story. so it's story over time, it's human relationship with that river, can provide a microcosm i think of it very much larger picture of the human relationship to the environment. we have no choice here in the southwest. we have no choice but to figure out how to create a sustainable relationship with the colorado river. without the hoover dam we wouldn't be here. without the canals that bring the water to us, we wouldn't be here. this is a desert. there would be a few people here but not all of us certainly. the great megalopolis that has grown here in phoenix and los angeles, all of those areas wouldn't have the growth if we don't pay attention to the importance of using the river anymore sustainable way. that's been huge challenge, and i look at 100 years of the rivers history, and i fully seen some real hope toward the end of

that 100 years and beyond, the 21st century we are starting to pay attention, so much crisis before we look for reasonable solutions. but looking at the whole picture, looking at the whole history of the river helps us understand yes, why we exist the way we do here in the southwest. it also helps us understand the role of rivers, surface waters in arid regions, and other parts of the world. it also gives us a larger picture, a piece of a larger picture of how humans relate to the environment and that the stresses and strains that come along with it, the political fights that hamper creating a sustainable relationship, although the barriers that stand in the way of making better use of our natural resources. we can look at what didn't work, plenty of that, but we can also look at what did work and what is working now and what kind of

changes we can make. i think it will be a fabulous example for river watersheds throughout the world. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to mesa, arizona, and many other cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/localcontent. >> in this high-tech digital age with high definition television and digital radio, still all we ever get is static, that distortion in life and misrepresentation. when what we need the media to give us is a dictionary definition of static, criticism, opposition, unwanted interference to need a media that covers power, not covers for power. we need a media that is the fourth estate, not for the state. and we need a media that covers the movements that make history.

script author composed and executive producer of democracy now, amy goodman taking your calls, the nose, facebook comments and tweets. in depth, three hours live today at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> you are watching booktv. now peter blair henry argues that the you should look to china, brazil, mexico, and other developing countries to develop its own plan for prosperity. it's about 50 minutes. >> growing up, little boy, on the island of jamaica in the early 1970s, i cherished the time i spent on the porch of my grandmothers simple two-bedroom ranch house in kingston, the nation's capital. there, at three when the way in harborview, a middle and working-class neighborhood at the southern edge of the city, i would sit on the brown speckled

file leaving to the pages of the encyclopedia britannica, reading bible stories and poring over back issues of national geographic for hours on end. as sea breezes stirred the needles of the trees that lined the front yard and shaded my world from both the sun and the cases of people passing by on the sidewalk, since from grandma's chin, pumpkin soup, baking bread, brown sugar and lame choose wafted through the air. things only got better as the day progressed. and the sun made its mark through the expanse of the jamaican afternoon sky. the approach of the thing was always my favorite stretch of time, a welcome toss between the heat of day and the fall of darkness. grandma, finished with her

cooking and housework, would come outside and sit with me in the early evening air. encouraging children to read and dream was what grandma, a former schoolteacher, at best, and she never missed an opportunity to work with one of her favorite students. sitting together in the fading light, we lost ourselves in conversation, accompanied by the pulse of chirping crickets, the reverberating reggae beats of a nearby rome shop, and animated voices of young men playing soccer in the streets. these are the sounds of the caribbean, the lyrical backdrop to grandma's outdoor classroom, where i asked question after question about the people and places i had encountered in the days reading and my ever patient teacher shared with me facts and figures about distant lands. yet the greatest lesson i learned from my grandmother came

not from something she read to me but from something she did for someone else. in jamaica, as in many developing countries, poverty is never far away. on one occasion, the ambient sounds of those caribbean evenings gave way to the piercing call of a woman at the front gate. mrs. henry, mrs. henry, you there? me take you me coming. when poverty calls to you from the front gate, you have to make a choice. you can a virtual rise, perhaps even turn your back and harden your resolve not to engage, but poverty will still be there looking at you, even if you don't have the courage to return its gaze. soon, grandma called out as she

lifted her tiny, slightly hunched frame from the chair next to me, walked across the tiles, stepped from porch to carport, and made a 30-foot journey to the gate. good evening, miss mama. how are you? trenches again untenanted and -- ms. mama appearance belied reply. me all right so far, mrs. henry. miss mama looked anything but all right to me as i watched apollo grandma toward the porch. the closer miss mama came to my secret classroom, the sharper the contrast i discerned between her and my beloved tutor. with bare feet, tattered clothes, matted hair, and a protruding belly seemingly at odds with her thin frame, miss mama seemed to be from an entirely different planet than

my grandmother who, with are pressed and starched cotton dress and neatly groomed appearance, was the quintessential schoolteacher and matron of the anglican church. after inviting miss mama to sit down next to her and across to me, grandma asked miss mama if she was hungry. miss mama replied, yes, mrs. henry. is a longtime me not eat you know, ma'am. my grandmother disappeared inside, then emerged a few minutes later with a large tumbler of milk and a plate of warm, hard to -- hard dough bread, dripping with butter. i sat there, watching this mommy eat and listen to the exchange. my grandmother asking questions in the queen's english, miss mama responding in patois. they continued on for some time.

