moderate versus people who were polis on one side or the other. do you remember those statistics? >> the hit on the center is somehow they are weak, they are not powerful vote getters and this is an old line that when president eisenhower was run by robert tough to 1952 he was called the general who won world war ii was the candidate of offense by the far-right republicans were isolationists who didn't want to fight in world war ii. republican john mccain for example in the last election was 74% of the vote. that is because he was in the center of the party which is why he is primary it now from the right to read you look at olympia snowe and susan collins. they won decisively in the democratic dominance state to republican senators not because they are week by the extremes but they are strong in the

center. declared your wins the election overwhelmingly we're only a few states away rick a very conservative center get his butt kicked. >> mitch mcconnell -- >> the strength is in the senate. for everybody to see. but we have been fed a dumbed down version of politics and the extremes are invested telling everybody their way is the only way that frankly their way of the story. >> the gentleman in a green coat over here perhaps close to the microphone. >> and bea from brooklyn. >> speegap if you could a little piece. >> this is why we live in the prozac nation because all this confusion and i try to understand. i consider myself what he called bush -- sprick a bushehr arrangement. >> are you recovering? >> and slightly recovered. [laughter] i still don't like him but fell

into it. if people think this shifted so far right the past 40 years and i kind of went into that but when we look back in history it's like shifting back and forth and if you think it has shifted so far right so the center right now is not the true center is the center between what is left and what is right. >> so the point is this is one of the arguments folks used against the center is it's not a true position. it's always relative to where extremes are at any time. islamic typically is slightly to the right of center. >> america is a center-right nation but slightly. this is what the friends forget is the center right nation but it's a center-right mentioned not a right nation which is how they win the elections.

to your point, to your second point i think about the drift in american politics it is important because there is a reality check folks need to have. folks in the party this year have been pushing the illogical. the test. they want to prove by checklists you're a good honest republican. >> this was after the incident of upstate new york. >> right. one of the ironic things is if you talk to conservatives and there are thoughtful people, they always hold ronald reagan and goldwater as the icons. the irony is they couldn't pass the it alogical tests today. goldwater was pro-choice in favor of the gays in the military decades ago. reagan signed a liberal abortion law, grew the size of government and preside over tax increases when necessary but as governor and president and principled people, leaders of the conservative movement but when you try to dumdum politics and make it one-size-fits-all history has a sense of humor and

the reality is goldwater and reagan wouldn't be considered a conservative today by the people acting like a logical absolutist and the sentinels of the conservative movement. >> the young lady here just wait for the microphone. go ahead. >> i hate to ask -- >> what is your name? >> arianna. i hate to ask and glib question -- >> there are no such thing, just click answers. [laughter] >> if we don't give these people attention -- with a diffuse their power? and how do you see your book as changing the discourse around this issue? >> it's a question i've gotten in one form or another white people who do believe that you only see these folks with attention. i take a different view. i think that politicians will pander to the outer reaches of politics particularly if they feel like they can get away with

it. they will use fear and hate her partisanship as long as they feel they are getting votes and i believe sunshine is the best disinfectant. if you shine a light on these extremes and make them the issue they will become political kryptonite and politicians can't use them. they can't effectively divide to conquer which is the business they are in right now so i think it's more important to call them out and shine a light and by doing so we also take the power back because extremes are defining the majority instead we are defining the terms of the debate. that is the idea of wingnuts is to define the terms of the debate so it is a great question. >> even if the media did not shine a light on these people and give attention there's plenty of people making millions of dollars a year fuelling the outrage that earns them the money so they're going to get exposure anyways. >> that's exactly right and ultimately how we stop this. the center is a plane to lose the fight whether in the media or publishing.

if we played defense the reality is we do have the numbers. a poll cannot a while ago that says only 50% to find themselves as republican and 11 as a liberal democrat. i know, hard to believe sometimes in new york, nonetheless, attributed the vast majority of us are in the middle. and yet we have been basically written out of the political process. how we are degraded in the debate. the only way we take that back is if we begin playing offense, defense, approach it from the position of strength, not weakness. that's the idea and we are going to find folks in the center, the 40% or and dependent it is the untapped area of politics. >> a couple questions and then i have questions to ask. >> my name is wrong and freedom from the area. thank you, john. to turn the argument on its head, we are wingnuts so that? isn't it with the founding fathers envisioned as factions that face off one against the other in terms of sharing their arguments and talking through

