when isabel is 16, 17, 18 and can be forced to visit somebody. i don't know when that way. i don't think the lisa miller store, i don't hope that if it i'm hoping this message and this book in particular resonates with people struggling with same-sex relationships and what can do. i don't want it to end which is why i wrote the book, people take this to heart. >> are you currently working on other cases similar to this at all? >> i personally am not currently working on one. we regularly get calls to liberty counsel is working on a couple of the cases similar to this dealing with interstate custody disputes. those are mostly being with, we are to cases where orders came out of california and texas, one was texas and one with alabama being recognized. i'm working on a same-sex marriage case in new york challenging the same-sex marriage bill that was passed.

that's my current case i am working on. >> we have been talking with professor rena lindevaldsen, liberty university professor and author of this book. it's published by new revolution publishers. is that self-publish? >> it is not. it is a new publisher that is out. it is not self-published. >> thank you for your time. you're watching booktv on c-span2. >> brian doherty examines the political career of ron paul, 12 term republican representative from texas and three-time candidate for president, next on booktv. mr. doherty reports on congressman paul's political ideologies that range across partisan lines. following mr. doherty stocks, there are remarks by senator paul's son, senator rand paul. this is about an hour and 10 minutes.

>> all right, good afternoon. welcome everybody to the cato institute. i'm the executive vice president of the institute, and we're trying something different doing an event after work hours. we will see how that works out. but hopefully it is good for people who have jobs. [laughter] and come to the defense that we give usually at an. we're glad to have you all here, glad to have a very interesting discussion of the ron paul's revolution. about 30 years ago, there was a book published about the early years of the libertarian movement called it usually begins with ayn rand, and that's what we found here at cato, that most of our interns, most of the students who came to our summer seminars, had first read ayn rand. they read "atlas shrugged." that's how they got into this. not all of them, but probably more than anything else.

and i think you can say over the past six years, it usually begins with ron paul. that's where you get more people getting their first taste of libertarian ideas, and maybe then they move on to read ayn rand, hayek, cato policy studies, whatever. but a lot of people being brought to a concept of limited government. to me it's clear that he got more attention and more success and more votes in this cycle, 2011-12, then he did in 2007-eight. i had a lot of reporters asked over the last few months why is that. and i think, to me be clear answer is not because he did anything very different. he hasn't changed his views to key has in chains even much of the way he presented them. what the change i think was the public policy environment in which he was talking.

back in 2007, ron paul warned that an economy based on debt and cheap money from the federal reserve was not sustainable, but the economy was booming and nobody wanted to listen then. after the financial crisis when he came back around 2011 to campaign again, they were listening. in 2007, eight, he talked about the importance of sound money, and i'm even libertarians who said what's the problem with the federal reserve, haven't they been maintaining the great moderation? by 2011 everybody was willing to listen to criticism of the federal reserve board. in 2007 he talked about overspending them how the republican party had spent more than any president in history. republicans didn't want to do that. by 2011, perhaps because it was a democratic president, republicans were a lot more ready to do that. and i think in 2007, ron paul talked about endless military

intervention. and at that time republicans were determined to stand in lockstep, say the surge is working on and refuse to listen to any criticism. by 2011, the republicans were getting tired of endless forest. so i think all of that is what changed the context in which the second ron paul campaign took place in costume to get more attention and voters. many of you know there are headlines today saying ron paul ins campaign, or ron paul suspends campaign. it's pretty clear to me if you read beyond the headline, the campaign is not over. what he said is he's not going to go run ads. is going to continue doing the kind of things he's been doing, talking about the issues, giving speeches to thousands of college students, and his volunteers

working hard in caucuses and the other places that delegates are actually selected. so that's an interesting unfolding story that is still going on, how many delegates can ron paul get. but that doesn't really matter to us today because this book is not about ron paul's campaign. this book is about ron paul's revolution, which is a broader topic at a specific presidential campaign. brian doherty is becoming the historian of the libertarian movement. he's written books on the burning man festival, and on the supreme court battle over the second amendment, both of whom have some libertarian content. he more particularly wrote the book "radicals for capitalism: a history of the modern american libertarian movement," which i declared it at the encyclopedia britannica blog is going to be the standard history of the

libertarian movement for a long time. it's a massive work of research that will be the standard source for people studying this movement. brian doherty is a senior editor of reason. he's been there for more than a decade. before that he was a journalism fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, but most importantly he started his career as an intern at the cato institute. in fact i think with five interns that semester and one was brian and while assisting the scholar brian castro, who is here in the front record. brian doherty then returned as perhaps the youngest ever managing editor of regulation magazine before moving on to other editorial projects. he's been covering ron paul since 1999, which is obvious in this insightful and well researched book. so please welcome the author of "ron paul's revolution," brian doherty.

