:

it's almost impossible to believe a man 70-years-old and if somebody shoots a bullet to do extraordinary things and it they get him within minutes not far away to george washington university and he jokes with his nurses right think hollywood couldn't have written such a script between his attempt and the air traffic leader that is the birth of freedom with ngo what consequences. it's hard to believe we are just fascinating. we could go on all afternoon.

the book is called american caesars lives of the presidents from franklin a little to george bush. highly recommended. thank you so much. >> guest: it's been a pleasure. coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hour-long program will be invited guests host interview authors to read this week political pollsters scott rasmussen and dog schoen discuss their book schoen how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system. the veterans describe to party activists as inauthentic grass-roots movement that concerned citizens who helped to shrink the size of the federal government. they examine the impact small government proponents are having on the midterm elections and potential lasting influence on the electoral system as a whole. the pollsters share their

analysis with bloomberg columnist and the -- amity shales. >> host: hello and welcome to "after words." my name is amity shales. i am a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and bloomberg news columnist. on your host today for the show about authors and their books. today our guests are two formidable to outstanding political observers scott rasmussen and douglas schoen. mr. rasmussen is founder and president of rasmussen reports which collects and distributes data. mr. schoen as a consultant who has advised candidates such as hillary clinton to mike bloomberg. mr. schoen is also a contributor to fox news. their book is "mad as hell how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system." welcome, gentlemen.

>> guest: great to be with you. >> host: we have a double author so we are going to be a little bit short. could you each get a two sentence description of the tea party movement is? >> guest: and often take a grass-roots movement that has been disrespected by people in the political class because fundamentally through a rejection of the political class, and i would say that it's a group of others about a quarter of the electorate that is basically saying we are fed up with washington with spending, we are fed up with taxing policies that don't reflect our values and we want to return to the core principles. >> host: house speaker nancy pelosi has said it isn't restaurants and all it is an astroturf movement founded by a few rich people. what you say to that? >> guest: the whole notion of the tea party movement attended washington that it was racist, it was astroturf. but what happened is frustration had been building for decades

and was passed over the top by the bailout legislation and people in washington never saw it coming because they still believe the bailout saved the nation. most party in the tea party in america believe it was bad for the economy. >> host: so mr. schoen, it isn't anything new at all? >> guest: there is a long line of antisystemic movement in america. some as you know better than me on the left, others on their right. but this is a continuation of what we saw in the mid 1990's, early nineties with a movement that has greater fervor and force and i think after the election we're going to concede it has had a greater impact. >> host: i think you list americans for prosperity founded by david coke of coke industries as the major organizational backers of this movement. is that evidence of astroturf? >> guest: i think the opposite actually. my sense is that if there was not a grass-roots movement to

fund their would not be voters to mobilize you couldn't put a lot of money to campaigns and not get much response and the tea parties as scott said authentic a grass-roots movement that are self created and mostly self financed. >> guest: there is a lot of money. there are politicians to try to jump in front of the tea party movement that is because when you have a movement like this that has two things going for it. it has passion and core ideas that resonate with a majority of americans, so a lot of people like to take credit for that and help it along but quite frankly of the brothers disappeared the tea party movement would go on just fine. >> host: it is kind of a race to take credit. thank you. you emphasize the old mainstream media and how it's underappreciated the strength and persistence of the tea party movement. why did the old media overlooked this trend? >> guest: they didn't want to see it.

earlier this year, scott brown had a stunning electoral victory in massachusetts with ted kennedy's old seat. poling was showing it was going to be a competitive race in the major networks never covered it as a competitive race until the very final couple of days because it was just just incomprehensible the democrats could lose the seat and so much of the tea party movement in the same category can't believe people aren't happy with the policies right now and the federal government. >> guest: i am startled as i look at the data i see the love of activism that points to scott brown but you could point to share an ankle and marco rubio, the list goes on. for some reason the media hasn't wanted to give the tea party movement credit. for goodness' sake, you don't have to be a supporter of christine o'donnell or share unable to represent the vibrancy, authenticity and power and potency of the tea party

