ing me by being here. [applause] this is, indeed, my 15th reading at -- don't worry, i'm not going to read much. [laughter] barbara meade after one introduction, she started introducing me as sort of the eloise of politics & prose because i sort of grew up here. [laughter] my first reading was in 1982. but anyway, thank you for that very generous introduction. the, um, you know, introducing -- author introductions can be kind of

funny. after a couple of books, i got, i started to bore of the writing the about the author paragraph that appears on the back flap of the book, you know, that's the paragraph that authors pretend they didn't write. [laughter] you know, conservative leading voice of his generation. [laughter] oh, i didn't want write that. so i just started making them up. [laughter] and this was a book, i think it was called "little green men," and i wrote: he has been an adviser to every american president since william howard taft. [laughter] and i was on about day ten of a book tour, and you get -- you have the advantage of me today, this is only about day five. hello, douglas, my freshman college roommate is here. [laughter] by about day ten, you're a

little punchy. and i was going into it was this, you know, there's a hierarchy of interviewers out there, and you have npr and c-span, of course, and then down about here you've got the sort of, you know, the am drive time talk radio jocks, and you're on for -- you've got 90 seconds, so what's your book about? [laughter] and you hear cars honking in the background. and so i was going in to do this interview, and it was boston, i think. and i went in to the studio, and the host -- to use a somewhat elevated term -- was hunched over the "about the author" paragraph speed reading it, you know? [laughter] with beetling brow. and he looked up at me and said, you were an adviser to william howard taft? [laughter] and i was just punchy enough and

said, yeah. yeah. yeah, i was. and so the brow now beetling into sort of a cro-magnon protuberance, he said, well, so we could talk about that? [laughter] and i said, yeah, yeah, we could talk about that. [laughter] and we did. [laughter] and i have not yet been invited back on that show, but it was, it was really well worth it. [laughter] so here i stand before you, adviser -- and so if any of you have questions about what it was like to work for william howard taft, i can help you with that. anyway, it is, it's grand to be back in washington. i lived here for 30 years. i moved back to connecticut last year. so i can no longer, charlie, be accused of being an inside-the-beltway elitist. [laughter] i am now an i-95 elitest.

but i, um, this was -- washington was and always will be a very special place for me. i came down to write speeches for george herbert walker bush as when he was vice president. i write satire, and -- [laughter] here we are in ground zero, you know? it's, it is a satirist's play ground, washington. there's, you know, we never really lack for characters, scoundrels. my characters, fictional characters, tend to take after their author. they are sound rells. my first -- scoundrels. my first one was a guy named nick naylor who was a tobacco lobbyist. they made a movie of it. i don't know if you've seen the movie, but i want you to know i -- if you look at the credits,

it says man on subway platform. [laughter] there's olivier, guilgood and man on subway platform. but it was the cleveland park subway platform, so i urge you to -- [laughter] so in the course of 20 years, i have developed greatly as an artist of the written word, writing about tobacco lobbyists and defense lobbyists, this is called a lateral move. but i wanted to write a book about a subject dear to the heart of charlie peters' heart, i know, the military industrial complex. i think some of you may be old enough to have remembered president eisenhower's farewell address. in 1960 when he warned us about this thing, the military industrial complex, and now here we are, what, 52 years later

with a defense budget of $700 billion. which is more than the next 14 highest-spent countries combined. combined. i, i looked it up recently. the england, england spends $62.7 billion, and france spends $62.5 billion. i think they want to keep parity in case they have to invade each other again. [laughter] we had the 100 years' war, then 30 years' war with nuclear weapons. you could have the 30 minute war, and you're done. so the main character of this book, his name is "bird" mcintyre, and he works for an aerospace giant called groping

puppet -- punt. and they are based in missile gap, alabama, which seemed likely. in the book the congress is concerned about spending, so right away you know it's fiction. [laughter] and he is, the company has come up with a scary new weapons program aimed at china, but they're having a hard time getting it through the appropriations committee because, you know, china is, it's tricky. we have a, um, we depend on china. in fact, there's a, an entity in the book called the u.s./china codependencety council. [laughter] and who's to say there isn't one out there? maybe "the washington monthly" is writing about it. but, you know, we, we depend on china to pay our monthly