[applause] >> thank you all very much. i'm going to talk a thing for about 20 minutes. and then there will be some questions later. i'm going to start with what i think is very interesting frame for my history with the topic of my book. unfortunately, the endpoint of the extended beyond the book itself but it was not reflected in the book, and at this point it's the first time i met ron paul, and to this date the last time i saw a ron paul. both of them were even at large state universities. the first was at the university of florida when i was a college student in january 1980. he was running for president then, too, with the libertarian party. i was a member of the university of florida college libertarians and we had arranged for a speaking engagement or ron paul at our campus.

we do i think around 100 people which excited the hell out of us. we thought that was an amazing success. they were all there to examine a curiosity. it wasn't even 100 libertarians but it was people, third party presidential candidate, let's check this out. our greatest triumph was getting 600 word article in the school newspaper the next day. and afterwards we took dr. paul tightly to an ihop. a picture of that somewhere. we thought it was the height of sort of radical scruffy political activism. it was great. a few weeks ago the last time so far that i've seen dr. paul was also at a large university, ucla, los angeles were i now live. 7000 people showed up to see ron paul running for president again, this time with one of the major parties. and they were not curious,

curiosity seekers but they were not even there to learn. they knew what this guy had to say right and left. the instant the words initials ndaa came out of his mouth they were going. the word ben bernanke, they were going. unit, and afterward rather than merely retreating to an ihop or getting article in school paper i was watching groups of them gather to talk about their congressional runs or there but for the l.a. county gop central committee, or some big well attended event at the college campus they were about to throw, or what they're going to write on their website at 5000 people reading it every day. of the ark of the story from that first major college campus appearance to this latest one was actually truly dreamlike in a really weird way, if you been watching this for as long as i have. it made me think a little bit about what's the best way to frame how ron paul did this.

and one of the things you hear a lot about ron paul is about is rocksolid consistency, which is very true, but i realized to a certain extent i think the ron paul phenomenon works as well as it does because of four different almost paradoxical divisions that ron paul bridges, not to get all english major he. i'm going to talk about four of them quickly here tonight. one of them is he's a phenomenon of real and impressive real-world political success, yet one of his greatest achievements are to a large extent irrelevant to the political success. and i think especially in the wake of the so-called drop out or pull back announced that it's worthwhile reminding people, some of the objective measures of that political success, especially 2008-2012. i mean, first of all of course as a congressman, a guy believing things that almost none of his other colleagues believe, which leads to that sort of dismissive, junior about his congressional career.

how many bills has he passed? if you're a guy who believes in the constitution and the u.s. congress in 1970-2012, you're understandably not going to get a lot of bills passed but it doesn't mean you're not a great congressman. as a president from the 2008 run to the 2012 run, he managed to pretty much double is raw vote total. he managed to more than double his percentage of the gop primary vote from around 4% to around 10% so far. and i think in in that figure will be even higher with the other candidates out, and i think even though he might not be running actively in texas or california, i expect that his people, to vote for him in great numbers anyway. he raised 35 million last time around, and by standard political terms, didn't do anything with it. he didn't fix -- you think you might've burned out his fans. they get that much and more this

time. which is interesting but i think the comparative giving is even more interesting. he gathered nearly twice as much as newt gingrich and rick santorum combined. gingrich around 69, santorum around 14 million. this guy has a base is willing to give and that something very important in politics. it's something that the gop is seeing, is having real effects. they are able and willing to do the nitty-gritty of politics, able and willing to run for center committee. they are able and willing to achieve decisions of total power is not rightward, but positions of high authority in state parties from alaska to iowa. they are able to win delegations in caucus states, just like ron paul said he would and everyone else said he wouldn't. they can do the retail politics stuff. the analogies of the gop powers should keep in mind are both the

goldwater kids of 1960, similar youth-based movement they gathered around a heroic, stronger antigovernment figure it was written a best selling book, and managed to surprise the establishment at the time with what they could achieve in the future. the more recent analogy i think is the religious right, a wing of the party like the libertarian movement that paul represents, that maybe outmanned in a majority rules way but that is still passionate about their ideas and they're going to be able to swing their weight in the gop's beyond the apparent number. so it is a story of real political success but its true importance is not about that kind of political success. it's not about locating, not about winning control of the gop precincts of the like. it is a continuation of the intellectual mission of the libertarian data which ron paul

arose. he was educated to become the political thinker he is by the works of the like of hayek and rothbard, publications for economic education and he is always embraced leonard read of the foundation for economic education division of what intellectual political change was about. it was about educating one mind at a time. ron paul has used politics as the tool for the libertarian goal, and it's a tool that if you'd asked me 10 years ago i would've said maybe it wasn't the best will because he was merely this sort of obscure outlier in congress, but he's proven me 100% wrong by using the tool of major poet in electoral politics. he has been one of the greatest educators for libertarian of our time, as david said, and it's not just about politics. the other sort of gap that ron paul bridges i think is key to his appeal is to the apocalyptic ron paul was also at the same

time the very hopeful ron paul. ron paul is one of the only politicians around who was willing to say america is not necessarily the greatest, richest, freest, most wonderful nation in the world that can only do right overseas and if there's anything wrong, just vote out that of the cut in the mean you think will be fine. ron paul is one to say in foreign policy terms that our behavior overseas is actually in some ways the behavior of a criminal empire and that we might want to consider that we are burning enemies overseas by our behavior. he is willing to say hey, the constant series of decades, billion, not trillion dollar deficit spending is impoverishing us. it's not something we actually can continue. we can't just behave as we have behaved. he's willing to point out that we are facing serious, serious problems with our debt and fiscal crises that are not going to go away by saying, as mitt

romney resolicit, we can't have a trillion dollars spending cap in one year, like ron paul once. that which drink the economy. we can't keep thinking that way. we can't pretend that it's okay that armed government agents will knock down our doors over raw milk or medical marijuana. he is a true prophet in the sense that he is willing to decry what america has become. and that usually doesn't work very well in politics. and i think it does get a lot of people about ron paul. but at the same time as he explained to me when i asked him, how do you succeed with this message that seems so full of doom and gloom? he pointed out to me, especially the young people i talk to, they see the hope it because i'm not just saying everything is doomed and we don't know what to do about it. we do know what to do. we do know that we can try to return our government to its constitution limits the we actually can spend less than we are spinning. we actually can bring the troops

