>> mcchord, being forthright and so forth, answered -- the judge said speak up. he said i worked at the cia. i believe your words were holy crap. [laughter] >> this was a time at the post where they flooded the zone is a new york times reporter said. i think we had eight people working on the story the first day. carl and i were the only ones to come in the next day, sunday, and work on the text. >> bob, what was watergate?

.. .. if sabotage operation to derail the democrats. there are tapes that show that nexgen in august of 72 approved and okayed the payment of watergate for their silent. and you know, carlos lee very

well that watergate was, not that there's burglary, not just the cover-up, but a coal mine site and a whole series of illegal activities. just for instance, they hired people well before watergate, the former f. yang and to climb the telephone pole behind joe house. now think of something like that were going on, and you can rocco, had the climbing telephone poles? let's hope not. joe crab was a very prominent columnist at that time. so watergate isn't interlacing theories of activities that were illegal. as mark felt told us there were 50 people hired to do this. when people dismiss that, they

found more than 50 people doing all kinds of things specifically to derail. >> let me add one thing. very two essential elements. we can see so clearly with the tapes today. and that is an attempt to undermine the most basic of american democratic notions, which is free election, that what watergate was really about was to derail the electoral process of the opposition party to have the white house determine who the nominee would be. and then we found out, not just the press, but the judicial system, legislative system that coincidentally, the antiwar group had been regarded in almost exactly the same way by the nixon white house. these two things came together. there was this huge retributive

mechanism at the white house that really defined the press and in. [inaudible] >> i would like to know what you see -- [inaudible] >> i am one of the people in the room who was sitting here because of you. what do you see about what watergate is what you think is good and what is bad? >> everyone here that? >> i'm going to shout. everybody here in the grand this year because of you. we all chose because i wanted their perception of what watergate did as a practice of journalism and what they think is good about it and what is bad about it. >> well, what it was is and

death persistence reporting. we've often talked about coverage. we were told to stay on this story. sometimes we stories on the 36. one of them i just thought those that there is a $3000 receive her at the watergate hurlers had which was affixed and expensive procedure. we did know exactly what it meant. it finally showed they had virtually unlimited amounts of money to conduct these operations. the unlimited amount of money demonstrated that it wasn't just somebody at the meta-level who authorized the company said you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these things. so i think although it is not in the book or in our know, dat was

follow the money, find some to follow, find something that will give you a hook into the story. >> in terms of the profession, i think it is about a newspaper. that when you were fortunate, lucky enough to work for a newspaper where the bottom line was the truth, that was the bottom line. that is what the management with interests in. i was the value of the publisher of the paper. bradley woodward and i were sitting around a week ago and going over some things. and bradley kept saying it's the truth. it's the truth. what about the truth? >> and he also told us that he didn't get into journalism because of that. [laughter] [applause]

we got into journalism because of an. >> i remember reading the "washington post" announced in may last year in the navy. you would get it in the morning and it clearly was an independent police. there clearly was a willing with conventional wisdom to challenge the establishment. and you could tell it and that was so a trip to two young reporters. >> the other thing is when a subpoena for the committee for the reelection of the president arrived at the office, paul wasn't there. i got a call. i called bradley a nice that they are coming after her nose. he called us they are in katharine graham said they are not here and there mind and they're going to have to come get me if they're going to do anything. >> this is great week has you see they decide they are going to center to the d.c. poll.

and she gets that same now go to jail for this. >> of packages that want them because these guys are too modest to say it. watergate for investigative reporting in american journalism was like the big bang. everything changed after it. everything from the way government official sites, reporters fact, the way the public perceived investigative reporting. my generation of reporters come you can call it the sons and daughters of watergate. i got into this business because of what these two guys did. and at the "washington post" i run the investigative unit that was set up for bob woodward after watergate. he was the first editor 30 years ago. i'm the first editor 30 years later. >> tell them how much they shot her staff. >> i still have seven full-time investigators. which is really -- which is

really a testimony. i have seven full-time investigators who spent a year developing one story. but it goes back to a karl what karl said about methodology. watergate is a culture of investigative reporting provides a controlling myth, but it also taught us how to think about doing it. follow the money is something we do in every single investigation to this very day. that is how he broke the undermine story in 2004 in 2005 informed everything we do. developing human sources like these guys did in safer records and putting those two together are still even in this internet tweaking age the foundation of what we do. >> so did they ever say to you follow the money? >> he never did. but if you look at what is in the book in the know, that is what added up to. one of the things you have to

look at here and just makes the point about the method. the method was really karl saying, let's talk to the people who work for nixon campaign committee. we couldn't get a list of who was there. carl levin get a former girlfriend who had a contact, who provided us with a list of the people who worked there. they went into the night n. carl in the method of trying to talk to the people who are interested in the erie of the money because we had done a story truce in the $25,000 check from the bookkeeper for the nixon campaign and not in a sense unlocked the whole issue of who is in charge, who authorized these very large payments to people like ordway d. who ran watergate and so forth. and that was systematically

going through and finding the people. >> the other thing they told us from the beginning in the nixon white house, when we went out to see the people who work for the president and his campaign, we encountered incredible fear, bordering on terror. and this is about methodology and it's about, you know, that information in the file will essential. wouldn't you have been afraid of that haircut? if somebody like that showed up at your door? smoking cigarette? >> so i think robert redford is going to make a documentary about watergate. so here in 2013. can interview tell us about it when it's necessary? don't we know everything. >> we are serious about watergate and reporting.

it is worth pausing, as he said, looking out what was? i think one of the key question in all of this is who was richard nixon? who is our president? the watergate are stunning. no one will look at the mall or look at the transcripts. you do in the car. >> i do in the car. [laughter] >> 's early on down the road. not only are their crimes, not only abuse of power, but the smallness of nixon, when you listen to them that if nixon has the responsibility and the high purpose and president in the united states and he wants to use the power of the president

be as an instrument of revenge. screw everyone. get the irs down here, cia, fbi. order a firebombing at the brookings institution saying i don't give a. get in there, firebomb the place if you have to. president of the united states. it's really important that the notion that this was kind of paper or that the cover-up is worse than the crime, which is not a case i certainly believe, that this was an assault on democracy by the president to the united states and his men and the system then word. the judiciary, supreme court of the united states, order the president of the united states internists pages two unanimous decision. richard nixon would expect to get a pass from the chief justice.

the 77 to nothing by the senate of the united states to undertake the watergate investigation headed by sam ervin. imagine today if you want to ask about a different. imagine today giving it 77 to not go to investigate the purported crimes or malfeasance of the sitting president. unanimous. the republican party being really the people who cast most important vote for the impeachment of the president of the united states and the house judiciary committee. republicans led by senator barry goldwater marched to the white house and said to richard nixon come you don't have a vote in the senate. you're going to be convicted and convinced you have believed. hugely important and maybe this anniversary and this movie might be an opportunity to finally put this into the tape after 40 years.

and bob talks very often about the wars of watergate. >> i can, it was the setup outer gate committee that got into the details of this, but including carl and myself, can you brand buy it because the issue quickly became what does nixon know and when did they know it and the pursuit of the tapes. but when they did their investigation, they discovered what we call the five worst of watergate. the first was against the antiwar movement and surveillance, wiretapping, break-ins, nixon, fbi, cia. and then the second war was against the press, where the press is covering this antiwar movement. they have reporters, telephone. they were going to set up what was called the houston plan, which nixon signed off on, which was erie's of illegally dvds

to read people's mail, or he can. so they have this apparatus in place and all of a sudden the democrats are next to richard nixon because they might take the mindset and the apparatus and again it's in the tape that they telmex in the moving all of this over to one campaign or another. and the fourth were, the war against the system of justice, which we cover a period and a fifth war, which we can still see element of today is history. it was the third we are poorly when you look at the details of richard nixon and his team actually picked to run again in

1975. he didn't want to run again muskie. they thought he was a strong candidate and all were directed against him. >> support to point out the context. nixon was in danger. >> that is not the case. first they were worried about ted kennedy. so that then got a former secret service agent to tell kennedy, report back to the white house. they infiltrated every aspect from way back of the democratic campaign. and one other thing about this is the tapes, never on those tapes have we found a single instance where the states or those around him say what would be the right thing for the country on any matter quite >> is there one thing that it had happened we would be up here

talking today? i mean, i would argue that alex butterfield played a huge role in revealing the assistance of the taping. >> i think that's right. i think if he didn't have the tapes that they would've been in ambiguity about all of this. but the clarity of the tapes and the people who listened to them, particularly republicans on the house judiciary committee would not only do what the substance, but the rage that nixon would kid him about small things and the indifference to the law. the indifference to the response ability mixon had as president. you know, there is goodwill that everyone feels towards the president, even if they disagree, even if they are in the party in for next thing he

could never leverage that goodwill. he always was suspicious. at the end he kind of unlocked the key to the way he thinks when he says always remember, others may hate you, but if you hate them, what is there? let's try again -- always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. they destroyed yourself. i mean, think of that. he kind of realize that. >> , to ask about myths. there's a lot of myths about watergate. one is to be single-handedly took down the president of the united states. is there one that bothers you? >> are certainly one. this is about the system

working. the legislature, everybody. there were. i think that is the principle menace is the oversimplification. and if one imagined his this idea. >> and the idea that what we were writing was just following what the fbi or the prosecutors were chasing in january 73 the prosecutors on the first watergate trial and said horton liddy was the mastermind and read what a couple dozen stories saying the people behind watergate were the chief of staff, john mitchell, the former attorney general, nixon's personal lawyer, that nixon's appointment secretary dared in the office was running part of the sabotage campaign. it was a completely different

picture from the sources we had. that's one of the myths that is out there. >> sizing up, there's a new book out called leak. in 1976 the account given of the old videos about describing "deep throat" as the stricken man who crossed. this new book says he fell in this cynical, opportunistic rather than noble. what do you? >> a book called the secret man in 2005 when mark felt came forward and identified himself as bed sores. there is nothing in that book that isn't -- i mean, i said there was an ambition, and manipulation. he liked the press. one of the things you discover is the reporters that people's

motives are not just unitary. they generally have sometimes particularly with somebody like mark felt and a complex mind commit three, four, five layers. one of them was disappointment in not being made fbi director. i knew him and dealt with him. he was troubled at what was going on in the nation's white house. he was always trying to protect the fbi and people forget about us. he was not a volunteer. he didn't come to s. we went to him and i actually was -- you used the term stalker. to get him to talk. >> there's another fundamental flaw in this book. that is the idea that somehow felt play does, that he tricked us into some pain, not send comment that we obtained

