means the most not to me but many people, is ralph ellison. you would always hear the passages from him about americaness and african-americanness being divisible. i think there are nothing that makes that plainer than the story of obama whether you are a fan of his politics or not. :

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] david is the editor of the new yorker magazine and reporter for the washington post. she is the author of king of the world about muhammad ali and lance tomb the last days of the soviet empire. for more information, visit newyorker.com.

up next, syndicated columnist and former three-time presidential candidate pat buchanan joins book tv for the three hour "in depth" interview. >> host: pat buchanan, in the 2007 book day of reckoning in the chapter entitled the gospel of george bush you write that ideologies is the golden calf. ideologies is the substitute for religious faith. as ideologies that? >> guest: i can't know that it's bad but it is a substitute for faith and political religion. it is a system when foot of which is rooted in morality and the other of which is rooted basically in this idea concept of what the world was all about and what ought to be, and i think it is the great rival to conservatism. conservatism is traditionalism and a system of belief that

comes out of wisdom and experience. there's people and the human race and basically out of the natural law philosophy what mankind human nature is like. let me give you one example of that. woodrow wilson said in 1917 we are going to war to make the world safe for democracy. it was nonsense. we went to war because our ships were being sent by the germans and that's what drove us to war bigot secondly the principle or the british empire in the world and french empire, the russian empire and the japanese empire and the austrian hungarian empire and they wanted to call that part of hungary. none of those countries were going to war for democracy and the idea that the united states could bring democracy to the world was preposterous and in that war we lost 116,000 dead and of course that war ushered in hitler and stalin and

mussolini so audiology, the idea that we can create democracy worldwide or something like that it is a belief system that's not really rooted and is the great antagonistic conservatism. >> host: so you do not have and ideologies? >> guest: the call conservatism and ecology. but he was right conservatism is the antithesis of ideology. there's socialism and ideology, libertarianism as an ideology. certainly fascism and the bolsheviks are ideologies. the true conservatism is the antithesis. we are antiutopian and many ideologies are utopian. >> host: in the day of reckoning you dedicate to russell fer capito kirk in fact. >> guest: accused the chairman of the beau. he was not only a great political strategist but he had me up their marching in the

st. patrick's day parade in the city in michigan on st. patrick's day and he said pat buchanan, what are you giving in michigan? and i said i don't know. russell kirk was a good friend of mine and you know, peter, when i was younger i tended more toward the durham buckley school coming and the older i got the more i realized i think the wisest of the generation of conservatism was russell kirk. >> host: are you a populist, and what do you think of that term? >> guest: populist -- >> host: is it an ideology? >> guest: no, it's not an ideology. it's basically that i am a believer that you are in politics is not vigorously represent your philosophies and convention and own believe, but

what a contrast matters. i used to be free trade and free trade is an ideology, and i believe dennett until finally i went and saw what was happening to the people once i came up in new hampshire. go to town after town and seeing factories shut down and people out of work, and you see the ruin that it brings and you say what is the benefit we are receiving because of this? all of these goods at the mall, so i felt i cannot to represent what was best for the people once i came and i came around to be leading the that this free trade is an ideology and it's something i believe for 30 years and i no longer believe in it anymore and that is why i wrote the book, "the great betrayal." i look at history and say where the guy go wrong in life out all of these washington's at mount rushmore were protectionists, all of the more economic nationalists, the republican

party from 18621928 that built america. economic nationalism, protectionism is in every republican platform. so i came to change my point of view about free trade. i think it's an ideology. >> host: from where did you come? >> guest: right from the beginning until [inaudible] [laughter] as we said, catholic, conservative, and buchanan, irish, german origins, we grew up in washington, d.c. northwest d.c.. chevy chase d.c. which is very different from chevy chase maryland, and so i've come out of a big family of nine kids, and i think we come out of the midcentury america middle class and all of those little class values -- middle class values. >> host: the afternoon and welcome to booktv's "in depth." our guest the next three hours is author and political

commentator and politician, pat buchanan. pat buchanan has written ten books beginning in 1973i think is his first one, the new majority it was called and we will go through all his books and the least get a flavor of each one of them. but if you would like to produce a bit in our conversation with pat buchanan, the numbers are on the screen. 202-737-0001 if you live in east and central time zones. if you live in a mountain or pacific time zones, 737-0002. you can also e-mail. we've a lot of e-mails already for mr. buchanan, and that you can send those to booktv@c-span.org or send us a week. our twitter address handle ase at too book tv. go ahead and start sending those and we will come to those. pat buchanan, who are your parents and tell about your brothers and sisters. >> guest: our parents were linda and al buchanan. he club in georgetown. the old georgetown which was an irish neighborhood.

his father left when he was about eight or 9-years-old and he was raised by his mother, mary smith, the daughter of irish immigrants, potato farming immigrants, and he went to -- he grew up here in georgetown, went to high school where his seven sons would all go to high school and about a dozen of his nephews had been through their or are there now. and my mother is from pennsylvania. in the depression she came down to d.c. at 17-years-old as a graduate and became a nurse at providence hospital, a visiting nurse, and she met my father there and they were made around 1934 and they lived -- we first lift up in northwest washington. i lived in what the hillary clinton section of the parkway but a little house down near georgetown university. and during the war, the colonel

would own the house and reoccupied because he was called to the pentagon so my father had to go out and had to mortgages and bought a house in northwest washington on chestnut street, which was farmland beyond their right at the edge of the city then there was nothing there. and i was about 12 and we moved over to the avenue next to the new st. john's high school. all seven of us went to school at northwest washington and my sisters went there as well and we all -- my father was an accountant, cpa in 1946 the fellow that ran fell over dead and my father and a couple of partners affected a coup d'etat and were running the firm. [laughter] >> host: what were the politics of your family, and were they writers? >> guest: no one in my family is a writer, and nobody in my family was in politics except my

own -- uncle in the valley and he got a little bit of trouble. [laughter] he was a loss to become boss. nobody when we got here -- the thing about d.c. is the capitol and the white house were simply not part of our lives. this was a southern town. we lived in washington, d.c., and happened to be the capitol of the united states and so none of us was involved in anybody in politics at all. but my father was tremendously interested in issues and tremendously -- he had grown up here and uncle charlie had fought in world war i and was very hostile to what happened to all of those people. he was an fdr democrat, al smith democrat in 28, fdr and 32 and 36. and we couldn't vote. there was no politics in washington. we had no vote. we have no mayor, the

congressman, no city council, no school board, and it was a colony. and frankly, it was a well from a colony of the federal government. so he was interested in world affairs and communism and the spanish civil war. and at a dinner -- as i told people i was probably the only kid in first grade at school who knew of lusitania had been carrying contraband over the coast, because he turned very antifdr, very anti-truman, and he read the old time's washington, d.c. when we had four papers. it was very mccormick paper, cissy patterson's paper. and i used to deliver in 1954, but his politics were not so much conservative as they were anti-fdr and anti-truman. and he was not a great one for

dewey but i don't call him a great indices of dewey. he preferred taft to eisenhower but eisenhower was okay, too, as long as it was and truman. >> host: listening to some of the war teams in your book, because it is a consistent theme and the most recent was written in 2008, churchill, hitler and the on necessary war how britain lost its empire and the west lost the world. we will talk about those themes. but, pat buchanan, when people found out that you were going to be on "in depth," there were some certain themes that were raised regarding you that i would love to get you to respond to. charming, combative, catholic, political theater, and wishes it were 1950 still. [laughter] people who may know you and know your work? >> guest: when i ran a radio program mcginn 93 to 95i would cohost and one of them was bob

he said buchanan, frozen in the 50's. there is no doubt that is when i was raised in the time of 1950i guess i turned 12 to that time i turned 21 and frankly when people talk about how dreary and dreadful they were, this was a wonderful town. i had good friends, and i loved the schools i went to. it was just a great time in america. and eisenhower was a sort of distant grandfatherly figure. i think those were some of the best times we ever had in this country. and then i went from their up to columbia and a graduate school 61-62 -- >> host: journalism. >> guest: journalism. and you could see the entire war demonstrators or peace demonstrators. and it wasn't as well organized as it came to be. and i went to st. louis as a journalism from 62-66, january, and of course that is when the explosion came in the 1960's and basically it was a revolt

against everything i had been raised and in worse than when i was growing up. and, yeah, i do tend to defend -- this was -- i mean, you can't go back home again. washington, d.c. was a great town. this was a great country in the 1950's. >> host: when were you first published and what attracted you to writing? >> guest: what attracted me was my father, when he would work down here, as i said -- i tell the story and i've told it -- he played catholic football and i went down there and my brother was a big star. but even before he was, i think i was out in the fifth or the fourth grade we went down and my older brother was on the team and coming across the lawn was harry truman, and he had a secret service man beside him and two behind him. he used to take walks, long walks and things. and i remember looking over there and i said there is truman. i was stunned.

and i felt my father's coming to attack him and hit him. [laughter] and i would look over at what is going to happen here, after all that he had said about truman. but what my father would do when i was a kid back in the 40's, very young, he would go down to his office on saturdays because he did accounting. i think almost before he was -- maybe it was when he had become a senior partner, 46 or so, 47. but he would take me with him donner, and then he would get to the office and he would bring me out all of these columns, syndicated columns he had clipped out. and there was a self a director but enormously powerful and witty. he wrote something like 100 topics and george was much more serious but so these were the two people he left, when we started getting on the "washington post" it would get on your nerves but he would let

me read these things and i was very impressed and i said this must be an interesting living with these people do. and so i had some trouble in school in georgetown in 1959, and i had been expelled as a matter of fact. >> host: [inaudible] >> guest: this legendary name the building is named after him, he expelled me. so i went to work for my father, the one person who would hire me, and given my situation i was an accountant for a year, and then i went back to school and i said i don't want to stay in school anymore. i don't want to go to law school. i don't want three more years of school. i didn't know what i was going to do. and so i thought and i said i've never worked on a paper or anything, school paper, and i said you know, why don't i try to get good grades and try to get into columbia journalism school, the best journalism school in the country. it's only a nine month program to your master's degree and see

if i can do this. and when i put on my application liben to look at it years later i had some wanted to be a syndicated columnist at the end of my journalistic career. and i regret to say i put down what was your favorite tv program the 20th century with walter cronkite. we went up there and i went and i couldn't type when i got there but for me, i loved it because i didn't do anything about journalism so everything was new and fresh. writing headlines and doing all these things i guess students learn in high school at the same time reporting and writing editorials and refuse. we had all these folks come in from "the new york times," best journalists in the world. it was just a tremendous experience for nine months so from there i wrote 17 newspapers and worked [inaudible]

four of them came back with job offers and the best job offer was reporter for the st. louis globe democrat so i went out there and the first couple of days i was doing little bits and then they sent me out to cover a couple of stories because they gave me an economic writing fellowship to colombia. i'd never taken a course in economics. why was an accountant and so they gave me a full scholarship to columbia on a tuition so then they said you are an economist, pat, so they made with into the business stage because somebody on six week vacation, so then there is a fellow at the editorial page so i went back and applied for the job and about six weeks after i was there as the pulitzer prize winner my roommate said he's got an office north of john, i'm impressed. the executive editor, editorial editor, publisher and me so is

there for three and a half years with experience and then i met over and met richard nixon for a speech. >> host: speaking of richard nixon your first book is written in 1973 and 1975, the new majority and conservative votes liberal victories. how did you read dee dee commit richard nixon, and then tell us who was the new majority of 1972? >> guest: i first met richard nixon, i was counting -- >> host: [inaudible] >> guest: yes at the country club and as we said we integrate three adair were all black kids and we went out there. we didn't have a job in the summer and we all used to walk around looking for jobs, so we went out there and stood and were the last two there, and late one afternoon this car pulls up and i said that's vice president nixon. he gets out and the crew looks over at us and he didn't want us

to bother the vice president because we were caddy's so he called us over and got nixon's bad but i was with this general and we walked around the course with him and i don't think nixon and the general knew it but i was pretty astute. i knew who was what and nixon was making all of these comments of stuart sign mengin. i knew exactly who all these people were. so i had met him there and so he was filling in for dirksen in 1955 and i was having trouble with my publisher. she was filling in over at the illinois speech where dirksen was ill so there's a cocktail party afterwards given by the cartoonist for the democrat who was a nixon had at meijer. i went to see them and i said i want to meet nixon said he said okay, come on over. so i went over and this was

