>> there are no glib questions, just glib answers. >> if we don't get these people attention, would that naturally diffuse the power and how do you see your book is really changing the discourse around this issue? >> a great question and a question i have got in one form or another by some very senior people who do believe you only see these folks with attention. i take a different view. i think politicians will pander to the outer reaches particularly if they feel like they can get away with it. they will use fear and hate in the service of hyperpartisanship no problem as long as they get both and i believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. if you shine a light on these extremists and make them the issue then than they will become the lyrical kryptonite. politicians can't use them. they can't effectively divide and conquer which is the cynical business they are in right now so i think it is more important to shine a light on them and by doing so we also take the power

back it is the extremes are not defining the majority. the whole idea of wingnuts is to take the power back and define the terms of the debate so it is a great question. >> even if mainstream media did not shine a light on these people and give them attention there are plenty of people who are making millions of dollars a year fueling the outrage that earns them the money so they are going to get plenty of exposure. >> that is happy right and that is how we ultimately stop it. the center is going to lose the fight whether it is the media or politics. if we constantly play defense. the reality is we do have-- only 15% of the country defines itself as conservative republican and 11% as liberal democrat. i know hard to believe that new york. the vast majority of us were in the middle and yet we have been basic we written out of the political process. the only way we take that power back is if we begin playing

offense, not defense. if we approach this with strength and not weakness. that is the whole idea and i believe we are going to find the folks in the center, 40% is the largest untapped market in american politics. >> one more question the back. >> thank you. my name is ryan and i'm from the area. to turn your argument overrides that i'm wondering why are we not so bad? is and what the founding fathers envisioned in terms of there being sanctions, one against the other in terms of sharing arguments and talking through to their arguments and doesn't it energize the debate between the far left and the far right which eventually involves middle america and the center is? what is so wrong with wingnuts and i'm concerned when you talk about stopping them. isn't the idea of america to have free speech and allow america to express themselves any way they want to? >> i really appreciate that question. thank you. this is a great debate that has been going on. there are folks who've been

trying to preach the idea that there is nothing more american than viewing colleges as an all or nothing bloodsport. that is as american as apple pie and of course it is absolutism disguised as apple pie. it is always, i'm not saying president obama wasn't born in america. i am just asking the question. wingnuts right now love to wrap themselves up in the american flag, and there is the sense that they are the true defenders of the founding fathers and it promotes an idea that i find air again. any political party should resume the american flag or the bible or the word of concept and freedom. the founding fathers as a reality check, weren't focused on uniting the nation, not dividing it. hamilton, madison warned about the dangers of faction. that is what the federalist papers are all about. i close the book with george washington. judge because going back to

first principles, let's take a look at his farewell address to the nation. he warned against, he said there was no greater threat to the american experiment than a partisan demagogue who agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms. candling the animosity of one part against the other. he warned against those who would serve to organize faction to give it an artificial and extraordinary force to put into place the delegating role of the nation, the will of the party. george washington warned us about the wingnuts so that is important to keep in mind. >> as you say in the book john my country right or has been replaced by mike party. >> that is right. we have had a total flip in this country. one of the telltale signs of the wing that is they confuse patriotism with partisanship and the idea that my party is in danger of replacing right or wrong. you cannot respect the country and demonize the president.

there is an old idea in this country where he is a duly elected president and even if you disagree with him the respect the office because we take a larger view of our politics. that seems to be out of fashion right now. which is the national interest is supposed to trump special interest. i began the book with a quote as most people remember right after the election. rush limbaugh upset the tone in the last 15 months or so. he said, i hope he fails. okay. you know, 40 or 50 years ago after john f. kennedy won the election, john wayne committed conservative said this. he said i didn't vote for him, but he is my president and i hope he does a good job. how did we fall from that idea? how did we convince ourselves that that is a square statement? that is a principled statement that put patriotism over

partisanship. that is where should be. that is an important reminder that we have totally lost sight of our politics now. >> this brings me to an issue that i found fascinating and that is the consequences of wingnut behavior and use of just there were some differences here and quite start differences in terms of consequences for donna rats versus consequences for republicans. you say about democrats, liberals want to ignore the populist angry tea parties at the town halls do so at their own political peril but you suggest the consequences are more great for what republican wingnuts are involved in. they are benefiting from all this anger in the short-term but they have tapped into something they can't control calling the president do a nazi or communist is beyond incivility or street theater. it is an accusation that stirs the crazy pot. it is ultimately an incitement to violence. why the difference? why the political consequences for democrats and potentially

violent consequences for republicans? >> in the case of the protest of some turn-- sometimes turned violent, we had a lot of democrats trying to save this was astroturf. after they lost elections in virginia and new jersey and massachusetts, more democrats realize they were something profound going on here. this isn't a small number of folks. this isn't astroturf. this is genuine grassroots anger. america is a center-right nation but there is a faustian bargain some republicans are making by trying to benefit politically from people who pump up hagan hyperpartisanship. on the pragmatic level extremists are their own worst enemy. they overreach them provoke a broad-based backlash. bad news. but there is a deeper element of concern as well, because there is a cost. there is a cost to all of this incitement.