information all over. it was rare that he volunteered information. he would occasionally confirm it, but certainly the idea that he play does is utter nonsense because the stories turned out to be true. the people who got played were the prosecutors and they really got played, partly because the assistant attorney general and the attorney general of the united states were in on the play. and we wrote it. >> the panel was called how would this unfold demented old age -- and the digital age. now we can probably spend the whole panel talking about watergate. i went to bring other people in as well. josh, tell us where does watergate fit in your life and how d.c. investigative reporting? >> i think like everybody else,

botanic investigative story. >> how old were you? >> i was three i think. [laughter] i'm not even that young. i'm 43 years old. so yes, everything is compared to a, falls short. i think it is the same for me as everyone else has taught. it's funny. one of the things they maybe it's generational if it has always been difficult for me to grasp how the initial story didn't -- i mean, i guess i could do one for you guys, the two-day break into the headquarters, even if it's not aimed, even if it's just something totally coincidental. what i think about malls is the

way that digital report name breaks the news cycle. and i think from our own experience coming even the new safeco, then in the way that the newspaper business ran 40 years ago was x-rated in extreme cases, the esa click to once a day by day the apple and as a whole group of things after that. one is a matter what you have has to be framed into, you know, two or three basic format. certain links, we invite you invite you concern most different in my mind is the way that operating on the web is that you can't two-day weekend take one fact and as long as we

know it is accurate, we can go right with it. we are not found in that cycle. and in my experience, obviously that's a great one. you don't have to be worried much, but that also creates a much more interact a relationship with the audience and they think that can be actually kind of conformity. >> do you see a downside to that at all? >> you know, there's many potential down sides. this huge downside senate much as the amounts of competitions that we face today. there's tremendous pressure to run with them before you got mail. i i don't think that's it. >> were there any stories that you think we would've done better to rush into the paper on the cycle? can you think of a single one that would've made a difference

if we would've jammed? >> that's the thing. i'm actually describing some pain but there are stories on the west today, stories are reported in different ways. your stories and many individual parts that putting them together -- it's not just a matter of the ability to rush. >> i think there's a very positive decide to it. i think there's also a downside because you have to step back and say what is the goal? vocalist understanding. and if we'd gone to bradley and that we have 15, he would've what is inside get the fuck out of my office. >> everybody learned a new word.

>> everybody's going to tweet. >> what is interesting about the process is that we would actually do a draft and we would ride on tape her the copies would go out and sometimes editors would meet with guys. if we got this story, get more sources, get more information. i don't understand facts and why. and it was the process of delay that allowed us to kind of okay, those are good questions. i never said riordan not printed that story about ultimate nordic center mitchell. he would say -- >> i think that process is happening in a different fashion. there are two or three fairly big part.

>> sure they are true. but there are many things that we weeded days and weeks on things that had to do with carol lam. >> pitcher first story in the u.s. attorney, how did it take for the reporting to be done? >> before you apply but that? >> a couple days. >> it wasn't a tweed. >> there was no tweaking. >> i think my point is you can still have that very deliberative process in this different platform. and i think the point that i would make is that they are again, you can have a broad arc of the story, but even sometimes arrested nation.

designation of the south contains story. there are things like that. dirt incremental information they allows you to have more of an ongoing interpretation. >> there's two kinds of investigative reporting. this is one of the legacies of watergate. there's what i recall scandal coverage, which is very fast moving, very public. a thousand reporters are climbed over the same source is. remind me of monica lewinsky but it's nice worrisome for pre. and then there are the longer-term, very quiet deliberative investigations that are done, the kinds of things that some people call them alice in. they call them mcateer, but they are public service reporting. i think the current environment takes both directions.

they basically have to operate a few tracks. watergate was a running investigation or you're taking the time to nail that down. >> agrees talk about the current environment because the small minute fact that the current environment is the way the information is who's he hear the readers and viewers are very different today. we had a leadership and the networks had a viewership they think it was much more open to real fat than today, whereas today it ain't there is a huge audience, partly whipped into shape by this 24 hour cycle that is looking for information to confirm their already held political cultural religious beliefs, ideologies and that is the cauldron into which all information is put. we had a bit of that of watergate because the white

house tried to make that hurt our conduct in the press be assured watergate rather than the conduct of the president and i worked for a while and recalling democrat they said bradley was a well-known liberal at jfk and all the rest. and it didn't work anymore. you know, i have no doubt that there are dozens of great reporters out there today and news organizations that could do this story. what i don't think is that i'm not so sure it would withstand this cultural reception, that it might take roundup in the process. >> i don't think that's the problem. [inaudible] >> if you go back and look at this from the day 40 years ago, as carl and i have said, the

risk was bradley and katharine graham. they were the ones who weren't carol. we were 29 years old and if it didn't work out, didn't check out arcaro could've gone to cutler rock music, something he wanted to do. i could onto the dark side had gone to law school. but they were the ones who had it on the line. a "washington post" account of the. right at that point. the nixon administration had decided on a strategy of going up to the tv licenses of the "washington post," two got the basic economic health of the company. a huge undertaking of courage on the part. >> and if you look, the stock has just gone public because of the challenge. >> but i ask you to do some thing for me, to exercise due.

you were 29 years old when this happened. you sit in the business, gotten what works is. are certainly aware of the climate, the existing political climate, news climate. he's got a long distinguished career. it's a beautiful day out there and marcus have spent the entire staff home, the phone call has just come in. he says there's been a break-in and u2 are the only people on earth who can cover it. what do you do today? tell me today given everything you know. what are you going to do? was the first thing you're going to do and the next thing you're going to do. >> hopefully we be larger and more organized and quite frankly work harder and more focused on it. maybe it wouldn't leave anyway. maybe it is not the sort of story like watergate.

just point out some of the really great investigation or explanation of who people are, what they've done, what is the two sinn fein and so forth and no one goes to jail. somebody does not have to go to jail. >> one other thing about the institution. and those first days while he was in the courtroom, i was calling around florida to track the burglars to learn about their past, we also had a guy at police headquarters who learned from a detect to that howard hutton had in his pocket a note book can notebook -- the burglar had in his pocket a note book i said w. house. >> you and i look at w. house and carlos much more creative. he said only name one of two.

[laughter] and though he called the whorehouse and i called the white house. [laughter] >> echoes back to the institutional question. there's already a mechanism in place. but we were able to capitalize. >> you guys are the models for us. who are the models for you and i don't mean his editors. who are the models for you? jack andersen or did you create your own mother was doing on? >> i grew up at the washington star and had the most remarked will staff of reporters. this is before bradley got to the post. the basic kind of reporting -- i mean, i think before bradley got

to the post, it was more exceptional at the post than it was at the start. >> i think people like david had done rough orders and so forth with a lot of suspicion about that. but you know, asking the question, what should we think about over the years after this, one of the questions we should ask is, do we know what is going on now? how plug in or we in the city council of montgomery county's in virginia, the white house, the food intricate ministration and so forth? and my sin is the people miss institutions, because even the reporters for the post have to file multiple times a day who are unnecessarily beholding the

people stay in the white house you have to talk to to get a response to the running daily story. they don't like what you do. you print to broadcast images will call you back. and i asked an editor for one of the very big important papers here recently. i said when it last time you wrote some taittinger peep her that the obama administration didn't like? he could think of any. and so, we are in a sense -- the question is what should we worry about? there is more secrecy and it's better organized. this can field, better. it doesn't mean it is necessarily illegal, but the judge said you got it right,

democracy is dying and darkness and i don't have the kind of confident that you would hope about are we describing the basic institutions at all levels? even today, you know the president has been interesting things. he basically challenged the people in the audience to go out and find out if what he was telling him what he was saying is the truth. anything chelate sent the e-mail that is possible. we know that what he said today is going to be the basis of his camp came in terms of his domestic and economic message. and i think it's a real question of whether we will go out there and determine whether what he said is the truth. there's an awful lot he asserted today that his checkable. and if your newspaper and say

all right was obama telling? there is a way to work. the most important thing -- the most important thing we do is determine what is news. >> the environment is very fast moving, fluid dynamic, but it's not shallow. there's many levels from a bloggers sit down to taking a year to get to the story. we still do have a lot of stories that off the administration, congress. believe me i hear about it. so it is more about where you put the resources. >> but are there enough of those stories? that is the question. and are you comfortable that there's enough of those stories click >> uncomfortable with the commitment, which is they put their money where their mouth is.

the legacy of watergate, the willingness for walter reid investigation on down that they're willing to really still put their money where their mouth is. and there's every level of each mint from the tweakers and bloggers. >> amanda, what about where you are? what is the commitment to investigative journalists and their? >> not so much the commitment of the craft. one other thing i am thinking about is how little has actually changed. how very similar it is. the prices are describing can point at the screen, but coming in on sunday. this type which he didn't know that watergate was watergate. it wasn't watergate when you started. so much of that seems exactly the same as what we should be doing. so i am not clear. to disagree?

>> i have a quote i like to give, which is the internet has changed every day and. the internet has changed nothing. instead of the methodology these guys use to do their story. you know, bob has a famous scene that says someone needs to go out in the coordinated knock knock on the door and he's talking about finding a source. find a source inside a document and do the honest pursuit of the truth. the methods are eternal and ancient and we now have computer-assisted reporting, faulty platforms. we can get the word out faster, to social media. but the heart and center of the game remains the type of reporting these guys did. >> the point that i feel is moving the conversation of what is different and possibly not possible. what i was late to ask you is

how much of that process was based on the fact that most citizens watching in terms of a news monopoly, but the news business, the paper business is basically characterized by geographical anopheles or duopolies quite >> it was at the time. >> i remember talking but don graham's mother, katherine in 1977, need to be a number of years after watergate and she said we had a really good business here. we made millions of dollars and so forth. i said well, i thought it was pretty good news here, too. and she said that doesn't make any difference. and i remember going insane what

do you mean? but are we doing for? she said it doesn't make any difference. what she meant was they had a monopoly that if there's lots of good stories in the paper, do you really wouldn't sell more newspapers or more advertising. but what she said and what she did and what don does and what the current leadership is done is work going to spend the money on having a news organization covering workers and editors who will cause the extra mile. >> i think a function for some editorial side. so many of the things we talk about here, the facts so we talked to before but how many reporters are on the investigative side. kyoko back. anyone here with a classified

ad, despite this disaggregation is new. i think it is very similar on the editorial side. it goes to the different kinds of competition. the fact that other mediums play into what is purely a prince phase. to me that's the most interesting to. the way that the practice of journalism has been changed by destruction of monopolies. >> i'd like to ask both of you whether you think it's possible that the institutional change that we've seen, but the diet before the internet that was sensational, manufacturing, the

course, and i'm hardly a prude or something, that the change in what we put on the air into our papers, before the web, but i think perhaps there is darty huge shifts underway towards i did use called the timeless culture for new republic and the influence of murdoch in the diet that most media outlets started putting out had changed before the internet and despite all this talk about everyone going to journalism school and imitating methodology, i'm not sure that's great the effort went. >> i think there was that trend. look at the newspaper world could live video culture.