mortgage. and we are in one sense borrowing money from china in order to build weapons to protect us from china. there is -- how do we get to that? [laughter] it reminds me a little bit of the great line, yogi berra's great moment, someone informed yogi berra that a jewish woman had been elected mayor of dublin, and his response to this was, only in america. [laughter] oh, yogi berra. [laughter] so anyway, so "bird" is tasked with fomenting anti-chinese sentiment. his boss tells him, bird, it's time to put the red back in red china. and so he, but he goes off to do his research, but he can't quite sort of figure out how to do this. so he goes to, he goes to see a

woman named angel templeton, and angel is a tall, leggy, blond, mini-skirted, ph.d., worked at the pent gone, worked -- pentagon, worked at the white house, and if she reminded you of a tall right-wing, tall, outrageous pundit, you would probably not be far from the mark. and she runs a think tank. doesn't everyone in washington? [laughter] someday i would like to have my own think tank. i could put fish in it. [laughter] but it's called the institute for continuing conflict. [laughter] and this is the center of the so-called oreo-con movement, hard on the outside, soft on the inside. [laughter] the outside being foreign policy, the inside being, you know, they don't particularly care about domestic policy as long as america is involved in war. and preferably drones are okay, but happened-to-hand combat is

better as long that as the oreo-cons don't have to get their hands dirty. you may remember when things started to go south after our invasion of iraq, a lot of the neocons sort of stepping back and saying, hey, don't blame us, the idea was perfectly sound. it was the execution. you know, wars are supposed to go perfectly, right? so he explains, bird explains his situation to angel, and he senses that he's in the right place because in the lobby of the icc, the institute for continuing conflict, is a, the quote by barry goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. and bird thinks, i have come to the right place. so together they confect this program, you could call it, and they plant a rumor. bird proposes that they plant a

rumor that the chinese are trying to assassinate the dalai lama. and, um, because he's, he's become convinced that this is the dalai lama is the only thing americans really care about in china. and i'll read you -- this is just a paragraph. um, and angel is skeptical. she says, well, you know, what are we offering by way of evidence for this? bird says, well, who needs evidence when you've got the internet? [laughter] she's still a little skeptical. we just post it on your facebook page, and you expect us to lead the evening news? and bird shrugs, he says, well, okay, look, there are one or two details to be worked out, but, you know, but i've done the research. and the dalai lama's the one thing having to do with china that americans actually care about. human rights? terrible working conditions in chinese factories? where's my ipad? global warming?

taiwan? wasn't that some novel by james clivelle? [laughter] i mean, when's the last time you heard anyone say we really must go to war with china over taiwan. but the dalai lama, americans love this guy. the whole world loves him. and what's not to love? he's a 75-year-old sweetie pie with glasses and the sandals and the robe and the hugging and the peace and the harmony and the reincarnation, nirvana, all of that. we can't get enough of him. but if the american people were told the communist swine in beijing were putting pellets in his yak butter, don't you think this would be a pr problem for them? angel said, beijing's just going to deny it. and he said, that's the beauty of it. they're going to deny it again and again and again. they get to put out statements saying we did not poison the tally llama. bird says, angel, it's a slam dunk. and angel says, please, don't

use that expression. anyway, they plant their rumor, and things sort of take off from there. this is the, i'll just yak for a little bit more. of the first book i've written involving china. and there was a challenge involved. if you write novels, you have to make up the names for characters, and charles dickens was pretty good at it. but chinese names are complex. i mean, who here can recite the full name of the blind activist who was seeking refuge in the u.s. embassy in china? chen guangcheng. but even over there now when they're pulling up the posters, they've shortened it to cgc which looks like kfc. it looks like they're promoting fried chicken.