miss mama chronicling her tough circumstances, my grandmother offering words of comfort and encouragement, and tell the last crumbs disappeared from the plate, the milk was to drink, and my grandmother sent miss mama on her way with the familiar jamaican benediction, and walk good. i don't know how miss mama got her name, and i don't know where she came from. but i can picture her today just as i saw her in the first encounter in late 1977 when i was eight years old. over the next several months, miss mama appeared at my grandmother's front gate with increasing frequency. one day in 1970, following what turned out to be the last time i saw miss mama, i asked my grandmother, grandma, miss mama has a big belly, so why is she always hungry?

my grandmother replied that some people have big bellies not from eating too much but because they never get enough to eat. for me, economics is all about miss mama. i was gone to the subject because i wanted to help people in developing countries like my native jamaica help themselves. feeding the hungry is an act of kindness. providing the hungry with a means to feed themselves is an act of empowerment that confers dignity as well as nourishment. my grandmother was too old and lacked the technical training to get people like miss mama that kind of enabling the systems. i wrote this book because i have no such excuse. helping people to help themselves begins with the simple observation. never in the history of the world has the country

sustainably reduce poverty without significantly increasing its population's average overall standard of living. again soon economic expansion may not be evenly distributed, so growth alone is not a sufficient condition for development. but it is absolutely necessary. without growth, life becomes a series of zero-sum struggles directed at preserving one's share of limited resources. with growth, the high expense and the politics of distribution no longer involve such stark trade-offs. because economic expansion provides the most reliable means of enabling the poor to lift themselves out of poverty, the critical question is, what kinds of economic policies laid the foundation for growth?

the economic policy decisions implemented in the months and years ahead will determine whether people eat or starve, live or die. and not just in emerging economies. the financial crisis of 2008-2009 drove record numbers of people in the united states into unemployment, foreclosure, and poverty, to say nothing of the devastating impact of its aftershocks on the economies and people of europe. whether in the first world or the third, there is no place to hide from the power of policy. there's also no place for you to hide. it's a thursday evening. to come out to your talk about a book and economic policy. you have great courage. but i hope you can tell from

reading, this book is as much about humanity and relationships as it is about economic policy. and what i would like to do with my remaining time, before we open up for questions and answer period, is to get a sense of what are really some critical issues. in the last paragraph of the reading, what he will critical moment. growth is slow in the advanced economies. europe is in recession. emerging economies are the first time driving and economic recovery. and the question is, how will we create a more prosperous future for all of us? and really in a nutshell the book is about three things.

that tell us all that an the moe prosperous future. and what we in the first world can learn from the history of the developing world to help us attain that more prosperous future. so what are those three things? those three things are disciplined, clarity, and trust. so what i would like to is just to give you some stories, if i may from the book to illustrate the power of those three. so disciplined, discipline isn't what you think it means in the context of policy. discipline doesn't mean fiscal austerity. nor does it mean wasteful spending. put it in terms of eating habits, discipline isn't crash dieting or binge eating, or sugary sodas if you're from new york like i am.

this one is finding that middle path to prosperity. so disciplined means a sustained commitment for long-term prosperity that is both vigilant, flexible, and very importantly, put for good as the country as a whole over any individual, interest group, or person running for political office. in the context of fiscal policy, which i think is appropriate, talk about given the current discussions around the world, both in the united states and europe, this is no more complicated than a simple story that everyone already knows. the story of the ant and grasshopper. in aesop's fable. the ant saved when times were flush so that it had something to eat when times were hard. the grasshopper partied during flush times and was really hungry when times were thing.

who is the ant and who's the grasshopper? at one point in time the first world went around the third world lecturing about how to be more anti-like. but in 2001, in this country, we have a record $236 billion fiscal surplus which we decided during flush times we would return this to the people, quote unquote. tax cuts. during 2003-2007, all advanced nations ranked fiscal deficits about 3% of gdp. became more indebted. third world countries have used discipline ranked fiscal surplus during that period.