when dick armey, former house majority leader who has been a promoter of the tea party movement is quoted at one major rally saying nearly every important office in washington d.c. today is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike for heritage, our freedom, our history and our constitution. when you stir that up, when you are stirring up hate and fear in the service of hyperpartisanship you are playing with forces that can easily get out of control. southern-- 300% increase in the number of militia groups in the united states in the first year of obama. it is what i called the hate groups who believe it is patriotic to hate the president and the government. what are the ideas that i interviewed folks, they believe that they are defending the constitution. they are defending the

constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and many of you speak to them believe president obama might be a domestic enemy is defined under the constitution. you are going to see a poll come out in two weeks from louis harris, which i can't real feel yet but it will add number two that. it is significant, and indeed one of the many death threats the president got was from a worrying lance corporal at camp lejeune who rode out a letter for intent to assassinate president obama and in it he identified the president as a domestic enemy of the constitution. these words and ideas have consequences. when we play with hate and fear in the service of hyperpartisanship we have run the risk and we should know that. >> questions from the audience again. this fellow over here with the beard and glasses. >> hay. i am from new york. i was wondering, to what extent -- i was wondering to what

extent do you think that our system rewards this kind of partisanship because i'm sure you are well aware when the parties break the long lines, republicans tend to do farthest from the democrats and i am not sure but i feel that democrats, they just have less diversity in terms of where they break, and i feel like because of that. >> you should talk to your friend next to you. you guys can have a beer afterward. >> i feel like the republicans accomplish a lot more because of how, i don't know i feel they have better whips or something but i feel like to a certain extent our system rewards this kind of partisanship and i was wondering what your thoughts with you on that? >> it increasingly has because the rules have been rigged. i think a large problem in our politics, the reason we are suffering through, and artificial polarization in our politics is because a

redistricting which has creative incentives which pushes parties to the extreme. it is important to realize this is a system of collusion to create safe seats by eliminating general elections. candidates don't have an incentive to reach across the aisle and went over the regional edge. this is creating a whole generations of politicians in the republican and democratic party, who i call the limbaugh for grades because they follow the rules of talk radio. there is no such thing as too extreme. they get away with it where is normally in the past they would have lost the general elections every time because they were too polarized into examples are michelle bob and on the right and allen grayson on the road last. both are very fond of calling their opponents evil. and losing fundamentally the side of the fact that we are all in the same boat. the redistricting has distorted dab you and created an incentive structure where people are awarded by playing the bass.

if we could do one policy position that would undo this, different incentive that has given birth to the wingnuts. nonpartisan redistricting and open primaries. >> there are some states states that have adopted nonpartisan redistricting. i think iowa is one of them. is there any evidence that there there is less tendency toward wingnuts and the states then there is another's? >> let's take a look at new hampshire which has open primaries because that gives us a long window. new hampshire's role in the presidential primary nominates a more centrist candidate where the iowa caucus system tends to be, you can control that with a small number of people. iowa is one of the states where independents outnumber democrats and republicans but because the caucus system will balance political diversity of the state isn't reflected in the election

of a president and the caucuses. it is analogous to the overall. because independents and both in the new hampshire primary, it actually, that candidates don't play as debate. they know they need to win over voters, and a lot of conservatives hate that. they think it is a distortion of the will of their party. the problem is our constitution doesn't mention parties. they are middlemen and i would argue maybe they are outliving their usefulness. >> we talk about this idea of redistricting and potentially changing the formula's. we have had guests on our program who say just the gridlock in congress is a reflection of that as well, so if we were to rewrite the rules of redistricting, across the country could you potentially not only damp down the wingnut element but also get things moving in the halls of congress?