home, you know. we sent them over, we bring them back. he paints an intellectual vision of hope and a way out of the apocalypse, which allows him to win hopeful enthusiasm, even as he rightfully paints a very dark picture of where overreaching government has led us. the other interesting bridge that ron paul provides a seize a major political figure who at the same time writers and right and the more progressive than the progressives. he's a guy who actually says when most republicans line up behind a paul ryan plan that will still be increasing our debt for decades, ron paul comes up with a plan that says he could actually achieve a balanced budget and stop growing debt in five years and we don't have to raise taxes to do. he is a guy who is saying hey, we talk about big government, without the government interfering in our lives. let'let's stop anything in the s of people who want to buy and

sell raw milk or smoke medical marijuana. we actually can have a government that is a government that can do and say what they want and get when confronted with ron paul's, be afraid of the. it was clear to me that ron paul -- ought to be the tea party application in the 2012 race and it didn't turn out that way. i think it's not so much the fault of ron paul is as the failure to be as conservative as they say they are on the part of the american right. i think ron paul is clearly the most conservative, consistently conservative candidate out there. at the same time he is also in many ways a more progressive politician than president obama, unfortunately the favorite politician of the progressive left such as it is. i mean you have president obama who has expanded the president's power to unilaterally imprison and even kill american citizens be on george bush's attempt.

ron paul is the guy who's going to get 7000 college students to do a mere mention of the words national defense authorization act, a bill somewhat president obama. you have a president obama who started new unauthorized work, greatly expanded to think coming from program and presided over continuing gigantic defense budget, bigger than any in the world's history. ron paul campaigns on the same for peace and withdrawal of u.s. military of the world. you have obama wants to continue to expand every aspect of the war on drugs including the one state legal medical marijuana. ron paul thinks government attempts to arrest people for actions that harm on themselves are inherently legitimate because the obama administration that has set records in deportation. if ron paul saying to a crowd at the republican debate that border walls are essentially un-american. on this wide range of issues involving individual autonomy and liberty, and protecting

people from the oppressive concentration of power, paul is more progressive than obama or any other national political figure. i don't want to glide over that one point, progress is not like ron paul, that they love -- ron paul does not. in fact, i think ron paul is sort of a living, sort of rebuke to the business that sort of proves they only care about income distribution and they don't care about the civil liberties and saving people from oppressive concentrations of power. but again that's the fault lies with the progressives, not in ron paul. the fourth defied that ron paul bridges everything contributes to success is he is both an incredibly intellectual politician with an incredibly emotional hold on his audience. as i discovered estimate hundreds of them over researching this book. he is as i've heard various people say the only politician running for national office and

you will have people say i ron paul and they went out and read a bunch of books that you're not going to hear that about obama or romney. and ron paul, not only does he write books, those books can have it obvious that point you in the direction of where ron paul's ideas came from. he will lead you to johnson. he is actually a genuine intellectual leader in modern america even though i don't think he will proclaim himself he is a great intellectual. but he is a great student, a great thinker and a very diligent and impassioned transmitter of their ideas across the generations. yet at the same time for being an intellectual as he is, and even in his demeanor as he presents his ideas, he's not a podium thumper. the guy is not selling emotion, though i think there's a great emotional context to what he says about the enrichment --

been richness of liberty. in a more recent talks i heard him say, when ron paul talks he is extend rising to it might be obvious if you talk, it's more obvious if you talk a lot. he doesn't have notes. he doesn't have a state she's reading the he is a set of ideas about liberty a source of wings and whined his way through. he's been talking in a very sophisticated way about this year richness of a human life lived according to its own desires and its own choices. that there's something philosophically important, not do that what specific thing you may choose to do with your life, but by the fact that you are about to actually choose to craft your identity and how you're going to move through the world. and i see this movie his audiences on a very sophisticated level. and by being so intellectually consistent and so thoughtful and so bookish in his way, he

managed, the sense of thousand of hundreds of thousands of fans with an emotional attachment that is a little bit to him though i do want to stress, call it a personality, it's, to him, because he is the embodiment to them in public life of the ideas that have moved him. ron paul is not a leader in the sense that he could tell his troops where to turn to tell his troops what to do. ron paul isn't a leader in since he has helped introduce people to set of ideas that they have grown too old great -- if ron paul told his people to reject those ideas, they're going to check ron paul. they're not going to reject those ideas. and that emotion is going to carry this movement long beyond the 2012 election, long beyond what he is drop down or withdrawn or whatever we want to say about his post and actions.

they are going to continue to work with in politics to they're going to continue to work with the media, both distribute and not distributed. i think a point worth noting that the single most heard angela ask ron paul people, how did you get into office was a youtube video. they wouldn't necessarily remember what you to defeat it was by that point they probably seem to hundred of them ended up in made 100 of them. but it was that distributed noncontrolled means of humans making art and making culture and distribute amongst themselves. why the revolution has been able to succeed that the ideas are the same. ron paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years. and i think as david said, part of why they are ringing true not is the objective conditions of reality make it more obvious that ron paul was right about things like the federal reserve and blowback and the like.