a country in particular, story that really resonates, the story of chile. chile in 2008 began coming out of this record period of global growth 2006-2007, experienced a boom due to the run up in commodity prices, copper particularly and chile. there was enormous pressure on the finance minister to spend that surplus, to give it back to the people. he resisted that pressure. he was burned in effigy in the street. he said no, this money is for a rainy day. those were not his exact words but that's in essence what he said. and, of course, you know the rest of the story. we had a financial crisis. it was that financial crisis when chile had socked away billions of dollars that allowed it is then implement a

$4 billion tax cut testing with the economy. exactly as we learn in economics 101. that's called countercyclical fiscal policy. no more complicated than the story of the and in the grasshopper. third world ants common first world grasshoppers. that's discipline. clarity. for clarity i want to tell you the story of another caribbean island. not jamaica but the tiny island in barbados. in 1992, barbados faced and enormous financial crisis, potential financial crisis. they were about to run out of foreign exchange reserves. the u.s. economy was in recession and as an economy highly dependent on the exports

for the rest of the world. barbados was in real trouble. and barbados received a visit from the international monetary fund, known as the imf your barbados at that point in time also had what's called a fixed exchange rate, much like the countries in the euro zone rates. it was that at a certain value, in this case 1.7 barbados of dollars to the u.s. dollar. the imf said, your country has become very uncompetitive. in the same way that countries in much of europe today have become uncompetitive. wages have gone up. what to do. the imf said, well, we think you should be valued your currency. devalue your currency will make your exports cheaper, will make imports more expensive, that will allow your economy to

readjust. it will make you more competitive. the barbecue leadership said -- the said we don't think so. we don't like the idea. if you move from 1.7 to two u.s. dollars, that's essentially cutting without considered the prime minister said we're going to convene a discussion. we want to bring the together private sector, the unions, and the government and will talk about this. and over the course of the next several months there was a very heated discussion. the alternatives were laid out. the leadership said we have a

choice we can either do with the imf says, devalue the currency, which very few want to do. or we can cut wages, but we have to do something. ultimately, the discussants that to a very difficult place. the government consulted with the private sector and the unions, and agreed they would be a 9% wage cut. 9% wage cut. people were very unhappy. they took to the streets. roughly 30,000 people took to the streets. roughly and eighth of the population. that's the equivalent of 40 million people protesting on washington. somehow, the center held. the leader of the trade unions,

to his everlasting credit, said we have to do this to save the country. the three parties came together, the wage cut helped, and barbados economy actually recovered quite quickly. for his efforts, the prime minister, and his party, were kicked out of power for 14 years. the economy recovered after this, but when asked in retrospect, ma we did it would begin? the prime minister said, the price i paid was a small price to save the country. clarity. clarity matters. people often ask you, well, barbados is so small. what can we possibly learn from barbados. and my answer to that is, it's

not so easy to do things in a small country. in a small country, the person whose wages it cut is not anonymous. i cut in wages affect your brother, your cousin, possibly even your mother or father. so if a close-knit society can find a way to make difficult decisions, to find a way to make an economy more competitive, not through austerity but through reform, and by the way, a part of the story i left out, the private sector a greater open its books to the unions, and agreed that in the future they would be wage increases. in other words, the benefits of future productivity would be shared amongst workers. and the companies. a social compact, compromise, clarity about what needed to be

done. the third key lesson from emerging economies about what needs to happen to have a more prosperous future, this issue of trust, discipline, clarity, trust. i mentioned the imf. let's go now from chile and barbados the emerging economies of a larger group, and let's talk about the so-called bricks are brazil, russia, china, south africa. the large emerging economies. the so-called bricks now account for 21% of global output. and yet at the international monetary fund and the world bank, two of the world's most robust economic and financial institutions are setting the

international policy agenda that, together with the united states treasury, played a major role in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s in teaching, again, former third world countries, what he needed to do to turn around their economies and they come emerging market. at these institution, the brics only have 11.5% of the voting shares despite their 21% contribution to the global economy. in contrast, the countries of the ozone areas account for about 25% of global gdp and have 32% of the votes. why is that a trust issue? well, in order for emerging economies to continue to grow, they continued to be the engine of growth pulling us, the united states, western europe and japan out of the economic doldrums, we

need the brics and other larger energy economy to continue down that disciplined path, allow themselves to turn around. but will they do so? will they continue to do so? will their political leaders have the capital they need to sell tough, clear decisions to their electorate if there's no reciprocation at the world's major institutions? i'll give you another example. at the onset of the financial crisis, the against countries, all countries but events countries in particular, made a pledge to be committed to continue free trade. open markets. and yet between november 2008-november 2010, we know that there are more than 800 instances implemented during that time. more than 40% of those were and