>> you could because all of a sudden they would he a positive incentive for reaching out across the out. instead when folks reach across the aisle, at town halls they are shouting that they are traitors. we have confused the idea of cooperation with collaboration in the world war 2 cents. this is a real problem because our founders didn't want to-- to focus on the common ground, to not have our politics be determined by what makes us different but to figure out what are the common elements in the things through but that is being stopped by politics that condemns any form of compromise. >> i think we have time for a couple more questions. how about wayne about there and then up front, the fellow with the green hat. >> my name is austin and i'm from new jersey. i wanted to know, why do you think the political spectrum has been split? what would you call an extremist from the old whig party?

if we had more options--. >> we would call him ;-). >> if we had more options, wouldn't you avoid these kinds of polarizing strains? >> we don't have a parliamentary system. otherwise you might see israel, which is the kadima party. but i think the desire for that is what has caused independents to grow. the growth is in direct reaction to the polarization of the two parties. it is an expression of anger, a dissatisfaction with the choices we are being given especially because they are so polarized and most independents are fiscally conservative. this is not a totally incoherent group. there is a common theme. they are to fiscally conservative for democrats in two liberal for republicans but our system has been so stratified and hijacked that neither party has been able to

get itself enough away from the special interests of the party to meet that need. there is a market disconnect. that is what is happening right now and happening especially among younger voters. those of up-- politics is the last place where we are expected to be satisfied with a choice between brand a and brin b. they have not woken up to the information age reality. they are going to. the question is whether they wake up sooner or later. >> we have a fellow upfront here if we can get the micro-pham-- microphone to him. do you think the addition of the third and potentially fort hardy could help tamp down some of this? >> i think we are more looking at-- there may come a time where there is a third-party. there are a couple of scenarios where you could end up seeing the far right split off from the republican party and the far left split from the democrats party and all along realize they

have had a lot more common with each other any extremes of either party. that is one option which we see in front of us. how it ends up has yet to be seen but i can see that snare a. >> i am bob kaplan, visiting canadian. >> hello bob kaplan. >> we are it paying attention up there. >> is memory serves me correctly, you are a former politician. >> yeah, i am. it seems to me it is a little my eve to talk about the center taking power again without taking account of lobbyists, which i think tend to prefer the extremes. if you are lobbyists you know where the extreme part stance in the guy in the middle is going to be reasonable is more of a problem. >> is not as easy to buy a. >> you raise a good..

but i would only say that our ultimate trump card is democracy. lobbyists and politicians have a funny way of listening in numbers. they will go where the majorities are. the problem is they have been able to successfully subdivide her country and the special interests have succeeded in hijacking our politics and it is to their benefit. you are right, they like it the way it is. the problem is it is fundamentally unrepresentative. i don't mind sounding idealistic i just think the whole key is to balance idealism with realism. we need to recognize there is a disconnect going on. we need don't need to buy into this hyperpolarization of politics which has been hijacked by the extremes. we will never change human nature. there are always going to be conspiracy theorists among us but we don't have to accept their domination of our politics. we can stand up to the extremes on both sides. >> let me make one more point and i think we will have two rapid there. you say in the chapter on

solutions, how we bring the country back together again, the modern maturity needs to stand up to the extremes before they spark a season of violence. we have done this before and we can do it again. put it in historic context for us about doing it before and how do we do it again now when the wingnuts have such a powerful megaphone that they never had in the past? >> thank you and it is an important question. first of all there's a fundamental case for optimism. we have faced down extremist groups throughout our history. we have confronted the kkk. we have confronted far left radical groups that were incredibly violent and away we have forgotten only 30 or 40 years ago. we have defeated the john birch society and now his back. we have stood up to joe mccarthy as he slowed the way. whenever anybody tells you that the only thing in the middle of the road or yellow line is a dead armadillo, you tell them

from jim hightower, you trump him with dwight eisenhower is that the middle that the middle of the road is all the usable surface and the extremes are in the gutters. that is a deeper source of strength we can draw on. i think we can take america back from the lunatic fringe because we have the numbers. they may be screaming the loudest that they don't have the votes. they don't have the bodies and there are three things we can do. the first thing we need to do is have orifice declare our independence. we need to get away from this effect the situation applies excusing the extremes on our side because they may be crazy but there are crazies. then we do see the problem. more americans declare their independence and the parties are going to have to compete for their vote. they are not going to be a lot to take them for granted as much. that shakes up the political calculus. party should be panicked about the fact that 40% of the american public has rejected them. they are in denial about it because it is their interest. that is the first thing, declare your independence.