movement. >> host: you tel dan anecdote in your book about rush limbaugh, the radio show host and mr. steele of the rnc. can you tell us that anecdote again and say what you think it means? >> guest: my sense is what the anecdote means is that the political class, the political leadership doesn't have a clue bit about what it's about and one of the things scott points to and should talk about it is the republican leadership is as alienated from the tea party movement as is the democratic leadership. >> host: could you just repeat what happened with mr. steel and mr. limbaugh? >> guest: they have entirely different views of republican owners of tea party activists. mr. rush limbaugh would like to think of himself as the leader and mr. steel thinks there's something to coopt four republicans and it's not going to work. republican voters believe that

michael steele and republicans in washington are out of touch with a party, by a wide margin. >> guest: he criticized limbaugh and limbaugh pushed back and steele sued for peace. in a certain way, when that happened, i said that is the power of rush limbaugh in actual fact and is undeniably potent and powerful and intellectual. it is an expression of tea party power reflecting itself in that dispute. >> host: maybe it is a course in history that the repeal of the fairness doctrine that radio doctrine what made very strongly opinionated shows such as rush limbaugh possible dating all the way back to president reagan said that would be decades and decades ago now. >> guest: certainly what is happening goes back before what we know as the tea party movement. everything that is in the political mainstream today is built on frustration and decades

and this is the way grassroots movements had been in america. back in the 1950's rosa parks didn't get to proceed on the bust it ignite a civil rights movement even the founding of america for decades before the revolution the frustration had built and that is the discipline to the frustration is finally being unleashed it didn't just start in april 2009. >> host: it reminds me of another grassroots story about wendell willkie who is their surprise republican candidate in 1940 running against franklin roosevelt. roosevelt third term and the city is a grass-roots candidate because wendell willkie spurring of all over the country and washington they commented yeah, the grassroots of a thousand country clubs, that it was funded by the corollary to the country. >> guest: he was an executive. what we have seen here is a rejection explicitly, and about

shepley of country clubs, eletes and business leaders and when people say to do share an ankle, randy paul, joe miller, marco rubio tried to be rife them in a certain sense of this points to the power of the tea party that candidates who are hardly ideal are getting nominated because they are not traditional republicans, they are not mainstream candidates, the assure the mainstream and are supported because of their alienation and the system. >> host: indeed is it is a central theme of your book in the regular. how do you define elite and what is the ratio of americans who are elite and who are not elite corps who are mainstream and real? >> guest: we call them mainstream voters in the political class and the political class are people who support this concept that we should be led by the elites and we have three questions in a survey we asked people whose judgment they trust more, the

american people or their political leaders. we as with the federal government special-interest groups and big business and big government typically work together against the rest of us. seven of ten people hold that view about this alliance between the government and big business. some are on the left with that view and some are on the right but overall 55 or 60% of americans are consistently on the mainstream side of all those questions only about 14% are even on the political class on two or three questions and, you know, you talk about a sense of scale back in the 17 seventies about one out of three columnists supported the crown. so you're at a group right now a small level of support for the status quo in washington >> host: how big is the political class were the elite group? >> guest: 7% and another 7% of the population leaning in that direction. >> host: is it possible, dr. schoen went to harvard, is it possible to go to an ivy league school and not be in the

political class or does that define you for ever in one side or the other? >> guest: yes, we may disagree on this but i did you go to an ivy league college you are part of the political class just by getting membership. i told your research associate before we began that i took a seminar with the late departed and much lamented sinnott told daniel patrick moynihan with a book he might enjoy reading, but i remember that seminar some 38 years ago and the guy got up and said he was an authentic representative of the working class and moynihan said when you are living in this it code i can assure you you are in the political class, and i think that is the case and you lose touch very substantially with mainstream values. >> host: anyone who ever attended senator moynihan would have set who ever attended one of those fancy schools, which i

did, to is always out of it forever. i think that is a little harsh. [inaudible] >> guest: but it took me 12 years to get my undergraduate degree. i think when you're saying is right. if you are part of the lead institution and you've gone to leave school you have the advantage is you don't even recognize. it is possible for someone with that background to recognize the american people should be given more respect and should be given, the government should derive its authority from the government and those recovering for this -- i was at harvard recently and a woman said we don't understand why the people don't want us to lead, we've been trained to leave. that is the attitude people are

