any time i had to get you. never seen you back down. you took every whipping. when you were a baby i would you you never change. you became a mule i gave you so much because you never backed down but when the dust settles every time my with you bleed to still find out you were right all the time. here you come and one of the most egregious things in our family history. but the judge told you what you did was right. i could never tell you how proud i was to hear the judge say that. i want to apologize for the whippings i gave you and know that i have the utmost respect for you. you know what it is for a kid 14 years old to have his daddy's say i respect you? that went along way. that was like taking fuel and put it in a locomotive.

everybody got to watch out now. it was about making it right. wasn't about the consequence. the story about the ticket. you got time? [applause] >> thank you all so much for being here. [applause] >> for more information about john carlos visit his website johncarlos.org. >> chris matthews of the attempted political maneuverings in the second kennedy/nixon debate. >> second debate in washington nbc studios. nixon gets control so he brings

the temperature of the room down to 30 degrees. it is -- he is with bill wilson and the tv guy. he was a nixon guy. if you don't get out of the way of the service let me turn that up to 65 or 70. i am calling the police. they had another standoff and compromised on the temperature. they get back to where nixon -- the idea didn't want nixon to sweat so the nixon people saw him sweat profusely in the first debate and it is let this happen again and what was going on, this is about who is going to rule america and the stuff is going on. >> ab in the suits but abc news sam donaldson interviews chris matthews on jack kennedy:elusive hero at 10:00 eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> now a panel presents a history of politics in the film industry examining the impact

hollywood has played on the american political landscape. >> good evening. pleasure to see for a discussion of hollywood:left and right. i will be introducing the distinguished panel. i am louise steinman, curator of all-out and program director of the library foundation los angeles which presents all these programs. some of your members of the library foundation. the library foundation presents almost 80 or 90 all-out programs a year plus literacy programs, reading programs and if you want to be, member of the great work of the los angeles public library please give me a run of our staff members tonight and we also have one of steve ross's books we can give you. i am sure he will sign it for you if you in at the $100 level

tonight and we appreciate your support. it goes to a great cause. we have a panel discussion after our panelists to this over, we will open up to you for questions and we will be circulating a microphone. we ask when you receive it and wait to you do receive it because we record for pawed cast. stand up so we can see where you are and please make a question. someone recently challenged our audience. see if you can make your question in eight words or yes. no one has risen to the challenge but feel free. no rants please. afterwards some of our guests will be signing their books in the lobby courtesy of our libraries store. tonight we are going to discuss what is hollywood's influence on american politics? most americans who pay attention to politics believe hollywood's political influence on american

life and culture is heavily weighted on the left but it is terrific new book hollywood left and right, steven j. ross bags to differ. the evidence shows the hollywood left has political blitz but the hollywood right exercised electoral power. overall which side was more adept at winning the hearts and minds of americans? was it the hollywood right with actors like arnold schwarzenegger's seamless transition from action blockbusters to the governor's mansion or was it the hollywood left which followed marlon brando's observation that actors can sell deodorant, they can sell ideas especially when moviegoers political guard is down. our panel tonight will continue and open up that conversation about the intersection of hollywood and political activism. our panel consists of steven j. ross who is an eminent professor of history at u.s. c, has written several books including

working-class hollywood, silent film and the shaping of classic in america which was an l.a. times best book of 1998 and his new book on hollywood left and right:how movie stars shaped american politics and receive the academy film scholars award, academic equivalent of an oscar. we don't have one for your mantel quite yet. mike farrell is best known for his eight years on match and five seasons on province and writer, director and producer and well-known human rights activist. he has traveled the world for the last 30 years and prominent peace delegations. he is working to abolish the death penalty in our state. he held the established a california committee of human-rights and his opposition to the war in iraq was altered in his coat founding artists united to win without war. he is the author of "just call

me mike: a journey to actor and activist," two book including "just call me mike: a journey to actor and activist" and of mule and man. roger simon 11 is local author of ten novels and seven screenplays including prizewinning moses flying detective series we get the enemy:a love story for which he was nominated for an academy award. in 2009 he published his first nonfiction book blacklisting myself, memoir of hollywood apostate in the age of terror which was recently published and turning right -- "turning right at hollywood and vine: the perils of coming out conservative in tinseltown"". the distinguished moderator is ella taylor, author of crime by families, television, culture and postwar america. she has run for the day she read her for years in the los angeles weekly, the l.a. times and many other publications and she was a regular contributor to l.a. weekly film review show. please welcome our panel.