>> carl and i are two young reporters working. what you want? we knew what bradley wanted. good story. keep going. take the risk. >> that would be very clear. we have the first part of our site that we opened up was dedicated to investigative journalism called outbreak. and not just characterizes the organization. >> with marcus as editor of the "washington post" camus were talking about this before this group assembled here. and that is when they were doing the movie version, they decided they wanted to higher jason

rover to play bradley because they seem to look alike and they offer will parse the part that in the 70s they said we'll pay you $50,000. for that sounds great. i'll get $50,000. they gave him the script and he went home and at the scripting came into the direct your any set i can't play ben bradlee. they said why? he said i read the script and all he does is run around and say where's the story? [laughter] and they said to them, that is what the editor of the "washington post" does. that is his job. and all you have to do is find out 15 different ways to say it. toyota markets he said that

right. photos by job. last night's >> amanda, did you want to add quite >> i'm trying to put myself back in the previous thing before watergate was watergate and somehow it becomes a little intimidating them we think were supposed to be swinging from watergate every time we do something. i think sometimes here in the room i hope it is another young person who took on another vacant touche and that in her world was the young reporter who broke the story at penn state. small paper, no big resources. a young woman, young editor. and the thing she was pulling on this right in front of your face and had to face down the big thing. i don't know that it takes a big staff that were talking about.

you are two people. it only takes one. >> but that is by asking josh about this creates incentive for the reporters, for them to feel where is the story. >> and that's what i'm saying. i'm not sure it's changed all that much. >> a family-owned newspaper. having that kind of girl that she feels how you. i think without question the last investigative reporting about the country than there used to be. i judge that saw the arena wars. there were 40 entries from 29 legacy papers there this year. 10 years ago there were 110. >> there's less real reporting. i think that is the real

question. >> i would guess some of you might have a question. we have time for one or two questions. just give us your name. nostalgia. just ask the question. >> looper impasto, editor in washington. two-part question. did you guys ever fight over any big issues during the story? and are you's good friends now? >> yes, yes. >> give us an example of something he fought over. >> during the reporting of watergate i think almost never is the answer. we very quickly at high regard and worked in a complementary way. >> be careful of the phrase almost never. >> asked him, did you authorize the tapping of some of the

reporters and the national security officials of the nixon white house? his answer was almost never appeared >> hi i'm andy klassen from "politico." my question is, what went through your mind november 8, 1970 two when the election result came in the 61% of the popular vote? every state going for nixon in massachusetts and where we are today after the credit reporting effort that she made. how did you feel? it didn't surprise us and i don't think it affected us one bit. you know, we knew the story hadn't gotten that much traction by then. there was a lot of reporting what to do. we had a real moment in

september 1972. we found out that john mitchell was attorney general to united states headed controlled the secret funds and some other undercover duties. woodward at night with the unit in the machine room often used them every day to kind of get our good cop, bad cop routine ready for mr. bradley. >> yes it was the good cop and bad cop? >> so i put it dying in. that's what the cup of coffee cost them. at time of machine. i thought this little chilcote on the net, the likes of which i can remember to today. literally. i remember my god, this president is going to be huge. this is look at me. we can never use this word in this newsroom to let people

think we have some kind of agenda. we just got going. i think that's the answer. >> steve engelbert, quick question for josh and the panelists. i was really struck by the notion, the question raised about going after the one fact to get it on the web as they think that is a lot of what today is. i want to come back to josh and put back a little bit. i think that does undercut because you can't leave one fact. and if one fact is the bar, two, two at halftime and prevents you from going at night. i think undercuts it. >> i don't agree. maybe i'm not being clear enough. there are different facts. there are facts that mean nothing out of the broader context. you have to out around the. there are some new pieces of information that many times -- i

see it every day. first you have the story that is basically one key new piece of information, one new development , but in the daily papers there is no format for a paragraph because sometimes if you have an ongoing arc of the story, where your readers understand the broader story, context, players involved, that is all that is really required. the stage in the way you say, i agree. but yes if you are looking for every new fact of information and you put everything out sequentially, i totally agree. but that is not what i'm saying. >> any other questions? >> i have one question thinking about the big story from the last four decades, which one do you think is the closest analog to watergate?

>> well, i think watergate -- audio made >> watergate was the 100 year storm. there really isn't anything that combines all those elements the same way. i think in terms of impact, i would, i would, i would race which is facing "the boston globe" investigation of the catholic church had to kind of worldwide impact, where just moved like a tidal wave. >> is still moving. >> that comes to mind. >> bob, what about you? i would tend to agree with that. but also, there is sometimes a reluctant in the reporting

profession investigated in depth reporting coverage to not really go after the power, but you take on stories that are good stories, but not a lot. the power centers. and karl admired your friends, but if you look at the books karl has done since we did watergate, hillary clinton in power centers the pope, one of the great power centers are one of the big power centers of the world. and sometimes icing it tips come in or there's a lot of low-hanging fruit for people's a-list do a story on this amount do that and not sit around and asked a very hard question, who has the power and how do we hold them? >> karo,? >> i think that's a great answer. you could elaborate that at every level.

whether a state college of pennsylvania. that is a whole community. unbelievable power center not sports program. one of the other things that might be worth mentioning with a lot of credit reporting of the last 30 years has been in books. i'm not sure why, but there are notable examples of it. and partly because those reporters have had time to do it and have found the forum perhaps a little more receptive. >> is a word number for the fund investigative journalism i would buy a treat urge you to apply for some of those grants we have. >> amanda, what about you? >> i think what you're saying about going after the power centers to great thing, but that's not really what you guys do. he pulled the string does a

phone call that came to you by serendipity and he kept pulling the string. what you guys did is believe something that appeared to be unbelievable. and i think that's what the catholic church does. it changed the way we thought about all the institutions. >> but we knew we were dealing with the white house veered >> you are sitting around going like wonder what we can do to look at the power of the white house. >> from the day that no book i talked about showed up in the pocket. it was either that or the cia were looking at. we knew that much pretty clear. >> i would agree in terms of the way it changed what we thought of an institution of the catholic church in believing some things that is unbelievable and that is the same thing but the paterno saying this is the police something that appears to be unbelievable. >> i just think about state legislators. those are great stories. all over america.

that's not low. it is really important, really powerful. look at where the super packs are putting their money now. the state races many ways as in the presidential race. you think state legislatures are really doing the wheel of the people? i think it's pretty easy to get motivated. ..

>> one moment. >> one of the reasons was that it was different and received

differently at the newspaper and received differently by the world. the two reporters that were writing it -- we had never heard of. it wasn't so-and-so -- those guys -- all of their buddies and behind them right away. and they were behind you. >> the amazing thing about the story, and this came up in josh's comment, you were reporting the story, and the thing that is hard to believe is that there were a lot of other big powerful news organizations in town. and you took the story seriously and that no one else did for a long time.

you have talked to a lot of other people who were reporters in town. you have asked them, why do you think that happen to why didn't other news organizations take it as seriously as you did for months? >> i had only worked for the "washington post" for nine months. i was very much an employee, and i was much more subservient in that. -- no more. >> no more, that's right. you have to capture the environment. that is why when we are talking about -- how do you get to stories like this, it is leadership from the top. it is somebody saying this is what we do, this is the business we are in, this is on purpose, and not doing that just from on high in a weekly meeting -- been

used always say, be out floor walking. everyone would say why is he talking to joe over their? it was infectious, go to it. you cannot live on high as a newspaper editor or a blogging editor. you have to be out there stimulating. >> but there is another element to this. reporters love great stories. when i was 16 years old, i went to work at the boston star. it was the most exciting thing i have ever saw in my life. it remains that way today, i think. you go into a newsroom and it is electric. it is electric because the people who are in that newsroom know that there are stories out there. that is what they do.

there is fun to read. we can talk about all we want -- the national interest and other things -- but these stories are a lot of fun. what better thing in the world to do than this. there is real purpose to it as well. i don't think it should take all the motivation that perhaps we are talking about on the part of journalism. >> this is an outstanding panel. this question is principally for jeff. i am wondering how the environment has changed for investigative reporting now in light of the intensity and the fact of countermeasures of the state and government -- but they are using now with their sources. prosecutions are underway now. it seems that some of them -- law enforcement have bypassed reporters and gone directly to

sources of electronic devices. i am wondering how that has changed the kind of measures that you take, jeff, and how that might change the world now. >> we spent a lot of time talking about encryption. bouncing off that question, i have a radical thought, which i do not think watergate would unfold the same way today. there are too many things that are different. for one, i don't think there would be any pace. in the same way that water on trent watergate changed journalism, -- as josh said, the original third rate burglary would be quite hot. it would be 247 in the blogosphere. i'm not sure that the time for the story to unfold and the way it would would be the same. prosecutors have learned more.

judges have learned more. >> congress has learned more. >> i just feel that this thing would be completely different. who knows, if maybe it is over by the election, who knows that you might never get it it on tape. >> it is the industry. one of the colleges asked students in a journalism class to write a one-page paper on how watergate would be covered now. >> what's cool is it, which is very interesting. >> it was a professor and he said that the one-page papers -- i talk to the class on the speaker phone afterward.

i read the papers. i came as close as i have two having an aneurysm. [laughter] because the students wrote that they would use the internet and you know they would google nixon secret funds, and it would be there. somehow the internet was the magic lantern that lit up -- then they went on to say that the political environment would be so different that nixon wouldn't be believed and all the bloggers and readers would be in a lather and nixon would resign in a week or two weeks. i have attempted to apply some corrective information to them.

but the basic point is the truth of what goes on is not on the internet. it can supplement the truth, but the truth resides with people. you have to find a way to build a relationship of trust with human sources that will tell you, okay, this is what really goes on. you learned time and time again in journalism -- and it is a cold shower, believe me. you do a couple of interviews with somebody and you think you're really getting somewhere. i've got some time, i'll go back for a third, a fourth, a fifth. then you realize on the eighth interview that you start getting the real story of what is going on. i think if there were some story like that that require the

incremental coverage, the people would do it using the tools of the internet, but not being diluted that somehow it's really going to tell you something that is hidden and consumers. >> the watergate hearing grant on for about three months from may to july of 1973. they made a huge difference -- >> [inaudible conversations] >> she is making a great point here. you can't remember this town being as gripped by any event. the town was covered by it all three networks. they ran them and i, then it tells the story.