[laughter] so anyway, i thought as, i thought i had best keep the names of the characters, you know, memorable to a western ear, and so i named the president of china president fa, and then the evil head of the secret police was minister lo. and as i added characters, it occurred to me that all of their names were variations on do re mi, fa. i think at one point i actually had a character named tofu. [laughter] so this was a bit of a challenge. a couple of riffs about sun xiu. there are a lot of sun xiu quotes, and they are included at no extra charge. [laughter] i came across a fascinating term, actually, in a book by henry kissinger who for his book

on china chose a slightly less frisky title than mine. if you're henry kissinger, you can just call your book "on china." [laughter] you know, they'll buy it. i have to sort of dance like a french poodle on my -- [laughter] they eat puppies, don't they? but sun xiu copied this interesting -- coined this interesting term spelled shi, and it's tricky to translate, but it means roughly the art of understanding matters in flux. so there is -- and shi happens. [laughter] get it? [laughter] indeed, i am -- there is a lot of shi in this book and the author is, indeed, full of shi. so why don't i sort of leave it

there. i would tell you more about the book, but then you would, you would -- what incentive would you have? and i think, mike, we should mention the new study that just came out yesterday, possibly you haven't heard of it, but a very scientific study that shows that people who pay full retail price for books derive 67% more enjoyment. [laughter] it was very scientifically conducted by the authors' guild. [laughter] so anyway, full retail price, and i thank you for having me back, and i'd be happy to take such questions as you might have. about bulk purchases or -- [laughter] i will even entertain questions on the greatness of charlie peters, but only one.

[applause] thank you, thank you. >> i did fail to mention, we have time for questions, but if you could get to this microphone since we're recording, it would help a lot. please, don't be shy. >> i could ask myself a question. [laughter] charlie, how have you been? [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> uh-oh. >> what happens -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, what -- >> what happened and why to liberals -- [inaudible] >> charlie peters, founding editor of "the washington monthly," asks what has happened to liberal republicans. >> and whey?

>> and why? is this a trick question? i was very saddened to see that richard lugar was was defeated the other day. richard lugar, to me, was my kind of guy. that must sound a little weird. richard lugar was nixon's favorite mayor, do you remember? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. he was mayor of indianapolis. he was defeated in a primary, in a primary contest the other day by the candidate of the tea party. and so it seems as in france where the electorate last sunday, you know, went either, went to the hard right and the hard left, we seem to be doing that. i was struck by the fact that the french, by law, their presidential elections can only last one month. it's not a perfect system.

you still end up with a french president. [laughter] but i wondered if we might take a pause from the friend -- take a page from the french playbook. it's distressing, charlie. you know, the sensible center is, is an increasingly vacant space. there are many factors. i think the 24/7 news cycle has not helped. i mean, in the -- when i was growing up, the evening, you know, the evening news -- i remember the debate, there was a fierce debate in the '60s when they decided to extend the walter cronkite's 15 minutes of evening news to half an hour, and they were saying, well, what are we going to put on the next 15 minutes? but there is that sort of scorpion in the bottle element, and the moment anyone says

something original or perhaps slightly daring, they're pounced upon. >> that is rare, that is so rare. >> well, yeah, that's not, i guess, the main problem. but perhaps, perhaps it will come back. but i to think these campaigns have a certain interm in and about be to them, and i think that drives away some people that might otherwise -- it's become very easy to be cynical these days, and that is, indeed, in the terminology of the watergate era a cancer growing on the body politic. kind of aggression's law. you know, the bad drive out the good. sorry, a bit of an incoherent answer there, but, yes.