take it away, ella taylor, hollywood left and right. >> take off from what louise said. is not the most significant finding but one of the most significant findings of your book is that conservatives have always been a robust and i think you are doing a book more effective presence in hollywood and the left even though the popular conception of the left is a bunch of, the loving pinkos you say that is not the case. >> louise knows not eight words. i can't get it under 800 words. read a paragraph where i lay out the fee since more elegantly than i could offhand. it talks about fears about -- talks about the fbi starting the

investigation of radicals in hollywood as early as 1918. j. edgar mover was -- had his agents trailing people making radical film that the time. such fears about radical -- in the movie industry reflect longstanding conventional wisdom that hollywood has always been a bastion of the political left. conventional wisdom is wrong on two accounts. first, hollywood has a longer history of conservatism than liberalism. it was the republican party, not the democratic party that established the first political beachhead in hollywood. second and far more surprising, the hollywood left was more numerous and visible, the hollywood right led by louis mayor, george murphy, ronald reagan, charlton heston and arnold schwarzenegger has had a greater impact on american political life. the hollywood left has been more

effective at publicizing and raising funds for various causes but if we ask who has done more to change the american government, the answers stalin would write. auld left has the political blitz, the hollywood right saw one and exercised electoral power. >> would you agree with that? >> more or less. i am on the right on economic matters. not really on the right socially at all. matters of marriage and issues like that. i don't care if anybody mary's. i don't care who i am very. economic matters -- coming to your point it is true but if you withdrew ronald reagan from the equation i am not sure we would be so sure because the only one of those people who had real -- arnold schwarzenegger was a

second-rate governor and achieved almost nothing. was a second-rate actor. but ronald reagan was a very successful president. e-mail agree or not agree. i think he did some great things. he tore down that wall. if you don't think that was a great thing -- >> you all have your moments. >> tremendous impact. i don't think the other people -- i agree with you. if you withdrew ronald reagan from that equation you feel differently. >> that is why you have a historian here. ronald reagan would not have been ronald reagan without louis b. mayer and george murphy and the biggest surprise for me doing the research was that everything ronald reagan did

george murphy did earlier. he was the true pioneer in figuring out media, how to use me and particularly television, perfected the reagan strategy of going to blue collar democrats in '64 and what murphy learned he learned from louis b. mayer. reagan was the best of all of them. no question about it. ronald reagan was the master performer. but his conversion to the right which i talk about in the book, those of you who may not know his past, george murphy who is our senator in 1964 and reagan were liberal new deal democrats when they first -- murphy converted a around 38 to republican conservatives. reagan ended world war ii as he writes in his autobiography as a bleeding heart liberal and was in many of the organizations

that people were blacklisted for. but for a series of reasons he began a movement from liberal democrat to liberal anti-communist democrat to conservative anti-communist republican. it was in part his long-term friendship with mercy. very good social friends, that slowly changed him and pushed him that way. i think you really do need to see a continuing because the one thing they all have in common is they were far more effective than their democratic counterparts in understanding how to reach a mass audience and i understand that voters were no different than movie audiences. you have to have a concept to sell and had to sell it well. if you could reach them with your concept you could win an election. >> let me ask you one question

to follow up on that. this has always interested me in this particular conundrum. i noticed the same thing. i was thinking, back in the early 90s i was teaching in sundance. i met robert redford and also warren beatty. i have known him over the years and these are two liberal democrats who have always -- people said when will they run for the senate? caesar never did and it is unlikely they will ever do it now. what do you think it is that stops them other than -- astronomical amounts from doing it? abuse? >> warren beatty's said to me i won't take the abuse. when i am a movie actor i am adored by and large.

>> that is pre cowardly in a way. >> it is honest. if you want to take the abuse and open your mouth and whatever you say is going to be twisted around -- 34% of the american population doesn't approve of michele obama. they don't know what they're talking about. how many of this note michele obama? you can take on the right as well. not just the left. you get it on both sides. i think it is curious that those conservative for whatever reason, everyone has abuse. the horrible profession. i wouldn't go near it. so -- so completely that these republicans are able -- willing to take the abuse and the other liberals didn't. >> you have to have a burning passion. you just have that passion for politics in your gut and you're

going to make it happen and i will say one of the things i argue in this book is i admire all kennedy's people whether i agree with their politics or not. you want to talk about what a patriot is? somebody who takes their belief out whether it is for war against the war for left cause or a right cause and is willing to spend funds -- 20 retriever's fighting for that cause and taking the abuse. that is somebody i admire and in writing this book i did not want to write a book where one side, my own politics are to be left but to write a book where the left was good and the right was that was a waste of anyone's rating and a waste of my time writing it. i wanted to write about ten people i would admire whether i agreed with their politics or not. i admire their commitment to try to make america a better place. >> maybe hessian in their gut

but a thick skin apropos of what mike said about schwarzenegger. i remember when he was first elected governor and saw him going to receive some accolade and admirers said to him i hope you make as good a governor as you are an actor and his response was don't be mean. i don't think warren they could have carried that moment. one reason why arnold schwarzenegger has been so successful in achieving a political position. one of the things that interests me as a former european is the definition of left and right which is totally unique in america as a whole and even more unique in hollywood. i grew up in two countries where the words liberal connoted which she what she centrist whereas -- i arrived here and found the

word liberal puts you way far to the left of center. seems to be a peculiarity of american politics. not the same in europe or the middle east where i grew up. what is your working definition of left and right in hollywood? very few people will identify as marxist for example. ethan michael more who i spent a couple days with when i rode the cover story about him. will really baulked when i used the word socialism. certainly doesn't identify as a marxist and all. on shadow of the blacklisted hollywood and. >> i did identify as a marxist. when i was a student -- when i first came to hollywood i was a member of the new left at that point. quite publicly marxist and had no trouble getting work.

quite the reverse. >> in hollywood? >> as a screenwriter. greg that refers. was fascinating. this is the post blacklist period of course. this is the 60s. sixty-eight-72. at that point in my life i was a very guilty leftist and made a lot of money but i was a real young hollywood student writer. purely lucky. i felt guilty about it and gave a lot of money on campus. i with the fancier -- finance year of the black panthers when i was 25. had no affect negatively on my career. i would going to places like william morris and they thought it was really cool. roger does that. the whole gestalt had changed. it had become trendy.