>> but the real -- the real point is the institution of the congress and the united states responded. i have grave doubts that the institution of the congress of the united states would respond today. >> sam from the watergate committee called us up and asked that he would like our sources. we said no. we are not going to give you our sources. he said, well, we are going to conduct his inquiry that you've laid out. if you look at that, those hearings begin in may of 1973 and finished in august. they are the gold standard. they had ehrlichman, mitchell, john dean, they discovered the case. they lead a -- they laid out the

whole money trail in the prosecutor's office and discovered corrupt containment. >> the republican on the committee said what did the president know, and when did he know what? >> i read that the average american watched 30 hours of the hearing that went from may to august in 1973. really, other than 9/11, i can't think of an event that gripped the nation. this went on for months. i think we will wrap it up. i want to know i have a few copies of this book. i was on a panel a few years ago, and i came out and they were signing my book and people were buying it, bob looked up and said, do you mind? and i said no. i told my son to go buy a copy of my book so i could get them to sign it. thank you all. [applause]

>> are special booktv programming continues over the next several hours as we focus on the lives of william f. buckley and ronald redman untrimmed reagan

>> arthur carl bogus on his book about william f. buckley. and how buckley effected at american conservatism. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you all for coming anda supporting independent bookstores.

have we have a very special guest here for you today. he'ss a professor and has spokn in front of congress. his writings have been publishet in prominentod newspapers. >> youst recent book is buckley. >> thank you very much. to good evening. it is a pleasure to talk to you today abou today about william f. buckley.s maybe most speakers don't begin by telling you there political affiliation, i think that that i is important and necessary. i happen to bes a liberal, and . know i am speaking about a conservative icon and a figure who is the lead to millions of people. i think it is important that i confessed my apostasy first.

i admire buckley in many ways,lt but i also disagree with many of his ideas, and that may come ia through.s. but i wanted to be up front wito you about that. historians debate whether history is made by individuals or by structural forces. if george washington would have happened to live, or james madison or abraham lincoln, ifne the united states existed, would it be the same country that we know it to be? would other people have come c forth and fill their shoes and done what they did, what wouldi things be markedly different? for our purposes tonight, the question is if william f. legioey junior had lived, would conservative be what it is todae

or would it be different, hade s there been a conservativen a movement, would it have achieved the same success that it has achieved. i'm going to put that question aside foro the moment and try tm circle back to ite later. let's start with you was buckley.y? who was buckley? he had different courierscareer. untrimmed couriers, or he did things that would have filled couriers for six individuals and made them all incrediblyand made successful. let's start with the fact that he was a syndicated columnist. he wrote for many years, in syn fact, up until he died, a columi called on the right. at its height, it was published three times a week in 350wspars.

newspapers. w he was one oasf the most widelyy read columnist in the country. he produced, in the course of his life, 5600 columns. if you just took his newspaper columns and you publish them in book form, they would fill 28 volumes this size. he did this extraordinarilyily well. he won the best columnist of thd year award in 1967, so i sugges. that if he had just been aad jut columnist, he would've been enormously successful and influencer. he also wrote 56 books are in use also a speaker.also wro he also wrote about allte kindsf other things. he wrote a very successful spy series. he wrote about sailing across the oceans.ans. in addition to these books, many

of which were national bestsellers, many of them, heseh published countless magazineegae articles, not only in his ownzie magazine, "national review", but on magazines that pride themselves on publishing the dery best.yorker, an "the new yorker" and esquire.es. he did this very well. he won an award for the best mystery in paperback or near. w he won the lowell thomas journalist award for the bestowl travel article one year.one if he had just done that, it iould have made a very successful career or in he was a public speaker. he was probably the most sought after -- certainly one of thehe most u sought after speakers in the united states. at his height, he averaged 70avg talks the year.lae he did this in large part to

raise extra revenue to helpp support his magazine "nationalal review." he was a television host ofrevi. "firing line." does this from 1 he did this from 1967 until 1999. he still holds the record --recd "firing line" holds the recordfe of being the show that has theg longest running host in historyn he did this extremely well. he won an emmy award for outstanding achievement for his ou television show.. so if you just had been thedon television show for that manyon years, it would've been in the norma's accomplishment. -- it would've been and the norma's accomplishment. he founded "national review" in 1955.complish he editedme it until 1999. he maintained leader controluntl

until 1999. as many of you know, "national n review" by weekly or bimonthly is the mostos influential political journal in the uniteds states on the left or the right. it was a vehicle for defining -- thefining conservatism in 1950s and 1960s, andeating a creating a conservative movement -- it is still enormously and influential magazine. man o buckley was a man of extraordinary wit and chart -- charm.em hebe had nosh he had prisma.he he did things that no one else thought of doing. let me take you back to 1965 to

when he happened to fit in among all of these other things,hings running to mayor of new york.cot as ran on the conservativeconsee ticket. he ran for two reasons.inec one was to reach a widertch higw audience. he also did it to extinguish thh political career of a rising liberal republican, john lindsay. heeli he believed that lindsay was ad dashing, handsome, rising star in the republican party.y. he was a liberal, and he had noh endorsed the republican standard of very cold water -- there he r

the heart of the republican party. but we hope that by running on a epubnrvative party line he wou >> buckley hoped that he would drain enough republican lineskeu away that he would drain them.fs let me take you back to someillu excerpts from his first conference. i understandn that the party has persuaded him to run for mayor. they are introducing him to the public for the first time.this h this is how the press conferenc. proceeds. reporter, do you want to beer, d mayor, sir? sir? buckley, i have never considered it. now, you can imagine the conservative party officialsty s gassed. there and this is their candidate.d what are they doing?

do think this is something i present it should be considered? buckley, not necessarily. what is important is that certain point of view shouldoine prevail. whether you or i administer those points is not important assuming that you are a good te for y administrator. reporter, but you are asking people to vote for you. if you win, will you serve?quese buckley pauses as if considering for the first time.rve. if elected, i will serve.ce at >> reporter, do you think you have a chance at winning? >> buckley, know. >> reporter, how many votes dos you expect to get conservatively speaking? >> conservatively speaking, one vote. a week later another reporter asked him what he would do if he did win?o if and he said he would demand a

recount. cial the conservative party officials may have been four or five. but from that first moment, buckley galvanized the attention of many people, especially young people. p it is almost an oxymoron, here was an honest politician. someone who felt that a runningt for office and expressing ideas was more important than winning. let me take you a little bit further back in time to 1951. i picked 1951 because it is whee buckley first became famous. a 26-year-old recent graduate of yet university. he wrote a book called "god and man at yale." the book became -- it was allll

about the economics and religiob department at yale university. and what the el university professors were teaching and what textbooks they were using,. who would predict this would become a bestseller? it did become a best seller. in 1951 he writes "god and man at yale", in 1955 he writes "national review."he let me go back in time.hefo conservatism had been given up his dead and buried by lots of o people.iber the liberal candidate for president -- the liberalcandidad candidate, captured the republican nomination. in the past four presidential cycles, 1940, 1944, 1948.wight

also 1952 with dwightimself eisenhower. dwightn eisenhower described himself as a moderate republican and a liberal republican. many people thought thatat conservatism was irrelevant. it had been anguished.s it had been bank wished vanquise an it was characterized by prudence, caution, before world war ii isolationism, skepticismo of military force -- and buckley, i suggest to you, transformed it did now, buckley

was not a political philosopher. his ideas were not his own. many of them were inherited from his father who was verynherited influential, or from othert bu thinkers.cliant buckley was a brilliant polemicist. extremely gifted leader. as a gifted leader -- as they know, building a movement is not about personal glory. it is about creating an army.inf you can think of buckley, i think, as the conductor of an orchestra. he did not write the music, he did not play the instruments, but he decided what was going to be played and who was going to be playing.to invit he decided who to invite and who

to expel from the orchestra. he made all of the strategic decisions, and he was extremely good at it. now, what did he create? i will tell you what he created, bu but it will not surprisingit i because surprise you because it is what we have come tos asso associate with conservatism.ciat it is not a surprise.. we have become used to it. . we tend to think that think that conservatism was always this way. buckley created it this way. it is really a three leg atee-ld school. thing on libertarianism, neoconservatism, and religious order social conservatism.of the we can think of it as three different groups ors, philosophies, if you will. buckley happened to embrace alll three within his breast. he may not have been the purest. of the pure in any one of the the three,ph because there are manye inconsistencies andny ncon

incompatibilities among these three schools of thought, thatng he was largely all three of t these things.ely all by libertarianism, i mean theme philosophy that says -- theulife right to live your life. we all have the right to live our lives as we choose, as long as we do not infringe on the equal rights of others. s idea his idea of not being coerced,ut particularly by government, but not by anybody, preening free -- being free leads to a very free and absolutist velocity. there should be little or no government regulation of business. in fact, very little government.

