcated motive recrimination that we saw the fall with richard nixon in the '60s? >> host: how did it evolves with richard nixon was the

partially responsible in your view? >> guest: he did not create the wave but he served the wave. the 60 social movements became passionate even with the violence large swath of white middle-class america became very frightened that the normal expectations of law and order were being appended. richard nixon house to that rage and he took full the advantage of the rage not only did he harvested but he exacerbated as a political strategy. for example. he argued privately although some aides said publicly that they wanted to achieve a strategy of positive polarization and it is good to have political discourse that divides the country because of

the believe the republicans would harvest a bigger side of the divide sell even though with political rhetoric you would speak words of unity you would expect but barely beneath the surface he encouraged the idea that one group of americans would believe they were not quite american at all one was a silent majority the other was hippies and kids tearing down something that we have built. >> host: was some of that rage in your view justified? >> guest: absolutely. of lot of what went on with the new left and the black power movement was juvenile, not specific, and i tell a story in the book about abbie hoffman who was one of the most prominent anti-war

activist he was from the youth international party and i tell a story how john lindsay made him an ambassador between the city and the community on the lower east side and part of that is he could not be arrested so he would take advantage of that and day to the cops and in one story he so bay today, that he literally smashed the display case in the precinct house that held the commendations to us because he could. when you are at that level of childishness, that does not make it easy for us to pull together as a commonwealth. it is when the rage was on differentiated and directed at senators to oppose the war like edmund muskie to recite

the radical movement things got very irresponsible. >> host: as a politician do you respect richard nixon? >> guest: he was the bus. he was not quite good enough to bluff his way through two full terms but as far as his ability to find and discern the subterranean mood barely been eighth in the service and speaking to the hopes and dreams he was brilliant parker he was brilliant thinking about what type of constituency he could build for his politics and one of the ways he was such a brilliant politician and one of the evidence was he was not a charming man parker he was a paradox people found very hard to get along with he did not enjoy people by yet still able to win the allegiance of

millions of americans. >> host: your first book was on barry goldwater this is the second on republicans and other bright and you are working on the third? why are you so fascinated? >> guest: i am an unapologetic liberal and an activist although very proud those on the rights have found my work useful and fair i am fascinated by the fact we americans a share and nation although we see the world in the such different ways we speak the same language, english, inhabit the same space is, but we have just enough mutual comprehension that we can be voyeuristic and into one another's world and i find that endlessly fascinating why do people think differently? what do i have in common? why are some people liberal? conservative? i could sit in a library and

close my eyes and think about that for hours and call with a good day. >> host: is america unique in that respect? >> guest: i think america is unique in that the ideological direction seems more up for grabs we have never had an american aristocracy but a set of ideas. what does liberty mean it a social democrat? it means having enough food in your stomach to take care of your family but a conservative would say the government stays out of the private economy no matter what.

and we are still having the same arguments with each other almost 250 years into the experiment. >> host: has there ever been a time in history americans have been united? >> we're always united and always divided those two realities are at ideological tensions with each other. we could not have defeated fascism had we not achieved operational unity but by the same token a lot of that involves at to varying certain ways weirdest united around race that quickly rose to the service after world war ii in 1957 americans came back we fought for our freedom some came back and said we fought for our way of life and suddenly we are at loggerheads

again. the american condition. >> host: and what is your trilogy called? >> a backlash the first was 58 through 64 the second 65 through 72 and i have just begun work on a book i am attentively calling the invisible bridge which will be on the '70s through the rise of ronald reagan and through 1973 through 1980. >> host: we are here at the speed 23 annual meeting you just participated on a panel of the state of conservatism here at organization of american historians why are you so fascinated? >> a lot of historians are riveted by conservatism one of their present is because they have had such a dominant role to the country certainly since 2001 we have had a

conservative president and congress through 2006, to terms of ronald reagan and that is where the action is. it is a exciting story why is a country that seems to be headed to a permanent liberal consensus began to lurch so aggressively to the right? and it is something that as a ap at all it is hard to figure it is fascinating. >> host: as a political activist is it important for you to understand the right? >> guest: sure. of mine is based in empathy any political movement that helps to capture a coalition a majority let alone a governing majority with the 60% house to understand americans in the middle do not necessarily share any political