upset about. >> host: maybe the problem is arrogance and not pedigree. >> guest: it could very well be read do you remember what erica said about harvard men? she said the most arrogant thing was a man with a c average. house committee our universities aren't as different as we like to assume. >> guest: what you should understand about space and his family is not withstanding what i like to believe i've accomplished and you certainly accomplished, scott and his father founded es p.m. -- espn and he's built one of the most respected polling companies in america and given that level of success and relatively young age, he may not want to be part of the elite, but he has done more than the vast majority of the elite within the graduated from harvard or not. >> host: meeting you are the elite of innovation. >> guest: if you go back even to the foundation of the country

there were eletes with a were doing is pursuing this idea that the government shouldn't be run by the elites. the government should be run with consent of the governed that there had to be a popular component and we seem to be moving away from that at this point. >> host: thank you for letting me push on this question and that we should get a little bit more to the tea party. the tea party itself has issued memoranda or documents. what are the big issues for the tea party as the declared and as you perceive those issues to be? >> guest: i love when you say that he doherty has issued those -- there are lots of groups part of the tea party. there are -- it's hard to define who is in it because the president had a plus so we asked one of four, one out of fisa we are part of the tea party. the things that unite them and fiscal policy issue. they believe the government should be lowered. >> host: number one you mentioned first fiscal policy. >> guest: fiscal policy in the

sense that nobody is listening >> host: i would go back to fiscal policy and say they believe there is a effectively corrupt alliance between the two parties in washington to spend and tax more than they believe is prudent and when people see the tea party is no nothing, what they really are our anticancer and. they are traditional balanced budget when the government the way i run my household. i don't want date, i don't want a deficit, i don't want to excessive spending. i'm not against social programs if we can afford it but if we can't i don't want to give it and i would like to protect the social programs we have because i need them. the are not libertarian. they are just small limited government people who frequently say on diem do to all of this and i just am so angry and that is pretty authentic.

>> host: let's back up and say what keynesian as some is. >> guest: you have written about this elegantly. >> host: i was just reading the economic consequences of peace that is a very fine book. this is the great u.k. economist who did develop the concept of the stimulus as we know but also wrote a lot of other things it brought it from income distribution and because it is optimal in welford eletes have a lot of money they don't spend all one watches like paris hilton. a large share of it the spin on investment which we support activity gains which is the best kind of growth for the economy, but it is antikeynesian i agree and it's a sort of this oral

antikeynesian people don't just wake up and say i hate the u.k., miss. what they see as it doesn't make sense to me to spend more than i can afford with iran and the government or a household. >> guest: first americans don't know who cannes is. richard nixon didn't say we are keynesian also there is a keynesian issue out there but most americans today believe that if you cut government spending bill would create more jobs and spending. if you cut the deficit the believe it will create more jobs and it's not because economic theory but they just think it is the right way to run things. >> guest: there's something else to it. the average american with 30 or she be on the tea party or separate basically believe that if you increase incentives to reduce taxes you're going to get more economic growth. if you say to the average american which is better, the government spending money to encourage both growth and consumption or the government

cutting back and leaving more money in your path they are going to tell you more money in my pocket and let me do with it what i want and i am more likely than not to spend it in a way that is socially productive but goodness gracious don't tell me what to do. while they are not trained economists and they may not know, you know, cannes or any other economic philosophers they have a clear idea and you will see on november 2nd how they take those ideas to the polling booth and express them with what i think space would agree with me would be a repudiation of the obama administration economic policy. >> guest: it's not just the repudiation of the obama policy. this is for the third street he election cycle voting against the party in power and there is a continuation of things that began back in the clinton era when the president lost control of congress, president bush came and lost control of congress, there is a -- there is a voting against the party in charge.

>> host: the rejection, they get tired faster. we are going to get to the other issues for the tea party but just on the fiscal side, if they are not keynesian and don't like spending how do they feel about taxes? >> guest: they are with laughter. >> host: but are to laugher says the incentives matter and lower rates can generate more economic activity and therefore bring more revenue than the government expected. >> guest: the other thing about this i think is important to understand is the tea party members and supporters and the american people generally are a compassionate people. these are not selfish mean-spirited people, but they lead a common sense life and common sense themes you don't spend what you don't have, you don't overburden people and give

people incentives and the cds as core values that if they were more perhaps literate they would express more eloquently but they are no less fervent and passionate than a trade economist. and the other thing that happened, space pointed to this a bunch of times, they look at people in new york and say where do these people come from, what kind of values to the have? how do they think about things? you're just befuddled, angry, too but befuddled. >> guest: you tie this back from a policy point of view that they have the frustration that is the tea party movement was the bailout >> host: we have fiscal and bailout as a trigger of the katulis. >> guest: it's part of the same thought process because as doug was saying about the common sense approach, all of a sudden

