numbers that are vulnerable with no recourse until something horrible happens. some of these things where something private like that is made public erroneously or negligently or maliciously, you know, we should have a privacy right in our social security numbers. ..

provisions that actually could lead to some problems with people being erroneously cut off of the internet. there is a real question about what the government be better able to protect us over the internet service providers and the googles of the world and many people think that the internet service provider, comcast, verizon have more of an incentive in one of the people who actually have the technological wherewithal to do so? and so come to some of the claims that the need for a government monitoring to prevent malicious virus is that the former for airfare is less than they would say. >> is a great question because i often look at the relationship

at the cia has to do the rand has been very much apparel is the relationship the cia used to have but the soviet union. it took a long time for any of us in the civil set here to learn about the virus which was fascinating to me that it has happened to them and there is a delay and rumors that it was americana coming aside and russia and not kinds of things. no one in the government said anything until we stoutly and the former cia director, michael hayden went on 60 minutes and gave an interview about it. if anyone is interested in knowing that didn't happen, just go ahead and look at the interview because there is no way the former or the cia, and he was current when that happened, would tell you anything about what did happen. in fact i believe he was at the opposite because who he was speaking to was not une, butter and. >> i think we have to wrap it up now. thank you.

>> thank you so much. hot mark [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> to her is left to go out live coverage of the los angeles festival of books you buy from the campus of umc in the beautiful california. quite a lovely day here. lots of people out enjoying the festival. coming up next in our continuing coverage is alive call-in program. they nancy cohen, whose new book is called "delirium: how the sexual counterrevolution is polarizing america." so the question is do you ask in book is, why is it when we are wired in the worst economic downturn, but yours controlled

seemed to be top on the agenda. what is your answer? speed magazine shocking and ludicrous and surprising, but it's not at all surprising. what we see today is results of a historical process playing out the last 40 years. the story "delirium" tunnels is really the history behind what a lot of people called the war been in. >> host: a 40 year history that began? >> guest: village in 1972, but was kind of set in motion in the 60s with the revolution and the women's movement and the gay rights movement. and those games changed america and our a lot of people that really disagreed with that. ever really outraged and appalled that these changes in gay coming out of the closet and sexuality. they became politically at this

to really turn back the clock, turn back the changes come and go back to in many ways unimagined high when the traditional christian family kind of north america. at first they recognize against equal rights amendment and surprisingly most of the people that became involved in the movement for women, fundamentalist women have a right wing republican when it got organized against the equal rights amendment and defeated it. and then they organized against federally subsidized child care and they path. and then they organized to take rights away from gay at the moment they were starting to achieve them through bills at the local level. they succeeded in that way. and then they organized at the grassroots and local level of the republican party. and started rising to the point where they have become today really the most powerful bloc in the republican party. >> host: this is the book, the title is "delirium."

who will open up the phone lines. we'll put the book to the numbers on the bottom of the screen. send us an e-mail at otb@c-span.org or to eat at the tv. did you get get the title? >> guest: i was thinking a crazy american politics had gone no matter what side the political side you are on is pretty clear things have gone crazy. i can't really call it a crazy and delirium seemed to be the right word he says that captured both the kind of ecstasy at some of our politics recently, the joy and ecstasy of obama being elected, but also the kind of irrational anger that we've seen in our polarized politics over the last couple decades. >> host: you are an historian political commentator. suddenly the genesis of this book.

who had the idea and how did it come to be? >> guest: it first came to me during the 2008 election when there seemed to be all these gender issues and women about and play. in the democratic side, where people think that it's settled about women's rights, there's all this this stuff about hillary. a lot of sexiest stuff about hillary came out and a lot of it was coming, all the democratic party staff itself. fast-forward a couple months and you have the whole affair appealing phenomenon. the love-hate relationship, dhea from the republican party that they could take up one of those at the very, very conservative woman, which has really never been the case. and i realized there was some need subterranean and american politics about our questions about gender and about women's rights that people thought were settled and really seem not to be settled. so they started investigating