1965. so nixon was there and he says how are you, mr. vice president, i've always been an admirer and if you're around 1968i would like to vote early. what did you do? and i said pretty much right editorials and everything under the sun and i was explaining to him we only had to editorial writers. so we were much more versatile and we had to get more on deadline and write a lot more. so he kept questioning me and i could see he was wondering. i said we've met before and i told him i carried his bag. he said you were? so just to prove i wasn't pulling him i gave him the name of the parole and deputy parole and described his golf bag. so he was persuaded by was authentic and i got and the cartoonist got to work the next day. he's a fighter of nixon to the airport which is an average five and he said all the way of their

necks in was asking about you and sure enough to get a call in a couple of weeks and it's from that they are sending a ticket for new york so i took today off and went to new york and i got up there and nixon from three to six kept me in the outer office for three hours and from three to six he called me in and we were going over everything left, right command center. he was asking me about issues, what i thought about goldwater and what's the conservative movement, where are they going, and senator john williams called and so he picked it up and i said i will leave now. he said you tell him how to handle the tax bill. [inaudible] when the meeting was over he walked out and said i want you to come to work for me for a year. i want you to handle my mail and correspondence.

i want you to ride with me, write a syndicated column i just signed to do and when you travel with me because i am going to campaign in 66 and is only one year commitment. and so i said okay. i said i'm on. give my publisher a call because he doesn't hear. so i got back to st. louis and the publisher said did you see nixon richard jester a? and that was it. i was gone from st. louis. never went back. >> host: so who is the new majority 1973? >> guest: i wrote that it came to me. it added done a book each year and they had done it james the year before and had a stipend and said would you write a book about the nixon administration right after we won five elections. and so i said sure and i took my two week vacation. i wrote that book in two weeks and working day and night tn

the bank in philadelphia, i don't know if it exists anymore but we went up there and they have an annual launched and sat me down next to frank rizzo, and i will not relate everything that they told me we should have been doing. [laughter] but the day that book was announced there were over 30,000 printed out and i think they gave them out and sent them to depositors and everything was the day that mccord went in and told the judge there are higher-ups' involved in watergate. the new majority was the majority we had worked with nixon from 66 to 72, putting together the political majority. this is one of the great achievements of nixon he never got credit for is how we cut to pieces the new deal majority of fdr by moving the northern catholics ethics, folks like my father and his father democrat

but socially conservative and patriotic and they just were not leftist, socially conservative and southerns and my father's family was from mississippi and he talked about him and the confederate veterans and he was pro sovereign. at the same time catholic mixture and this is what we worked with mix and to do is bring the socially conservative patriotic democratic catholics union folks like that and my mother smokes all of whom were democrats from the north into the republican coalition and in the south the protestant conservatives and bring them away from that democratic party and drive wedges through the coalition. we knew we would lose the left wing of the republican party but it was a fair trade and so nixon went from 43% in 68 to 60 or 61% and 72. we had taken the new deal to

huge pieces of wood and attached to the republican base and we had the new majority and we 15 out of the next six elections after 64 presidential elections to of them 49 straight landslides' using the same formula and as a triumph. the only when they lost was carter after watergate. was the 1975 your second book came out after watergate conservative votes liberal victory. >> guest: i wrote that after i left the white house. the stage is about the months after nixon left and i went out and "the new york times" came to me and asked me to write a column for the syndicate not for the times itself. they wanted this in the kit but clifton daniel's was one of the ones.

he was married to margaret truman. he was very nice to me and they came to see me. scott d. preston wrote me a letter they all wanted me because it is to fight for the watergate as a matter of fact the times wrote me in about 73 and said we are looking for conservative columnists, and so i wrote back a letter here is ten people who could be conservative columnists three mengin kevin phillips and a number of different people and so they came and said what about you and i said fine so i went to work for them and he's the one that sort of put the deal together for me. but i published that book with them which i think is "the new york times" publisher and with the book was about was how basically we put together the conservative coalition my old boss richard nixon did not want

the conservative government as many conservatives were howling and it was to make the case why this was happening. the conservative votes were the victories, the subtitle was something about the right and this of title -- >> host: why the right has failed. >> guest: that would be of another book i wrote. that suggests we were feeling for 30 years. so that's what it was about. we got these votes together and the supreme -- was a protest to put together supreme court and i worked with nixon on that and the whole idea that breaking the power of the war import yet we appointed three of the appointees voted or four voted for roe v wade so we had failed and and we continue with the great society. nixon was the one. lbj never laid on the foundation. hooted the skyscraper. to million people on food stamps when we went in. i think 16 million when we left.

the domestic social programs nixon maintained all of them and added to a lot of them. i think because his central concern was foreign policy. he really believed he was a wilsonian. he actually believed he could produce a generation of peace. >> host: how is richard nixon -- this will be the last question before we go to calls so i appreciate everybody hanging on -- house and is richard nixon different from george h. w. bush and george w. bush, who both of whom you have problems with? >> guest: well, richard nixon was my mentor. [laughter] richard nixon from 66 to 67 treated me like a son. he was a wonderful man and if you knew him well and he trusted you he was a wonderful conversationalist. my belief then was we had lost with goldwater. we had gone with barry goldwater had wiped out 38% and i realize the country wasn't ready for

cold water conservatism and of the two candidates running nixon and romney nixon was far superior in terms of talent and ability and a figure of history when i met him he had been involved in his case when i was 9-years-old or so and second, there was a -- he did want -- she did want to name six conservative supreme court justices. he was badly misled on the people that he named. he did want -- leave the mom with donner. so on a lot of issues i think that he agreed but basically i don't think that he was a goldwater conservative at all. >> host: do you have a problem with the bush's? >> guest: i think they have a problem with me. george bush was a friend of mine. let me tell you a quick story about george h. w. bush. i left the white house in 1974. i had bought a house at

northwest washington, and i was gone. my wife was still there but she left and i was on packing at my house and the first visitor to the door was george h. w. bush and his wife, barbara bush and they're ought and he had a bottle of champagne and said welcome to the neighborhood. chairman of the republican national committee. i like george bush. i worked in the white house. in ronald reagan's white house he was right down the hall. i would have considered him a friend and that. i supported him in 1988, and i was glad he won the nomination and frankly i wrote editorials and columns. i was one of the most supportive of him in that election and i got many notes from him. but they got down to 1989 and '90, and my feeling was they said ronald reagan has had his time and those people are yesterday. and he began moving away. i mean, i was on tv once and i

was telling the mclaughlin group there's no way that george bush is going to raise taxes. he has given his word. [laughter] and we had one show and sure enough they convinced him to raise taxes and we were left with egg all over our face. and he opposed the gulf war because -- i understood the united states had a vital interest there and whether or not kuwait was under saddam hussein was not a vital interest to me and i thought saddam hussein either as he was was a good balance against iran. but then he went up there in october and he went to iran and said we are going to build a new world order. and then after -- we were with him in the battle for clarence thomas, and when he signed the quota bill, and this is about december, almost december, november, 1991, and i called my little sister and i said you know, this doesn't represent us and if he's going to run a we have got to say george bush may

be the republican nominee and is probably going to be the winning nominee but he's not a conservative i believed to be what we go in and challenge him in new hampshire? so we went in and challenged him and in ten weeks we went from nowhere to within 14 points of bush. and i think now under george thinks i read somewhere i put 100 nails into his father and pearl put 100 more for something like that. so i think they have a problem with me. but on a personal level, george bush was very good to me and i thought we were friends. but obviously something like this happens i sure they blame me. >> host: pat buchanan wrote a series of books in the late nineties and early 2000. state of emergency, the third world invasion and conquest of america; the the death of the westf the body and populations an immigrant invasion imperil the country and civilization; the day of reckoning how hubris ideologies and greed are tearing america apart; and finally,

where the right went wrong how yo conservatives subverted the reagan revolution and hijacked the bush presidency. those are just four out of pat buchanan's ten books. thanks for holding. sean in vancouver washington, you are on with pat buchanan. >> caller: mr. buchanan, when i was growing up in the 80's i considered myself a reagan republican because he seemed to be the most patriotic. today i would have to say i am more of a michael moore petrie. when i look across the country was happening to the environment and goals of mexico and when i look what is happening on wall street to goldman sachs, the public treasury, when i look at our disaster this foreign policy i say to myself the only thing that's ever stood up to that kind of corporate wall street power in the nation's history has been the power of government, the power to regulate labor unions. fdr's style policies. so when i hear people like you and the tea party people going back or rush limbaugh talk about

protecting what's best about america i don't understand how they don't look back to the legacy of anticorporate behavior. like nafta was a free market ideas and nafta is what is responsible for the destruction of the livelihood of mexican farmers who then had to flee -- >> host: we have a lot to work with, thank you. >> guest: i agree with you in part. i was an opponent of nafta and i think ross perot and ralph nader and the head of the cia at the time people were fighting nafta and quite frankly we the majority of the country with us against nafta and the reason was when you have such a disparity of wages what's going to happen is you will send american jobs to mexico and american factories to mexico when i came out against free trade and i was against the world trade organization and on the foreign policy i agree with you. i do believe during the cold war

we faced an ideological and imperial empire of an enemy in the soviet empire that we had to resist because there were enemies of everything we believe in. everywhere they took power the murdered people who believe as we do. but once the cold war ended 1989 to 91i argued for the withdrawal of american forces, give nato to the europeans, let the south koreans defend themselves, bring the troops home, take care of our own country. now we've done that and i think we would be far better off than we are today when china is surging in power and wealth and strength by staying out of conflicts and we are running around and all of these war in the middle east. we didn't do that. i do agree with you with regard to wall street to this extent. clearly of the federal government is quick to guarantee the deposits of a bank like jpmorgan chase it's got hundreds of billions of dollars in

assets. if it is going to guarantee those deposits we have to be given a certain way and they can't do certain things. i am in favor of getting the casinos, goldman sachs casino out of the bank's. people want to bet money on the crazy derivatives and the rest of it, fine, but let them go to vegas and we shouldn't have to finance them or bailed them out when the debt goes bad. i agree with you partway. i don't agree with you on all of what fdr did. i think the new deal did good things. i think the deposit insurance and in other cases it went too far. >> host: and in 1998, pat buchanan wrote this book, quote put a great betrayal of american sovereignty and justice for being sacrificed to the gods of the global economy." marks, s.i., hello. mark, you know the rules. you've got to turn down the volume. we will come back to you and we are going to move on to ashbel north carolina. jay, you were on with pat

buchanan on book tv. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. mr. buchanan, it is a great pleasure to speak with you. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i have to historical questions i would like to ask you. number one, after 1945, the japanese sort of developed what many have called the collective amnesia regarding what the sum of the atrocities that the troops committed especially in china. do you think that the chinese have suffered from the same collective amnesia? i personally do not. the other question i have is after the russians wanted out of afghanistan there was a lot of material written about the soviet army. the problems with such things as clothing, construction, equipment. but now you really don't hear

much about it. and my question to you is what do you think the current state of what used to be called the red army is? and i ask because ralph peters, in his book "and liz war" states that putin's russia could emerge as the number one security problem. >> guest: well, i will say that there is no doubt the japanese did, the atrocities you mentioned of nanking and manila, the experiments on the soldiers, these are appalling atrocities and the chinese do remember them very well. the chinese also remember the humiliations' they suffered under the -- under the of the western imperialists powers, especially the opium war where the british in post opium, the right to sell opm to the chinese

people and they fought war to maintain that right, and the chinese were humiliated very much which is when you got the box rebellion of 1900 where the americans and marines and others went up there 55 days to beijing and charlton heston said the situation i guess. but let me talk about the red army. i disagree to this extent about russia. putin is a nationalist. the america's enemy was the soviet empire with a communist and player it was their ideology and appeal and in the shins. i think with the collapse of the soviet empire and the collapse of the soviet union russia is not an enemy of the united states. there is no doubt that russia wants to be dominant in what it calls its near abroad. but not only in the long term but the near-term, russia has a hellish problem. when russia broke up from the soviet union or became independent and the other 14

countries broke free russia had 150 million people. this is about the book i'm writing right now. it's down to 143 or 142 and they lost 8 million people in two decades. they're going to go down around 114 million. russia, germany and ukraine were together to lose 60 million people between 2010 and 2015. the west is trying to include russia in the west as i do so is russia a long-term threat to the united states of america? no. i think we made a terrible mistake moving nato right into their front yard on to their front porch. they reacted to that and they believe we took advantage of them. after we win the cold war i share some of those beliefs about that. i think that we made a series of stupid in the real blunders in what we did. putin is somebody we should work with. let me give you one example.