the government some $700,000,000,000.1 reaction is you didn't know this ahead of time? another reaction to the steep is a moral outrage about it. americans believe in this idea that if you do well in business you should keep your profits and if you do poorly you should pay the price and all of a sudden they say wait a minute, people change the rules to help their friends to bail out their friends with our taxpayer money and it was seen as an insider job, it was seen as political class alliance with that big business crowd on wall street and people say with a minute. at the same time this is happening to housing volumes are falling, half of homeowners moving and they say somebody changed the rules to help the big boys and they changed the rules to hurt us. the other part of this, and again, you have written enormously eloquently about this is this suspicion of eletes, bureaucrats and the washington

arrangement. i remember your writing about the jewish butchers and i guess it was rockaway if my member serves me who couldn't explain to the government bureaucrats one faded with the did, how they did with the date and why it was rational will and reasonable and supported the community in the market. it was seen as i recollect as violation of trade law that led them to live think one was even incarcerated if my recollection of the story you told about this is correct. and i tell that story because what you see in the tea party movement is an absolute sense that washington is just not only out of touch but as scott delude it too is corrupt. if you were a big thing for you get yourself into trouble and our beloved or an auto company baled out and if you are a working guy who gets behind on mortgage they never should have taken out because the bigger forced upon them, tough look.

>> host: in the elite regular man as a battle of economic theory bleed out with keynesian and the battle between macroeconomic and microeconomic. microeconomic been the experience of the firm what can the firm say about what is happening to the economy? what does the little business sometimes little about whether it wants to decide to hire again which has been the great problem we have had in this recovery, the job recovery that's very interesting. as we talked about the first bailout so the viewer is clear on that the wall street bailout we talk about fiscal and tax it may be the economic philosophy that might used. there are a few other components that you've identified and "mad as hell." >> guest: when you talk about all of this it's not quite right as you describe it when he

talked about it in economic ury terms because people that are mad as hell aren't thinking in terms of economic theory. what the our thinking is there that sense of what is right and wrong and it happens to translate into an economic theory but that's not the way they are viewing it. and they are viewing what is wrong as a moral sense. >> host: there can be more austere economic does not modern economics. there were people of the audience to tuition's who were more about economics in the past. one was william graham sumner who sit don't forget the forgotten man whom he identified as what we would call today tea party that left out not receiving a special gift of the special-interest crowd. the question about yourself as we are all interested in how you got here and all these books you've written and who you work

with is this tea party movement more powerful than any other such movements i am thinking specifically for a simple i will read you a quote from the 1970's many have had to suffer the hand of a political economic elite who shaped the decision and never account for mystics to suffer from injustice. when unemployment prevails than ever stand in line looking for a job and that quote is from jimmy carter. this was an acceptance speech when he ran for president more than a quarter-century ago. so it sounds awfully similar is the resolution now greater than other revulsions that we've experienced in our lifetimes or in american industry? >> guest: the depth and passion certainly is, and what i would say is there are about 100 potential to party congressman that could be elected.

six senators there about. two years ago with this time if we said we are going to talk about the tea party and the midterm election you would have said what that? and if i said to you it's pretty simple is going to be of meant it is going to grow up and take over the republican party that's going to be doubled to fundamentally influence our politics and that is all we would be talking about in the run-up to elections are you fantasizing? >> guest: so i think it is extremely, extremely potent and powerful and when the next question gets asked and i'm curious of scott's reaction which is wealth tea party go away and i say if the fiscal agenda is addressed i'm sure they will go away but i don't see any evidence that is going to happen any time soon. >> guest: when you talk about the change from the folks in the 1970's, jimmy carter was tapping into a similar frustration. you have watergate and vietnam. a lot of the fiscal policy issues we are dealing with today have their roots in the

presidencies of lyndon johnson and richard nixon accept fiscal policy spending on an unsustainable level and people have been voting for four decades for some kind of at least kennedy who promised fiscally conservative policies and all of this is more powerful it think it is just an expansion of that same frustration that's been going on for a lot longer now. >> host: can you get to it really briefly you have a left-leaning strand to your populism or maybe tea party or not i'm not quite clear and you have a more of right -- what are those to strands and are the left wing in the tea party or the different kind -- >> guest: they are in what they call the coffee party and had you really about two weeks ago in washington people would agree with the critique in the tea party movement. they say that washington is corrupt and is serving the business and what we need is more regulation, more government, probably more redistribution away from the