and someone found some very surprising things such as women were the ones who started in many ways the antifeminist men's and in the democratic party that is most liberal democratic man who did the most to that it hath been. >> host: who is lonnie potts? >> guest: and middle-aged single woman who taught in the churches of christ. when he found out about the era coming changed her life and she became politically act did to defeat the era. and she lived a pamphlet that went viral before we knew it bhairon buys that circulated throughout churches in the south and the southwest. and it and it was an anti-era passed that they started with god gave the privilege is the year honor to have. the era would take away their privileges as a woman. able for see how to keep your

own name and not take your husband's name. that will force you to post your children federally subsidized childcare. and so she made a defense based on what the bible says is the traditional submissive role for women to help organize thousands of women against including equal rights for women in the u.s. constitution. >> host: lots more details in the story. let's fast forward today. the net effect of the dignity of people who are hoping to conserve their view of society is about quite exciting, if you look at statistics, women are now outnumbering men in university degrees. careers open to women expanding exponentially. what effect has a story you've told had on society? >> guest: on one side of it, 80% or more of americans except these changes and sexuality, women's roles, gender, gay

having civil rights and human rights in american society. there is a small minority, maybe 15% to 20% that really wants to go back to a time when birth control is actually legal to a time when gay sex was illegal in every state. these people have been very good clinical organizers and we saw this in the tea party agitation in 2009, 2010 and the way that people who have been associated with christian writes that he rebranded tea party at various really not tell the moderates and really ought the mainstream conservative side of the republican party and struck fear into a lot of republican politicians. so with a look back at the primary where we're talking about birth control, talking about reinstating "don't ask, don't tell," santorum says birth control is not okay. gingrich talks about setting up

religious tribunals. to review all the laws to see if they are hostile to christianity. we see the effect of the base of the republican party having pushed the republican leaders very far to the right, al to the mainstream america. >> host: lets take telephone calls. the first is joshua who is watching us in long island your joshua, you're on the air. welcome. >> guest: first of all ad like to say in a pro-choice moderate and i very much agree with many of the things you are saying. but also, i think it should be pointed out that while i'm 32 years old and my age group, women out there and then and i think there's also a problem on the other end of the spectrum and i don't think enough people address that. but what you have to say to that as far as fathers rights in things? >> guest: well, i think that one of the great advantages of

these revolutions in gender relations if they raise questions about women's rights, to add opennet meant to be more involved in their children's lives and i think it's been better for men and women together that both sexes are more equal. i don't think that the gap in wages is really the result of sound animus towards men. and what we do see on a national level is a persisting gender gap, where women earn less than men. it may be made as a reflection of age because the gender gap of wages has been for women at childbearing age. and women still performed the lion's share of housework and child bearing. that is where a lot of women kind of get off the career track and start earning less than men

do. >> next up is a call for brandon and montgomery, alabama. >> caller: i just wanted to understand why today's youth has been collecting today's conservative movement. acting they are less aware and perhaps more conservative. i'm wondering to what extent of the previous generation. >> guest: so, historically yes, today's conservatives are really pretty far to the right of yesterday's conservatives. and you see there have been a number of prominent conservative leaders and intellectuals to have left the republican party and then been very critical of conservatives -- of the right wing embracing some of the wackier ideals. president obama might not have been born in the united states.

that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. been born in the united states. that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. conservatives that are very distraught. that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. conservatives that are very distraught, that their movement has been co-opted by the far right. >> host: a little bit of ronald reagan history if we could. you tell the story from your dad, that ronald reagan's alliance with christian conservatives is key to successful victory in 1980, but this is a quote. weekend resisted the pressure to overreach. what did you mean by that? >> guest: well, this is a time in the conservative movement that really was a coalition. i think right now we are in a point where we are looking more at collaboration and captives. so reagan was held primarily and the republican primary may come not so much in the general election to win for the vote of the christian right and religious right and a lot of women with organizing in the decades. but when they wanted him to do