i was impressed when put in went and said in effect we the stalinist soviet union are responsible for murdering all of these polish patriots and heroes and the way he handled that funeral i think the russians and the proposed law there are good signs. tough-minded nationalists would like to kick the americans out of central asia, yes, he is. but, i mean, that is simply nationalism on his part and i think we can deal with folks like that. and i don't think making him an enemy is a wise thing to do and i think in a way, president obama what he has been trying to do, maybe he hasn't done it well or definitely, i agree with a lot of what he has tried to do. >> host: from churchill and hitler ahe unnecessary war written in 2008, you write had britain never given the war guarantee to poland the soviet union will almost surely have borne the brunt of the blow that

along france. the red army ravaged by stalin's purge of senior officers might have collapsed. bolshevism might have been crushed. communism might have perished in 1940 instead of living on for 50 years. >> guest: i think the greatest mistake in the british diplomacy and in the history of the provision higher and the british nation was the war guarantee it gave to poland. it was not munich. look, the great britain couldn't go to war to keep this land which is 90% german. keep the sun had the germans who have been put under the czech for rule under verso i against their will and the principal of self-determination and against the terms under which the germans had signed. the germans under there and you knew that they were, the germans in wanted to go to berlin. the austrians and the others,

and what happened was you couldn't go to the war for them. the mistake was not not going to boreman. the was the right decision. but what was coming home and saying hitler, i really understand the sky. he trusts me, we work together, we cut this deal that is peace for the time instead of coming home and saying there is no way that we can fight for this but we better prepare ourselves because this guy is a lawyer and you can't trust him so instead of that, chamberlain got himself all worked up that it was america working with hesla. but what happened in 1938 or 39 of march, czechoslovakia came apart as we predicted would come apart. at the end of world war i they put 3 million -- 3.25 million germans under the czechs and 2 million slovaks and ukrainians and 800,000 hungarian and 150,000 poles, and that was half the country. the other half is czechs.

you think this thing is going to stick together? anybody that knows about ethanol national is going to come apart. at munich, hitler told chamberlain when we get the land i can tell you the polls are going to want their share and the hungarians are going to want their share. the hungarian stick a slice in november of 1938. the polls grab a slice. succumbs from slovaks' saying we want to be independent. so the slovaks say the czechs come into the army and crush the opponent. so he runs to hitler in says help us, save us and hitler's is okay. if you break free, the independence will make you a protector and you'll get your dependents. and so the czechs come and say the slovaks are gone and he goes to the land and tells hitler give us the same deal you gave the slovaks and hitler says no. we will make it a protected you lose your independence. he had an us against the czechs. this whole thing comes apart and it's a mess that has never been

put together the pieces idea that means it will conquer the world is preposterous. so what do the brits do? chamberlain sees it breaking up and he makes a speech and says our guarantee the czechs are finished because the country has fallen apart. so that is the foreign minister i think his name in the second, foreign minister comes to him and he says this isn't good enough and he pushes chamberlain pushes him and pushes him and he gets back from litanians who had started from the germans in 1923 and then so he is talking to the polls and he says we want it back. you can hold on but we want it. hitler once to bring the germans back in. and so instead of handling this as realizing they can't affect policy in the era of eastern europe, chamberlain and solicited gets the polish dictator, colonel peck, he gives

him an unsolicited war guarantee. in other words, if it comes to a conflict between you and the germans, great britain and the british empire will go to war against germany. they'd never fought in that part of europe before. they put the entire british empire -- they gave polish colonel's power to bring the british empire in two war against hitler's germany. hitler didn't want war with britain. the four boys and admire of the british. he didn't want anything in that judgment west of the river. if any ambitions he had were in the east, and frankly even the soviet union. if you hadn't given the war guarantee to poland and let's say poland got the deal and gave the power back to germany, how could it will have invaded russia? they have a border with the soviet union. poland and hungary and an ally in slovakia to have an ally in poland and an ally with italy and spain and portugal. in other words, surrounded by friendly countries. so i don't -- i think there

might not have been a world war ii. >> host: you do right in charge of it for and the unnecessary war one short sentence could world war ii was a just war. >> guest: there's no doubt it was just. was it necessary? no, i don't believe it was necessary. that's it for -- excuse me, and of hitler. the phrase quote coach unnecessary war" is churchill's. he came in december of 1941 after pearl harbor. -- of yours is what should we call it and he says with a trickle of the unnecessary war because there never was a war that was more easily prevented than the one that we are in right now. and my view is that the fatal mistake was with the british given the war guarantee to poland. people say what should they have done, pat, after czechoslovakia? what should have done is very simple. they should have formed an alliance with france, sent troops to france and all in front of belgium and france and defended the ports and the provision potter, defended

finance and told hitler if you cross that line you are at war with britain and france and then still being neutral they could have brought all the planes and anything they wanted from the egg united states and hitler would never have come west in my judgment. he didn't want to come west. when he did come west he conquered france. he didn't ask for the french colonies or for the french fleet. he didn't ask for the bases and syria. he didn't want a war with britain and france. he never wanted to front war. i'm not even sure he wanted were met with the soviet union because he had a pretty much gotten all of his neighbors were friends and allies. is that the controversy look? you bet. [laughter] >> host: mark in california, you are on with pat buchanan. >> caller: mr. buchanan, i had the honor of having voted for you three times. >> guest: thank you, sir. >> caller: i grew up in the area were the only church i remember is the one that the general patton used to preach at. >> guest: is that right?

>> caller: yeah. and i just wanted to run some the poster, a pitch as it were and give this concept here in california we have an initiative process given to us by hiram johnson about 100 years ago and i would like to see a more direct form of democracy because i hate to use the phrase stabbed in the back, but when we put politicians and and then they want to maintain their status, so what we need as we only have every four years and that is the americans voted every four years for a president or vice president ticket. what i want to see is a national referendum and we can take back our country. >> guest: let me say the national referendum idea i believe theodore roosevelt had the same idea. a constitutional amendment but i agree with you to this extent. i am a believer that america is a republic and not a democracy. and mass democracy, and i am as

skeptical as that of jefferson and madison and the others were. but i do believe on some issues, let's take relatively simple issues. should we or should we not have the death penalty? that is something people can decide one way or the other. the right-to-life issue. these are issues people can understand and know about and i think the national referendum frankly would be an excellent idea. but i don't know that you were going to get that. i would have to get it through two-thirds of the houses of congress and then through the three-fourths of the states and the period of seven or ten years and i think that he would get real resistance in the congress. but again, theodore roosevelt was in favor of that as i recall and i think i mentioned in one of these books, the national referendum. >> host: republic not an empire by pat buchanan was written 1999. next call, senate to begin mississippi. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you, mr. buchanan for taking my call.

>> guest: sure, thank you. >> caller: hit a good question here. is there a conservative out there on the national level that we can get behind it is a true conservative for the next president? >> guest: well, you know, as the bible said in my father's house there are many mansions. there are many different kind of conservatives today each claiming the title, and a lot of the folks who are conservatives don't agree with me. many of them are absolutely treaters. many of them believe in intervention. they favor the war in iraq and war in afghanistan and iraq. so they don't agree on that. on the social conservatives we know some are right to life and some are not. so, is there a conservative out there? irc -- ronald reagan was perfect for his day and time. i don't see a ronald reagan out there right now quite frankly. he was the political leader with whom i agree most often on almost everything and i had the honor of working with him for two years. i don't see a leader out there who i agree with on all of those

issues right now that i think are vitally important to us and so the answer is no there's a lot of good men out there with withdraw and good women out there that might agree on some things but not everything. >> host: ok. mitt romney is described for the front runner for 2012. >> guest: i think that is right. he is a good man, good family man. i know there's a lot of conservatives who are severely critical of him that he governed as a moderate republican or liberal republican of massachusetts. he seemed to be liberal on the social right to life and gay marriage and things or gay rights and that his more conservative now and they don't know if he is authentic. i agree that he's the frontrunner and i will also agree he may be the strongest candidate the republicans could nominate in the election against barack obama because i think mitt romney could put into play a number of states like michigan certainly michigan and some northern states that republicans have not done well or have been

going democratic for five straight elections. at the same time i think that the country of the south and the west until you get to the pacific coast they might vote for him because he is preferable to them from obama. >> host: you write those who believe the gay rights movement is 21st century civil rights movement as a basic difference. the civil rights cause could successfully invoked the bible, natural law, and thomas jefferson on behalf of equal justice under the law. the rights cannot. in a letter from a birmingham jail martin luther king wrote a just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law we were the law of god. and on just law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. by dr. king's conditions, gave rights laws or on just laws, out of harmony with the moral law. >> guest: that was exactly right, and i am a natural law we

conservative and aristotelian if you will. i believe in thomas sec'y in view of natural law and martin luther king passage of the road that himself and there is some question of whether he wrote the letter from the birmingham jail. that is perfectly consistent with what i believe which is with regard to the african americans for example no doubt in your children of god and have sold under the constitution they had equal constitutional rights with all the fuss. and as christians, you have to treat people with decency and dignity. this was -- i was at the march on washington. i was at the lincoln memorial. i was right up there when dr. king was there and peter pearl mary and who was it, the fellow from i think the civil rights leader the entire time, and lena horne came running through. gettelfinger was -- >> host: were you there as a reporter? >> guest: i came back from st. louis as a writer on a press

card and i told my brother this could be important. come with me down there and let's go on. and we went to the crounse in the morning where the the 90,000 people out there making rockwell's with the nazis and holding and they want marched over there around noon and it started in the afternoon and i was up in the lincoln memorial. james bald and was there. the guy that i was talking to was greg shovels worth. as i told somebody he and i were talking about civil rights and things until we now horn came by and said take it easy, pat. [laughter] but i was there. and the story here that is exactly right. and take the day by rich in california. the people who came out and voted 70% against or to outlaw gay marriage work who? african-american folks who came out of the churches. and i believe homosexuality has to do with conduct and behavior with what you do. nobody has any control -- i don't know if people have

control over their tendencies or desire or things like that but they have control over behavior and conduct. african-american people are as god made them and got me all ne good and there are evil people in every group but and so i think the air are children of gold under the constitution's the have a right to be treated with respect and dignity and equality. now, is homosexuality -- homosexual marriage, does that include a traditional marriage? here is what comes from me that homosexual marriage to me is abnormal, and is on natural, it is morally wrong, it is inconsistent with our moral beliefs. not only religious beliefs, but the actual law. so that is why it is never found the kind of favor that the civil rights movement did. as i mentioned, 70% of african-americans coming out of the churches in california voted to outlaw gay marriage. 53% of hispanics did. they are also traditionally

conservative. one vote in california went in favor. it's a very liberal vote out there. it went in favor of -- or to abolish the banning of homosexual marriage. so, and even the black community sees this difference, this distinction. you know, d.c. committee authorized a marriage and the folks in d.c., the black preachers said put it on the ballot. no, there is a human right, it's not going on the ballot. actually didn't put it on the ballot because they didn't want it even in washington, d.c.. so that is exactly right. martin luther king's statement is a clear statement of natural law philosophy. ..