wealthy and the powerful to the ordinary people and they would argue that that was morally, economically and socially unfair and bonuses in the bailout are a egregious violations and the norms of american society and we should take those bonuses and benefits that came from the bailouts away from a corrupt elite so this and analysis, different conclusion from that t. party movement, much smaller however. >> and there's a couple other things. one, because there is this movement both on the left and right, there is a sense of lack of legitimacy of government only 21% who believe the government today has the consent of the government. second thing is the populist wing on the left side of the equation tend to have more confidence in the democratic lawmakers than the people the populists on the right of on the republican lawmakers and so the level of the outreach is directed a little bit

differently. they may be upset lawmakers aren't more effective at getting things enacted and the people in the cheaper the movement don't think they have anybody on the side in washington. >> host: that's an awful lot of caffeine, the tea and coffee. maybe the coffee already happened with the health care law that is a progressive wall. >> guest: you know i think that takes a lot of the steam out of the movement, but there is in their judgment a fundamental flaw with that analysis. they would say that the health care law was proven positive of the bankruptcy of the system because the public option was defeated. insurance companies are still able to raise rates indiscriminately. there was occurred to deal with the pharmaceutical companies in their view and all of this adds up to the health care bill that the extreme left with regard as an essentially corrupt and dishonest. now the right has their own

problems which are very, very different, but again, similar analysis diametrically opposite conclusions. >> host: in your book you describe a single payer with the chicago basis that wasn't entirely happy with the health care law? it was right wing. there's a very compelling story of a young woman who died is the right? so, all of this is happening, but i want to talk nada these are special guests, they have done quite a lot of work in their lives, not just it is interesting and germane. i just ask this question since we already talked about this but where do you go to high school? >> guest: i went to [inaudible]

>> host: right here? and where did you go? >> guest: massachusetts. >> host: way to go to college? >> guest: i went to harvard college. i took time off and went to the university of north carolina for a while and finished up at depaul university so it took me awhile to get there. >> host: a wall street journal and dow jones there are a number of competing cultures and one is the country of depaul. there were many, and the culture was the pragmatic culture. we had a number of hoosiers and it didn't seem to be the college so many of the hoosiers viewers may be remember george malone the great columnist of many decades. he headed that pragmatism i wish you were here to talk about the tea party now.

>> guest: i mother is alive and is a left-wing democrat. my father was a more moderate democrat. the jewish and political party this democrat and i was supposed to be orthodox. >> guest: my family brought me to the new york think he's an and the giant san and the political views never got too far into the equations and the level in the republican leaned -- >> host: i should mention since i write for bloomberg news and work with mayor bloomberg maybe your mother is ambivalent about mayor bloomberg -- >> guest: it's an interesting question. she waxes and wanes and feels he has been on balance a very good mayor for the city but somebody who thinks in straightforward

terms about politics frequently has trouble with somebody who is like mayor bloomberg more pragmatic calling it has he seized and i think one of the problems we find in politics today he is the left and the right has become sufficiently distinct that it's hard for politicians in the center to build the kind of abiding coalitions that would demonstrate to people that the current arrangement at the left and the right talk about isn't real but is illusory. >> host: what is the relationship between sports and politics? >> guest: >> host: how are they the same thing, are they similar, are the almost the same thing? >> guest: there's certainly a lot of political fans that view the when i watch a jongh in schaenman, you know, you get passionate and upset when the referee calls and don't feel your way and one of the things that happens in america we have become a sports bar nation in terms of politics.