their arguments? and it doesn't actually energize the debate between the far left and far right which eventually involves middle america and the centrists? what is wrong with wingnuts? in line concerned when you talk about stopping them. isn't the idea of america to have free speech and allow people to express themselves as they want to? >> i appreciate that question. thank you. this is a great debate that's been going on. there are folks who've been trying to preach this idea that there's nothing more americans than a view of politics as all or nothing blood sport. that american and as apple pie. it is absolutism described as apple pie. i'm not sitting president obama wasn't born america -- i'm not saying that is what you're saying -- sign just asking the question. wingnuts right now live to wrap themselves up in the american flag and there is this since they are the defender of the

founding fathers and it promotes the idea that i find arrogant that any political party should presume to own a the american flag or the bible or the concept of freedom. the founding father as a reality check of course as you know don't know we are focused on uniting the nation, not dividing it. the founding fathers, hamilton, madison warned about the danger of faction. that's the federalist papers or all about, not exacerbating. and i close the book with george washington because it is good to go back to the first principles. it's look at the farewell letters to the nation quickly. he warned against. he said there was no threat to the american experiment than partisan demagogue who agitates the community with jealousy and false alarms kindling the animosity of one part against the other. he warned against those who would serve to organize faction to give it an artificial the extraordinary force to put into place the delegated role of the nation, the will of the party. george washington warned about

the wingnuts so that's important to keep in mind. >> you see in the book my country right or wrong has been replaced by my party returned. >> that's why we have had a total flood in this country. one of the signs of the wingnut is they confuse patriotism with partisanship and the idea that a party weicker is in danger of replacing right away. you cannot respect the country and demonize the president. there's an old idea in this country where allows a duly elected president even if you disagree you respect the office because we try to take a larger view of our politics this seems to be out of fashion right now which is the national interest is supposed to trim special-interest. i began the book with a quote because most people remember after the election rush limbaugh infamously helped set the tone we've seen the last several 15 months or so he said i hope he

fails. okay. 40, 50 years ago after john f. kennedy won the election john wayne committed conservatives said of this i didn't vote for him but he's my president and i hope he does a good job. how we fallout from that idea? how do we convince ourselves that was a statement? that is a principled stigma that puts patriotism and partisanship. that is where it should be. that is a reminder that we've lost sight of politics right now to the great detriment. >> this brings me to an issue i found fascinating and that is the consequences of wingnut behavior and use it just there are differences, quite stark in terms of consequences for democrats versus for republicans. you say about the democrats, quote among liberals who want to ignore the populist anger of the tea parties and the town halls do so with their own political

peril but you said just the consequences are more grief for with the republican wingnuts are involved in. they're playing a dangerous game of benefitting from the anger in the short term but they have done something they can't control colin the president a nazi or communist is beyond a simple answer to what your fielder. it is an accusation that stirs the crazy part. it is ultimately incitement to violence. why the difference? with political consequences for democrats and potentially violent consequences for republicans? >> in the case of the protest that turn violent we have a lot of democrats trying to tell themselves this was astroturf and didn't represent a groundswell sport. i think after they lost elections in virginia and new jersey and massachusetts democrats realize their something profound going on. this isn't a small number of folks, this isn't astroturf, this is genuine grass-roots pingree that needs to be

appreciated. america is a center-right nation but there is a bargain republicans are making by trying to benefit politically from people who pump up heat and heiberg partisanship. first fall in the pragmatic rall extremes are ultimately you're own sides worst enemy and the overreach and provoke the broadbased backlash. th are concerned because there is a cost, there is a cost of this and win armey for house majority leader who's been a promoter of the tea party movement is quoted to a major rally prosperous saying nearly every important office in washington, d.c. is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike the freedom from the history and the constitution, when you start up, when you're

stealing a page and year in high partisanship you are playing with forces out of control. >> there's a movement going on in america so they put on a reported few weeks ago saying there had been a 300% increase in militia groups in the united states in the first year of obama. it's what i call the hatred groups, people believe it's patriotic to hate the president and government. one of the ideas and i interview folks from these groups, they believe they are defending the constitution, they are defending the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic and many of them believe president obama might be a domestic enemy as defined in the constitution. you will see a poll, evin two weeks from louis harris which i can't reveal his way to show will add members to that. it is not insignificant and indeed one of the death threats the president got was from the marine lance corporal camp lejeune who wrote a letter of intent to assassinate president obama and he identified the president as a domestic enemy of

the constitution. these words and ideas have consequences. they do not happen in a vacuum and when we play with fear in a service of piper partisanship we won to the car from the rest of reaping the world. >> questions from the audience again. this fellow over here with the beard and glasses. get a microphone over here. >> chaim simone from new york and i was wondering to what extent -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i was wondering what extent do you think that our system or reward of partisanship because as i'm sure you are aware when the party split along the lines republicans tend to do with less often than democrats. democrats i'm not sure but they 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 and you can have a beer or something.