another reason is that communicating these ideas, and widespread. while this may be the last year for ron paul as a national political figure, the reason what i wrote this book is because i'm convinced it's true that 15 to 20, 30 years down the line if you look at the election of 2008, 2000 welcome most important thing about them in history will recognize will be that ron paul ran for president and the ron paul revolution was launched. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, brian to quit an excellent commented today on the book and on ron paul's revolution. i published some evidence recent at the cato institute blog, but my native state of kentucky is the least libertarian state in the country. so imagine my surprise when rand

paul emerge from ophthalmology office in the little town of bowling green to defeat first the secretary of state, and then the attorney general, and win a seat in the united states senate. both his republican democratic opponents ran pretty negative campaigns against him, accusing him of all manner of extreme libertarian views. some of the accusations were actually true. [laughter] >> i never admitted that. [laughter] >> and the voters wanted a change in washington, and they elected him by a comfortable margin. he was perhaps the most authentic tea party winner of 2010, which is what he then wrote a book called the tea party goes to washington. since he got to washington, he has tangled with the tsa, proposed a budget that is actually balanced, drawn rave reviews to draw in the patriot

act, and then denounce as a libertarian extremist by a writer in "national review." so what else is new, "national review" does that every now and then. we couldn't have found a comic of the knows more about ron paul, or has more of a stake in the future of ron paul's revolution. please welcome the junior senator from the commonwealth of kentucky, home of the eighth time national champion university of kentucky wildcats, senator rand paul. [applause] >> i want to congratulate brian doherty on his book, the "ron paul's revolution" but i think he got right but it is more than just ron paul. it is a movement. and it's part of the libertarian movement but it is something bigger than one person but i think my dad would be first to admit that the movement is not just in. he realizes there's something bigger. he's fond of saying in the

crowds, freedom is popular. it brings people together. no matter what walk of life you're from, what you do, what your personal background is, which your lifestyle, brings people together. this is kind of a young crowd to anybody ever go see the grateful dead? there we go but a couple of the. i figured brian. i never got into a concert by got to the parking lot one time. they used to hold up tickets and i've got three in cincinnati, to be toward over there. i guess they're planning on going to the next concert. what reminds me of the ron paul revolution, probably many different ways, but because people, i would see people i saw someone and relentlessly consent oh, yeah, i met you in iowa at the ron paul headquarters. brian i think was there also and headquarters would be 250 young people from all walks of life from all over the country, all working together in headquarters. it always struck me when you go to a ron paul rally, it wasn't

everybody in the chamber of commerce that you might see somebody with a tattoo. you might see somebody with a grateful dead concert t-shirt but it was different and a better way i think. people from all different types of walk with a. i think he did think that freedom is popular. david talked about how people came in by reading ayn rand. i sort of did but it probably -- i probably was born a libertarian. but also ready than one novels and related to that in high school. some people backing away they are afraid of ayn rand because he like individual doesn't mean oh, gosh, i endorse every word and every vote. people are now afraid. the funniest blog i saw recently was paul ryan has always said he was a fan, and now there's a blog run that says brian shrugged. is backing away from that. but when you go to the rhine --

the ron paul rally, anybody ever see the amy allen ron paul revolution son? if you haven't seen, look at the. she's great. she came and perform for him life and said -- she came and performed for me in front of my campaign events and my dad came and campaigned for me in january 2010. but just bringing i think a certain sense of coolness to it that yo you would sing anywhere else. you didn't have many candidates get on the stage but you probably haven't had been before, you may not have any sense who when asked about the war and asked about how to end it said we just marched in, we can just march up. it couldn't be any simpler than that or any less fearful than to say something like that. you have a guy who would go to a debate in miami, a latin american sponsored debate say, we need to end the trade

embargo. cast was been there for 35 years but he's not going away. when he first it up to talk about blowback, i believe in south carolina primary 2008, he said that, and he wasn't certain how many people would respond. but interestingly there was a lot of negative response, but there was a whole new positive response of all these new people. i keep trying to convince the republican party did you may not like everything he has presented, but at least appreciate -- the appreciation is getting bigger. you need to welcome the ron paul people because they are people who maybe are not had with both parties, have been libertarians or independent party. but they're coming in. you need a bigger party.

that was pretty impressive to me. there isn't a continual battle. the battle goes on but there have been some things that we continue to fight. when we fought the patriot act is you've got more no votes them ever got before. i don't think those 28, 30 votes. but still a growing movement of people who are concerned about the fourth amendment. and i said over and over to people, both in my campaign as well as when i have gotten there, is you have to believe in all of the bill of rights. so me conservatives love the second amendment. there are second amendment rallies of groups. there's hardly fourth amendment rallies and groups. but you can at the second amendment you don't believe in the first amendment. you can't have the second amendment if you don't believe in the fourth amendment. so i think there is a growing movement. i think there's a movement within the republican caucus that i have lunch with everyday that is becoming more libertarian. they are no longer afraid of is that i say that the term conservative got kind of used

out. by people who were not conservative. so that they conservative president to double the debt with the republican congress. it is worse now but it was going in the wrong direction under republican administrations. so the term conservative this via, they term libertarian became more value. we had a fight. we didn't win but we got close to some victories. one an amendment, diane feinstein introduced, was to say that citizens would not be able to be held indefinitely are sent from the united states to guantánamo bay. at one point in time she was going to withdraw the amendment. we sat there and said no. once an amendment is introduced, you have to have unanimous consent to pull back and we said no. that's pretty unusual. usually also wants to pull an amendment you just let it out of courtesy. we said no, we have got out there and we've got to go. we still almost one but the introduced a watered down version of it so we lost.

but 45 people at least believe we should send a u.s. citizen from your to guantánamo bay. interestingly, about two hours later we had another vote, and they were postponing everything. about that o'clock they start thinking need to go back on oxygen or whatever, but it's bedtime. about 9:00 and their voice voting everything to a vote comes up that i've been watching and this amendment said if you're found innocent in article iii court in the united states, of being accused of terrorism and found innocent, then you could still be sent and desolate to guantánamo bay. not that you wouldn't get your topic you'd have a jury trial and be found innocent and still be sent to guantánamo bay. they were trying to convince me. the democrat leader was leading the republican leader was making but they both told me they didn't really like it but sort of is like just a long with a buddy, but ago through a loophole about. in the conference committee.