planted by former g-7 countries. so as much talk as there is right now about fiscal deficits, when we look at the world economy, it seems to me to be a trust deficit is perhaps our largest entitlement to future growth. we need to build trust, and the unwillingness of the countries, again to reciprocate, to recognize the new stature, the gains that the former third world has made by taking a long road to prosperity undermines our chances for a shared future of prosperity. so the last thing i would like to say before it opened up to questions is something quite

extraordinary happened yesterday, and it's hard for me to say because as i eluded to in the region, i'm episcopalian. we broke from the catholic church all long time ago. but the catholic church i guess, it's about time they caught up on the reform in to a big change yesterday. first third world pope. one of the world's most arguably most conservative institutions has found the humility to recognize the future, the future lies largely in the catholic church, in the emerging world. but as it goes in the catholic church, so, too, economics. will the first world be able to summon the discipline, and the

clarity, and let me just add the humility to regain the trust of the emerging world? so that we can all share a more prosperous future. i'm hopeful. be happy to answer any questions. [applause] >> if there are questions, please go to the microphone. thank you. >> how can you have the first two, the discipline and clarity, when you lack the third, trust? and example i would use would be our relationship with china. we don't trust them. we allow them to have their currency float. we don't trust them to properly regulate i.t. you know, we think they are stealing all our stuff.

how do we maintain solid discipline, free trade relations to support their growth, support our growth when we just don't trust them? >> that's a great question. as i think about it, and i can't help myself because -- [inaudible]. loose math. discipline plus clarity equals trust. and uses the example of free trade your discipline in the context of free trade means that we need both imports and exports to prosper. we often call on the media as the popular press, often talk about the importance of having a surplus. exports are good and imports are bad. but the real benefits from exports, you have to export in order to earn the resources you need to pay for your imports.

free trade allows countries to specialize at what they do best, most efficiently. so that we can use our resources well. and the discipline in the context of free trade means we recognize both imports and exports, and example of south korea, the great example that you don't need to run trade surpluses effort to prosper. south korea during its period of extraordinary rapid growth, 7% per capita. south korea grew three times as fast as the united states crew and its so-called golden era of growth post-world war ii. south korea was running trade deficits. so a disciplined approach to free trade would say, let's have a serious conversation with our partners in china. that focuses not on bashing china about running trade surplus with us, but focuses on

a shared set of issues that we can all agree on that would be in china's interest. for instance, how do we help china move to what it wants to do? does it need a more consumer-based economy? >> well, it's hard to disagree with anything that you say, because there is truth in economics and i agree. nevertheless, though, i don't think your analysis grasped what is really going on and where the real interests lie. a lot of the development of the third world economies, due to major corporations, wal-mart and others, would go in, get the cheap labor and certainly the local economies would benefit by that, whether not the

distribution is good or bad or whatever, so what i'm saying is that the announcers really requires where the interests lie worldwide to make it look like the developing countries knew what they were doing and it was great. they took advantage of the greed of some elements in the first world. and if we're going to move on beyond this point, those issues have to be dealt with. the imf, how they've been running things, the world bank, all those kinds of things. so even though i can't disagree with you, it doesn't seem to me that there is enough presentation of what is going on, what some of the hard issues really are for different elements within the different

countries your what's common within the middle and lower classes throughout the world that they have in common, that is really being suppressed by interests of corporate nature that operate throughout the world and don't worry about nations but i didn't enough of that. spirit i served they think you're right that there needs to be a discussion about, i think what you're driving at is interest groups, different interest groups within countries, go back to that deficit discipline, me want to stand in the way of aggregate prosperity because they can personally benefit. and i think every society has to

grapple with issues of equity as well as efficiency. so i really was alluding to issues, how do you grow it as a whole? it's a question about the pie gets distributed raises questions that get resolved through corporate process. and the corporate process can be perceived as -- i guess the important point i would make it is, and i think it's an important distinction, equity versus efficiency. what economics teaches us is for any desired output society once, how it society wants to decide to organize itself, how to achieve those outcomes most efficiently. economics at tell us what is there. those are questions that society has to decide itself. >> distribution does have a lot to do with efficiency.

>> it can. >> and that's what were big hangups right now that is not being addressed. that was my issue is back take one specific example of which is relevant to is in thinking about issues related to income distribution. there's often i think a discussion around tax policy that often gets into what's almost akin to class warfare. the real issue in solving income any court for the train it really relates to the. really, if you really want to think of inequality, increase high skilled workers in the workforce. what we do with tax policy is relevant for equal violence, but really has very little to do with income in the quality. so that's one example.