some very extreme things, for example accommodate pressured reagan to adopt the equivalent of the person that amendments we see today, which would define a fertilized egg is a fully human being and effectively outlaw abortion and the show fertilization and other fertility treatments. reagan is like we are not going to go there. priorities are the economic issues, size of government and the soviet union. because reagan was a master politician and on the other side the group was not yet as politically adept or quite as large as it would become, he was able to navigate a more pragmatic past on a lot of these social issues. >> host: next is kevin watching us in hawaii. hi, you're on. >> guest: hello. such a fascinating program. how many of these ideas are political creations and how many are actually real? remember the issue and the last couple of election cycles and it just seems as if that was

created to marginalize people and bring out the hard-core conservatives because they were afraid. could you speak to that? >> guest: i'm sorry -- >> host: you set how many issues are real and how many are political creations to excitement phase? >> guest: i actually see it somewhat differently, a little bit counter to conventional wisdom. the issues are real for the base and not as weighty issues issues, up. so when something like gay marriage and 2004, the christian conservatives really do care about these things and they are kind of priority number one. on the other hand, looking out the election at the election statistics on the studies, these issues don't turn the election. so for example, bush won on terrorism and national security, not on gay marriage.

when we see these issues such as birth control coming up, it is really a sign of what the court republican want to see rather than politicians manipulating men. >> host: a lot of male colors interested on the subject. next is larry watching us in trend. you're on. >> caller: high, wondering why you have to legislate these social issues as is inherently divisive? is there a better way to settle issues clerics >> guest: larry, what's the better way? >> guest: at better way as education and, asking people to meet these people. but is that the way to do it? is this a litigious society everything within the course? i hope not. >> host: thanks for your call. >> guest: i would agree that it be nicely to put social issues aside basically because for the 21st century. we shouldn't have to debate

whether birth control is legal anymore. i also think he gets the final american values of liberty and pluralism. the fact is people really just her on morals about what is right and what is wrong about family issues and sexuality and gender. and if we are going to have a kind of democratic or liberal society where we respect each other, i think some of these issues have to be taken out of the political arena. now that's sad, people who support women's rights and support gay writes can't unilaterally disarm because there is a small minority in the country that will keep pushing to outlaw abortion and outlaw birth control and outlaw gay marriage and civil unions. >> host: this is your third book or the fact that writing for a day. you are very active on the internet. you have a call and berate regularly and you also to television.

what reaction to other forms of commission trena keeshan do not and what you write books? >> guest: i write books in part because the stories are complicated and may take some time to tell and may take some time to really think about to figure out what the story is going to be. so this book actually turn out quite deeply than i expected when i started to do the research and that's one of the joys of writing is the discovery. you have kind of this mystery you are encountering. on the internet when you write blogs and columns, you get very immediate reaction. but then it kind of coming in now, the next day is gone. silly book is a little bit more lasting and i hope what it is, to really get the sense of power politics have really been different than we think it's been and to hopefully kind of change some minds about what

america is like. >> host: in the course of your research, was there a breakthrough moment and something you didn't think them through a piece of research he found that wasn't ha ha, not this helps everything fit together? >> guest: and subway stairways. at the earlier part of the book where i talk about these right-wing women's movement against the era, i thought this was going to be a very short background and i thought the book might be more about democrats because although i know we haven't talked about it today, the book also looks at how these issues are played out in the democratic party and making it divided when it synoptics and overreacting. and when i discovered this movement, these women, i realized the book had to start earlier and that in fact are understanding that the right and understanding of religious right started much earlier than we

think. >> host: next question comes to gm and broken arrow, arizona. hi. >> caller: good afternoon. my comment is i wish i was president right now and my question is, what do you think this revolution is done to america, good or bad? a opinion at this worth anything, i don't think it was good because i see disease that is spread by the gay rights movements and a lot of people have suffered for that. and it's the christians against non-christians in my opinion and it is breaking up america and it makes me very sad. i have not read the book. >> host: thank you. >> guest: i think in general that this revolution in women's