>> did you have a chance to read any chinese literature -- [inaudible] >> the question is, did i immerse myself in chinese literature? deeply. [laughter] deeply. i would have talked about that, but it's a very sophisticated subject, and i'm not sure an audience like this would really be able to keep up. [laughter] we could talk about shi some more, the you wanted. [laughter] to your question, i hope that answers your question. i -- yes, ma'am. >> following up on mr. peters' question, i'm curious since you're, you can't necessarily

speak for him, but since your father was sort of a father of modern conservativism, what would he think of what he's wrought? and some of which he must have seen in the closing days of his life. i mean, the crudity and the lies that we see now, i wonder maybe that's not a fair question, but it does heap to mind. it does leap to mind. >> did you all hear the question? you know, i thank you for your question. it's tricky trying to channel your father's ghost. hamlet tried it. [laughter] didn't end up so well. my father died in 2008, and he had, i think he, um, you know, he lived to, um, see it has been said that, you know, if it had

not been for -- it has been said that if it hadn't been for bill buckley, there wouldn't have been a barry goldwater, and if there hadn't have been a barry goldwater, there was the other guy, reagan. he, i think he was, um, so he, you know, he, he lived to see history coalesce in certain ways that he launched a bit of shi, you might say. and i don't mean that flippantly, but, you know, the directional velocity of ideas and movement. he was asked sometime before he died what he thought of the modern, what had now become the modern conservative movement, and he answered it in a very william f. buckley way. he replied that he thought the

movement was in need of reprisonty nation which probably sent a few people to the dictionary. i don't know if that answers your question. i miss him terribly, and i often mentally reach for the phone wanting to, you know, wanting to get his take on something. but in some ways i'm glad he's not around to see it. [laughter] yes. >> um, i'm here essentially because of the book you wrote about your late parents, and i related to it a great deal. and do you not miss the times where there could be an element of complexity in one's political persona? i mean, i grew up with a father who was a registered republican. he always voted republican. he was a childhood of the depression, i think he was a

fiscal republican. but socially i didn't realize that there were certain things that were issues. i didn't realize that being gay was an issue or racial -- i mean, this was, we were taught to be tolerant. this was america. you know? he was a child of an immigrant. and so i think that the depression informed his being a republican for fiscal reasons, but at the same time he could embrace or even if he couldn't embrace, he could respect, um, i think he was very voltaire in his views. >> must have been quite a guy. >> yes. and i miss him desperately. >> i bet you do. >> but i find that that is missing. we've become a nation of our, a lot of fundamentalists, it seems to me. and i don't think it's just me or my perception. >> it is surely a subject for a better mind than my own to

address whether or not politics is nastier than it has ever been. i mean, i'm not sure it is. it's much more on display because every time you look up there's someone yattering on on tv about it. but, i mean, be you look back at the -- if you look back at the 1860 campaign or the you look back at the things that were said about president lincoln in the civil war, would anyone -- i put it to you, lincoln was called a baboon. in a newspaper editorial. now, would an editorialist dare to say that about our current president? i suppose, yeah. it does, we do seem to be awfully angry. and we do seem, frankly, to me, to be talking about stuff that's

the relatively unimportant stuff. we are going broke. you know, there's this -- i try, i do try to write funny books, but there is, there is -- this book is also about, um, the fact that, you know, we're running unsupportable deficits. >> middle class. i mean, i remember the educational, um, films they used to show us in grade school that were, essentially, propaganda. but the one that got to me, and it was in grade school, was china, the sleeping giant. >> right. >> i mean, i had images, you know, at 8 years of age because this was in a film, chinese climbing in our windows and taking us over, and i read the paper thousand, and i think, you know, that -- hmm. [laughter] so i look forward to reading your book. >> well, i thank you for your question. >> thank you. >> thank you, thank you. [applause]