the musician -- speaking me metaphorically -- the editor that buckley recruited for "national review" who was thee leader of libertarian philosophm was frank mayer. mayor believed that government has to legitimate functions. one is to protect citizensainstl against violent assaults, whether it is invasion from abroad or criminals and domestically. and also to adjudicate conflictc and have a courte. system. particularly commercial complexa that way the economy can keep going on. government should be very small, very weak. on neoconservatism., that term that term did not exist back in5 1955, that ideas we have come to call neoconservatism were wer

startinge up. what i mean by neoconservatism, years latery ernie crystal gave us the famous description. he said a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. what kristol meant was that thes world is a dangerous place.y it is a hard place. world there are bad people.is there are bad countries. you cannot be naïve or coddle domestically -- you cannot coddle people or criminals, you hennot coddle the poor. them stt you have to give them tough love and make them stand on their feet. the musician that buckley invited into "national review", who was the pro-onal view neoconservative, many called hit the first neoconservative, the

first was a guy named james burnham. the americaout the cold war, american strategic doctrine articulated by all presidents, l democratic and republican, was containment plus a fee. r -- containment philosophy.st we have to contain it through subversion and operations and stimulating reveilleit aleutiany the third stool is religious conservatism or social

conservatism. ny that i mean is finding e religion very central towards political views. nonear not merely as a source of inspiration, but perhaps guidance and policy.icy. let me read you two sentencest that buckley wrote in "god and man at yale" when he was 26 in 1951. he said, i myself believe that d e duel between christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. wo i further believe that the struggle between individualismin and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level. so what he is saying here -- ise there is this struggle, a cosmic struggle between good and evil, christianity and atheism. a

whether it is on thewhethe international stage, between the west and communism, socialistun, systems, collectivist systems, or whether it is even domesticte between the individualist viewpoint and the collectivist, socialist viewpoint.lf i but that itself is tied up the struggle between good and evil. christianity and good is on the side of a particular political now,osophy. now, it's a complicated story ar to how buckley got these particular views together and how he got them to try him triu.

i believe that he wasn't a conscious, strategic thinker. he was intuitive, and brilliantt in his intuition as is what toe. do. i just have a few minutes left, and i want to suggest one of thi competing philosophies that he prevailed over. conse it wasn't just buckley in "national review" that said this is the path to follow. there was competition. follow.the most interesting alternative approaches was beina authored by a group called -- at least for particular individuals -- they were collectively callee the new followers.ere f

they were burkians. cent they were followers of edward burke, the great 18th century statesman who argue that wenorrt should honor traditions and they institutions, and we should do so because they have developed for particular evolutionaryson reasons. it was almost as darwinistic viw about how society is developed. we had institutions. we have traditions.y impo they are very important to our e society. c they are important to us because of the way they work.nde we don't always understand how they do it and what they do and how they work, but wisdom is the product of experience.dom wisdom has been impressed into these institutions. edward burke is frequently misunderstood. en burke was a reformer.

he argued pair .-dot agree that preservation required change. ired i could go on and talk about the burkian philosophy, but suffice it to say, it was entirelys ente incompatible with buckley is him. libertarians are individualistsd they believe in individualism. i they disagree about liberty. as i have alluded to,e that libertarians believe that liberty is about being free fron coercion. burkian's believe that, but they also believe that meaningful liberty also wires some hey opportunities that you cannot ia society -- to have true libertyc of freedom to pursue your dream unless you have certain limits in terms of opportunity.

think of basic education and attrition.comunit libertarians believe in small and weak government. burkians believe in a strong government and that it is necessary to liberty. the check on consolidated power is structural.lidate it is separation of powers, federalism,fe other things. it is not small or weak government, which burkians considered to be dangerous. as i mentioned, there were four major fermentable thinkers thate were advocating the burkian approach. he wrote a book in 1949 that wad also a sociologist.

nesbitt wrote a book that stands for what he believed -- human beings find their meaning in seeking community. there was a political scientists named rossiter wrote a book called conservatism in america in 1955. you could read any of these three books today and find them provocative, compelling.the these were great writers andthis thinkers in my opinion,pini, particularly rossiter and nisbet. but most important, was a fellow named russell kirk. russell kirk was in many waysays like buckley in many ways not like buckley.ke buckley he was like him because at a very early age, in russellage, kirk's case, he wrote a book called the conservative mindbemn

from edward burke to eliot.is. it was really a doctorate thesis. it was unlikely that such a book would become a sensation, but it caught the attention of certain editors at time magazine and they included it in the special fourth of july edition in 1953th and the book took off. russell kirk argued that edward burke is the true school of conservative thought. edward burke argued about thenes permanent things, religion, tradition, community, art, literature. he argued that -- one of hisgued phrases was -- you know,'t aut everything isn't about getting

another piece of pie and another pat of butter. society and what we are about ir about more important things thai just economic growth. he was very opposed tove libertarians, and hery was cked b attacked by buckley and other libertarians quite passionately and personally.ly. then buckley realized in founding a magazine -- thisd fella may be a potential major he competitor. so he decided to recruit him for the magazine. russell kirk was a socially in awkward fellow. when conservatism in america -- but conservative mind when it was such a big hit, he did ad aa rash thing, and he quit his day

job, his teaching position at michigan state. he decided he was going to be an independent intellectual. he had tough going, he was scraping by.by. buckley made a pilgrimage of two his hometown in michigan withhe russell kirk, and he said tolikt russell kirk, i would like you to join "national review" inew. buckleston. buckley, being a handsome and charming guy, russell kirk was socially awkward, short. russell kirk showed him his library in a converted barn.ckli buckley says this is a wonderfur library. they go to a local tavern. buckley says this is a great tavern. so they did decide that russell

kirk would write for "national review." as you look at educational policy, it is an important subject.i the battle for the future of conservatism was not going to be decided over educational policy then russell kirk saw the masthead. hear his name is, there was frank mayer and other libertarians, and he picks up the phone and calls buckley, ana he isns outraged.one he says i will not be cheap with libertarians. take me off the masthead.. so buckley does take him off the masthead. but nevertheless, russell kirk agrees to write the column. he wrote it for 25 years. for 25 years he muted, silenced, his criticism of libertarians.hi for that "national review" in 1980, the following year he slan

resumed his slashing critique of libertarians. the battle had been over many years before that. for other reasons, rossiter and arick left the field as well.fl they fell into criticizing each other. they never cohered. they decided that if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.poetry. one went to poetry, he won the pulitzer prize in poetry. the other went back to working in education. also his -- nisbet went into administration for several

years. th here is the arnie on this. -- here is the irony on this. they were communitarians but never formed a community together. buckley was an individualist.ndu he formeald a community, "natio" review." that community became a very bea vibrant community. it wasn't just a community of thinkers and writers, but readers look forward to getting s this magazine, and they felt part of something -- part of something new and something dynamic. they looked up to buckley. they looked up to the people that hotly promoted and people in the magazine, and it is myis belief that had there been no william f. buckley, conservatism

would not be the way we think oa it today. i cannot tell you what we eat, and nobody can do alternative history -- how would historyd turn out dify ferently, but i do believe that conservatism became what we considered to be because buckley took it that way, and ha was a person that many people -y particularly young people --nd t admired and wanted to follow. thank you. yo [applause] >> i will take questions. >> [inaudible question] >> several things, but here's one. it is my sense that we are thing entering a new era ofbiolal ideological definition.partlyseh i thineik particularly because f their successes. liberalism and conservatism are both running out of gas to a certain extent.

they are distressed for other reasons. i think there is a lot of searching going on. searching, an attempt for redefinition. i think the tea party and the occupied movement is a symptom of this.o take alook i wanted to take a look at the last time one of these greatprof ideologies went through a rede process of redefinition. in your book, what was your the mentality -- [inaudible i do question] >> yes. i do at great lengths. i believe it was his bother. strangely enough, i think it was his father's experiences inxico mexico during the mexican revolution where his father when not to make his fortune in the oihel business.ess, his bother developed ahe particular worldview, a

particular political philosophyy he came home and transmitted that to buckley and his eight hi siblings. >> after he came to prominence after world war ii, did he serve in world war ii or was he at el university writing about things? >> he did serve in the army, but t overseas. >> did you see people blown up in the war? he didot per >> he did not personally see people blown up in the war. >> yes, sir. >> as a complement to what seemd as a self identified liberal -- you are doing a very fine job on william f. buckley. i'm going to ask about the s distinction between burkian and.

libertarian. i see this mainly as anht, objection to powerfulth governmt -- libertarian, that is -- so anti-religion, anti-groups, but something that is very deeply suspicious of government anderne governments going beyond whatever would be thereben legitimate role. i don't see that muchd of a a battle between libertarianism and that sends and more traditional conservatism.and mo >> well, i hear you. cotism but i think. that most libertarian thinkers would agree with what i read from frank mayer, a government has very ve small and narrow repo responsibilities, and we believt that that is t essential toessee preserve freedom. i have quite a lot about this in

the book read if you look at the cato institute, for example, for libertarian think tanks, i'm not talking about who is in the right or the wrong, but i thinks lots of libertarians feel that way. probably ron paul being one of-- them. >> libertarians are mostly>> dot opposed to big government.to and that is not necessarily aess burkian idea.th except to the extent that thee u government enforces the rule ofd law and protection by the property -- a property and individual safety. where specifically do they disagree? h> they disagree on many thingst what the functions of governmen are, even on taxes.

this idea that taxes are bad and we should do everything to lower think it is a bit of aas to dosi libertarian view.nk it has to do with shrinking government and shrinking government down the eyes.own thank you. on could you speak to the -- sii today's situation on the tearty. party. this is this the inheritor of the conservator movement based upont your observations?based on >> i don't know. don't it is a lot easier to look in the rearview mirror then it is up the windshield. actu nobody i think that absolutely nobody can look at with confidence out the windchill. but i think that we do learn a l lot by studying history.tory. it may not tell us exactly wherg we are going, but it does tell us maybe what some of the possibilities are. i have no idea what the future is for the tea party or whetherr

thatt will be the trajectory tht continues.cont >> there seems to be the t difference between reality and ideology. even though a lot of the seniors -- they say about medicare.ing t the government is saying that we have to cut these things and this is waste. but the whole idea is how come people will suffer for ideology and vote for somebody who really might undermine their survival?o there are a lot of people in this country who are hurting. people who are middle-class, many who are unemployed.class, w rather than voting the realityge of their survival or ability to continue functioning -- they

vote and ideology that might sabotage that. >> i believe there are two typee of people. the old joke. there are does those who believe there are two types of people and those who don't [laughter] in much the same way, i suggestt that there are two types of th dmitle. there are people who will admit that they have an ideology, and people who have an ideology whor won't admit it or are not aware of it. i think that we all do have anal loeo ideology. it is a i worldview.be we would not be able to walk around politically and have ideas without it. now, the issue is -- when whenco confronted with particulars trp facts, will facts trump predispositions? that is a separate question. hae sa william f. buckley would've said that for him that they did.

the burkian's would'vee burkiand absolutely said that it does, because they would have saidhav that we are about learning from experience and studying factsand and making a pragmatic decision. certainly, robert taft did that. he did have inclinations, but when he sat down and studied data data, he would go against his, s inclinations when the data led him that way. i think that is the real question. it is not whether we have an ideology, it is whether we are aware of it and can consider --e be open to and consider inconvenient facts and torensidr reconsider our predispositions. >> i think the elephant in theth room -- is it not religion and

politics to follow up on that. isn't the elephant in the room religion, and the libertarians that want less government -- passing laws that restrict othes people's rights, women's rights, other things. all r of this, it seems to me, e religion and all the politics -i and they alsto speak to this question, why the vote against -- reigion i >> i think that there is an elephant in the room.hink that i think that there are other elephants or hippopotamuses ins. the room as well.his pour william f. buckley, his wat catholicism -- nothing was more influential to him than that. thatt affected his -- >> is a white male, a lot of these questions he would never be affected by in reality.