americans from the second world war in the u.s. the expulsion crimes against the germans in eastern europe. and i had a specific question, you raised -- mr. putin for his declaration at katyn. but putin though in itting the russians committed the crime does not -- admitting the russians committed the crime does not apologize with the german soldiers executed for having committed the crime nor does he ever apologize for the rapes and murders that took place during the i think it is talked about the 3 million rapes across germany. >> the red army. you are exactly right. putin, is a russian nationalist. and the crimes and atrocities of the red army as it raped its way

across eastern and central europe, hunt gary and germany were appalling. the german... the peak written by alfred desais, later >> all of these areas just moved and driven out to in massive day trail of tears that many did not survive. the greatest exodus in history and gets virtually zero notice but a friend of mine wrote to a couple of books on that. and he has written some wonderful books on that nemesis.

and you are exactly right. quite frankly he can only go so far. as an american president felt hiroshima and nagasaki and hamburg and dresden were in a moral. i doubt very seriously if they would say that. and houston's problem is that one of the great myths and truths the russian people have is the great patriotic war that we were victims of her and just atrocities they fought back and basically won the war of the concept and defeated fascism and that is one of the great myths of legends and truths that vladimir putin will not take that on. but i will say he did have that movie shown.

it had subtitles but it was an excellent film. if he is going to part ways. [laughter] let's encourage good behavior. >> host: we have bass flute hope and e-mails based on your book churchill hiller and the unnecessary war and what you have written about america's role in the middle east and israel's role 21 sure. i don't know if they read my book churchill, hitler and the unnessaunnecessa ry war. what i say is the war itself was a necessary and describes what happened in the holocaust when is it called? there is a chapter in there that talks about the losses it is the third to last after i use the phrase of

will to herbert -- timberland and it goes into detail what happened to the jewish people eastern and central europe where the but not these are responsible my point* is the holocaust is primed against humanity it is also a war crime. no war, and no holocaust. that is my logic. it would not have happened i am certain it would not have happened had there been no war but hitler did not begin with the holocaust until he invaded russia that is our the camps were set up in poland. but none of this happened before september 1, 1939. before the war began even

when heller invaded france. it was in june when it learned bated the u.s.s.r.. and the americans came into the war that is when the trains began to roll of january and february then he goes to war with the world in retake others with us with israel. my first visit with president nixon right after the six-day war i. mehta rabin who was a general and i came back a very militant zionist and i was in the nixon white house the israeli ambassador's used to visit me regularly because i was very supportive of the yom kippur war but there is a point* where i thought the

best solution would be in israel west bank because the economy was very modern to bring the palestinians in there and they will rise up and a much freer and better economic right to have separate as jordan and i came to conclude the only solution is a palestinian state. they have to be independent and go their own way my book right now is about how how people come into existence end goal the my ears said palestinian people do not exist i think she may have been right because it was way back when i don't think it was a rare self awareness we are a separate people the arabs got a rotten deal but now they are a people and

now they have to have a nation status of their own the you'll never have piece. when i came out for that i was considered anti-semitic but now the israelis are for it and i still believe that. i think what the israelis did with gaza was excessive. 1400 dead. they have a right to clean out the rockets over the gaza strip but what they did was excessive and i do believe i am an american this is my a country by a lookout for what is best for united states of america and critical support for total support for israel and everything she does is a terrible mistake because there are 300 million arabs and they are not always wrong. of united states should have

the independent policy that declares you will not destroy israel there we have a long commitment that says our interest dictates and where we disagree we follow our interest. we are no longer the detail will no longer write-off the dog. >> host: we have an e-mail and tweaks related how would things now if that france did not declare war to project? or who would be the dominant power if we stayed out of world war ii? >> guest: but we did not get into world war ii and who they declared war on [laughter] all the time they're fighting england and france. the idiot the americans went to fight for democracy you

might so that in the sec can degrade but not much after that. britain and france had not declared war or had given a guarantee they built the forces because buildup the hurricanes and spitfire and put the british troops into northern france and the french army stayed behind. nothing he wanted was in the west. he did not want the empire in africa that even the french fleet he wanted an alliance with great britain his whole life was i dream that we made a terrible mistake in world war i that kaiser should not have built up for challenged the british empire you have friends in the americans and that is why we lost the war. what he wanted isn't he was

going to plan to attack france why did he build the west wall? the kaiser did not build this siegfried line the strategy was the day the balloon goes up we're going through france he built a defense the ball before he went into poland and he was in panic building his wall poco. he wanted to be the dominant political power in europe central europe and to be surrounded by quite frankly if he had cut a deal the polish colonel's were precious. he had no call with their form of government he thought colonel back was a mecca billion figure just the kind he would deal with a and i think if the polls which is a heroic country but that was a suicidal course of conduct choosing

between hitler and stalin and the poles had defeated lenin and trotsky and you have to choose and the best bet would take hitler's deal and let him have his little baht's the city back and other was prepared to give a slice of other return to say make that deal or go to war. why would they declare war on hitler and why would hitler go west? what exactly did he want in france? he had written off arraigned. you got it. he never grab those. these were territories taken from germany. >> host: august 2008 when pat buchanan published this book "churchill, hitler, and the unnecessary war" booktv went out to mr. buchanan's house and interviewed him for about one hour regarding this book.

two watch that go to booktv.org and in the search column type been pat buchanan and it is available to watchdog mine. jackson wyoming you have been very patient. >> caller: [inaudible] this is the third time i have spoken to you on booktv you are an amazing human being. the religious views are like the taliban with the anti-gay philosophies but what i want to ask you is we were first hit on 9/11. [laughter] >> guest: the go-ahead. >> caller: the only plan allowed to fly out of america was the bin laden family. why weren't they held for questioning about the

friends, the statehouses, we went to afghanistan to go after the taliban. >> host: we have a lot to work with 51 you have a very good point* that apparently eighth planeload of the bin laden family was allowed to leave the country immediately basically go out with all other planes we're being rounded. why that was done exactly is not something i was not informed but i was aware that and it is similar maybe they knew where osama bin laden was and i think it is a fair point*. with afghanistan i did i get everything that you said but i do think we did have to go win once they would not give him up, i think to that with

al qaeda in afghanistan is exactly right. hitler is an evil man 100 million people died in the war and some of the greatest scorers happen in day and up under stalin 40 or 50 years. i don't know how you call that a good war if it is dedicated to four of my mother's brothers who fought in the war they were our heroes your uncle wins the silver star. i thought it was a wonderful would venture in the more you read about it you read the war and suffering of so

many people these brits are not bad people why in heaven's name panic? let me say this. read the chapter on the war guarantee. i could not find a historian or contemporary figure except churchill himself initially thought the war guarantee was a good idea. within the week churchill said wait a minute this does not mean we have to go to war for dan sipc does it? take a look from his memoirs churchill's said could have since. we can have the word guarantee would give us into war from poland to everybody wanted to get away responsibility for the guarantee the foreign minister at the time basically go did chamber

lend into giving him the guide. >> host: from where the right to went wrong while we can then tear it will be used again and again. it crashed the south setting a back one century but there were precarious. hiroshima and nagasaki to miss the emperor and unconditional surrender was preferable to the alternative. the i.r.a. all used terror and all prevail and innocent blood shed in the revolution was quickly washed away in the exhilaration of victory. >> one point* terror works. hiroshima and nagasaki was attics of state terror on the added state's 120 million old men, women, children in order to break the will in

the middle of or time. much of what stalin did was state terror. terrorism is the weapon of the week. it as a weapon used by indigenous peoples to overthrow empires. it has been used historical a before. the assassinated lowered warren and algerians, they blew up sphingosine paris and what was the purpose of the vietnam were driving how to the french the fln use terror against the french.

mandela was not at the lunch counter by blowing up passenger trains. get the brits out and get out of the country. terrorism is the place they are over here on 9/11 if we had not been over there in my judgment they would not be over here. i heard mayor bloomberg this morning. they are attacking us for our freedom. they're not sitting in the caves of afghanistan but holy smoke. do you realize the is american? they want us out of their country coming out of the region because they want to oppose their rules on their countries and the united states are that the chief but the empire is not worth

the price and it is terrorism. that a single act of terrorism i know of 1980 through 2001 was a single iraqi involvement. why are they killing all of our people? because we are there. this is the weapon they have and as long as empires sit on top of people they will be terrorize. >> host: next call from cleveland ohio. >> caller: now was wondering if patten has read the civil disobedience then have taken time to digest it. what do you think of it? if not maybe i can recommend it. >> guest: i am i familiar of civil disobedience. >> caller: the declaration of independence gives us the right to overthrow the government once it becomes

beyond the pale. [laughter] >> guest:. >> this comes back to unfathomable the big corrupted by many and bigger all the time when to begin to the point* we can say we need a squeaky new government? >> i am glad you have read the row civil disobedience and i do believe that there are times when civil disobedience is morally justified against the unjust law and the unjust regime although there is the obligation in the bible that you have to obey governors who are tyrants. when you disobeyed the law under the rubric of disobedience you have to accept it contains punishment.

when the government become so tyrannical to overthrow it? i have two of my great grandfathers tried to leave the government of the united states and one of them ended up dead and the other in the yankee prison and captured by sherman. did they have the right? half of the people thought the states did the other half said they didn't now there is no longer the right to secede because the issue has been decided by the sword. but do i believe we should gage and violence? no. and not to overthrow the government but the states cannot secede because the divisions are very great and not too regional but communities i do believe what is taking place is backed this individual may be an example is a secession

of the heart this is well-liked about the use the example when i grew up in the fifties it is completely segregated city. we were zero overwhelmingly christian prada cent catholic and jewish and we read the same newspapers listen to radio stations and we had enormous amount in common and understood each other completely we may have understood politics but we were a people and my sense now is we're looking to be one people if you have a multi ratio multi-ethnic curling will society many enclaves then you don't have a country anymore.