>> republicans accomplish a lot more because of how i don't know i feel like maybe they are better or something but i feel like maybe to a certain extent our system rewards this kind of partisanship and i wonder what your thoughts would be on that. is to make it increasingly has because the rules have been rigged. a large problem in the politics, the reason we are suffering through the official position of politics is because the system of redistricting which is treated the system that pushes the parties to the extreme. i spoke about earlier but it's important to realize the system of collusion to create safe seats by eliminating generally elections the candidates are not rewarded and they don't have the ability to reach across the aisle. they are constantly there for playing to their banks and this is creating a -- the republican party to michael the limbaugh brigades because they follow talk ready. there is nothing as too extreme. they are preoccupied at the base

and get away with it whereas in the past they would have lost the general election every time because they were polarizing and two examples are michele bachman on the right and our increasing on the left who both are fond of calling opponent's evil. the stomach and was the fundamentalist side of the fact we are all in the same book. the redistricting has distorted that view. they were rewarded by the base if we could do one thing, one policy position i think it would undo this it created a different incentive structure than the position we are suffering through giving birth to the wing mats. not partisan redistricting and open primaries. as the nec there were some states that have adopted the monk partisan redistricting and iowa is one of the states. is there any -- is there any evidence of west towards wingnuts and others? >> there is some evidence.

new hampshire has open primaries. that gives a long window. new hampshire in the primary nominates a more centrist candidate where the ogle caucus system tends to be you can petrol that with a comparatively small number of people. i know what is a great state, one of the states were independents outnumber democrats and republicans but because the caucus system not political balance and diversity isn't reflected in the ways it selects the first president out of the caucus. >> but that's just leaders. >> but it's analogous to the overall. because independent scams vote in the new hampshire primary the candidates don't play as hard. they don't move as far right because the need to win over the voters in the senate and folks, conservatives hate that they think it is a distortion of the party. the problem is what is good for the party has gotten in the way of the deed was done of what is good for the country. the constitution doesn't mention parties. they are middlemen and i would

argue they are not as useful. >> when we talk about this idea of redistricting potentially changing the form of this, we have had guests on the program who say just the gridlock in congress is a reflection of that as well. so if you were to rewrite the rules of redistricting across the country could do potentially not only dampen down the wingnut of land but also get things moving in the halls of congress? >> you could because there would be a positive incentive for reaching out across the aisle. instead now when they reach out or write an op-ed with the opposite member of congress, town halls at home are shut out they are traitors. we convinced the idea of cooperation with collaboration in the world war ii license. this is a problem because the founders didn't want 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 and move through but that is being stopped by politics that condoms in the form of compromise. >> time for a couple of more questions here. how about we in the backend up front, the fellow with a green hat. >> my name is austin from new jersey and i wanted to know why do you think that the political spectrum has been split into two things? what would you call in extremist from the old party, whignut? [laughter] >> i would call them whiggy. >> if we had more options wouldn't it -- you would avoid these polarizing extremes? >> well we don't have a parliamentary system otherwise we might see. but the desire for that is what has caused independence to grow. the growth of independence, the largest and fastest-growing is

in direct reaction to the position of the two parties. it is an expression of anger and dissatisfaction with the choices we are given especially because their supplies. most independents are fiscally conservative and social libertarians. this is not a totally incoherent group. there is a common theme. they are fiscally conservative for democrat and to socially liberal for republicans but the system has been so stratified and effectively hijacked that neither party has been able to get a self enough away from the special interests of the base of the party to meet that need. there is a market disconnect. and that is what is happening right now and it is that schoem debate coo happening among the young voters. those that grew up with a multiplicity of choice in every aspect of lives and yet politics is the last place we are a expected to be satisfied between brand a and b. politics is still run by industrial age roles. they haven't woken up to the information reality. they are going to be read the

question is whether they wake up sooner or later. >> we have a fellow up front if we can get the microphone to him as well. but, while we're waiting for the microphone, to think there's a third and potentially fourth party that can help tamp down some of this? >> i think we are more looking at the alignment. there may come a time there is a third party. there's a couple of scenarios down the line you couldn't see the far right split off from the party, the far left spread off from the democratic party and the centrists in both parties realized all along they had a lot more in common with each other again extremes of either party. that is one option sitting in front of us. the forces of politics are shifting how it unfolds remains to be seen. >> bob kaplan visiting canadian. >> hello, bob kaplan. >> if memory serves me, cui you are a former politician.