--am. >> no question, but in the election year now, who is the candidate you are pushing for in your look? >> i am not pushing for candidate. >> in my first awareness of buckley, i thought he was kindhd of a contrarian, taking an opposite point of view no matter what the topic, and sort oft bullying people on television. in tracing the evolution of the conservative movement back toio him, we can also trace backof to him this kind of poisonous atmosphere that of all his witht and style, -- >> that is an excellent question and an important point. q buckley was a very sharp debater.ba he gavete no quarter. q

he could lacerate an opponent pre-effectively. hand, he counted h among his closest friends ardent liberals, john galbraith, howar, lowenstein, people's ideas who were dear friends of his. now, he gave no quarter of debate. but he wasn't mean-spirited.mear he did know where the line was between being very tough and passionate on an issue and being personally mean. ea many people who profess to

admire him, even emulate him,m, rush limbaugh, for example, saya that other than his own father,s william f. buckley was the greatest influence of his lighti i wish they would learn from him about that line. >> anything else? >> thank you very much. i enjoyed talking to. ..

>> if you think of himself at the family and 13. she said when i get a raise at work she's part of me and it's like we got a raise, her family got a raise. i thought as though she had redefined provide to include what her husband does and she had a lot of respect for what her husband was doing.

>> the life and most of his times of pat buchanan and a little more than an hour, author winston groom on ronald reagan

>> now, you look at the life and times of pat buchanan. author timothy stanley writes about mr. buchanan's childhood in washington d.c., his work in the nixon and reagan administrations in his own presidential campaigns. this is a little more than an hour. >> thank you very much for coming. i suspect you're not here to see me, though. and i'm cool with that. a big heart of my marketing strategy was to chew something i would do would do something really controversial. all i have to say is that msnbc boss is making.

[laughter] the first question people ask me about this book is what i wrote it because i'm english and i'm not american. so why would i be drawn? and the answer to that, the third is fairly simple. passionately in love with america as a very exciting dynamic country where it still got a resolution when not for 300 years. it's got a few problems lately, but it still strong. the way i always i always phrase it as britain is like my crusty old wife in america is my young mistress. and although i see much of my mistress as i possibly can, financial with reasons always bring me back to my wife. the reason i want to read about pat, well come i only discovered why retrospectively.

i stumbled upon him as an historical figure quite by accident. a lot of puma generations in the third of my day on the issue and while it through the usual video of monkeys, by sheer chance that really was what.÷"÷" i came across the speech÷" mrs. buchanan wrote in 1992 is÷" the republican national÷"÷"÷"÷" convention at a culture war÷"÷" speech.÷"÷"÷"÷"÷"÷" if you watch that regardless of your politics, you cannot help but be struck or the÷"÷"÷"÷"÷" extraordinary rhetorical and moral thought of as beach in which pat declared america was in the grip of a culture war, religious word in the future of america and cold war for america. so with that speech, i would argue pat buchanan defined politics of the 1990s and in many ways the age of buchanan as it is the age of bill clinton. so i saw that.

i was fascinated and i wanted to know more about them though they gave me some money to come to america and travel around and do some interviews. i'm terrified of flying so it's actually quite extraordinary periods. i flew out to los angeles and then i took a train to kings is an attribute of the people of their industry into detroit and then i took a train to new hampshire and attributes in buchanan brigade people there and went right to the south and thing of the sons of confederate veterans. i'm sure there's a view around. maybe some of them still living. i interposed those people and then i was very fortunate to be able to interview mr. buchanan himself and they really a fine heart and soul of the book. in the course of writing this, i reached two conclusions about pat buchanan. the first one is that his life

is really a biography of the conservative movement. he was born in the greatest of great beaches, perhaps the large predates the west for lovers the terminator and his family, six brothers and she says to us, almost a romney site family. he was a roman catholic at a time when it was pretty cool to be a catholic, and h. at the grocery crusade. dozens of people would gather to pray and the nation which america was very confident and growing at an enormous industrial base. he grip in the shadow of current dsm. his father was a convert because it was a common issue. pat grew up in washington d.c. can i read it very hard and with even a k2 to richard nixon when he was vice president. he then became a journalist. he met nixon. nixon took him on. pat was by his side and he

reinvented himself in 1966 and in 1968 when nixon won a close election to go on and become part. and pappas are the heart of the next frustration at a speechwriter in a time of extreme air conflict with america perhaps closest to civil wars and remarkable time. he is one of the very few people who emerged out of the nixon administration and out of watergate with a clean reputation and tom braden, your colleague once remarked of pat buchanan is the only former member of the nixon administration who didn't require a letter from a parole officer to go on tv. pat and went on to become one of the nation's first professional he tv pundits to show crossfire which radically change the way in which right-wing people appear. in times past conservatives tend to be at william f. buckley, you

know, very sophisticated, quite a right, intellectual and very much dealing with a highly wrong with ideas. you can almost imagine him to eat and a shared record. things the style, the son of ordinary rough and tumble politics punditry. he really does revolutionizing a two night select to gdp and culture sean hannity and england that. pat worked under ronald reagan. he was as director of communication during the iran-contra scandal and left the reaganite ministration and became a private citizen and agree upon it, great columnist and in 1893 and three times for president. i want to discuss that a little bit later but had. and during that time became really the face of the conservative states in the republican party and conservative to america.

so buchanan's life if you want to do a history of the conservative movement in america, you do very well to read pat buchanan's life, a very good primer. the second conclusion i reached was that buchanan is some was as much a social thought as it was an ideology. the kind of people who were drawn in the 1990s campaign for pat buchanan were as much a reflection of a particular time and a particular tomography as they were of a sacrifice. in 1996, pat buchanan won new hampshire, the bacher primary had the high point of his presidential career. his voters were most likely to have been employed, the most likely to be independent, very often when the mill independent vote and crucially the most likely to have been previously registered as a democrat. so pat buchanan spoke with exactly the kind of the

republicans chased nowadays, angry. i ink if you grab that, if you understand the historical importance, then you better understand whether t. purdy comes from and where the politics of today comes from because historians, if you read at the moment, they tend to stop it the reagan revolution and that is not true. it's in the 1990s. it seriously turns republican at the congressional level and much later to republican state level and buchanan is the missile about if you want to understand the secret you have two lenders and could release that relate to in the 1990s. as a result of travels and conclusions, in retrospect i realize i was wrong to read about pat buchanan and the theories that any of the issues that have motivated him dark

local and international. i grew up in a family that is very much part of that indo-american democratic that just happen to be in the southeast of england. my father was what we called svg. that's so england. we give them numbers. in britain my father was a skilled worker. he was kind of a cable to the ground. globalization and deregulation another two medic economic changes in the last 13 years effect than a growing that they experienced two years in my household. i understand the kind of people that buchanan reaches out to and i understand those people that i respect those people in their heart of hearts were not than those democrat really her brother advocates. the family, faith, the place

they grew up in, his job, facility, those are conservative issues. that is something pat buchanan got in the 1990s as many republicans, including people running for the presidency today. i will finish very briefly before i go on and talk to pat. i will finish briefly by saying regardless of what cheating is pat ideology or review on any issue, i think his only duty and by love. and they are very few politicians who can say that about. [applause]

>> okay, [inaudible] [laughter] >> i wanted to start dramatically that is what is interesting about the book, with a solid early 90s ther=rg change in your views and that those changes were and how they2 affect the way you thoughtú2 republican party in politics.úr: >> the reagan white housep2 inpr 1987, sorted towards the end of: the iran-contra and i was ap8p22 friend of george h.w. bush. i have to tell aúr little story2 when i came out of watergate inp the nixon white house i was out2 of a job completely and my and my wife who is the receptionist in the west wing quick to come home and work with me and weú2ú2 just bought a house.p2ú2@2ú2p2

so is he said i have nop2 unemployment. so we wrote the house. we were wondering where we were2 going to get the money to paypr2 p2r the mortgage we had in thepr front doors suddenly was georgi: dubya bush@2 and barbara bush hd a bottle of champagne and not o2 the dog was let them and church says welcome to thep2p2p2@2 neighborhood. so he was a friend of mine.prp:r a good friend of mine and ip:p:2 supported him in 1988. in 1989 he invited me to the white house. shelly and i. chili's in the audience. but it came down to a number of issues are one of them was safe of what is happening to american manufacturing to the figures in today's jobs in manufacturing. and i was a free trader. i said waitp2 a minute, let mep2 take a look. i believe in the philosophy.p:

i've studied and followed it myr whole life and i saw thep2p2prpr manufacturing jobs were leaving the countries, and israel out of the folks and my mother came from the valley at the period now goes to ask me why he was free trade than he was calling. so i took a look at that and came to a different point of view. second thing was the end of the cold war. it was the cold war that inspired me to go into journalism and politics and government and the white house because it was my belief in 1960, 61 that this was the great cause of our time and i want to be involved in this cause in my life. and i did as an editorial write2 and going to work for nixon. would have been wise in 1997 made the berlin wall falls in eastern europe is free, the republics areú2 the bolton

republic separate from the soviet union disintegrated and@2 the armies back domingos.ú2 we won the war.ú2 it is over. and george bush had a hand in it. and ronald reagan and we had@2 done it.@2p2p2p2prú2 now it is time to bring the@2 troops home.@2 just like the russians have gone home, we should go home.ú2@2 were in panama, grenada,ú2 somalia, desert storm.@2ú2ú2ú2 where in the new world order. i said well that's not what i@22 signed on for.p2@2 and the third thing was it thep0 battle over clarence thomas. we won. we were on his side getting clearance thomas confirmed another turnaround time he quoted though on small businesses. do you get it by the labor forces had.