you know, well, should i look back at my staff, and went back and said we have to have ago. i have to do is raise for your hand. carl levin was within. john mccain voted with me. 51 democrats voted no on this, eight or nine republicans but we got 59 votes and we stop something that is horrendous. carl levin even said to me, but it's the law. i said if it's of the law, it's awful that you could be found innocent in a country and sent to prison forever. that's the law, that's the law that is awful. at least have a recorded vote. we did and we went. we have a guy running in northern kentucky who could be one of the top five up here if you win. he's in a seven way primary, three leading republicans, it's

a republican seat, and easy to close to or at the top. interestingly, a young man who i don't think i've ever met i don't think thomas bases are met, the candidate is thomas massie. the young man is 21 years old from texas, just go -- just put half a million dollars into a super pac. he was a liberty loving young man who i think had been to the ron paul rallies. but he just got involved in the race in a big way and is going to help them. that race will be a week from today. if we win that you get another libertarian up your. i think the attitude of people are changing within our caucus. i've see some change. the ron paul revelation is having an effect. even a people are already up. people who have said they are libertarians. in our caucus we debate and some are actually lamenting that some of us are not so gung ho. some of us are not so gung ho to go to war without a declaration

of war or are at the very least to vote in congress. we still have enough but when it introduced the president worse than president obama 2007 said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. sounds pretty basic at its base at what the constitution said but i introduced his exact words to see a people would vote, and we got a full. we got 10 votes for his words, 10 republicans. not one democrat voted say that congress should have anything to do. we simply there was a committee hearing and panetta was there and asked committee, they said you, what about going to war with syria, or iran or both of them? and he said well, if we do we'll get permission from the united nations. and he said well, we will consult with nato, and they said, and they said welcome will probably inform congress what we're doing. we might. but there was no definite, there was no act that is going to

occur before the action occurred that congress was very peripheral. that's our own fault but the biggest problem have a pierced not only are we peripheral as far as being almost of no value and not engaged at all in foreign policy, we are the same with regulatory policy or any policy. the unelected bureaucracy runs this place, and foreign policy, executive runs this place. if no one attempts to assert themselves i think that's the biggest challenge we have. i think the ron paul revolution is helping us go in the right direction but i think the book will be a great value to popularize this and i hope the ron paul revolution becomes a bestseller. [applause] >> thank you, senator paul to both of our speakers have been very concise so we have some time for questions, so let's open the floor up to questions. please wait to be called on, and please wait for a microphone to

come so we can all hear you. and please give us your name and any affiliation you have. are there any questions? over here. >> thanks. john with the american conservative. what about the left? out of the younger people of the left to come into this, and can you reach the left? everything you've talked about is great, but is there a future bringing in a party, a new movement, what about the left stick with i'll give a very individualist answer to that. i may, yes, i know for a fact that the ron paul movement, revolution has succeeded in winning over many people from the left. i have talked to many of them. there is as yet no hard-core social science research on the ron paul movement, so i can only

say that i met a bunch of them. a bunch of them say they have friends. so it is possible, and the antiwar wage, you know, was always what pulled them in. by being the guy who was consistently and radically antiwar, he was able to win them over from the income redistribution issues, which i mentioned earlier, which are definitely still an enormous barrier for many of them. when the occupy wall street movement was going hot and heavy, congressman paul was the only candidate who actually was willing to -- get to have some grievances that were real. the province of crony capitalism were real, and you like the idea of engaging with them and lots of his fans try to engage with them. they were usually very well received it in one case i think in philadelphia, i should even tell this story, but a rather gross act of violation of personal space occurred on the

ron paul people stand involving human excrement being left behind. so that this sort of symbolic of the worst edge of what you're occupy wall street left to the ron paul people in the newspaper the ron paul paperwork ready, willing and able to try to engage them where they lived. i'm trying to explain the difference between actual free markets and what we've seen in the bailouts, t.a.r.p., and try to explain the connection between peace and small government. and i know it's won over many individuals but i don't see much science is winning over the left as an organized entity, and i visit to the extent of the left is an organized entity, feels connected to the democratic party, it's going to be even trickier. but one on one, drip by drip, ron paul's message can succeed in winning over the left. >> i'd like to add to the a little bit about what david said originally about libertarians get together and they say oh, i came to because i read ayn rand.

when you talk to the ron paul people, they will say how did you get there, some of it might be ayn rand but some of it might be i came from the right. you'll hear people ask the question, do you come from the left or the right. i think more than the vast majority are probably from the right because we are in a republican primary with her new people coming and who are from the left also. and i think some of them are conferred on some of the other issues, but they can the primera on the war issue. it also gets back to whether romney can hold those people and get them to vote. it wouldn't be enough for ron paul to really endorse these real individuals. they will vote for romney if they heard that romney is wanted to audit the fed or if they heard that romney is reluctant or has some we strength with regard to war, or if he's interested in continuing the drawdown and the and to the afghan war, which a lot of conservatives are now in favor

of. but i think the left wing people who came to the ron paul movement will or could vote for the republican nominee if they were hearing some of those things spent i want to add one quick sense to that. i have noticed some of you writing an article, that the way ron paul himself as delivered his message, particularly this go-round, has been in the way that i don't think the liberty but in a very real way should be able to appeal to a progressive leftists for various reasons i will explain in a later piece of writing. and i think, and i know he is mindful of the fact. i heard him actually wondering aloud, like this are interesting, a bunch of lefties are in what i have to say that the and the same weight interest income if you're interested in the libertarian movement at large, you should be thinking about that. >> okay. take the microphone right here