>> i am. >> for more canadian. [laughter] >> it seems to me it is a little money used to think about the center taking power again without taking account of lobbyists which i think tend to prefer the extremes. if you are a lobbyist you know where the extreme part stands and the body in the middle was going to be reasonable as more of a problem. >> not as easy to buy off. >> you raise a good point but i would say the ultimate trump card is democracy. lobbyists and politicians have a funny way of listening to members. they will go where the majorities are. the problem is they have been able to subdivide the country and the special interests have succeeded in hijacking the politics and it's to their benefit. they like it just the way it is. the math is pretty simple. the problem is it is unrepresented and i don't mind sound idealistic. i just think the key is to balance idealism with realism.

we need to recognize this disconnected going on. we don't need to buy into this hyperpolarized vision of politics which has been hijacked by the extremes. we will never change human nature. there will always be conspiracy theorists among us but we don't have to accept the domination of politics. that is the message. we can stand up to the extremes of both sides. >> let me make one more point and we have to wrap up. standing up to extremists on both sides to say on solution how we bring the country together again that the moderate majority needs to stand up to the extremes before they start a season of violence. we've done this before and we can do it again. put it in historic context about doing it before and how do we do it again now when the wingnuts have such a powerful megaphone they never had in the past. >> it's an important question. first of all there's a fundamental case for optimism.

we have faced on extremist groups through history. we've confronted the ku klux klan and confronted far less radical groups that were incredibly violent in the way that we've forgotten. only 30, 40 years ago. we defeated the society and now it's better. with so stood up to joe mccarthy. whatever anybody tells you the only thing in the middle of the road or the yellow line or the dead armadillos you tell them there's a quote from jim you trim them with dwight eisenhower who said the middle of the road is the usable surface. extremes of left and right or in the gutters. that is a deep was demand source of strength to control. i think we can take america back because we've got the numbers. they may be screaming the loudest but they don't have the votes, they don't have the models and first thing i think we need to do is more of us declare independence. we need to get away from the staff facto situation of always excusing the extremes on our

side because though they may be crazy but they are crazy because then we just feed the problem. more americans declare independence and register and the parties have to compete for their vote. they will not be given to take them for granted as much. but she said the calculus. already the party should a panicked about the fact 40% of the public has rejected them. they are in denial because it is their interest but that that is the first thing declare your independence. second thing this is a policy prescription. we need to undo the system of redistricting. if we had open primaries and long partisan redistricting it would incentivize politician to move to the center and the political consultants who are so preaching plea to the base politics you will find they will change the tomb overnight because this is about principal this is simply about winning and they will play by what other rules are changing and what will work with american politics, they are not made by god, they are made by manned to the command.

estimate the real implications of the fairness doctrine of the airways. >> i'm against it because it ends up becoming a speech code that is not enforceable and is on american but i do believe that is why the tour for that speech is more speech. we need to engage in this more. we need to stand up more in the center and that is the final thing we need to do is stand up in the center and play offense, not a defense and punch the far right and left as the conscience and common sense dictates. if we can do that we can shift the dough 98 good dynamic and approach it from the position of strength not week to the quickness. they are very rigid and inflexible. well, if we can start all of a sudden calling out extremes for the absurdity they so often in place for the inflexibility the constantly try to advance, if we can do that and punch left and right and start standing up to the extremes on both sides we

can absolutely take america back. >> the book is called "wingnuts" of a lunatic fringes taking america. john avlon, thank you. thank you for coming. [applause] >> john avlon is a political columnist for the daily beast and a staffer and president clinton's 1996 reelection campaign and chief speechwriter for former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. to find out more, visit johnavlon.com.

we are at the annual cpac conference in washington, d.c.. we are talking to a christian of isi books. can you tell what were the biggest sellers of 2,009? >> whad the book econoclass on the supply-side economics. we also had a rendezvous with destiny by craig shirley, which is the history of the 1980 ronald reagan campaign for president. and we also had we still hold these truths by matt spaulding about restoring the principles of the constitution. >> and what do you have coming up in 2010? >> we have a biography of william f. buckley called the founder of the movement by lee edwards from the heritage foundation. we also have a book called whitaker chambers as a part of the library thinkers series by richard wright, and we have a

book called sis freedom by representative mccotter, thaddeus mccotter basically about restoring the principles of conservatism in the coming years and finally we have a book called the closing of the muslim mind by robert reilly which is about kind of the intellectual differences between muslims and western christians and how that needs to be resolved first before we can go further. >> do you have any authors assigning books today? >> we do. matthew spaulding of we still hold these truths, he will be signing books and also craig shirley who wrote rendezvous with destiny will be signing books tomorrow. >> can you tell a bit about isi buckson general? how long has the company been around? are they a part of another publisher? >> isi books is been around since 1993. we are part of the studies