when people on the scott brown race nationally before the race, people around the country with the enthusiasm that is the same everywhere around the country in massachusetts and you're watching the race with the same as april began in massachusetts was. >> guest: one of the things i most proud of is working in that seven or eight years off and on with the opposition to top milosevich. the opportunity to work with those great pleasure was investor richard holbrooke and in the course of discussing a poll about political divisions in serbia he looked at me and said 367. just stopped. don't you know the lifetime batting average? and i said i guess i knew that if not in this context. he said like you use a sports

editor who turned to politics because he substitutes one kind of statistics for another. >> host: i believe your first book was -- can you tell us a little bit about power and then you also wrote a book about moynihan. how he went on this political journey and what you found. >> guest: i decided when i was young i was interested in ideas, so my doctoral dissertation was on the social basis of support on the british electorate and for anyone who has any interest in what i've done coming to the tea party movement in america was in a lot of ways to return intellectually to the same kind of questions i faced in the u.k.. that was a social and economic issues and this is purely not exclusively economic so i wrote

about market economics in britain and the impact of immigration and senator moynihan had been a teacher obviously a friend of mine and i read his biography when he just came to this dennett and 277 or 78 so he was throwing for me as a young person under 32 have a chance to write but such seminal figures one on the case of britain and the other on the case of american politics so it was a great thrill for me. >> host: what is the greatest thing about lenihan? >> guest: his intellect. a brilliant man. i don't know if you have seen steve weizman's book yet but it is extraordinary and the depth of subject we wrote and spoke about and the problem we have in our politics is there are so few people who are able to do more than just malkoff talking points. just one more comment and scott

search certainly should talk about a second plant to a breakfast this morning and he was in his early nineties, well aware of what is going on and is a bet firm but in good shape. someone mentioned northern ireland and we had the four horsemen, senator kennedy. and i think he's right because you can agree with people or disagree but i think what we are lacking in political life to a very substantial degree are transcended figures to bridge cultural political and economic divides. >> host: we have a figure who seems larger every year to all of us. >> guest: i think that's true but we are lacking a large scale figures in our politics and it is i think to our detriment.

>> guest: it tells a little more about d'aspin. >> guest: i grew up as a broadcaster, my father was in, and my first radio commercial. there was a christmas promotion for something in amherst massachusetts and i just remember being so nervous looking into the studio -- for host could he make you read? >> guest: i never missed my lines. and i was on television the boston patriots and we did a commercial for the springfield giants that day and that was a long, long time ago. but my dad and i did lots of things. western massachusetts hockey playoffs when i was a high school because my team wasn't good enough to make the playoffs we have to pay $20 the hockey team came to town my dad was

working with them i became an announcer and had from the viewer decode your performance skills of my life. he came and played on the team and had his 50th anniversary i got to be the emcee. in the spotlight with my childhood idol on his 50th birthday and to make it even better that was our joint birthday celebration, just a great thing. in those days you couldn't get things on television. there was one college game, hockey games couldn't get on very much and we heard about this thing called cable. we learned we could assemble leverett america the satellite the more money it cost on the same signal around the state of connecticut. >> host: using to also identify the new medium on messages to get through.

somehow for some reason shut out before. >> guest: you're talking about wendell willkie before and what is happening today. it's the internet, social networking. it's the message, the way that message out changes everything. >> host: and the publisher of this book is harper collins, that is my publisher, too i should mention. who's your editor? can you say a word or two since editors don't get talked about enough on the radio or tv? >> guest: i would tell you this. i think the great genius of a good editor like adams is the ability to take an idea and helped craft it to suit both of the current environment as well as healing as closely as possible to the underlying intellectual trends driving it and adam helped us do that immeasurably and i think we have a much better book as a result.

>> guest: there were two things that happened in this. we met at a wendy's to start talking about it and have all these ideas. >> host: you had worked together before? >> guest: we had been on tv before. we started this idea and when adams came, he was very nice about the way he did it but he reorganized our thoughts and put together in a much more compelling way. >> guest: and i would say i don't know if you have collaborated with anybody on a book. we i think cooperative and cover it in a seamlessly. the only thing i have to say is that i assume people would see my genius would run through every page and it has pained me to realize scott has gotten as much of not more well deserved credit for an argument that i must confess that today in

wendy's he said unless we get into the distinctions between the political class and political elite and what it means for public opinion we will not be doing justice to my idea and what i want to do. i think we did it and i think the book is immeasurably better as a result. >> host: did you each write chapters or did you write them together? >> guest: we wrote different sections and put them together and if it. >> host: did you use skype or a regular television? >> guest: we used a pen and paper >> guest: we scribbled things out. we not so much pen and paper with email and word documents, and there were times when i would get a document and say there is no way this can work because he has missed this completely. then i would go back and talk about it and realized he had some critiques of mine and eventually we found a way to work it out. >> host: more e-mails or chats on the phone? >> guest: mostly e-mails, but