>> my name is eric. my question has to do with an article i read this morning discussing barry goldwater back in the '60s. -- [inaudible] to turn into the reagan revolution. my question is specifically, would be ron paul's affected nowadays, do you think that republicans can learn anything quickly? and if so, how? >> not super quickly, like i don't think this go-round. i think the resistance, if you follow what was going on at the gop state convention in oklahoma and arizona over the weekend from resistance is very real. in some cases it is very physical. you have romney people hitting ron paul people. i don't think this is the year it's going to happen but this is rooted in the notion that i tend to think that ron paul is actually correct about a lot of the things he says, about fiscal

crises and debt crisis and foreign policy crises. so from that framework i have to think that some political parties have to come around on this, or the alternative is a little bit too terrible to contemplate. and i do think that the forces of objective history answer changing attitudes are more on the libertarian wing of the public and party side and say that rick santorum when. the value issues of rick santorum are becoming less likely to -- less popular. i do believe for all the local republican party from for all the new candid, some of which sent to bosnia, it doesn't meet the republican party will be a more ron paul like party down the line, and i think it needs to happen pretty fast, but it's only beginning this year. >> my comment would be that it

needs to be much more quicker than from goldwater to reagan, or from goldwater to know because i think we face a much more serious and imminent crisis. when the banking crisis occurred in 2008, i always tell people i think of that crisis as too close to didn't equal for. for two plus two equals a million. panic is when math doesn't add up. i've been talking to people lately who are concerned that 2008 is on steroids coming out of europe, but a contagion spreading out the world. that's to be desired. i don't know if it is or isn't it i think it's why it's important that if we believe in a limited government that we have people in place, should a crisis over, should the destruction of the currency happen in a more rapid fashion rather than a slow fashion, we have people preaching that. example i use is one that people say you're just try to scare people. but i'm not really but it has happened and we have short

countries and other that if something really bad. in the 1920s we destroyed, germany destroy their country and they elected hitler. people say that's a bad comparison. welcome you worry about what comes out of the destruction of currency. two people choose a strong leader, or the are there enough people who stole of liberty that say there is another way. that we could come out of this but and that is involving freedom and free markets and individual groups i think it's important to be in place even if a minority in case something bad does happen, we have to change direction, that we don't going the wrong wrong direction. >> yes, here and then take the mic up top. [inaudible] getting back to the antiwar stance. does he plan to commemorate the upcoming summit, nato summit in chicago in any way? >> i don't think so.

>> not that i know of. and it strikes me is not asserting he tends to do. so i would say probably not. >> i don't know. >> not his usual style i would think. yes, in the back row. >> a question for brian doherty but do you have anything, looking at 2012, the next four years, which presidential -- let's say it's obama, which victory if any would be better for the sort of small incubating liberty or ron paul movement? or would it be any difference at all? >> i have to think about this this point, talking to reporters so i have a fresh answer to yesterday i didn't have an answer. for reasons that i cannot articulate, i am pretty convinced obama will win reelection. i cannot defend i just said on the record so you can get back to me on it. but i do with since the republican party is the vehicle through which this action is

happening now, that is probably better if romney wins and is as bad as the libertarians expect them to be, which allows for a convincing primary challenger to really make a very real to the party that there are two wings of the party fighting for supremacy, you, like in 1960 it was the rockefeller versus goldwater. it is the romney win versus the polling. sounds like a good question that no comment on from me. >> i have a different question for you. why are you wearing on your lapel what looks like a red cent spent there was a little tea

party during a race that started handing these out and said you can get when. it's only 1 penny. you can get one for a dollar. [laughter] it's just a penny that is painted with red nail polish and their mother was not one red cent more. the government has taken all my money and i'm not giving them one red cent more. >> it could be worse to our swedish libertarian fringe is have a picture of a kroner, or whatever, that in have. signifying their desire to be allowed to keep half the money they earn. [laughter] yes, right there. >> the microphone up to your mouth, please. [inaudible] >> i spilt oatmeal on at the rayburn house. my question is regarding your use of the term revolution at been trying to reconcile exactly do you mean to use that word,

and i find it difficult use that word in terms of returning traditional american our constitutional values. i was curious how you're applying that as to what's going on now? >> the main and i use it is just reportorial he. i'm reported on a phenomena that calls itself the. the ron paul grassroots begin using that term and that logo that appears on my books cover in early 2007. so it's, the main answer is i call it that because it's the phenomenon on reporting on. so i haven't thought hard about whether that's an apt term. i will think about a little bit. now that you've asked me. i do think it's an apt term, especially in the linguistic meaning of revolution as revolving, you know, an attempt to connect of a talked about the constitution much but i should because i think it is key.

is trying to turn his back to the notions of constitutional liberty, constitutional limited government that they believe america started with. you can argue a lot, and i'll listen to some arguments about how much -- and unsympathetic to arguing against it but accusing and the current context it would be a great improvement to return to the conception of the constitution. it's a rollback to it and that involves for the more colloquial meaning of revolution in which is a radical change in government, they would be a severe and radical change as well. so i do think the term is apt on those levels. >> i would say if you got to know and you around the campaign at all, it was really different than any other sort of campaign because it really, revolution may or may not be the best were buggy get a couple examples.