rights and gay rights, freedom has been very positive for america and i think it has been very positive for freedom and very positive for gay who are forced to to live very circumscribed, second class citizen before and i think it has been good for america as a whole to see more open to the values of other religions and be more open to different ways of living and to embrace different kinds of families. >> host: which you agree with the last statement about the divisiveness? >> guest: i do not disagree that it has been divisive, but i don't see how we could have been any other way. politics is about taking our deeply held values into the political arena and trying to achieve our goals. i personally think it would be

better off if we accepted the 21st century and that some of these social issues behind, but there is a minority of the country that strongly disagrees. so i don't expect these issues to all of a sudden just be our political debate. >> host: column is watching us in scottsdale, arizona. are you dare? let's do syed and lindenhurst, new york. go ahead, please. you're on. >> caller: first of all, i'd like to say that i am not some lunatic right-wing bible thumping person. i'm a democrat. i am all for women's rights. but my question comes to when it comes to the issues about

divorce that becomes a major issue and the man is made to look like the bad guy because the system is set against the man and he adds that, you know, the biggest loser in the whole thing seems to lose all is right and nothing seems to be what he does seems to be the right thing to do. what are your thoughts about that and how can we actually fix that? because the core system is actually set against the man. >> host: you century new york, correct? >> guest: surprisingly, given new york's liberal revocation, new york was one of the last stage to answer to divorce. one of the things no cause divorce does is it really does minimize the conflict they need to show that someone has done

wrong. so in states with no cause divorce, despair and an rights are protected equally. that is what modern divorce law did was to equalize the riots. and some women would argue that they have it baccarat under the former assistant. but in those states, no cause divorce really does try to equalize the riots. that obviously divorce is a very contentious situation and whatever one person, what happens between a wife and a has-been and any particular case is anybody's guess. >> host: before amount of time, which he put more meat on the buzz of the democrats an example for overreactive as you said earlier? >> guest: yes, democrats had their own counterrevolution as my book "delirium" has in the subtitle. lost by a landslide, party

leaders blamed women and feminists and gay and college students for the last and said that they had gone too far left. it into progressive. and what happens after that every time democrats lost an election, they would revert to that theory. the problem is we've alienated mainstream america by being too liberal and progressive on social issues. if that were true, there would be fine. but all the facts point to that mapping the case of the democrats lost. so what the democrats do anything that is their problem, dave gone off to recruit more centrist and conservative candidates who then getting to office like we had after 2006 in 2008 and make it very difficult for the democrats to pass legislation because it is sad is that the two-party system is all inside of the democratic party. >> host: next is a call from dance, kentucky. we have four minutes left.

>> caller: hi, i would like to respond to those of us like me who don't question a women's right to an abortion or birth control, but rather people like me who question who should pay for that woman to exercise those rights because i think the economic side of this hasn't been fully explored. >> host: thanks, jeannine. >> guest: so, the federal government already prohibits funding of abortion in cases and and. and on the recent issue, it was in a question of tax payers paying for control. it was a question of insurance companies being mandated to cover prescription birth control as they cover prescription diabetes medicine or prescription. so i do think that there are

real debates in this country between those who want a minimal government and don't want taxpayer funding for almost anything and those who see a bigger role for the government. now i would also say in the discussion of paying for it, when we did get into questions of paying for things, that is what a society guys. so what does pay taxes for things that we don't necessarily agree with. >> host: at: extra time. hello, we can hear you. to have a question? >> caller: yes, nancy. i want to tell you i'm enjoying this program a lot and i appreciate you writing the book. i am a person who grew up during the depression and so i have quite a journey of learning and

changing. i put myself into the church when i was young. i married and had children. i just couldn't quite bring them into it. but when i was divorced i still continue to go and i found that being divorced was not acceptable and made iran having a gay son was not acceptable, so i left the church. i've grown, i've read, i allowed myself to grow them except me. it was when my son came back to being when he was in his early 20s. at first i was very upset about it and try to get them back into my world, what i thought was my