it is not the south levying it is how william bishop wrote his book he said in 197625% of all counties in the united states boating by 20% or more, a landslide counties voted karcher or four. with bush, a 50 percent voted for the president pro so in other words, what you have this people living together once said is watching fox the other side msnbc. i think your caa social at end racial change of america into tiny enclaves we're not

like a country but a ticket to campfire. that is one of the things i write about in my book. i will tell you who anticipated this. pat munn at -- pat moynihan and arthur schlesinger's book. they said afternoon nationalism this is what tears countries apart in 1754 americas s were not a people. you have the quakers in pennsylvania and the differing groups but after the miss troop -- mystery man to, the boston massacre, the boston tea party, all of a sudden these people being created the americans are being created. something like that is

taking place in this country with the two-party movement. >> host: are you a teapartiers? >> guest: i am a fellow traveler. [laughter] that teapartiers group is very close to the folks out there in 2007 fighting against the immigration act. they come up and do battle then they go home. >> host: email. thank you for your service and political insight what is your definition of a statesman and who'd you consider a statesman during the time you were in government and who do considered a statesman now? >> guest: and agree or disagree richard nixon. >> host: what is your definition of a statesman? >> guest: a political leader who comes to power and achieve some great power on the national or global stage. relief has a great

effect, you might disagree with it, but he is a larger figure than a political figure and represents a nation as he did the chinese and ronald reagan was a statesman. said certainly fdr although oil happened at the end of world war ii was a complete disaster. i guess i would say that would be a statesman and eisenhower and dulles and he was a good secretary of state. >> host: the next call from boulder colorado. >> caller: mr. buchanan i would like to play out your scenario of the containment of hitler. in fact,, the complete opposite would have happened. hitler most definitely would

have kept the nuclear physicist and would have developed the atomic bomb much before the west in the fact he was. [inaudible] in nature was not power mad but i think is a little far-fetched. >> guest: first. einstein called nationalism infantile einstein left in 1933. he left germany. hitler was not a be nine figure. you of the find that anywhere in my routines. what i am saying is with the basic ambitions what he wanted to do certain 81 historian who i find it barely influential and influenced, if you take a

look at hitler through the breakup of czechoslovakia's, it is very much consistent with the german state policy program if you look at the end of world war i were the kaiser armies were before the surrender in 1918 there we're seeking in the east where the pressure and army had gone again i don't consider hitler a benign figure but a benevolent character and he turned to genocidal but i think the political or strategic ambitions as of 1938/39 the americans and the western hemisphere, japan and the four east have the great powers. >> host: we have been email for pat buchanan from

lin data. >> as a former teacher who home schooled our son and i am continually appalled at the scant knowledge of history in our country today. i experienced it teaching world history at a private catholic high school 10 years ago our son took his first hands-on teaching experience and the public high-school history economic and social studies department this brings the students had no textbooks and 40 percent had no internet access at home world's civilizations have been eliminated from the curriculum. mr. buchanan please speak to the state of education. >> guest: it is utterly appalling. i agree with this woman 100% they give attest 2550 individuals from 10 ivy league schools for pro there were coming with douglas macarthur in the revolutionary war and they

did know grant and put civil war in the right decade. she is much younger than i am but i can remember reading the history books we had been parochial school or high school and of course, cahal -- my father was a great influence but people know nothing. young people i feel sorry for them because history is free fall and a delightful thing to learn and study all your life to hear the stories and anecdotes but one thing we do have we have some wonderful historians of this country and not a fan of truman but i wanted to read how they managed to get on there was a very tough

shape and talking about harry truman i was very impressed in northern france they have the artillery brigade and real problems. but we got some wonderful one's. james k. polk, and a friend of mine talk about pull called the time and he has written a terrific biography of that point* 1848 and the mexican war and i disagree with some of my friends i think it was a just war i'll think the philippine insurrection was. with some of the biographers to a wonderful job. and when you came to my house to sell 150 bucks and many of those are just outstanding and where the you agree or disagree, we have a tremendous point* of view but as long as you can trust the facts and the

anecdotes and place your own construction why you think the people did what they did. >> host: 1990 "right from the beginning" was published >> guest: was sent it 1988? >> host: i thought it was 1990. maybe i have the second edition that is the only day to that i see. >> guest: i tell you why i think it is 88 it is the year my father died. one of the things that motivated that book was my brother i was in the white house and 85. my mother called me and said billy has cancer and he is dying. he was jogging and he died within one week and it was such a jolt that when i left

reagan's white house i decided to try to capture of the times, the '50s. [laughter] the 40's and '50's of washington d.c. i've loved growing appear i wanted to capture what it was like in the parochial schools and the catholic ghettos in northwest washington and what dc was like as a city of 300,000 half white and african-american in the high schools, a georgetown, columbia journalism school my first three years and it stops when i went to work for nixon. >> host: you dedicated to your brother bill who died in 1985 and i am told you are correct 1988. [laughter] >> guest: in the "right from the beginning" you propose some amendments to the constitution.

number one unborn children should be considered a person with due process. number to capital punishment for heinous crimes and habitual offenders. number three english as the official language. number four federal judges including supreme court justices subject to reconfirmation every eight years. number five supreme court decisions two-thirds vote of congress approval by the president number six repeal of the 22nd amendment restricting presidents 22 full terms. balanced budgets number eight the free expression of faith number nine no discrimination on the basis of race either in favor of or against any citizen no use of racial criteria of involuntary assignment of children to public schools and number 10 the american people me three referendum make or invalidate was for

the u.s. [laughter] >> guest: i told you was for the referendum. really when i would disagree with now is i think maybe that to term limits that would be the only one i would disagree with they all ring pretty good to me. >> host: we have an hour and a half left with pat buchanan and we visited his house august 2008 and mr. buchanan showed us his library and also talked about his rating process but we will show you this for he talks of his writing process then we will be back to take your calls. >> this is a monster. am looks brand new to me. >> that is a monster.

>> you know, they make the flat screen? >> is a monster. these are very old computers. this basically does not work any more. levy show you reading a book that may take one of these books year and we will take that big one, you're reading something and what you do, you put this little tag right here so then you come down here in the morning and you take the quotation if you write two or three paragraphs around it then you put it into the text machine and you take this

over here and xerox this page and with it the cover page so they know where it is from. okay? the stable the two together. once you have the staple you put it in here. august 1914. ears the book translated by william kirby and used a police together and what you use then i put them in the files and i said those, my buddy comes down from maryland or i will send them by mail. and then he double checks to make sure i have all punctuation the quotes are exact, then he will send me

back also i will send him this xerox copies and he makes the corrections. then we send it back again and we do that and do that he has been coming down a couple of years for saturday's wants a month and he will say i read a biography and he agrees. it is wonderful we sit here for a couple of hours talking about all of this. frankly i hated to give the book up it was so much fun to work on. at some point* you have to say we are done. it is over. turn the paper in. but then you find another quote. i did not know he walked out of her side. he was part of the delegation for cry never would have got that in. that strengthens the argument. >> host: you do your own

phrasing and filing? >> i do all the typing i filed them but then they sent the file to him by clip them together i get a pile of them and i indicate which chapter file they go been i sent out the new printed copy so you have chapter titles this must me 200 footnotes some of these don't have one source but two, three, six. they're all doing the same thing trading of put don'ts program much better than they are. this was misquoted and it is an exact. if you have been working on this so long a lot of things pop up. >> host: you type or write in the morning? >> guest: mostly i write

at night i read these books and put the tabs on and make up at three and ticket downstairs spending four or five paragraphs and you put it into the copy and to move it around and say perfect. ♪ ♪

>> we are back o >> host: we're back with in depth with pat buchanan the author of 10 books since 1973 the most recent published 2008 and currently working on his 11th book. if you want to continue with our conversation. our twitter address this booktv or send an e-mail.

we have a big stack but i am not sure we can get into any more. pat buchanan come yesterday was the white house correspondents' dinner what is the relationship of the politicians and the press getting together? >> guest: i went back to my first, i stood outside the 1862. we had field observation week and i went with my buddy and we who now outside. coming down a great big fellow he was talking and here was a great journalist.

almost all of them with richard nixon then with rumble of rigging communications sector i have been to some since then although i am with msnbc i have figured out i have done my duty now it is a celebrity event. i don't have a problem that people get too chummy with the president of the united states. that is not a conservative audience. they mentioned repast health care. [laughter] it could have been the democratic caucus and in nixon's case 85 90% of the journalists voted for mcgovern bedded 97 percent african-americans voted for obama and 80% of the white so this is his town no doubt about it in journalism is his community and to have a problem with them going there the president of the

inaction -- united states is a natural comedian with a wry sense of humor he enjoys meeting people and his speaking last year, i thought it was terrific terrific, last year when he did his first one they asked me i said i am not interested going to the dinner but i will do the commentary. i was up there in that little studio laughing my head off burkett was one of the funniest performances i have never seen. his jokes about from emmanuel and john boehner and it was terrific and i think he is a natural and it helps him very much. it is a good thing. i don't think jay have as good of the night as he had other times. >> host: what did president nixon and think of those tenders? how much time did you put into crafting his response?

>> guest: he did not have a natural sense of humor. they were very tough for him. he went head-to-head mixing got up he had some jokes. they were okay but it was not natural. i remember in 1960 he said i have a message from my father but don't buy one more vote than necessary. [laughter] kidding about nixon and rockefeller. but humphrey was a sensation. then he went on and on and on. he won the evening then he blew it.

home free. agnew was gone people not realize agnew was an extremely good speaker, very well a complex speech and reagan was excellent. he enjoyed them. >> of soleil. >> he was relaxed about everything. debriefing floor press conferences i did the briefing books he would sit in his office for two days to call kissinger and get some material that i would read right to call. then he would study who like daniel in the lions' den almost growing. if reagan goes to the theater rica scam questions and he would say have you

heard this joked? it was like it was not a serious thing. then we would take him over to the room where he started down the main route into the east room he comes down the stairs and comes across and about 90 seconds he would do before religiously to start tell me a joke then say there are 80 million people out that front door and he would tell the joke did you hear this? i don't know if he did it to relax and sell three he was amazing in the sense that woulde going into a prize fighting match and there was the gipper. he was extremely relaxed and a different type of person. >> host: our guest is pat buchanan he is skipping one of the traditions of the white house correspondents' dinner weekend which is the john mclaughlin brunch.

>> i am from the mclaughlin group and i told john i will not be able to make it. three hours on c-span. [laughter] >> host: your on with pat buchanan. >> caller: hello. i don't like that i don't like you because i do think you're interesting and funny but every time you say you love the way it was in the forties and fifties it is if you are discounting with a whole group of people, particularly my family. you know, all of the details about europe but good down street from washington d.c., blacks could not believe -- could live beyond you street and the number of lynchings. and where you wind you may have had one or two token blacks. it is a cute story integrated the caddies but those are probably the only

jobs they to get around anybody in power of the right to opt it would have done them in a good price of learning but how could do not know what was going on with the black people when you say we were all americans? >> host: we got the point to . >> guest: we knew it was segregated but you did not think a lot about it. that is right but i grew up with the cardinal archbishop in washington he came into segregated of the catholic parochial schools and he built a new high school specifically so the working class of white and black kids could have a school for catholic kids coming at of the parish the high school

when to was desegregated with all the others. there is a black kid pretty famous now a junior on the football team. no public school would play us. >> host: because you were integrated? >> guest: the public schools would not play desperate the 1950 war came the brown decision then 55 for the public schools what happened to, i remember i used to come into the d.c. schools down fifth and first three to it was very close to dunbar which was the viet high school. we were in the inner-city and i do remember we would hitchhike you go way into the city before you get to the black community. the for sale sign started to

move plot to block to block until the time i was a senior in high school for sale signs were coming up headed over. no doubt the white committed the maybe democratic democratic, obviously a government city but there was white flight into maryland and maryland suburbs were very tiny. nothing now accept a couple of five schools they were not selling to the catholics. [laughter] >> host: a bunch of e-mails. this is from dana, why is the catholic church the enemy of american sovereignty? we have a bunch of e-mails regarding arizona immigration reform 21 i disagree with the hierarchy per grocer and the the

archbishop compared the law an arizona to some nazi germany and other nonsense. legal immigrants in this country that have green cards are required under the 1940 law passed under fdr to carry the green cards with them at all-time and arizona made that state law. from everything i can see this is a huge vast overreaction to what is fundamentally a codification of federal law converting into state law in arizona. one reason the catholic church is this way i believe, i have some of the figures in my new book is 40% catholics in the united states are now hispanics. if you take southern california, a majority, los angeles, officially the catholic church is basically

been at some ways a very pro immigration. frankly it seems it is too lax on illegal immigration. these are the laws of the united states of america. bear on the books and i do not believe any member of a catholic hierarchy should be condoning or proving a deliberate violation of american law. these are not unjust laws of the past for everything they ought to be enforced and i don't think the catholic condoning illegal aliens holding down 8 million jobs and african-americans have 15 percent unemployment rate and we have 25 million people unemployed or underemployed, they are hard-working folks. many are law-abiding but they are here illegally. we can be a nation of laws or not. i think the laws of the country ought to be enforced

that previous presidents and congresses have not done their job growth this is one of the issues on which iran in 1990 or 91 and roach with the "state of emergency" and if they had been forced the laws and 91 when i was in southern california on the border with duncan hunter the united states of america would not have a crisis it has today. it is a dereliction of duty on the parts of the united states. >> host: four of your books that came out in the 2000's, they have the same look on the front. can you tell us about the art work? [laughter] >> gstdeath of the west did extremely well on "the new york times" best seller list i think for 12 weeks. saying art, why change a winning formula?