>> what year was this? >> 69, 70, 71, at period when the panthers were around. i was very naive. that famous line of churchill's, in your 20s, write in your 30s have no brain. >> too much cigar smoke. >> also had to do with nobody lived past 40. >> do you have anything to say about that? you spent many years on the hollywood left. how would you identify it? >> i don't. i think it is pretty much those

people who observe rather than those who participate. i would take a couple issues with a couple things that have been said. i don't disagree that the right in hollywood has been more effective a look for early but i would suspect if you want to make that division the left has been more effective socially in terms of having an effect on the culture. i think that is more -- personally that is more significant than the rack the right has made of our nation. argues perhaps that that is not so great. i would argue as well -- i think you succeeded admirably in making an even-handed book about the left and right without favoring or disfavor in one side or the other which i thought was really quite impressive. i disagree with both of you

about ronald reagan. no question he was a terribly effective -- his presidency was terribly effective but his presidency was more to product of general electric and lee atwater and people who were behind him and around him telling him what to say, do and think that he was as a thinker or mover on the political -- in the political world. >> i used to think that too but changed my mind -- have you read his diaries? >> i have not. >> he thought about it himself. he was completely a puppet. >> i wouldn't say completely. >> his diaries are whether it well-written. most of our politicians can't write at all. it is surprising actually. >> i would disagree with you a little bit on that. i am a fan of ronald reagan politically but in the course of

writing this i came to -- i came disabused of the ideas that he was just a puppet. i talked to people who worked on his campaign and were part of his inner circle and what they said is reagan would sit down and they would tell him -- he would meet this with this group and speechwriters and tell them what he wanted in a speech and they would then write a draft of the speech and he would come back and edit it very carefully and often go out and speak without notes. he had a photographic memory. it is one of reasons he could not flubbed his lines. he rarely had to do a second shoot. i had a graduate student years ago before the new reagan books come out. went to the reagan library and a research paper on his star wars speech. he went through the various drafts and found reagan's handwriting over everything. this was a speech he totally --

set out to is writers. when it came back he wrote everything in his own handwriting. he is no mensa but he understood how to take -- the line i have here is he was not the intellectual leader. the intellectual leader of the conservative movement in 64 through 68 would have been barry goldwater and william buckley. what reagan did people would not vote for barry goldwater because he was a scary figure. to look at the audience i think some of you remember the 1964 daisy commercial. the little child pulling the leaves off the daisy and the atomic bomb going off and basically say and do you want barry goldwater as your president? ronald reagan's greatest contribution is by making conservative is unpalatable. he made a conservative revolution possible. he had ideas. >> i don't disagree with that

but i don't think, i don't think he was the intellectual genius people suggest today. >> he was also a pragmatist. >> further he was a true believer in a sense of a kind of fear some approach to the world that i think has been very destructive. that to me doesn't argue for a great intellectual depth,. i was in the reagan administration there were the kind of anti-communist veiled that was laid over a humane humanitarian -- humanitarian is the wrong word. a civil war--not at all based on communism versus democracy but based on people's need to have a

life that was meaningful in the face of a horrific oppression. reagan and his administration continued to perceive it in this hideously black-and-white manner that justify all kinds of human rights violations. i remember coming back after he made incredible statements about -- in the case of the anti revolutionary forces in nicaragua being equal to the founding fathers of this country, a had the occasion to have lunch with his daughter and said to her what your father is saying is simply not true. user my concern is even if he doesn't understand that it is not true and continues to bleed this stuff because he is being told to say it or he is a liar. and she said he is surrounded by people who have a very strict ideological perspective and they

keep him very well have in in that regard and i found that to be very sad. i guess it is not unusual with our leaders to be hand-in-hand be protected from experiencing reality. i found that to be not only very sad that very destructive of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in central america alone. >> both of you in one way or another of articulated in your book something similar to mike in the sense the right is very successful at getting candidates elected and in agreement with that whereas the left has had much more of an impact on the culture. can you be more specific about the impact? in what areas are we talking about? >> i don't want to suggest the impact is all that positive left or right. the american culture has been spreading through the world as a result of the explosion of motion pictures and television

and what have you. but i think -- i am with clarence darrow who said sympathy is the child of imagination and people with imagination are capable of walking in someone else's's shoes and as a result there is a tendency -- and i see it more on the left and perhaps it is on the right as well -- to be open to others, to be aware of other points of you, to be respectful of other points of view. that has permeated to some significant degree the stories that have come out of the motion picture and television industries. before special effects and bombing and killing and raping and murdering became the story of the day. so today i am not sure that is the case but i still think people respond to the kind of