so one night i was driving a two g debby at berkeley and no one else would run against him. i called mrs. aaron i said the goat. i made a crucial call to the manchester union leader. she said, not. the water's fine. bassinet priming to the 1992 challenge of george bush. we came off the talk shows 10 weeks after the primary only got 37% of the vote to george w. bush with 51% and i think we beat him in the city of manchester. and so that's how they got in. it's a long story, but that's how they got into it. immaculate never run for officem before.0m0m >> i couldn't. i lived in0m d.c.0m0m0-pm0m0m >> my father finally got that0mm though when i was 65 years old.m >> which tells me a story today

1888 he saw a big sign, come to a barbecue and he said to mr. victory, even if they paintm i would never do.0m0m0-0m m0m0mm 0m met tha0mt's a true story.pmm i moved to virginia.p-pm0m0m0m0m shelly and i moved over to0m0m0m mclean and one of the reasons for site that maybe one day i might want to run for senate.0mm 0md this story before the0m0m0-- victory story when shelly and im were0m driving down i was a grem beret with the tough duty.0m0m0m it puts you do you you could0m have been talking a great0- timm i was driving down the long roam and senator harry byrd today ism going to be -- he said for0m0mpm having the0m same is tony wrighm from one town to another to0m0mm commemorate the0m pony ride 200m years ago.0mpm0m0m0m0m0m at the end candidate, senator harry byrd is going to deliver -

speech. and i said there's no way i'm0mm 0ming0m0m0-0m that.0mpm0m so that was basically it.0m0mpmm there are too many things about 0mnning fo0mr the senate and bem a senator that i didn't want tom do.pm i tell you another quick story p-0m0m that.0m0m0m0-pm nelson is to come on crossfire. he was a wonderful liberalpmpñp÷ senator. he would come on. when tommy asked him what is the light off camera? what is the late been in the senate? he said pat, you know me i love the environmental issues. he said that i spent 70% of my time doing things i don't want to do.ó and i said well, if that 100% time doing what i want to do. >> right, but she turned into a natural campaigner, which was surprising because they hadn't seen you doing it before. are there any things from the campaign trail because there was the way you win a in the

factory.ñó >> for me to toaster without getting emotional. >> i think it's very important if you don't mind. >> the issue of trade and its effect on jobs just before we came out for christmas on the 23rd of december, when the limit to this factory, the paper mail way up in the north country and this little teeny town almost in canada. we went out to the plan and we looked over and paul erickson and the fellows were standing in a line and paul erickson at, go over and she can't sit there. they looked kind of angry he didn't look like they much like me. and so, he said are you sure? then i found out they had all been laid off. they will be given turkeys for christmas. and so, i went out for, started

shaking hands and one guy looked at. he was my age. he said save our jobs. and each of the three actors to finance a new paper mail in mexico.?[z???w?[z? i said what are we doing?k[v? >> event that is very, very crucial. people have to understand that. >> not only that. in 90 seconds watching north carolina with john deere, a lawn mower factory. they come out with these guys in a very tough guys. they're like the guys i grew up with. one of them came up to me is that i'm getting laid off. he's done in mexico training his replacement to do his job. this is all over the country. you know i argued that.

i said go to these free trade agreements. go to wto annulus every manufacturing job in the country. and the last decade, 2002 by 2010, the country that 6 million jobs in 55,000 factories, gone. one in every three jobs the patter on. what are we doing to the middle class and the working class of this country when we're taking away all their jobs quite my view is that they can be made in the united states, you should be made in the united states. and you go to those old republicans -- [applause] they believe it. those old republicans hamilton, henry clay, link to them, mckinley tr. i wrote a book. you've read them. they disparage the free trade.

they believe are going to hit the bricks and some part they are free of charge in charge tariffs on there could coming in here. it was a lot of level playing field and he might have been some party was. they were about winning. >> a lot of left-wing people would agree. i remember one story they told me where someone came to interview you that she was really worried. she had very long hair. and she said i think they might be someday. and then she went to see you. and for the first time in national politics. >> i believe it was in iowa and the fella came along and he was sunday. at least i think u.s. he he had earrings. most of the guys pick her up with didn't had earrings. it is in in the car with me and he was driving along asking the question and he was clearly left wing and finally said, you know,

my whole life i have been looking for someone who would really take on corporate america. and when i find then it turns out to be pat buchanan. >> there's a failure to an alliance between conservative issues because you're trained to go out in the reform. i thought there might be a model at the tea party and occupy what that might happen again. but it never works. >> ralph is a friend of mine. we didn't used to be friends. that is trained to sneak in the consumer protection agency which we did. often i became became friends over the issue. we both went to the battle of seattle they are at world bank and imf in all of them were in there. clinton was with this president and the remake in our case and they were with us in everything.

and they cannot from oregon. there is a great picture of me standing on the street corner, talking to two sea turtles or six feet high with god on their costumes. a puzzled look on my face.0m0m0m they're in our case and they gom the barrels unruled and through- fire 0÷bombs at cops in a got am the attention.0÷pm0m0mpm0-0÷0- and then it got conservatives as you mentioned, but0m she startem to nod and they are thinking hey, this is chicago 68.0-0m0m0m these are anti-american. these are in our case.0m0-0m0m0- see that the hard-core people0mm who agree to the0m trade issue0m they0- started leaving and say - coalition broke0m apart.0m0m mpm as soon as these fellows went0m÷ down to mcpherson square and raise the issue, why should0mpmm these0m big earners the buildou? this at the poker game is a0m0m billion dollars of chips and0-0m

then i went to uncle sam is apmm good tax dollars to replace their chips. and we did and we replaced the chips and middle americans have- an excellent0- idea.0m0m0m0- and then you start to fight the- cops pretty soon. and so they lose all the peoplem that might've0m been able to pum something together.0m0m0m i think the geo-strategists said you could never put a left0m rim coalition.0- it is simply inherently unstable and will break0m apart. it's got to be satire writer0m0m centerleft. >> a set0m0m of cultural evolutm quite >> there's an added problem top- it on cultural and social issue- just so far apart.0m0m0m0m0m0m0m the nike sit down at them and talk about some issues, start moving to others in move on. >> i too do want to ask because it's kind of a big issue at the moment. what is it that you are worried about?0-0m0m0m0m0m 0m the race or culture?0m0m0m0m-

>> what i am worried about is the title of my0m new vote,0-0mm 0÷lling apart.0m0m0m0m it is falling apart in every yom can0- imagine.0m0m it imposes on the way community and focuses on0m class.0-0m0-0-m i was a little kid in georgetowm intel is 40 years old we moved0m to two the west.0m0m0m0m0m0m and then i moved to the claim.0m 0mose are basically middle-clas÷ folks and people were in0-0m0m0m government.0m0-0m0m0-0m0m but now these are super zip0m0mm codes for couples but then0m0mpm aren't college and incomes are high and intellect, how diverse 0mey are from the rest of0m them country.0mpm0- james bishop i0m think his namem said is politically the number0m of counties or landslide counties which means that seat

was in 76, ford and carter had about 27% of the counties went by 20 points or more to unearth the affair. in other words, people were moving together by politics. by pushing 2450% of the counties in the country had 20% or more for one-time or the other. in other words, people are separating. the larger issue is controversial and would have brought about my separation. is this. i think would have been the 60s, cultural, social, moral revolution ideological revolution has set down deep roots. with the majority because and 72 the crushed the counterculture and 49 state and 84 and bush went up 40 states. what is happening now is they

think you have no common fate in the country now. as part of a secular religious. he is no common moral goods or moral ethical code. we are losing what we had growing up over here. we study the same american literature in the same language in the same history. all of these things that held us together are now disintegrating at the same time the court no core of countries such as western european 90% is disintegrating to a minority and we have nothing keeping us together. so what i'm saying is we are pristine a break of this country among everyone you can imagine. and that is my theory. i don't think it can be turned around. in my book, "suicide of a

superpower," it's almost 18,000 to 19,000 words dealing with countries and how they break apart in terms of religious quarrels, sunni, shia, christian, muslim and how they break apart ethnically. you go to third world countries and even knows europe, scotland wants to get out, catalonia wants to get out, break apart. brussels is almost always about to break apart. you've got problems in hungary. my friend paul duffy talks about the race about these right-wing anti-immigrant populist parties and this they think is the future. even the chinese are not a theist. but that the way the to do battle with the leakers in pyongyang and into bed. the tibetan religion and ethnic identity is challenging the week up of china and the muslims want

to break away from china and established east turkestan. they sell the russians and that fell apart. that ain't going to happen to us. so they keep moving chinese send. so i know that people can't talk about that. we'll be talking about what it is that could kill us. >> first of all in britain were quite happy -- [inaudible] last night. >> tell me the same thing. [laughter] >> i've lived for about six months in los angeles. they think hispanics are pretty good job of integrating. i think they share letters to american values. hard-working, focused on their families. they're still a melting pot up reading. heather macdonald dutchess

solomont p. she said she's terrific on this. it's true of the white working class. white folks used to be 2% or 3%. the lower middle class according to murray december 40%. illegitimacy rate is 51% and the african-american community is 71%. in other words, their families up and down and collapsed. i saw on a statistic that many of the hispanic kid are 19 times as likely to join again to get identity, get family, get communities by kids and african-americans are only 10 times and that enormous amount. even the asian kids join these gangs. all of these things occur andkz? are breaking down society.