by a greek price said doesn't this look like the other book we just have? you are exactly right. >> host: you have no say so? >> guest: i see them when they come in when they send the final coffee. but i did notice the same thing. i said i think the country is headed down a bad path and howard says i am more than optimistic i said what to expect from mud pie his last three books of the "day of reckoning"? >> guest: to invite me to the next barbeque? >> host: how many have you sold? >> guest: of biggest seller was "the death of the west" i think 175,000 copies.

we have been very fortunate to they have all made the best seller list of the last six. when i did the book on trade it was combined with a books on foreign policy the republic not the empire i sent it to my editor and she said this is a door stopper a gigantic book she said get the stuff of foreign policy out and write the book on trade and economic patriotism but the problem is it came out at the time of the blue dress and the nonsense. we will get to the book in a minute. but what is on a blue dress? it drove me nuts. did not make the best-seller list. but the other side took those him put it into a book and just about gave it away

two regnery. these guys came out, alan dershowitz, chris matthews, and said this is pro hitler book. . .

more republican primaries than any man in history except stat in. >> john you are on with pat buchanan. >> caller: a pleasure to speak to you, pat. >> thank you, sir. >> caller: watching every weekend on the mclaughlin group, we love you. i'm a western er, and from colorado and idaho, and my wife and i when you ran for president noticed have you had momentum going and you were doing well and came out here to arizona, primary, and i want to know who on your staff told to you wear a

black hat, good guys wear the white hats and i say to my wife, that will not do him any good. that and just one other question, pat, watch you on the chris mat thewes show and i really feel sorry that you allow yourself to be a punching bag on those shows. >> i work for msnbc and that's not a conservative network there. but i think we hold up our own, let me say about arizona. people talk about the black hat and holding up the gun. i don't think that was it. i think what happened was, we had done everything right. but when we -- when we got to the arizona primary, forbes ran fourth in iowa and fourth in new hampshire and usually you are gone by then. and the trouble is he was able to stay in because he had the money. he went out there and put, i don't know, heard $4 million into arizona, and he pulled off

a lot of the anti-establishment vote that would have gone to me, he was running ads, had a good campaign in the sense he put money in early and got right in -- write in votes cast, thousands of them were cast before folks went to the polls and i think that was the reason that we didn't beat dole out there, three-way finish, very close, and, we lost our momentum after that. and we were finished after that but that is the reason. but you have a good point, i probably have had a white hat on:

>> guest: and you got 19 minutes going after someone, and you got to get your points across, and you have to interrupt him. now you don't do that as much, except mclaughlin group can get that way. i have mellowed. i think the ideas we have -- i think they have been proven correct. nonintervention, control the border, don't send manufacturing jobs abroad, and these are the ideas we ran on. if you controlled the border, we wouldn't have this problem. if you hadn't gone into iraq and afghanistan and expanding nato, you wouldn't have these problems, and the culture war

will be with us forever. they say i declared it in houston. now i just said, we're in one, fellas. >> host: who is shellly buchanan. >> guest: she is in the next room. she is my wife since 1971. that would be 30 -- gees, we're going on 39 years, i guess, this year. we got an anniversary coming up on may 8th, and i already have her present picked out and been discussing it with her and negotiating. >> host: she knows what it is. >> guest: i got to get approval because i brought some christmas gifts home that on the 26th go right back. >> host: we just showed a picture of your wedding day. with the nixons. what was her role? >> guest: blessed sacrament church. my church because she was from detroit, and we were working here. we got married at my church, and that's in front of it with

mrs. nixon and the president. that's the week of the may day demonstrations where 15,000 came to town and blocked all the streets, locked them up at the armory in a chain-link fence. i was concerned they were going to come to my wedding. fortunately they all left up to. shelly was with richard nixon in 1959. she came to dc. she had a job set in new york, and it was an opening in the nixon office right across from jack kennedy's office. and she became the receptionist to richard nixon, and she was with him. receptionist at the chicago convention. traveled with him during the campaign. she -- >> host: served as confidential sect? >> guest: rosemary woods was the confidential secretary.

then when nixon lost, she went to work for h.l. haldeman in the '72 campaign. and she came to new york, and nixon called her up, and he campaigned in a small f-24 -- whatever it was, a small plane, traveled the nation, and he called her, and she traveled with him all around there i think they worked harder than goldwater did. then she left and went back to work, and when she came back in 1967, there was rosemary wood in his office, and pat buchanan and pat nixon, all of us working there outside of nixon's law office. in the law firm, 24th floor over there of the building right next to the new york stock exchange. so that's where i met her. >> host: is she active in your writing at all? does shed did -- she edit. >> guest: she used to before we

got these machines. >> host: computer? >> guest: yes. she retyped my books and columns. and she would type it up, and i wooed did it, and she would type it up again. so she handled my schedulele and the business around the business we do. we still have a two-person operation, all the filing and all the other things. she knows where it all is. i have no idea where it is. >> host: the next call from bill in massachusetts. >> caller: hi, pat, how are you? i'm doing fine. >> caller: do you think there's a broader story to watergate that subassumes the woodward and bernstein narrative? and are you familiar with a character that jim hogan writes about in his book. >> guest: i'm familiar with some

of the arguments gordon liddy has had with john dean, and the arguments that watergate -- much more to the break-in that people thought, and more people behind it. i really haven't gotten into that in any depth. the name russell i recall from those days, but i can't recall exactly,, in what context. in my view, the watergate thing, whoever was involved in it, what was really fatal was not that. what was fatal was the manner which the president of the united states did or did not handle it. the fact he taped himself and had the automatic tapes running. it would have been survivable had it not been for the tapes. >> host: we had john dean on in depth last month. >> guest: you did? john and i were -- we were friend friday the nixon white house. he was the counsel. that little book you got, the

new majority? i was in the white house, and the -- this book was not written for free, peter. i was in the white house so i said i'm going to do this book, but i used my vacation, and i need to know if it's legitimate for me to take a fee for writing the book from the bank. and so who would i go to? i go to the counsel's office. i said, look, i'm going to do this book. can i take this fee? and he looked -- i don't know what he looked up. he sent me a letter saying, under the following circumstances it would bejing -- be legitimate to take the fee. and a guy asked me, did you get my money for this? and i said, i hadn't taken any money. said, just put it in an escrow account because i don't want to create problems, but i have

permission to take the money, but i'm not going to take it. so i waited until i got out of the -- several years after i got out of the white house before i took the -- i said, okay, you can send it down now. >> host: do you remember how much? >> guest: yeah. >> host: you're not going to tell us. >> guest: it pass 10,000 in those days it was quite a bit of money. were we making 44 or 42 -- i wasn't making the top when i was in there i was making the top when i left salary, but i think we had again to 42, which was an enormous salary. when i worked for nixon, i went for $12,000. and that was big because i was make can 9,000 at the globe. when i went to the globe democrat, i was qualified for food stamps, i think. i was making 93 a week and clearing 73 a week, and i had debts, student debts, and i had a triumph, one of these cars

that cost me three grand, and i'm under water. if something happens to me, my old man is going have to bury. >> host: a question, how much of the credit given to reagan's international and domestic policies actually belongs to nixon? if not for watergate would reagan have won in '76 as a followon to nixon0s term? >> guest: if agnew had not been basically had to resign, i think agnew and reagan would have fought for the nomination in '76. once agnew was out of the picture, a lot of the conservatives who really admired him moved to reagan. if nixon had gone out of office -- nixon wanted connally to replays him. he wanted connally as vice president right up to the final day. because i remember al haig had just died.

i sent nixon a memo saying, ford is probably your best bet to pick. and haig called me, and said, the old man wants conway. -- connally, i told him, i thought ford would get through the congress and everything. he was a solid guy. and he was a radical figure of any kind, and people would feel confident when he took over. who would have -- i think reagan would have won the nomination probably in '76 after the president -- almost surely reagan would have won the nomination. ford would have never beaten him. >> host: he would not -- >> guest: he would not have runnel. -- would not have run. reagan would have won against

carter -- carter carried 10 out of 11 southern states against ford. and reagan was very tough, but i think reagan would have beat carter. i don't think he would have won the 44 states he won against carter after four years, but i think reagan would have won. >> host: next call from las vegas, nevada. samuel. >> caller: excuse me my speech impediment. who changed -- >> guest: who made the watergate tapes? so they ran automatically? they were voice-activated. i guess the decision -- probably didn't pay much attention to it. the decision was made, i think around '70-'71. i should have known the decision was being made, because what nixon had me doing, and ray

price and saphire -- the three speechwriters. i was congressional leadership. he would bring me in the congressional leadership meeting as a reporter, and said, i take notes, get good anecdotes good, stories and decisions, and sometimes ten pages, single space, and@@@@@ @ @p%

you're uninhibited. i said, all this stuff is on the tapes. get rid of it all. then to learn it's voice-activated. as henry kissinger told me, lord knows what i said to get out of that office sometimes. >> host: pat buchanan, you sent a memo to richard nixon after they became public? >> guest: the week after butterfield had gone up and testified there was a taping system in the oval office, i sent nixon a memo and said, get rid of all the tapes except for the key being decisions you

maersk foreign policy decisions, but the ones with a staff in there talking to him, and in confidence, for heaven's sakes. >> host: did that memo ever become public? >> guest: i think it became public years later. apparently connally had given nixon the same advice, burn them. >> host: if those tapes had about been burned -- >> guest: nixon would have survived. >> host: would there be on instruction of justice? >> guest: they weren't spined. get rid of them been the subpoena arrives. even if he burned them and they had been subpoenaed, -- butterfield said, here they are. he announced it. all these watergate people said, you mean he has a taping system? so no subpoenas arrived from the watergate committee or independent counsel or anybody. so, nothing would have happened. people would have griped and said the tapes were destroyed,

and we would have said the tapes should never have been made. he should have had a taping system for conversations he wanted. the others are very private. talking to a lot of people. they're presidential documents. they're gone. do what you want. and they would not have impeached him. >> host: where were you august 9, 1974? >> guest: those days, i was right behind the tv cameras as the president gave his speech. and i went out and watched him leave on the helicopter. we had made -- the sunday before we discovered that the old man had listened to the tape, and that would he had continued to say he had not had anything to do with watergate between a certain period, and this contradicted it. and that's where we made the decision to drop the tape, and we knew it would be politically dade e dead -- dead by the end of the week.