the second thing is a policy prescription. we need to do -- might undo the raid system of redistricting. but incentivize politicians to move to the center about the political consultants who are preaching play to the base politics you are going to find they will change their tune overnight. they will play by whatever rules are changed and the rules we work with in american politics are not made by god. they are made by man and we can change than. >> where you come down on the argument that the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine on the nation's airwaves? >> i'm against it because they think it ends up becoming a speech code that is honest-- unenforceable and un-american. we need to engage in this debate more. we need to stand up more in the center and that is the final thing we need to do. we need to stand up in the center and play offense, not defense and as our common sense take dates. if we can do that we can shift

the momentum, shift the dynamic in approach this problem from a position of strength. we can take the power back from the extremes because we have the numbers. extremists always have a terrible sense of humor. they are rigid and inflexible. if we can start all of a sudden calling out the extremes from the absurdities they so often embrace, for the inflexibility they constantly try to invade us. if we can do that in punch left and right and start standing up to the extremes on both sides we can absolutely take america back from the lunatic french. >> the book is called "wingnuts" how the lunatic fringe is hijacking america. john avlon it is great to see you. thank you all for coming. >> subtrees a senior political columnist for "the daily beast." he's a staffer in president clinton's 1996 campaign and chief speechwriter for former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. to find out more visit sub subthree.com.

>> we are here at the conservative political action conference talking with david the truth about his new book, silent cal's almanac. >> the book is about her most silent president who was actually very quotable and what he did was to compress the wisdom of conservatism and americanism with a few well-chosen words primarily talking about something significant to this day, the importance of low marginal tax rates for creating investment, for creating prosperity, for making the american system worked for the average american, because when he was in vermont he saw how his father would

collect tax money from people. he realized he came from ordinary people by the sweat of their brow and it should be collected wisely and no more than is absolutely necessary. taxation in excess of what was necessary was theft. >> how long did it take you to essentially gather all of this homespun wisdom? >> gee, it was not a full-time project four is something i did in my spare time, collected it through the years. are they enough his collections, we would be surprised by this but people would buy collections of his speeches in the 1920s. they were issued one after another. they were very popular so doing the research was fairly easy and then assembling them in publishing them in this book but also adding introductory essays like why calvin coolidge? the people would be mystified by this topic and talking about a biographical issue and then there were a lot of antidotes about, which are pretty amazing

what people like to tell so we threw that in and also appendices there was not earl of stress, is have faith in massachusetts of people to get a full flavor of what the coolidge intellect and powers of persuasion were like. because he rose all the way from aldermen to state senator to lieutenant governor, governor, vice president, president and he helped more elected offices than anyone in american history. he worked his way up the wrong which is the way you are supposed to do at. >> you seem to have a lot of passion about the subject. is there another project on the horizon for you? >> i'm working on a book about the 1948 presidential election. i have done 1920 and 1960 previously. 1948 is that the publisher now. truman, dewey, wallace and strom thurmond. most people will say that is the truman dewey election but i think it is really a dual of long-standing between the

wallace, henry wallace links in the truman wings of the democratic party and about america and the cold war, about domestic communism, about foreign policy abroad and it is also the year where the civil rights movement really gets a big boost. truman is fighting against wallace. he has got to get the black vote and he has got the south recoiling with the third-party and breaking from the democratic party so there is an awful lot happening that your. >> is cool is your favorite president or politician to write about? >> to write about, certainly about coolidge but also i am a big fan of ronald reagan and kind of grew up loving him from 1964 on and was there all the way in his inauguration, his funeral, when he launched his campaign at liberty island in new jersey and by god i love them and. >> is there a reagan book on the horizon?

>> so many people with greater qualifications have done it. the field is pretty crowded, but i wouldn't mind doing it. i wouldn't mind it at all. it would be very enjoyable because along the way i've written about a lot of scoundrels and i would like to write about a man i admire a great deal of. >> what are you reading these days? >> actually what i tend to read or not books about history but books about the 1920s and 1930 30s show business and entertainment says after a while, a lot of the researching is you are reading parts of books, reading newspaper articles and reading might her film, so for fun you kind of turn it off and you go back and you are reading a biography of lost heart or d. w. griffith or the silent films, and i find that fascinating. i don't know if there is a book fair, but maybe. you never know. you never know of. >> thank you very much for your

time. i appreciate it. >> and their book, "from disgust to humanity", constitutional scholar martha nussbaum examines the history of sexual orieatiolaw inhe united states. politics and prose bookstore here in washington is the host of this talk. that lasts about an hour. >> on behalf of our owners, carla cohen and barbara me, i

would like to welcome dr. martha nussbaum to politic and prose bookstore. [applause] we are always honored, we are always honored to be located at this juncture of world-class academics in the general reading public but of course the d.c.'s readers are pretty world-class themselves. i am pleased to particularly welcome martha nussbaum for her newest work, "from disgust to humanity" sexual orientation and constitutional law. i am personally overjoyed that she is coming to us from chicago which is my own, motter. dr. nussbaum however is an academic who quite commonly makes ivory tower into the civil sphere and is brought any conversations about practical justice, goodness and back to the academy with her. as a philosopher professor nussbaum strives to be a lawyer for humanity. i have heard her quote often. with an early background and