>> i have two questions. is there any chance that doomsday might become a movie? [laughter] i mean, just on the expenses of health care and caring for the elderly, and this one really dovetailed really well into it. i can't wait to get into it. >> a number of my books are in what is called development hell. [laughter] um, i think any, it takes several miracles for a book to become a movie unless the author is stephen king or john grisham. ernest hemingway, most of his books were made into movies, and he apparently hated them, although i thought ingrid

bergman and gary cooper looked pretty good in that one. he absolutely despised that way, so he formulated hemingway's rules for writers when dealing with hollywood, and it goes like this: you take the manuscript of your book, and you put it in the trunk of your car, and you drive up to the california state line, and you stop this side of the california state line, you take your manuscript out of the trunk, you make them throw the money across first. [laughter] and then you hurl your manuscript at them and drive back east. [laughter] and it's, it's probably a pretty good rule. but i think four or five of them are -- three years ago my agent called me a great state of excitement, and she said, are you sitting down? i said, well, yes. yes, i am sitting down. she said, i've got the most amazing news. i said, yeah? she said, charlize theron is officially attached to florence

of arabia. i was sort of waiting for -- and? i said, yeah? well, she's attached to the project. i said, well, what does that -- does that mean they've stapled her to the script? [laughter] and you will have noticed that charlize theron's latest movie was not florence of arabia. [laughter] so the answer is, i don't know. i wish, or as we say, as they say at state department briefings, i have nothing for you on that at this time. [laughter] >> my second question is, once you start on your project, how do you discipline yourself, and what is your writing day like? [laughter] >> people sometimes say, oh, you write funny books, do you laugh

as you write? and -- [laughter] and to that i say if you were to walk into my study while i was writing, the sound that you are likelier to hear is a soft whimper. [laughter] or even pathetic sob. it's, you just, you just stay at it. someone once asked anthony burgess in whose company i certainly don't put myself how it was that he managed to write two books a year. he was very prorisk. and -- prolific. and he said, well, i write a thousand words a day, and in a hyundai cans, i have -- hundred days, i have a book. it doesn't quite work that way. people say how long did your last book take, and my answer is 59 years which is, actually, true. anyway -- how are we doing on time? >> great. we have time for one more if

it's out there. come on up. >> don't be bashful. >> you said you don't laugh when you write. i read your book the last two days, and one does laugh when one reads it. >> oh, good. [laughter] >> my wife was trying to read another book at the time, and i kept interrupting her, you have to hear this -- she's reading robert caro's book on -- >> will you shut the -- up? >> the temptation was there, but she didn't. [laughter] it's not a question, really, you -- there was an author here a couple of weeks ago who said someone just told me he read my book, he couldn't put it down, he read it in one night. it took me two years to write

that book, he said. well, yes, i did read your book almost in one -- but from your earlier books, all of which i've read, you continue to go over them s you see things that remind you of it, boomsday, for one, and there are scenes from florence of arabia. in a mixed crowd, i don't think i should quote the particular scene that comes up -- >> no, don't talk about that scene. [laughter] >> so not a question, just a sincere thank you very much for going through the agony of writing a funny book, because they are delightful to read. >> well, i thank you. i thought for, i was afraid for a moment you were going to quote a great line that mark twain said once about a book by henry james. he said once you put it down,

you can't pick be it up. [laughter] thanks very much. [applause] >>set jones is working on one, and david is working on another biography at the time, and there are a lot of great books that come out every year by serious journalists/historians worth reading. the book on steve jobs is a

perfect example of that. it was an international best selling phenomena and for good reasons because of all the things we can learn from him. >> what are you currently reading? >> i read a book about a father in world war ii called "blood knots," and i loved that. i read about the 1948 campaign, and that was wild. truman, wallace, and first election after the war, and anderson and the book about george bush and how he decided to go to war. my wife finished "capturing the great," and she gave that to me. i have to go back and get involved in that. i read a lot of magazines and essays. i read -- i opened a correspondence with donald hall as a result of something he where in the new yorker, and

that spoke to me, and we had an exchange. i'm an awe of great writers. i don't pretend to be a great writer, energetic sometimes, but great writers move me in ways like nobody else does. >> for more information, visit booktv.org. >> the b-52, everyone thinks back to vietnam, line backer operations, think of the history of the b-52, cold war. there's a different kind of power associated with the b-52 opposed to other long range bombers. >> union confederates who knee each other prior to the civil war and fought against each other in 1962, and here they are at age 100 talking about the old days. >> one to the east is one, and the gate to the west is marked