human perspective that is put out in much of the work some would consider the left hollywood liberal sort of message. >> the left/right polarity on the mainstream level has been reflected in the difference between a democrat and a republican is somewhat up for grabs. the whole picture -- left and right is changing very much. you have clint eastwood who just said he was against proposition viii and people should be able to marry whoever they please. >> a bit libertarian. the libertarians didn't think that the government has no business in the bed room whatsoever. on any grounds. >> or in national parks. >> libertarians are pretty extreme. on the other hand guys like clint eastwood really protect

nature. i agree with you that i was a schoolboy leftist of the extreme sort. i gave it up. i think that ideological ideas are a form of blindness. ideology blinds us. i love ideology. i grew up in the generation of 68 where marcuse was god. i read that now and go yes, yeller. i look around this audience and see a lot of faces. i used to live in echo park. i was superleft. i see faces in here that look very left. i know the world. i will tell you something. i will tell you something. i feel better now. i tell you why i feel better.

i know people won't like hearing. freedom from ideology is freedom to see. for me. sometimes the left is right and sometimes the right is right. that is a weird thing to have to think but it is absolutely true. >> it suggests the right is free of ideology? >> no! not at all! freedom from ideology is -- >> makes me bristle. [talking over each other] >> i am saying now as i was in 1968. i was a freshman in colombia in 1967-68 when the columbia uprising happened. i was very confused. i always studied ideology but i was never an ideologue and that is what you are talking about. people who are ideologues are fools. with your to the left or right. there is no need to change if you are consistent in studying and trying to understand the world as it is, not how it ought to be and you can then go from

there and talk about how you want to change things but it makes me bristle when i hear people say when our was young and foolish i was on the left and now i am old and conservative and much smarter on the right. you were a fool than and maybe you are a full now. i don't know. i welcome what you said. that is true. as i said i don't really feel ideologically to the right either. >> you describe yourself as 1968 new york liberal republican, rockefeller, bob brooks up in massachusetts -- >> irving howe. >> those guys would no longer be republicans. they would be too far to the left to be in today's republican party. and the liberal republican from 1968 who is in the party now.

>> as i said, free of all those things. i know when i am happy yes. when i am clearest. interesting -- a lot of europeans have said this to me. when they come to this country they get very confused by the split here. and i think part of the reason is the split here is more rigid than in europe. >> also a creature of the media. [talking over each other] >> to get back to your question. one of the questions my colleagues were asking early on in the book which is a critical question, why is so much of hollywood liberal? why has it always been liberal? i could argue in terms of seizing state power and trying

to understand why republicans go to state power they do. they have and more successful but we're talking about personal numbers. the vast majority of hollywood is liberal. and i think the key is not liberal and as a political term. the key to what you were describing his empathy. if you are going to be an actor or a writer you need to be able to understand, as you said, stand in someone else's shoes. understand a character who is not like you. you have to make them empathetic. one of the reasons edward g. robinson was once asked if he would ever play hitler in a movie and he said no. because i would have to find something about him to make him human and make an audience feel some empathy for him and i don't want to do that. i simply don't want to do it. if you have a sense of empathy and think about how many actors are from poor backgrounds and

have to work their way up and have a hard struggle, you feel that empathetic and that empathy, that human spirit leads you into a kind of political liberalism where you can see both sides. world isn't back and white. is kind of gray. you are not radical right wing. >> let me ask about that. an interesting example of a film that was quite successful. last year i think. there is a movie that was regarded by critics who observed these things, good critics rather than people who are just reviewers, as a movie that was in some sense socially conservative. kind of a religious base to it. but there is no question that it was a film filmed in embassy. i found quite moving. i don't think empathy was so exclusively a left side

phenomena and. if you examine that movie, i didn't love it. i thought it was a good movie but it was clearly a different kind of empathy. i am sure you would agree there was empathy in that movie. >> or. there was also cross racial relationships which are not considered conservative. i thought it was a television movie made as a feature because it had a star called sandra bullock. >> that is a point of side note and also legitimate but i am asking more a different question from that. didn't you -- that is a very kind of religious theme kind of christian film. i am not a christian but it is a christian film in its basis. has empathy coming from the other direction.

you don't see that -- i don't know. >> i am not sure i disagree few want to analyze it that way. is not necessary it seems to me to parse things has either left or right. parse these things as either liberal or conservative values. humanity, humane values, q main treatment, sympathy, empathy, the kinds of things that -- recognition of the kinds of things that make us human and make the others with whom we interact human. it seems to me is the thing that ought to be champion whether it is liberal, conservative or whatever. >> could you read that film both ways? the interesting thing about the blind side in my view is a lot of people on the left, and all fulfilled because yet another white person saving yet another black person. i did not agree because it happens to be true, it was based on a real story and i thought it

was a very well told story that wasn't respectful to both sides. in some ways it is that non ideological film made by a filmmaker who was trying to be very concrete about the way the world works. but a lot of people really disapproved of it. a lot of critics. >> those are the people they keep wanting to fit people into slots, into categories. that keep the fighting does which is the things i find so offensive about these kinds of debates and divisions. >> can we talk a little bit about that issue? really what the fines are supposed hollywood left and right is the issue of celebrity and it is often said that politics shows ugly people. but not in our town, right? politics is show business with