i think the great benefit of the collaboration having done another book where the collaboration was not as seamless to put it politely, when we talk things out, it took only a few minutes to try to resolve things, but the important issue is in addition to the congeniality the work product benefited from that which is why you want to collaborate. >> guest: we started out in different places on this and so when i would say things i would realize doug was giving something different than what i intended to say ensure he had the same experience and as we try to articulate to each other it became a little clear what we meant. >> host: we are coming into the final part of our show, going to ask a couple of questions about substance and then questions about politics. here we are close to an important election. there is a chapter in your book where you talk about populism

and you use the word rigged pitches 100 for 105. the system is rigged, and you are writing about the law that changed our banking structure gramm-leach-bliley from 1999. uzi it repealed the act and allow commercial and investment banks to emerge. the policy reversal was strictly meant to benefit of the elite, but they did benefit some of the elite we can clearly see that. was there any intention? when you say meant to benefit the elite it sounds like not to benefit other people. do you see a motive or just outcome? >> guest: first of all, most people see the motive. >> host: did you see motive? >> guest: sometimes. >> host: so there is one of the things. the famous -- >> guest: we quickly reached

an accord on how we would analyze it but it was perfectly clear to me that the repeal of glass-stegall did very little for ordinary people and a lot for some very, very wealthy bankers. scott, when he critiqued my view said the get the process that got here and look how people think about that. you have to do that if you are going to understand what's going on. >> host: when i say motive i believe the tea party activists as they went and stayed long enough, they would end up being just as corrupt and inept up in the system as people are today. so i think it is deeper. >> host: power corrupt. >> guest: i want to say something on the word raid because normally when you pull you don't throw in supercharged words like that and we were trying to find out how deep this was and we asked people how do members get reelected so often if people aren't happy with them and we actually asked one of the

options of the system was rigged using that word and a majority of people said that is the way to get reelected to benefit themselves. so there's a deep level of distrust. >> host: i think everyone agrees it is a brave and strong thing to do. much of the banking crisis we have in the united states, a good part of it had to do with people borrowing too much with adjustable mortgages that were not the right decision for them to make. guess we have the underlying assets of those mortgages that are wrapped into different launches of debt so that somehow a house of cards that is shaky is presumed to be more stable because it rating agency that

isn't corrupt is certainly incompetent how about that? >> host: it's all in there but i am just questioning the causality and the mainstream man or woman who's an internalized the economics knows you probably shouldn't borrow -- interest rates may one day go up or he or she may think of that. this is a question from john i asked this of "the wall street journal" i said because he is one of my political friends so i like to hear what he has to say. he said politics of the marketplace that conveys info dislike the stock market. i'm paraphrasing here, but somehow the marketplace didn't seem to get the political parties the right thing about the popularity of their policy because the party seems to prize if the voters don't like them. is that your eletes is a mcginn? >> guest: i think markets

needs to have rules to offer made by a and a market can be will be signed or poorly designed. my argument would be right now our political system is designed to transmit information from voters to the political parties. >> host: now we get the most important part of your book what to do. we know people are mad as hell and we can see it not only in your fine work but other work and you've had very interesting recommendations in your three step planned i would say it is interesting because you seem to put ideas before people which is to say u.s. in step three for a plan to be put to the voters rather than a politician to be offered up to the voters. could you describe that three step process that you recommend at the end of the conclusion of the book? >> guest: i know we are short on time so to go really quickly on this one purchased the politicians need to level with the voters and get the information to them. our idea is to put a major issue

because there is no trust in congress because there is no consent of covered and politicians proposed change of social security or medicare or raising taxes they should do their best effort and submitted to a vote of the people and try to win approval for it. >> host: the legislation in it and could be shorter. that might be good. >> guest: less special surprises for people in nebraska or other places. >> host: we are also getting close to our conclusion. can you tell what is going to happen in the election? >> guest: eight or nine in the senate republican route. i agree with those numbers and i would say there's a string of governorship in the midwest that shift from democrats to republicans because the white working-class voters who vote for hillary clinton over barack obama are getting ready to vote for republicans. >> host: will there be a change in the tax law or the

health care all? >> guest: the house republicans will repeal the health care law not because they want to but because they are too afraid not to and event will go to the senate and there will be all kind of political maneuvering to try to avoid looking like you're supporting its status quo but dibble become a campaign issue 2012. >> guest: on the tax law goodness gracious who knows what will happen. obama seems absolutely intent on raising rates on the income of 200,000 per individual, to families who would cancel the intransigent against that and i fear for our fiscal health if we have the kind of cataclysmic conflict that all i feel will result from the battle. >> host: the battle would be a negative. >> guest: think it will be a huge negative because i don't think there will be agreement. >> host: exciting days ahead. this is a happy battle.