take britain. but what happened to your country last summer.çvkw you have riots.ó?ç?? the press joined him in the northern industrial areas you have racial troubles in france.s the burn time passing cars.;ñ9 angela merkel said last summer that the multiculturalism has[s failed and occurs in berlin were ?ring off route is celebrating? 9/11 because they are not fully at all. and then sarkozy says the same thing and came and says the same thing. it it's not me that says look, diversity can work as long as we can get the higher of a guy by 1960, were all of the grandkids of eastern europe, kept the kids kids, polish, italian, jewish, greek, we are gross deep in

american sm number of americans. we came to the oppression, the war on the same radio promising tv, movies, literature, history. all of that is gone out the window. these are the things that hold the country together. it's not only me. lee hamilton says this in typical forces in this country are co-stronger than the centrifugal forces holding us together. i think that is true. >> i've run away from britain, so i can't comment. last night's >> i think we need to open it up now. >> i think you need to go to a microphone. >> hi, i want to ask you a quick

political question as far as newt gingrich goes with santorum sending gingrich. [inaudible] is going to ask you a strategy question if he has a chance. but given that, it's mica brzezinski different about her is what you see which u.k.?úmúñm >> i probably shouldn't talk úlout this, butúmúm i got a nicñ note from the car. she's great to work with.úmúmpmñ i really enjoy "morning joe." there's a bunch of guys that grew up together.úñúmúmúñ they're doing their guys to beú÷ nice to each other and makeú÷úmm their points in a niúñce way.úñm i really enjoyed my time on you. >> to umass >> i'll never forget what's his

name. last mark the mac >> that's very nice. >> i told folks and maybe i joe -- >> do you feel in any way [inaudible] hampshire. the state yet but i campaigned

california is that promises people i would give them a voice. they said pat please get someone for these issues. but in may shelly and i went down at the shopping center in a poll came out showing ross perot up 40%. at the push was that 33 clinton was winning only arkansas. so all the damage i had done, bush would still be far ahead of clinton. so look, i didn't help, but i think by the time -- by the time he got to the convention from the fact that ross perot dropped out just as clinton and gore were on a jury, i think those

votes over to him. he got 54% and 88 info. 37% in 1982. that's 17 points, right? and so i think it is more per row, but i think bush thinks i often credited for making them extremely unelectable. there was an amazingly emulate the trash job that was done afterwards by the liberal media that is to figure back down. >> let me talk to that because i gave that speech that night.

i spoke first and reagan spoke right after. and all the commentators says this is tremendous speaking. bush came out of that race in some polls from 25 down and he was only two down coming out of it. the problem was of course the media came after they were scared to death of the social cultural issue. if the media are frightened of them, those are your issues because the media doesn't want us to win. i told senator baker i said, what is he going to win on? extreme% did a good job on the economy. princess is a good foreign policy president and no one thinks that matters now. so what is left on clinton? the sky is wide open on the cultural social issues as we found out later.

if you'd gone after these, i think he would've won. but the truth is you cannot tell a candidate to do something that's not america because they will mess it up. he'll run away from it. i remember for the spreading of 76 edward could mix and add a speech is that we attacked the media and we clobbered him and nixon won 49 states makes it patco really getting you to. i said no, as it isn't in here. if someone gave a speech come you read it and they'll start like that. i'll never believe that. and so you run away from it. and that's what we did with the culture war speech. >> my turn?

my brother was with barry in 1962. would you talk a little bit about young americans for freedom and your role not? buckley? review because i was brought at the new card in the rest. you. see you. i said forget it. see you. i said forget it.

so in effect they're throwing me out of the office. to find good luck to you guys. >> hayek, speaking of countries coming apart. quite a number of years ago with you on the mclaughlin report, you made the remarks were discussing israel and has time. as far as israel goes as a matter of demographics. a not too many years after that there is the lead cia report that estimated that 20 years ago. i wonder if you still feel the same way that is 10 minus. >> i'll tell you, you will advertise my book as a superpower. every chapter in their cold demographic winter of the entire western civilization. in a deal with russia, old mother russia, which has lost 10 million people since liberation if you will in 1989.

during scheduled to lose 25 million more by 2050. what is going on is what is called hyper mortality. germans are going to lose eight to 10 million people. each new italian generation of sponsors smaller than the one before it. the japanese, 127 million lose 29 million people. in that chapter i did something that israel. israel is more complex because you have the ultra-orthodox figure correlates to buchanan said the families they corrupt was. there's nine, the neighbor has a living. and out of the 50s and everything. so what you have with israel is the jewish citizens on the

1.52.45 on the west bank to include probably east jerusalem and 95,000,005 in gaza to which a point in 2014 for the nations are west of jordan to 60% of jordan is palestinian. at 2050 as i figured if you take jordan and palestine proper, it went to the over israelis and i don't think that is a survivable situation. i can tell you little story. you know, people say we interview a lot of guys i used to interview mayor connie. he would come in who is a very witty, smart guy, especially on the bridge in either.

he told me, mr. buchanan, and i disagree. he said he would either be democratic or it's going to be jewish and were not going to be both. he was arguing frankly for pushing palestinians off the west bank into jordan because he said demographically they will overwhelm us. as this it the ultra- orthodox have become more and more prominent in israeli politics and more and more prominent in government than the rest of it because the other part are diminished. they've got the low growth rate. i was talking about nurseries. the adl is anti-semitic. but i don't think it is anti-semitic to discuss what is happening demographically to western civilization, which is cynically diet if there's not one western country that is the birth rate doubling it was to

survive this century. you're on britain, you're talking 26 from the 1000th anniversary of the norman conquest the native population of britain will be less than half of the country. what is together when we saw what happened last summer. so the i.t. of everything is fine does not work. but they want it thrown out. as cultural genocide. so you're not going to discuss these. i'll tell you, the israelis are discussing it. this is why a lot of them are argued. we've got to get rid of this they've got their own country and this is behind the two state solution. with a one state solution? even now if you took all of the west bank and gaza and next it would be almost 50/50.

so anyhow, that's what's got me in trouble. >> you talk about u.s. factory jobs, but how do you create u.s. factory jobs with deliberate so-so in china and india and without creating a trade for. how does one do that? and by the way, did you read the article about apple prices? how do you do that without creating trade? >> and the bass we had a trade war. the mac how did we do it before that? the civil war to whether one community states, have the production of great written to twice the production of great britain in a matter of fact germany, france local address in power he produced 42% of all the world is. during world war ii we produced half of all the goods on both

sides. whoever shall they fired at us, general motors fire back four. the greatest problem besides work here murzin the french uniforms, french muskets. britain. we have to be economically independent. but we did was attack system says no taxes on american workers, but were going to tax imports, terrorists. they took the money from the projects of great read and took the tariff revenue both of those, built all these things to the united states at the cost of these things high, american says wait a minute we can produce that for last year.

so the american industry built up enough but as but as i said the civil war have the terrorists policy that meant that the united states was charging money on all products coming in. no cuts, no taxes on producers here in our standard of living was tied. we ship to to the british market and exported 8% of all we produce and get tea and coffee and tea and coffee and tea and coffee and. >> let me tell you about the chinese. don't tell the chinese who got to reach value in your current feed. to say keep your currency where it is. we figured it out. putting the 50% tariff on all chinese goods entering the united states and all the money be taken to eliminate taxes to manufacturers in the united

states. did anyone see the trade figures for last year? we sold $100 million worth of goods in china and they sold 400 elegant to us. in a trade surplus of 295 plus billion dollars. what is going on in this country? who might take us to china, do that. they do need a dose of manufacturing. and frankly republicans are more responsible than anybody else. they believe in free trade and every time they mention what about stability, the great trail and i got it from another scholar or from a scholar. i don't know how. we had smoot-hawley was passed. 4% of americans import. two thirds kinman three. that means 1.3% came in not free, with duties on it.

so he raised duty if it. that caused not only the great depression. these kids are taught up to ivy league schools. they cannot responsible for the de-industrialization of america. >> where are they getting that? a guest speaker to wal-mart. of course it is in the 90s are some mean. best of luck, i have a chat is make great stuff, but i said i want the best american tv because other than the card is the biggest investment that you make. they said there are no american tvs.

>> mr. buchanan, it's good to finally meet you in person. i've been yelling at you on the tv for 30 years. [laughter] >> is easier and radio. >> not easy doing this than i do want to be respectful. i'm very liberal and i disagree respectfully. i feel this evening isn't telling the whole story. i feel you go beyond being just a conservative and a lot of your comments and frankly what you say scares me when you talk about demographics. and he didn't say that that was happening in france and britain in your comment of the death of white america or christian america. that's in your new book. and i'm jewish because i wonder where i belong because i'm american two. i wonder if the authors could address that. you can criticize many times with your comment.

i vacated, and i'm not. >> sure. take the end of christian america. the title is taken from the christian america and accounts which is called the decline and fall of christian america. when the revolution is here we have 99% of the country was 1% catholic, went 10 to 1% jewish. we've been predominately jewish christian country. that produces a moral to this. about the religious consent to, ethical consensus. one of the things holding us

together. the jewish community came out of europe. they were western country. that is what we were. these are the things that really helped hold us all together. we went to world war ii together, the depression. we were segregated when i was growing up. but the african-american kid studied american studies. same radio, but at the same team, but the same newspaper, all the same movies. culturally, they were as american as apple pie as i was. what i'm saying ms ms is the final point is the culture comes from the cold. on the face dives, culture guys from civilization dies and the people died and that is what i'm trying to prove that there is

happening. we're in the indian summer of westerns devastation. all peep is a good come of the deity you can accept all peep holes into one country because the nation is utopian nonsense. we risk in the greatest republic honor tonight about why we're doing it. [applause] >> i think we are doing it because that is what america's about. it's about diversity and respecting people who are different. >> we have diversity. theodore roosevelt and wilson were terrified about diversity. it works. the melting pot is considered cultural genocide if you demand kids read american literature, had the english language, what holds us together quite >> where country that welcomes people of different types. with all due respect.

>> on the part of the book, one of the atrocities of culture war is people who are very well-intentioned cause great her. i think that matters. part of it is being compassionate. i try to write it in a very objective way of knowing him and himself speak for themselves. this isn't a moral get out clause. they do actually personally agree with your vision of america far more. i come from britain. i think britain is actually more vibrant and more civilized than it was several years ago. i also want to say that something -- i'm a catholic. i'm a conservative guy. muslims in britain come whatever

people make income of the ferry visitors can have strong families and share many of my values. many are more british than british people because reddish people are pretty trashy now days. and if that best british or non-british. i do want to trash the culture were. look at one brief example of that. would andrew sullivan came out as having a come apart with a letter to him saying that pat's understood what he was going to be understood and prayed for them. she was very surprised because of the things he said about homosexuality and aids. it speaks to the fact that you can disagree on the left with policy and principles, but there is still a human concern and element they. >> i'm sure is familiar with the human rights. that is one of the groups that have to be taken off the air

because you can check them on the statement. the two great injury to people all over the world. but she asked me about it and i said i believe that it basically is unnatural and immoral and that is my view. that is the view of the catholic church commits u.s. raised with and what i believe the next question about it. i'm sure that it's hurtful to some people. but these divisions come out, they are irreconcilable. i'd have to either get that my folks that be are not going to do it.qwqwq%q% so what i see is this whole social cultural