real lookers. frank britney wrote an op-ed in the new york times a couple weeks ago, basically said hollywood stars should not be going down to occupy l a or new york or wall street and because there too rich and too connected, too hooked into the corporations and too good looking to do the movement any good. >> utter nonsense. utter nonsense. >> a lot of people wrote in -- [talking over each other] >> first is that the people in occupy wall street or los angeles or anybody else would embrace them and say thank you for coming and showing us that you care. >> didn't happen to michael moore. he was run out of -- >> not run out of oakland. >> quite interesting. he refused to have a stake of

fifty million -- he ran off. there is the video of it. it is fascinating. there is a level on which the hypocrisy quotient starts to reach a certain level and bubble. i have personal experience, very union oriented in those days and still am. michael more didn't want to pay union wages to his writers and anti-union on his tv show. this has been written about in the new yorker. he is not a consistent man. when he came to the occupy movement was all over the internet, the video of him being run out was fascinating. this is a guy who has made a fortune, a real fortune, $50 million off of a kind of pose of a kind of left wing pose

rather than i think real. that is one of the things that backs the off being the typical leftist after seeing years of that. very prevalent. talking about apples and oranges here. you can have individuals nobody wants. the main deck of the britney piece is if you are a famous wealthy celebrity you have given up your citizenship. you have given up your right to talk about democracy. you have given up your right to go into any group and talk about your solidarity with them whether conservative or liberal. that was what was so offensive about it. just because they're celebrities or stars or wealthy they have no right to go down there. it was a ridiculous -- >> i would agree. michael more is an exceptional case. strange promoter. that is when you feel the dishonesty quotient going on that makes you go wait a minute. >> the bottom line when britney

is being insincere from the 1920s on when celebrities started getting involved in elections and endorsing candidates the main thing that celebrities do is bring attention to issues. that an issue that might not have gotten the press gets the press, a candidate who might not have gotten attention, get attention because celebrity a or b is with them and to me that has to be good for democracy because you are paying more attention to what is going on and maybe if you are paying attention to what is going on you will read a little bit about what is going on, is educate yourself about what is going on and if you can educate yourself you can be an informed voter and the an informed decision and i believe this country made an informed decision and informed votes. not like voting on in god we trust and discussed in the vote in the house of representatives yesterday where we are

pandering. that is not an educated vote. if we make educated voting and if celebrities help get people to pay attention more power to them. >> there are celebrities and celebrities. there are those you describe in your book who have done a great deal of work and a great deal of behind-the-scenes work and there are others who one way or another are burnishing their images. the unfortunate hilary swank affair. >> there is an occupation in hollywood. i don't know how prevalent it is but it exists, people who make a living advising celebrities on where to get their money. that is inherently in contradiction to what you are saying because it says automatically the celebrity doesn't have the brains and the attention span him or herself to figure that all. >> they don't have the commitment. >> or the commitment.

>> there are some people who are working very hard, are committed to the kinds of work they are doing and understand a certain level of political sophistication but don't have the depth of understanding about which issue is being dealt with most positively and progressively and successfully by which organization or which individual is the most representative of the point of view you want to support. it is unfair to lump celebrities into these categories of far less people who are -- when they become successful are incapable of thought. [talking over each other] >> some are like that. [talking over each other] >> so are some plumbers. >> of course. that is -- that occupation is a symptom is sensually of buying your activism as opposed to what you did, earning it. it is a very different thing.

i would distrust someone -- he pace and advisers that that would be a good cause for him or his image. >> i would agree with you only if he or she accepts the word of the adviser without checking in to him or herself. that is the step you are suggesting doesn't exist and i suggest just the reverse. there are some very -- we have a business out here that unfortunately makes people millions and millions of dollars and in some instances in a relatively short time and these are people quite often who either aren't equipped to understand -- understand the best way for themselves to make use and make use both politically and socially and personally of that money. .. and energy and

commitment. we have people who are in the business who are tremendously successful based on pure luck. and it's -- it troubles me when people make these grand generalizations about celebrities and what they do and what they don't do and what they

shouldn't do, you know, they're people just like everybody else. >> right, they're people with a lot more exposure than those other people. >> they do. >> in your book, you have a wonderful quote from tom hayden who was married to jane fonda to some degree her mentor who worried out loud that when people attach themselves to celebrities, you are getting them as fans rather than as citizens. so he seemed to be arguing against celebrity. >> no, he was arguing both ways. he was in a conundrum because we were talking about is celebrity politics actually good or bad for democracy because that's really at the question we ought to be getting at, not left and right and i agree those distinctions have created more trouble than they've created hope and change. instead, we ask what -- what can