i'm going to try. mad as hell, your book, very timely right before our important election. the guests are scott rasmussen, doug schoen, thank you. >> guest: thank you for a very good interview. another "los angeles times" reporter from the beijing bureau has been nominated for the national book award in the nonfiction category, and this is barbara and her book nothing to in the ordinary lives in north korea. how did you get access to north korea? >> i spent about seven years interviewing north korea, not in north korea, but in south korea and around the chinese border. i've been there quite a few times but you can't speak to anybody in north korea, you can't even make eye contact with them to see this is the most repressive regime in an actual

case where we can use superlative when you work in north korea you have in mind your and your mind has a minder to make sure you don't talk to anybody but i found north koreans to be quite talkative when they got out of the country and i really just painstakingly pieced together their stories, which in my mind were 1984 come true. >> these north koreans that you spoke to come to the escape from north korea? with a visiting south korea? why were they out? >> brigety hinchey scaap. north koreans basically live in a large prison. they are not allowed all of the country unless they are very elite. these are people who largely when they were starving crossed the rivers that border china and try to make new lives for themselves. the funny thing is when they were in north korea also they

were starving, they have benefited this propaganda that they lived in the best country of the world that is where the title comes from so there's nothing to envy in the world and then they come out and realize that by god in china people eat royce and have television and they can read whatever they want >> host: you found -- >> one of my chapter titles north korea is maintained by the regime unless how they keep their power. and of course the greater the lie the greater the power petraeus connect barbara can you give us a snapshot of the daily life of the urban dweller in north korea? >> the people i read about or mostly from the city, get up, the first light of dawn and the

minute the sun is up what you do is start looking for grass that's edible. you have to get out before everybody else so at the countryside take a knife and a basket looking for something to eat. basically this people spent their whole day looking for something to eat for dinner and then they go to bitterly to conserve energy. maybe they go out to the wood to collect firewood. this was the situation in the 1990's and got better and now unfortunately it has gotten worse again. >> when you travel to north korea, what was the process like getting in? >> it's really difficult as an american and as a journalist i speak a little bit, not very much caribbean and i was rejected for a year and i don't know why but in 2005 by finally got the proper visa and i think

they let some of us in basically because they need money. there are not a lot of people that want to visit north korea and its a badly needed source of currency. >> what was your experience? to what your trip very quickly. >> pyongyang is a lovely city it is a huge village, one of the cleanest least polluted cities and all of asia. there is no industry, there's very few cars. the people are friendly, completely brainwashed. they will only talk about their great leader. you don't really have any kind of honest conversation. but i would say that there is a warmth of the people and one of the reasons i wrote the book and found the north koreans were so mysterious and a lot of the - stereotypes that americans have of asians, communists, all of

this garbage was always applied to the north koreans and i wanted to show them as real people so i portrait of these people who i know and are still wonderful people. >> did you find yourself being stared at? >> nope. that's what's very interesting. they are taught not to stare. they will steer a few which is one sign of a. psaltery and i'm scared of, not north korea. they don't make a contact. >> were you relieved when you got out? >> yes, always. but it's not nearly as scary as you might think because once you get out a proper visa and walking across the river your show every moment and i knew not to say anything that would get me in trouble or people who were guiding me. >> how long have you been

working on nothing to n.v.? >> it's embarrassing that was about seven years. i started interviewing -- i started interviewing north koreans i guess in 2001 and i fink because i couldn't get into north korea i became obsessed. journalists are very simplistic creatures. if you tell us we can't go some place suddenly you want to go like a cat and a string, so i was really upset about what everyday life was like, and i imagine it was a little bit like 1984, brave new world and in fact is. >> host: you have already won the samuel johnson price for nothing to envy and now nominated for the national book award nonfiction category 2010. barbara demick is the author. ..