>> host: what was your worst day in the nixon white house? >> guest: peter there were so many of them. [laughing] >> guest: let me say this. i loved working for richard nixon, he was like a father to me. and you know something in the watergate days were -- i'd say this -- were some of the best days in this sense. i felt i was giving it everything i had, using all your knowledge, abilities, and everything to save the president. and i think he deserved to be saved. i knew he had made some bad decisions and bad mistakes. but we were fighting with everything i had. and they were the most memorable days. 18 months, and took a toll on your health and everything else. but it's -- i don't regret any of those days. i think some of the best days were i think in november of 1969, when president nixon got up -- they were trying break his

presidency, and the gave the great silent majority speech jo those were your words? i was given credit for, and we used the terms -- i never have gone back and looked exactly. it was the speech, and then came the agnew speech, which i wrote on november 13th, after the networks counterattacked, and then went after the "washington post" and "the new york times," and agnew was the third most admired man in america. and as i told them in suites su- switzerland, they said that agnew was the greatest threat to freedom of the press. i said, not bad only seven years out of journalism school. >> host: did you work with richard nixon at all on his book? >> guest: i didn't work with him. i did go out there for a time and i reviewed various periods,

'66 to '68 period. and was putting stuff in the book i didn't agree with. they were saying in the book, the '66-'68 they were really afraid of bobby kennedy. i was never afraid of bobby kennedy as a candidate. i thought the most dangerous candidate was hubert humphrey. he was such a hero on civil rights and he was a liberal hero, and he could do the better job of uniting the party. if robert kennedy had been nominated, i think connally of texas would have a endorsed johnson. if bobby kennedy has been nominated, the wallace vote -- they were so antikennedy -- the wallace vote would have shrunk.

there were all these northern catholics i was talking to you about, they all went back to their party, the democratic party. they didn't go to nixons. they didn't like republicans. they were just antiwhat was going on. so they went back to hubert and the democratic party. so i think that if -- i think that we would have done an awful lot better, quite frankly, if the situation had been different. >> host: don in pennsylvania, you're on with pat buchanan. this is book tv. please go ahead. >> caller: hi. two quick points. one is the morning show on msnbc, there's a running joke about how dr. brzezinski influenced the war, and hunter thompson and how the stories are

out there he would report the reality and blend in all of his fantasy in the process, and quite the genius at it. >> guest: yes, he was. -- brzezinski -- in my book, the book on world war ii, churchill, hit her, -- hitler ad the unnecessary war, i'm very critical of the president of second slovakia for in effect creating a phony crisis. and when it wasn't true, and hitler, who went berserk over it, and that's one of the reasons hitler decided to wipe them off the map, over the feeling he had been humiliated. and annika brzezinski is a great

niece, and i didn't know how well that would be received. she is very gracious about the book. i talked to joe scarborough about the book. he thought it was compelling thesis. what was the other question? >> host: hunter s. thompson. >> guest: dr. hunter thompson. >> host: a friend of yours? >> guest: yes, he was. yes, he was. first time i met hunter, the first date i had with shelly. it was hunter thompson and a gal from news week there. >> host: a double date? >> guest: he had a two gallon jug of wild turkey that we sat up all night -- eventually we almost got in a violent argument over -- matter of fact it was over stalin and communism and everything. and he wrote, i think it was in "pageant magazine" he met me and buchanan was rude sort of geek with a southern accent. but he came down to washington, came up to the watergate after i

was married, and we went swimming at the pool. and we had 14 coors. and it's all in his books. and he used to send me letters. we were very friendly. he was a -- he is a crazy writer, you know, but he -- the gentleman i right. you get reality and all this other stuff. but but his "fear and loathing on the campaign trail ," 197 2 one of the funniest books i have ever read. >> host: you're first date with the future mrs. buchanan was drinking wild turkey all night -- >> guest: yeah, we were up there arguing in a hotel room, and he and i were drinking and it was his booze. maybe the first time we met him was just before then. he was up there crazy. he was -- nixon had spoken in

nashville, and we would take nixon into new hampshire for three days. he worked very hard, and we didn't want to get him exhausted because that's what killed him in 1960. he looked so tired and drained. so we went to key biscayne for three days and let romney work up there, and the polls showed us ahead. we got hunter, and he said could he ride with nixon to the manchester airport, and after midnight, after his speech. so we said, sure. so hunter thompson got in the car, and nixon is talking about football and baseball, and nixon loved to talk about that. when we got though airport, and they're gassing up the jet, and we're right by it. he puts a cigarette in and he is clicking this lighter right by -- when they're gassing up the jet. and had to smack the thing out of his hand and say, are you nuts? would could have all been blown to kingdom come. that was the first time we met

him and hen he started traveling with us. there was a number of occasions when i met him. every left watergate, i was speaking at the kennedy center, and he didn't show up. i was on a panel and he didn't show up. so they started. but he was a big star, you know. so then you got coming in from the right side, lumberjack shirt and a six-pack, and he comes up on the stage and hands me one. this was a very formal event. >> host: are there other people in your life who are your friends that maybe the audience wouldn't expect you being friends with? you're friends with bill press. >> guest: rick stern was a buddy of mine, a delegate hunter for mcgovern. i was telling the story last night -- i was a biographer. a fellow writing about the conservatives. and i was telling the story. rick stearns -- we traveled

together to the soviet union in 1971, before detente, and i was sort of the chairman of the republican side. we had six republicans, six democrats, 18-day trip in the evil empire. one of the most memorable events of my life, and he and i discovered traveling together that the were white knuckle fliers on aeroflot. one guy said, this is a merger between -- piedmont and some other airline, and we had -- so we became friends, and i remember after the election was over, we had these gigantic maps. the republicans were in purple and democrats were red. so there was a little red dot in the east. and i wrote on the map, rick stern, the grand strategist from

the campaign, from his friend, pat buchanan, and sent it over to him. and i understand he had it framed and had it on his wall ever since. he is a judge now in boston, and he was -- one of the guys being considered for head of the fbi. i think he was very close to clinton. but i haven't seen him in years. but we were good buddy. >> host: carolyn in mess sarks arizona, you're on. >> caller: okay, pat, i'm really nervous. i'm so excited i finally get to talk to one of my heroes. i have a few comments. we have just been told from connie mac to a mayor in california to the head of the state senate, we're these horrible people, mayor villaraigosa is telling people not to come to arizona. cancel the all-star contract. we can cancel them, too. we have a contract that we're

letting them use our water. california spends tens of millions of year -- i would hate to know how much we spend. and when you look at all these people that are asking -- rallies -- they forget to tell you that they're being bussed in. it's funny, yesterday in arizona, like they bussed them in a few days ago, and yesterday in arizona there were only about a thousand people at the capitol. wouldn't you think this is a state that should have 50,000? they were bussed in. >> host: let's leave it there and get an answer. >> guest: there's no doubt, the demonstration on wall street against goldman sachs -- and i count myself as aity yack of goldman goldman sachs -- they're an organized program, they're bussed in. the rallies held yesterday or the demonstrations for path to

citizenship or am is in -- amnesty or against the arizona law were much smaller nationwide than predicted. i think they said 50,000 in los angeles. they were expected 100,000. 50,000 is a good crowd but not the 5 million they had before. your larger point is this. this vendetta against arizona is unjust, it is outsized, comparing it to nazi. i, comparing it to stalinism. it's as wrong as it can be, and the idea of boycotting arizona -- i remember when i was young they were going to bureaucrat cat dallas because jack kennedy was shot there, they were going to boycott mississippi because civil rights workers were killed there. it's wrong. and if you study exactly as arizona dade, they codified federal law, and in order for a police officer, is a understand it, every legal immigrant as to

carry his green card with him or his work permit. under federal law. since 1940. has to carry, quote, his papers with him. and what arizona is saying is that, if a policeman -- before you can ask for any such papers, he has to be -- it's got to be part of a legal event. in other words, stop somebody who ran a red light or a fight somewhere, and he comes up and says, okay, what's going on here, what happened, do you have any i.d., sir? or something like that. and the fellow has a driver's license, he is a citizen. i he doesn't have that, he says, do you have any identity? and he says, no. and the guy speaks a foreign language or something, can't speak good good english. and you good to the police station and call customs. and say is, is this guy legal? if he is not legal, he has a

problem. so that's what the arizona law does. comparing this to nazi germany is appalling. >> host: norm, pet lym ma, california. i disagree with almost everything mr. buchanan beliefs but totally enjoy listening imto him. he went 4f in the military because of a bad knee, and shortly thereafter became the profit the white house running team. >> guest: the white house running team i was captain of was in 1985-'86. i was not 4f during vietnam. i was in the army rotc from 1956 to october 1959. i was going to be a commissioned officer in the u.s. army in 1960. as we mentioned, i was expelled from college, and when i was, i was -- got my draft notice, and i went over to walter reed and i had arthritis in the legs, and so i was 4fed there.

that was five years before vietnam's buildup took place, which was 1965, at which time i was 27 years old and beyond draft age. so there was no draft evasion. >> host: you were able to run in 1985? >> guest: yaw, -- yeah. i can still run. but you have other problems with the knee you can't move left to right. and you have had arthritis when i was in the nixon white house and elsewhere. >> host: mr. buchanan, supreming as a former member of the nixon white house. daniel elsberg, hero or traitor? i'm sure he believes it was for a higher motive. i think he betrayed his commitment his country to maintain the security of its secrets. he didn't like the war. understandably. a lot of people didn't. he was an early enthusiast of the war. i think what he did was wrong and what he did was criminal

misconduct, and think he was legitimately indicted, and that was thrown out after the break-in at the psychiatrist's office, and that was probably justified in throwing it out. i don't condone what he did at all. >> guest: did. >> host: did you ever know katherine graham? >> guest: i did. had dinner with her one night. had dinner with her and edmund morris. i was at her house a couple of times. she had one nice thing to say about me in her memoirs, because i said the violence -- the union violence against the washington post was appalling, and i think she was surprised i thought that way. and i also -- probably the only guy in town here that used to deliver the washington post.

when you deliver a newspaper, you have to collect every single dime, and if somebody doesn't pay you, the entire amount comes out of your income because you have to give the company a certain amount. so, i mean, if two or three guys -- and they do. some of them wouldn't open the door, and so you were always coming up short every month. so, added to the bad feelings, i suppose. >> host: doug, boston, massachusetts, you're on with pat buchanan. >> caller: i not only voted for you, i also sent you money, and you still have got less than 1% of the votes. several years ago you wrote -- about ivan the terrible in which you questioned the efficiency of carbon dioxide as a gassing agent.