we do to improve democracy in america? and i asked him, you know, you've been married to a celebrity. in the end do you think celebrity helps democracy and he said it cuts both ways. he said on one hand, when jane and i would go out on the road with the committee for economic democracy, ced, that was active here in the very late '70s, '80s and then the backpack would come on the road with us and we would get 20, 30, 40,000 people and we would get loads of young people who would want to just be around jane and these celebrities and doing work on clean water campaigns, doing work on solar energy, doing all this progressive work. on the other hand, if the reason they're doing it because they're worshipping a celebrity, that's -- that's not the way you

build a massive democratic movement that's how you put a single czar or czarina in power and that's bad for democracy and he kind of threw up his hands in the air and says it cuts both ways. >> is it bad, for example, if oprah act as a king maker as she somewhat did with president obama, is this a bad thing for democracy? >> no, i actually have a really strong opinion about that oprah has been given short shrift -- all these polls who ask people if celebrity x endorses that candidate, will it make you more likely to vote for them? those polls -- when did you stop beating your wife? it assumes you're an idiot. it assumes you're an idiot. i mean, 'cause -- i don't care who the celebrity or any politician or anyone because they tell you to vote, the real question should be, will an

endorsement from person a or b, celebrity, x, y make you more likely to pay attention to the campaign, to pay attention to the issues of the campaign? that to me is a legitimate question. and what oprah's endorsement did was get every -- every study i've done that why is it only 50% of the eligible electorate voting in presidential elections and the league of women voters have done a study that the bulk of people who don't vote are women and when women are asked why they don't vote, they say we don't understand the issues. and we don't want to vote if we really don't understand the issues. and why i thought oprah's endorsement was so good poach she didn't anyone to go vote for obama. she said i never endorsed a candidate. i just tell you maybe you should pay attention to him. and what her endorsement did was

reach into the 50% of the electorate that don't go and vote and in this way i think oprah actually expanded democracy by increasing the amount of people voting. and various studies that have been done afterwards, that do all these multiple regression analyses that i can't figure out how, but they argue that her endorsement got them an extra 1.2 million votes in the primaries. and when they broke it down, without that endorsement, hillary would have been the candidate. and, again, what oprah did -- whether you like obama, don't like obama, is she got people not used to voting to pay attention to a candidate and to the issues. and, again, i just have to think in the long run that's got to be good for this country, not bad for the country. >> let me, if i may -- >> yes, go ahead. >> one of your points was that women who don't understand the

issues don't vote. i think in fairness you have to suggest that problem is men who don't understand the issues do vote. [applause] >> i don't disagree. i'm just taking the oprah point of view here. [laughter] >> there should be a male oprah show. >> yeah. you know, there's only one woman on your ten list it's not a criticism of you. >> there's only one woman who was as active as the nine other men and i knew -- i knew that would come up, but in the end i thought it was more important to write about people i thought made a difference than to try to be politically correct and get the balance. >> but today, i mean, you could make the case for a diva of the left and right into single-issue politics and there are a number of women like laurie david who are very active politically on environmental issues and so on

and so forth. there are more women, at least on the left, you know, whatever you think of her politics, susan sarandon, laurie david, i suppose, in an indirect. >> well, yes, and the point well-taken and i list a whole bunch as you know of people on the left and right that deserve studies. but i was also interested in not just getting five left, five right but to get people who did different kind of political activism because we think that, you know, being politically active is poach you either run for office or you talk about an issue and those are the two most common forms, electoral politics and issue-oriented politics but i also wanted to talk about visual politics of people like charlie chaplain who didn't like joining groups, who didn't want to be part of any organization, but because he was his own producer, writer, director, star and later distributor, he had no studio head to tell him what he could or couldn't do and so he

preferred to put his politics directly on the screen. and i also found you had a number of stars i write about who did the same thing. once you had the end of the studio system in 1948, and movie stars open up their own production companies, people like harry bellefonte opened up his own production company and making two films and jane fonda opening up her own production group, films like coming home and the china syndrome ced was dealing with, her mass movement are tom hayden off the screen. you had warren beatty opening up his own company and political films. it's surprising i didn't see many people in, there may be, but i'm not aware of prominent people on the right who opened their own production companies to make political films to do their own ideas. >> it was actually my next question and for roger, too,

unless i'm mistaken about this, i don't see too many people on the right reaching out to grassroots movements, for example, the tea party. >> there has actually been a fair amount of talk about that lately that i've heard. whether it will emerge it's a fair question. but they're aware of what steve's saying. so i think there probably will be. first of all, the whole movie industry is fracturing. the studio system died ages ago but the systems that replaced it are now fracturing. so the whole method of production is fractured and i think what we're going to have is many, many different schools of thought contending and i'm sure some of them are going to be tea partyish because there's been a lot of talk about making

movies about franklin and so forth. and it's going to happen. >> you're picking the wrong guy if they pick benjamin franklin, let me tell you. [laughter] >> he's an interesting character. i think there are all kinds of complex people. >> if a spring that springs out of the tea party movement carries the theme, keep your government hands off my medicare, i think they're in big trouble. [laughter] >> i think it will be much more -- it won't be that at all. >> any sympathy for the tea party on the hollywood right? >> what's that? >> is there sympathy for the tea party on the hollywood right or do they see themselves largely as republicans who are -- >> no. i think -- i don't know the answer to that question. because, you know, the argument of the tea party is largely, it's just a small government argument. i mean, that's basically what it is. the other stuff is -- doesn't really exist. i mean, the attack on the tea