they said the way we can really win is let's have a blend and so everybody thought there was a stupid idea, so what do they do? i got a blend and they did it anyway. the people said let's let over indianapolis 500 with the ron paul banner, or a radiology resident in new york put on the top of his building, google ron paul. takeoff from kennedy. fly right over his building and you've looked down google ron paul and invalid. or they would say the campaign ads suck and will do our own on youtube and they make the os to a lot of great stuff came out of egypt and things to be. but it was sort of a movement, and they didn't like because they were libertarian, that into perspective did like being told what to do. they did what they wanted to and it made it a much but interesting campaign. i don't know if the right or wrong but the beauty anyway because they're going to do with wanted to do. but it made it more interesting than the typical campaign.

spent the tea party convention a couple of times, and the question i have is its early seem like that was a movement that had its origins in the 2008 campaign, or at least parallel to the 2008 campaign. so then it seems it has gone off in a different direction. not necessarily opposite the movement of the ron paul's revolution is follow. it was very disturbing to me anyway that observers, is the exit polls of republican primaries, romney getting basic the vast majority. the tea party support -- so i wonder from your work on the book and just being with the campaign if you give us some kind of, a different perspective of what you think happened there and if it's possible to bring the folks are sympathetic to the tea party back. >> i'll quickly address the

question of the connection between the ron paul '08 in the tea party movement but as a matter of intellectual history, i think it is very fair to say its the sense, the notion of a trans-partisan seriously shrinking government movement that attached itself to the tea party, but also with ron paul in december 16, 2007. the problem with intellectual history that is most people don't know in the intellectual history. for having said that i will also say that most of the people who begin coalescing into thousand nine around that term didn't necessarily know that and were not necessary acting out of the same impulses that the original ron paul with the tea party movement came from. also fair to argue ron paul didn't have a lot to do with modern tea party. and just like you said, i was distressed asset to see tea party identifying people being

for your romney's. it struck me, and i've written this, that logically by political logic the tea party should have been in ron paul's pocket, and the other problem is that lots of people are not logical about their politics. senator paul has identified himself with the tea party in a way that perhaps you might want to address it if he agrees that something has gone wrong. i felt on the trail in 2011-2012 that i wasn't feeling there was a plot of continued fealty to that notion or that identification. certainly not around ron paul world. i was feeling that the tea party had labeled, was less of a star in 2012 than expected it to be. >> well, i think brian is right. i think the first tea party was the summer 16, 2007, because i was there and it was in boston and we called it a tea party. and then there were other key parties became rent in 2008?

to the store in 2002009, do you think? 2009 actually. because in 2009 i was beginning to think about running and i was at my son's baseball game and it went, is going to give a speech, and i thought to be 20 people there in bowling green. there were 700 people, the biggest honor i've seen. that was 2000. i think it has its origins and roots in the 2007 campaign for my father. but i would say, and i always say there are two things that i think of the tea party started, two issues. people unhappy about obamnicare and also unhappy about the bank bailouts. but going around that movement also was a harken back to rules of the rules being the constitution, limit government picks when people say oh, the tea party is dead, i think it's an enormous or amazing victory that we've gone from no one questioning the constitutionality of laws for 60 or 70 years for the most part, particularly in the public, but

even the supreme court, to taking obamnicare all the way to the supreme court. when they first started, nancy pelosi was incredulous that there was any case. it then went to district court and was not summarily dismissed if you had conservative justices saying that an activity is not commerce, and if we regulate an activity we can regulate everything. there would be no limit what government could do. this is gone although effort on a parallel course you that liberal justices say by your thinking about buying something in commerce and making decision not to buy it, through thought process has engage in commerce. that might be able to move a stretch. bridge of those competing influences, but even the fact that we're having that discussion is amazing, and i think we are going to win in june. i think the tea party was round the bank bailouts, some of the same anger people are fed into wall street movement. but it also was about obamnicare and also about the constitution,

some about the tenth amendment. there's a tenth amendment movement mixing it up when it got to presidential politics, they didn't have a firm opinion on foreign policy so they broke the same we republicans have been breaking is, the libertarian, less interventionist, more restrained foreign policy, is at best 20-30% of the republican primary, but maybe as little as 15-20% of the republican primary. so when the tea party breaks up and decides, they think others are acceptable because of foreign policy, a lot of the tea party are more just traditionally conservative, they broke away from ron paul in the same way many republicans did. ..

>> it is not winning with 600 delegates or 400 -- but the runner-up, the guy that brought about to the end. the guy that was like the number two choice or the republican party. just that sort of marking is going to do a great deal to change the minds of a lot of republican voters. it is never that they hated him, it is just that they thought it is just not so for ron paul. it will help the ron paul people, you are a ron paul guy, cool. it will make ron paul acceptable in way that he hasn't been. not because of his idea, but because this cultural miasma of

strangeness. >> all right, let's take a question here. and christian, take a microphone up to nick gillespie. >> on the pakistani sector issue, i met congressman ron paul. he is very honest to be a congressman, how can imagine to be president of you as you the united states? [laughter] he doesn't want involvement in countries like iraq and afghanistan. does he understand that there are so many jobs that are created because of involvement in those countries?

is the user very honest, but they are very simple. thank you. >> well, anytime government lose money around for a purpose, they are creating a job. paying someone to do something. ron paul learned his economics from henry hazlitt. that doesn't mean if the government stops moving money around, there will be no jobs. it means that it will reflect what people actually want. if the government is not moving money around, the jobs that are created reflect what people actually want to do with their wealth, not the weird, imperial power games that washington

chooses to do with their wealth. of course, there are going to be adjustments, but it will be an adjustment that will be in a world that is richer in the end, because more people are actually getting what they want and not what washington decides they should have. >> i would say on that also, in the marketplace, 300 million people did to vote on where they want to spend the money. in government, a select few do. the whole jeffersonian idea is to minimize what they do. what they do takes money away from the productive sector. most of us who believe in very limited government acknowledged that we should only have the bare minimum of what we need, because then i am deciding where your money is spent, where as i leave it in your pocket, you all vote where it is spent. that is also the more productive sector. government is not very productive. for example, we sent $600 million in checks to dead people in the last five years. we don't do a very good job.