903, and they really reflect or reference the moments of the bomb which was another 902. >> watch the travels of the c-span's local content vehicles every month onbooktive and american history tv. next stop is in jefferson city, missouri on c-span2 and 3. >> we're going to talk about how losing past campaign 2012 campaigns could affect the election and how the 2012 election could change time. i'm going to begin with what i think is a bold picture which is that on november 6, 2012 #, absolutely and definitely will be a winner and a loser. [laughter] we may not know for several

decades who was which. winning, sometimes the winner has almost no impact on american history, a non-entity, and oftentimes the losing campaign, a tremendous impact on the american history, and really change the local dynamics in a bunch of different ways. i'll go into how it works, and why i wrote the book. i was an unsuccessful political candidate myself. i ran for congress in wyoming in 1998, the democratic nominee in a very republican state. i lost. you go, wow. that was tough. i asked my family and friends. and complete strangers, you know, send my time, money, your talent, and then i let them down, or at least maybe the voters let me down. senator udall dropped out in the race, and he said voters have spoken. so you sort of think that way. like barry goldwater, he said,

you know, i still believe america's a great country. anybody can be president but me, and so you worry about that, but the thing about did i make a difference or have am impact? i will tell you this. i feel like i moved the ball forward a little bit. the presidential level obviously had an impact, and the losers are very important in the system for a couple reasons. first of all, losers, particularly when they behave in a certain way make democracy work. i'll explain that in a little bit. often, losing campaigns are far more dynamic and prophetic in the campaign. how do they make democracy work? you may notice on election night losers always get to speak first. on the networks, they declare

who they think the winner is, and they wait for an hour to be declared the loser, and the one who won can't talk until the loser gives the concession speech. the fact is an election is not over until the winner declares victory. the election is over when the loser concedes defeat. if the loser says, i didn't lose, there was fraud. you can imagine what would happen. it happens around the world all the time. in a lot of countries you see chaos, riots, civil war. same here in 2008. we had a pretty tense presidential campaign, were emotional campaign between the first african-american president and republican, john mccain. the lossers didn't like the results so after all the violence was done, 1500 people,

and there were riots that killed 20, deaths in mongolia and liberia. those are third world countries. 2007, when nicholas sarkozy was elected president of france, there were so many riots there were 600 cases of arson and 600 people arrested. we're fortunate in the united states we don't have violents around the president reel elections, and a lot of that is due to the behavior of the loser. they say i'm disappointed, but i accept the results. unify around the winner. we have to do that because winners can only cater to the public's dissent. >> i do worry about losing the wonderful tradition, especially with the last several

presidents. people are experts in the legitimate sigh, and that's a difference thirng for the country. we are a strong democracy, but a young democracy. the united states has so many groups, regional differences, and 10 -- so i believe our democracy is fragile, and it's important we sustain the traditions to keep it unified and understand that a legitimate government will govern, let them do the basic elements of governing and come back the next election. if we lose that, we'll see terrible, terrible problems in our election. i mentioned the other way that sometimes losers have more impact than winners. often, losers are more prophetic than the winners. the losers come up with new ideas, and the winners are stuck in the policy to pass.

every major program in the political system was done first talked about it. it takes awhile to gain it because sometimes they are radical and difficult to absorb. they bring in different people to participate in the political process. it's the young, minorities, women. they bring in votes. they also change the coalition of how the parties are organized. a lot of housing campaigns are the ones with the pear, and the reason they do that, i think, and lossers know they are probably going to lose, but you always want to see 148, harry truman, and, in fact, most elections are forward gain with prosperity and what are the demographics.

losing campaigns have to be bold and talk about issues nobody talks about and whether it's a running mate. saw the hbo movie, "game change," and that's what it's about. they went for the long pass, and, in fact -- [inaudible] the other thing is that, you know for one, there's a winning message. i don't need to change anything. the losers, you have to have a perspective of what we did wrong and do better the next time so retool. sometimes, you make an addition, and you have to knock down walls, think about wha