party wasn't really true. they weren't. they were small government people. and they are small government people so that's a very different kind of argument. and how that will translate into production of film and television is hard to predict. there was a very failed and terrible movie about atlas shrugged that came out last year. atlas shrugged -- >> you have a terrible book you end up with a terrible movie. >> well, you know, actually, i have to admit i've never read the book. but i did see the movie. but, you know, but i was bored. >> i was bored, too. >> good for you. >> i mean, nonetheless, if we're having public debates about person-hood and what counties as a person we're talking about a pretty extreme divide, you know, culturally, ideologically and so

on? it's not, you know, that's not a politically centrist debate. >> what's not centrist? between small government -- >> the idea of what person-hood is which has come up in the last few days. i mean, i don't want to get an argument about abortion and so on, but it suggests really politically fractured country. >> well, actually, the tea party people -- almost none of them talk about social issues. there are some who do, obviously, but the ones i met are all interested in small government, lower -- less government involved in everything and they don't talk about abortion and they don't talk about gay marriage. they don't talk about it. it's not an issue that attracts their attention. they're all toward economic issues. i've never heard them talk about it. now, i don't know -- the thing

about the economic issues, the theoretical like the tea party is a theoretical argument, it is -- will society work better for people if the government is less involved in it? okay, that's a theoretical question that the answer to is hard to say. and so it's a very hard thing to dramatize in the movie. it doesn't easily -- you could do a science fiction movie, well, what happens is the government is less involved. is it nirvana or is it mad max? you know, there's two different ways to look at it. >> i can tell you driving down wilshire or beverly glenn, i wish there was a bigger government that could fill the potholes. [applause] >> amongst other things. >> we should turn it over to questions after maybe one more among you, if you wish. >> okay. i just have one more question, there's subtitle of your book called blacklisting myself and

it's a hollywood apostate -- >> whatever. >> the american version, i guess. >> in an age of terror, what do you mean by terror and what you do you by apostate? >> as we say in america, because i was formally on the left and moved. that's an apostate someone who was once muslim and then he said he wasn't and got beheaded. that's a apostate. i feel like i'm an apostate. >> so when you talk about terror, are you talking about the threat from sean penn or the threat from al-qaeda. >> i don't know sean penn or the threat from al-qaeda. it was a reference to post-9/11. >> okay. let's open for questions from the audience. i think the mics are coming down

to you here. yes. >> thank you, for an interesting discussion, i'm 1000% in abolishing the death penalty. steven, in the course of researching your book, did you deal at all with ronald reagan and his approach to nuclear disarment after seeing the day after and how that affected him? and in his dealing with gorbachev and rakea vick. >> this book goes 500 pages and i figured that was heavy enough. the moment somebody got elected to office, that's when basically my research ended because then they were politicians, not movie stars. but i know there's stuff that he got confused and that the movies became his reality, but i can't really talk about it 'cause all i know is general things. i never really researched it. >> i think just behind -- sorry.

down here in the sweatshirt or a hood -- oh, a hoodie. [laughter] >> with people covering and media covering talking about people more and more voting on who they like or who they feel comfortable with as opposed to issues, isn't there another aspect of a celebrity running for office that you end up voting for him because of the role he played in a film or your comfort with it coming into your living room? is that not also as part of hollywood left? >> yes. [laughter] >> no, i actually write about that. in 1964, george murphy who you may remember is a song and dance man who his most famous role was danceing with shirley temple. the kind of roles you play -- if you're a movie star, left or right, and you're thinking about

a serious career in politics, then be very careful because the kind of roles you choose are going to have a great impact on how the public perceives you. and in '64, when murphy ran against pierre salinger who had been secretary of state through the camelot years, john kennedy, everyone expected that he was going to lose dramatically to salinger and one of the tv stations, clearly it must have been democratically owned, began running his late night movies -- or began running his movies on late night television thinking that people would see this, they would remember he's only a song and dance man and they would become disgusted. how can he possibly be a u.s. senator even though he had been the head of the california gop for two years, media advisor to eisenhower and tom dewy and it backfired.

and murphy said i know why they did this they thought they can smear me and people can say, oh, you're so nice. i remember those. your movies bring back -- you were the lovely young man with shirley temple and you were the best friend in this movie and that movie and he would start campaigning and say i've been in more of your bedrooms than any other candidate in america. [laughter] >> so, yes, those roles do help. >> can we go right over here. >> oh, sorry, yeah. >> two questions over here. mike farrell, i counted the words, i think there are 11. what story did mash tell that is no longer being told on tv. >> war hurts, blood is not spilled without cost. >> eight words and under.