you have to have people to protect your country through the military and army? yes. but what we should do should always be minimized. then we are taking it in voting on how to use it, and we don't use it as effectively as the marketplace uses it. whether that is naïve or not, i don't know. the other argument is if you believe government should be creating jobs, we are spending more than a trillion dollars we don't have each year. it is not even real money or real assets or savings that we are sending overseas. we do have a lot of things at home. even if you acknowledge that government will do certain things, we have two bridges in my state that are over 50 years old and need to be replaced. one of his famous lines was, we simply bomb bridges over there and rebuild them while ours are falling down over here. awesomely, the arguments for private sector being more productive than the public sector. so we should support that.

>> brian, i know you are a big comics nerd. you also talk about how ron paul is producing the next generation of libertarians. could you talk a little bit about what produced them and was he bitten by a radioactive spider? [laughter] senator paul, could you talk about what it was like to grow up with ron paul as your father. was he a libertarian parent, and if so, was that a good or bad thing? [laughter] >> i think you and i, nick, have talked about this. i have stopped a little at stories that try to read his beliefs. the hard-working, hardscrabble pennsylvania dutch background that he grew grew up in. i'll a lot of people grew up like that. most of them became new dealers, essentially. if you ask congressman paul this question, and i believe him when he says that, it really just

came the way lots of libertarians come about. from reading the right or wrong books, depending on how you want to look at it. books like doctor zhivago, books by media and higher end education. it is an intellectual thing for him. it is obviously emotional as well. i don't think you can explain it by anything other than he picked up the right literature. i think it is a great thing. the great wheel of life turning, to help make sure the millions of other kids are reading right literature as well. >> it really does go back to the nature of him. he was born with individualist blood in his body. they were also a family that didn't have a lot of money. it was in the depression were people counted pennies and

nickels and watched everything they spent. even though they had a little bit of land, may be an acre, they grew all their vegetables in the backyard. they worked hard. and they knew what hard work was like. i think he was born with an independent mind. he didn't like people telling him what to do. he didn't like the idea of big government. a lot of people are born that way. i think brian is right. he discovered pasternak and von mises. as he began reading those, i think it is not what makes you an individual, it gives you the intellectual arguments to support individualism. i think it is always a combination, of both being born that way and individualism. >> was he a libertarian father? >> yes, no curfew. [laughter] yes, can you be a traditional

but yet libertarian in the way government should be involved in your lives? i think you can. sometimes libertarians are upset that you are to traditionally conservative, but at the same time, -- i would say we lived in a very traditional, conservative family, and unfortunately i did have a curfew and i did get in trouble a few times. [laughter] >> okay, let's take the last question. >> i think one of the most interesting thing on 10 things that has come out of the ron paul revolution has been with some of the new people that have been elected and come through the pipe, it just happens that

perhaps the verse and morose unction most courageous person is him. this has been rand paul, ron paul and mike leigh. they are trying to stop the army corps of engineers from declaring drylands as wetlands and taking them with no compensation. and preventing the use of the lacey act to prevent gibson guitar company from bringing in foreign words to say it is okay. i wondered if you could talk about that. >> is top secret and i'm not allowed to tell you. no, i was hoping david and the cato institute will invite me back. we have introduced legislation on the lacey act.

that's the thing about gibson guitar. it did upon me that i discovered that we were actually be regulated under foreign laws. you can be convicted of these foreign regulations and be spending time in prison under the lacey act. people have been imprisoned for raising the elevation of their own land because people say they are a great polluter because they are putting clean dirt on thailand, basically. there are a lot a lot of these crimes through overregulation that we are interested in and we will keep going after them. >> i would like to add to that. rj and i have worked together for years. he was telling the same thing last night. we were at an the event. i was not as impressed as i

probably should have been, yeah, yeah, yeah the epa. i've heard it all before. and then i thought well, it was just us in a small town house and not the same as a u.s. senator talking about it in bringing it up. >> the book is "ron paul's revolution." thank you rand paul and brian dogherty. there are books for sale in every bookstore in america, and also out here in the hallway. please join us for wine and cheese and a book signing. [applause] [laughter] >> we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback. twitter.com/booktv. >> you can see this is a very

short introduction to a very big subject. "the u.s. supreme court." it is not the kind of book that a author will do a reading from. it is not a germanic novel. but it is a pretty sure malek story. >> i know many of you probably are here because the supreme court today is day or next week, three days of the health care case. the court is more visible in american life and it has been for quite some time. i would like to talk a little bit and frame the story for you. what i tried to do in this book is public health in the position of many view.

i write for a daily basis up for "the new york times." that is to say, someone who is interested in public affairs, interested in civic life of the country, but doesn't happen to be an expert on this particular topic. what would a person like that -- a person as i was and maybe some of you are -- need to know, in order to really get a personally satisfying handle on the court. with that is a kind of framework, what i propose to do is really make a series of observations that i will elaborate on, and then i will turn it over for what i expect will be a fruitful and fun conversation among us. when you step back and think about the court, one thing that jumped out at me as i was organizing the material to write this book, is the extent