do you ever regret writing that article? >> guest: if you're talking about the defense of dimyanik. he spent five years on death row in israel. i argued this was a case of mistaken identity. and i believe it was in 1992-1993, the israel supreme court, because wonderfully the soviet empire collapsed, and they got the files on the trblinka camp, and they had a photograph of the actual ivan the terrible, and dimin yuck was send back to the united states, and that was the best journalism i have ever done. i'm proud of it, and i did catch hell for that over a long, long period of time. they said you're defending a

nazi war criminal who ought to be hanged, and in the end it was case of mistaken identity. he had never been at that camp. since then, the office of special investigations claims he was at another camp during that same period, where before they said it was this one. so he has been deported and send to germany, where he is 89 years old and not well, and they're prosecuting him for being at a camp as a guard. there's nobody to my knowledge living or dead who has ever testified credibly that this man ever injured anyone. a ukraineon soldier, fourth grade education, captured in an area around the crimea, and went to a camp and became a prison guard. he has suffered for 30 years as few men have suffered at all, and even assuming he were a guard at some camp, nobody can testify he did anything to

anybody, and so what i think has been done to him is one of the worst injustices in my lifetime. >> host: we have 20 minutes with our guest this month. his books are listed on our web site in case you're interesting in see what they are and picking out one for yourself to read. mr. buchanan, if you were to suggest one book to our viewers of yours for them to read, which one would you suggest? >> guest: you know, that would depend on their interests. if you ask them, how do you think the world is going? i don't think it's -- that isn't a very good direction -- i would say "death of the west." i was very disappointed -- i you want to understand the issue of trade and protectionism and free trade and simple, clear terms, and the history of it, and anecdotes through american

history, "the great betrayal." and "republic, not an empire." the one that's different from all of them is "churchill, hitler --" if you want to understand why i think that these wars were unnecessary, might well have been alerted if there were wiser statesmanship, even given the mall live lens of stall lynn -- stalin and hoyt her, and those lives not about lost, and the road to disaster. "how britain lost the emexpire the west lost the world. >> host: do you have a system when you start a book? >> guest: just let me mentioned. you want to know about pat

buchanan? right from the beginning. when i start a book, sort of pretty much the same way. you get an idea. like one of the ideas for the book i'm working on now is professor jerry mueller wrote in foreign affairs a book -- a piece called "us versus them." the enduring power of ethough nationalism. in other words, the enduring power of the idea that people become aware they're different, different languages, heros are different, holidays are different, we're not like them. and howl -- how the power of this -- how it tears people apart. all these people want their own country, and he says, this is what is behind the two world wars. they're imperial dynastic

concerns. the british empire trying to destroy the high seas fleet. the french want revenge for 1870. the germans are terrified of the russians, getting stronger and strengther milling terribly. his point is the real force behind this that tore or world apart and that is tearing the world apart in the 21st and is now pulling apart countries in europe -- take belgium, the last, if you will, binational state. it's going to break in half. and this is happening, and you see bolivia -- kind of indigenous people. they robbed you. they came here with calmness 500 years ago, but it's racial, and it's ethnic, and he is playing into it, and chavez is playing into it. and you see it in this country.

in its embryonic stage. the idea that this is our continent, the bronze continent and the white man doesn't belong here. china, hu jintao left the meeting with obama and went home. why? because the muslim turkish supreming people who want to create a country out of the largest province in china. and the chinese saw what happened in the soviet union, a thousand people killed. they problem in tibet. india has a problem. burma. the people in the north are more chinese, and you're having it happen in southern -- nobody reads about bangkok. southern thailand, there's a muslim movement, antibuddhist,

anti-thai, and it's getting increasingly violent, and this is -- you mentioned amy khu's book, "world on fire" i think she has it down cold. she mentioned the bolivia example. her aunt -- they're chinese, and her aunt was a very wealthy woman in the philippines, and she had haul these filipinos working for her, and her aunt had her throat slit and she was killed because -- she said, i didn't realize it, the chinese controlled an enormous amount of the wealth in the philippines, and in indonesia, she argues that what is called the market-dominant minority, like the overseas chinese, wherever you have free markets they do. extremely well. and then you have a couple hundred indonesians not doing so well. once you bring this american

style one man, one vote democracy, the peoples -- the indigenous people -- the ethnic majority, indonesians, they rise up and say, they got all the wealth, let's take it from them. happened to the whites in south africa, it's appeared to the ebo in nye jeera, -- nigeria, happening in bolivia, and this tremendous movement of ethnonationallallism on the part of people i think is going tear the world apart, and you ask yourself, what are the stronger movements? some say the e.u., the european union, the u.n., the new world order, all these things where the people are coming together, and this is tearing it apart, tearing nations and continents apart, and it's my view that the

darker forces are the stronger forces, and the darker forces, quite frankly, that tear nations apart, particularly threaten multinational, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual nations like india and the united states. i think are all very much in peril, their unity in the long term. >> host: one of your books -- i lost my guide here -- >> guest: that's a long dissertation. >> host: nationallalism is the strongest allegiance. >> guest: it's not simply nationallallism. it's ethnonationallallism. look at great britain now. the british empire, ruled the world. now we see the scots want to break free. the welsh want to break fee free. and the english say, scott -- scots want to go free? get lost. the old union jack is going out and across and st. george comes in, and catalonia in spain, they

say we work hard and those people don't. the northern league did very well in the elections. the elections in europe, the people's party in switzerland did extremely well. no minarets are going to be built. so this force is the stronger force. it's the anti-tom freedman world. freedman believes we're all going to be at our play stations with our pepsis and our computers. i don't think. so i don't think. so i think these forces are much stronger. and you know what? that's a force we saw yesterday. wasn't as powerful as people thing. but you had 500,000 people marching under the mexican flag in los angeles. wake up. i see the american southwest

culturally seceding from the united states. >> you've been very patient. your on with pat buchanan. >> caller: i wonder why -- after this comment, i believe he is exactly right. los angeles is 40% hispanic, and my recent trip to california -- in fact if my wife hadn't billion able to speak spanish we would have been lost. i wonder why the federal government hasn't september the -- sent the troops down to seal the bored. >> guest: that's a solution i recommended in 1991-1992, that california, governor pete wilson, but the california national guard on the border in order to force the hand of the government of the united states, which was failing to enforce the borders of the united states. why haven't they done it? i think because no president agrees with me. clinton did not. m-bush one did not, mr. bush two did not. and president obama did not. i tell you this, you mention

california how it's changing. i think one of the reasons california is on the way, i think, ultimately to a debt default, is that the illegal aliens, hard working, not well educated, they consume three times as much in tax revenues as they'll pay -- they don't pay income taxes but in terms of sales taxes and things. and i think native born californians, white folks who are coming over the mountains and the small businesses are leaving, and they're in a vicious cycle that i don't see how it's going to be interrupted. >> host: from pat buchanan's 2006 "stayed of emergency." he writes solutions to immigration issue, immediate halt to all immigration, no amnesty, build a border fence, congress should end policy of anchor babies. amend policy of chain migration. end dual citizenship.

end access to social benefits, and adivision -- attrition through enforcement. >> guest: some of the things happened through state law. arizona passed proposition 200, cuts off welfare benefits, except in emergencies to illegal aliens. other states are bassing laws. it ultimately the government of the united states has to do it. under the 14th amendment, you're an automatic citizen. that was aimed for slaves and families who lived here for generations. and now women are speaking into the country, going into a hospital, having their baby, and the baby is an automatic citizen, entitled to a lifetime of benefits. and they're the mother and they stay in the united states and this has become anchor babies are becoming an increasing burden. the prime reason why you have to

build more schools is for immigrants and many of them are illegals. the regular native born population is flat in this country. >> host: mary lou in new jersey, you're on. >> caller: peter, thank you, and c-span, for such a wonderful program. and mr. buchanan, thank you for your book "state of emergency." i want to recommend it to everybody. want it to say something in the book, chapter 12, page 236, where you talk about something that happened in 1954 under president eisenhower, where he told the head of the imf to do a massive deportation, like a million illegal aliens, back across the mexican border. the think that bothers me association often hear we can't deport because of the large numbers we have. yet we see the administration using money for everything else. the thing is, i think many of the things you state in your

book, such as taking away the magnets, would certainly help in terms of self-deportation, and then deal with the others after that is accomplished. after the border is sealed. i don't think we're going solve this problem unless the american people become totally engaged. i think it's obvious that washington does not want to solve this for reasons you messengered earlier in the program -- mentioned earlier in the program. i think we need to be calling our state senators and assembly people and asking them to good ahead and follow arizona's example and get laws in our states. otherwise, we're never going to -- >> host: all right, mary lou, let's leave it there. >> guest: listen. this is a terrible problem now partly because the government has failed in its dutiy. you have between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the country. however, it is still a solvable problem, and you don't need anything approaching so-called

nazi tactics. you secure the border first. secondly, you remove the mag it by going after businesses, one after another, fining them for hiring illegal aliens. and it's happened to knob of them. and when the illegal aliens go, all those jobs open up to americans. and there's been an enormous number of people applying for those jobs. if you keep doing this consistently, many of the illegal aim -- aliens will go home when the magnets are gone and there's fear they will be arrested. so this problem can be solved if there's energy at the executive level. eisenhower had it. i think he sent general joseph spring down to the border and said we have a sudden incursion of something like 11 million illegal aliens. and we went down there and moving buss to the border, and

once the word went out the americans are serious and you better get out of the country, people leave on their own. as long as you give no amnesty and you remove the magnets and you secure the border, it can be done. the problem is, there is no will in the congress of the united states, and certainly no will in the white house to do that. >> host: henry in las vegas, you're on. >> good morning. i'm a former united states marine. i'm also a native, indigenous person of americas. in 1894 they tied to eliminate the hawaiian language from hawaii. i don't see anything different in what they have done in the southwest, much less when we arrived on plymouth rock. i like to know what makes you think you're so justified in what you're saying, and i'd like to know when the 370 treaties broken with the american

indians, and when are they native people going to have their justice? and i would also like to know why they're trying to eliminate ethnic studies from the arizona curriculum. >> host: a lot to work with there, henry. >> guest: well, there's no doubt much of the treatment of the american -- native americans, american indians, is indefensible in terms terms of breaking treaties and in terms of conduct toward indian civilians and some of the mass keirs -- massacres that occurred, sam creek being one of the most' infamous ones. there were no doubt there were maybe -- many massacres of the settlers. hawaii, you're right there was a

lot of duplicity there i think it's hard to justify how we came about with the annexation for hawaii. and as their puerto ricoan folks, i would give them -- their culture is different, their history and traditions are different than ours. but i agree with you on part of what you had to say. if we're going to have a country, you need a single language, i think, or single culture, and if you don't have it, then we will break up into a number of different enclaves and not really be a country at all. multiple languages. i think we have 100 different languages in chicago, and half the people of the ten million in los angeles county now speak a different language than english. i don't understand the music, the history, can't understand their language.

how are we countrymen? how can we be countrymen? as for folks serving in the military you but in four years in service and go to iraq and come back, you're on the fast track to american citizenship. i don't care where you came from. >> host: amir emails in to you, mr. buchanan, i respect you a lot. how come you can't win an election although you're where woulds are sound and have merit? >> guest: a good question. i did win a number of primaries and we came in second to bob dole. at the convention -- i think you're identified too much -- you have an identity as a right-wing conservative, and you're carrying a lot of baggage before you go in there you're coming off a talk show, right to win the presidency of the united states. you think it's tough fighting

city hall, try overthrowing the government of the united states. clearly if i was going to win the republican nomination, george bush had to drop out. i couldn't beat george bush in a nationwide election. i could do what mccarthy did new hampshire and george bush would drop out in '96, i think i could have gotten the nomination. had we won in arizona we might have gotten the nomination. it still would have been tough because the party would have united against me, but i think i would have beaten lamar. we came in second name. i couldn't have beaten clinton, not in 1996. i don't know if i could have been president of the united states even if i had gotten breaks but it would have been a new different republican party. we would have brought them to a traditionalist, conservative, small government party, stay out of foreign wars, and frankly,

secure the border, and we would not have lost one in every three manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2002. one in every three. imagine that all those working people in america who used to have the finest jobs for blue collar workers you could get, anywhere in the world. one-third of them gone. >> host: last call from patricia in florida. >> caller: yes. i have a question concerning ethnonationallallism. you painted a very bleak picture. do you have any solutions? >> guest: no, i don't. james vernon had a great phrases, when there is no solution there is no problem. i think this is a very powerful force, and it's a worldwide force, and people are trying to cope wh