>> mike, have you ever -- >> where are you? >> over here. >> oh, sorry. >> have you ever been tempted to run for office and do you feel you can be more effective as an activist versus a politician? >> tempted was a different line i said in a line in mash one time. no. i'm not interested in running for office. i have been asked. i think that my role in society is one that's a personal one. and i think -- i have great, great respect for people -- the few among them in the political world that i consider public servants. but it's -- it's more of a sacrifice and i'm not talking about economic. it's more of a sacrifice than i'm willing to make. i have a family, and they mean more to me than as was it walter mondale said spending all those

nights in holiday inns. >> i'm deeply concerned about the republicans' attack on the women's right to choose and i'm curious why we have not seen more female stars come out and support of a woman's right to choose? >> it seems to me we have, no? >> you haven't, evidently. [laughter] >> as far as i know, women of this country are significantly engaged in this question. let me just say, though, that i think things are coming at us in scatter shot kind of bursts and you have to sort of pick your fight. whether you're concerned about abortion or whether you're concerned about racial issues or

whether you're concerned about the economic disparity in this country or whether you're concerned about homelessness or whether you're concerned about whatever else is now -- in the -- in the consciousness while as steve pointed out, the congress is voting on whether or not in god we trust is still the motto of united states of america. people are very, very confused today. and i think very upset at the way things are going but there's a great deal of disarray in terms of figuring out how to respond to it. >> hi. i was wondering if maybe all three of you could comment on jon stewart's impact on political culture in this country because it seems to me that he's emblematic of what you're talking about earlier, about celebrity bringing attention to the issues and why you think he's been so effective

as being someone who's obviously liberal-leaning but opening up the conversation and garnering attention from both sides of the aisle. >> who? >> jon stewart. >> oh, jon stewart. >> anyone? >> well, i think he's quite brilliant. and i think you're right. he tries -- i think he tries to be fair. and people have been so deluged with -- hmmm, ideology, that comes at them in the form of news and comes at them in the form of opinion and one thing or the other and it's simply dishonest and what you get from jon stewart is a sense he's an engaged, interested, intelligent american who is very worried about what's going on in this

country and let's it be known. he's also very if any. >> part of his effectiveness is satire. that it is always easier to take your politics when you're laughing than when you have talking heads coming at you in an angry manner. and that the other thing about stewart -- i think one of the reasons he's popular is he's willing to poke fun at the left as well as the right, at the democrats as well as the republicans. he will call a fool a fool. and all he has to do is show you the videotape that, you know -- the best things he does, no, i don't believe in this. i never have and then he showed you something that candidate said last year, that politician that said last year. he exposes political hypocrisy on a daily basis. if you look at the history of

hollywood, even during the censorship in the early '30s, comedy was always less prone to be censored than dramas because nobody took comedians very seriously, did they and that's why jon stewart can get away with so much because he's doing it through humor and yet we know there's intelligence, there's homework, there's preparation and -- even though it's clear jon stewart leans left-ward he is not afraid at any time to just go after anyone who's been a fool. >> i agree about stewart. i think one of the interesting things about right now is that it's much more popular to get the news -- more people get their news through stewart and cobert than they do through normal channels now. there's a good thing in that and, of course, there's a bad thing in that. the good thing is that it's entertaining, that as steve says

he's willing to go against both sides which is great. and also makes him more entertaining because it makes him more authentic. on the other hand, it says something about our discourse that it's come to that. so there's a double -- there's a double side to it. and this is not -- this is not to condemn stewart. this is just to condemn the rest. stewart is doing what he's supposed to. >> okay. >> hi, i wanted to ask the panelists who's disillusioned because of michael moore, what will it take to become disillusioned with these right wing wacompanies on fox and these people running for office. >> i'm an equal opportunity disillusioned person. [laughter] >> this is not going to win the

contest with eight words. but i have two questions, i'll try to put them into one. it's a broad question. when you say the hollywood right had power, what -- i don't understand exactly what you meant. i say power is control with influence and certainly as the years have gone by, the right has not had power. the very causes that the left espoused from the early '30s on came to be. social security, unemployment, even the war hollywood right opposed. they favored mccarthyism, that was exposed and discredited. in view of the fact as you say hollywood had all this power, why did the country slowly turn to many of the issues that are hardly fought by the left came to being, discrimination, the

equal rights for the blacks, equal rights for women, social security, unemployment insurance. i can go on and on. >> how about we let the panel answer. >> i think it was directed to steve. >> i would say if you buy my book -- [laughter] >> it's a long answer. the short answer is you're not wrong. you're sort of -- maybe i've not made myself clear. i'm not saying everyone on the hollywood right has done that. but there's two things to look at. one is, if you take the big picture of american politics in the 20th century and you're asking a big picture question, there have been two -- what i would say foundational moments in 20th century politics that has affected all our lives. the first is the creation of the new deal state, a welfare state with the social safety net under franklin roosevelt, a president

deeply supported by hollywood, it helped sparked the emergence of hollywood and the second is the attempt to dismantle the new deal state with a conservative revolution begun under a movie ronald reagan in the 1980s but in between -- you know, that isn't to say that the hollywood left hasn't had a huge impact as well. and as mike's pointed out, they dealt mainly with issues that if you look at the 1930s and '40s, it's the hollywood left that's out on the forefront promoting antifascism and anti-nazism. in the '50s and '60s it was the hollywood social movement. in the '60s, 70s, 80s post, 90s and it's the hollywood talking about socially progressive causeses like a woman's right to her own