>> i guess there's two parts to your presentation. one, what are the lessons. but second, is this country in a position where has an interest in learning. and i think if the united states was really interested in lessons from abroad it would be on the metric system, it wouldn't have -- [laughter] wouldn't have the grotesque health system that accounts. what would be an example or listen to the united states has already learned that would make you hopeful and more would follow in the future? >> i think we are still gathering our data. [laughter] so i'm not really an empirical economist, but sometimes you do have to go on the substance of

things you before. evidence of things not seen. >> yes, i have a small question and then a larger one. i think i heard bits of you speaking, i mean, i heard the bits. you were on the radio this morning, whether it was -- because i don't know somebody whether it was you saying that the united states, develop programs, didn't do anything in the bay area -- in the area of economic growth. one of the things you said. as someone who, after doing other things -- economic growth area for about 15 years, i can see a bit of what you meant and that work more on developing the

underpinning for economic growth like legal systems, others, the private economy, that sort of thing. but i would talk to you about that some other time. my question, my bigger question is, since you're an economist and i'm sort of an eclectic, focusing on economics, is that we have certain principles that we -- they come out of economics and i've developed some questions about them because every situation is quite complex. privatization is one of them. the economy is where the state runs everything, certainly don't work, but selling off their water system doesn't always work

either. and my main question is about what you have been, as another example, is free trade your because that is something we push very strongly. and as you say, we violate it in certain ways, but i'm also not convinced that it is the best thing for developing economies. i think it's a real model that i genuinely would like your opinion. because when this country was getting its start, we relied on developing industries and production. and very often free trade served our economy more than it serves some of these other economies. so anyway, i wonder what the balance is and whether economics is served while? >> so, simply on the free trade

question, there i will go from hope the fact. i think the facts speak pretty clearly about this. again, the point that emphasize in the book is the economy. i tried to emphasize private business. and so what we know is that on average, countries, when countries open up the free trade, they tend to grow faster and attend to grow faster for the reasons i mentioned earlier. it allows them to use their resources more efficiently. it allows them to focus on what they do best. and for every example of a country, we're a country successfully is protected, i'm going to make this number up, there are at least 10 examples of it not working. and so given the wealth of

history as to how countries have prospered as a result of opening up as a result of free trade, i think the chances very strong that the notion that the government or any particular industry and specialist knowledge that will allow it to do something particularly special is good for the country as a whole, pretty hard to make that argument. but there can be exceptions. >> you speak of a discipline clarity and truth. do you see any sign of that in this administration or congress? secondly, icu served in president obama's -- icu served in president obama's -- not his inauguration, i also have a hard

time believing president obama agrees with anything that you said this evening. he's not take late interest in growth. he's interested in redistribution. >> well, i'm speaking on my behalf and certainly no one else's. i think that we all want the same things. i think that there's a deep disagreement at the moment about how we get there. and i think part of the reason why there's so much disagreement right now is that i think the discussion has really kind of coalesced around ideological points as opposed to principles, right? one of the best ways to bring about a fair society as i read earlier is to bring about more growth. while there can be many paths

for achieving higher growth, that's one of the points of the book, there's no simple one way to do it. the three key principles i mentioned are what we will have to underpin in the strategy. so in businesses, right, the pragmatic growth strategy of business, the execution requires flexibility. because opportunities arise and you have to be practical. and the question right now is whether we will be smart enough, tactical enough to find the common ground we need to find to get our policies through. >> good evening. quick question with regards to education but as the dean of the nyu stern school of business -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i see from that school that there are a lot of international students coming to the school. so from your personal experience, obviously we're

doing something right by attracting all these four students at then go back to their land, and i guess implement the thing that we talked to are we doing the right thing? why are they coming? why are not we going to grin study or whatever? just a quick question. [laughter] >> one of the great things, there are many great things about the united states but one of the things we do particularly well is higher education. we know that because people want to study here. so that's one of, one of the reasons that i'm quite optimistic. at the stern school we talked about the challenges facing the world with opportunity. that's what you ought to go to business school, and it doesn't matter where you come from. one of the great benefits of the united states is that we have this wonderful system. people come in, sometimes called but oftentimes they stay for a while. they invented things, start new

companies. so that's a great example of one of the reasons why we are very hopeful about her future. >> -- about our future. >> good evening. i was wondering if you'd comment on the font that developed countries, united states, europe and so forth, japan, are now in a position where they are going to have lower growth on average than developing or emerging economies because of increased energy cost, othe costs and oths as well, and was easy to a sort of a permanent feature of the world economy where the developed countries are just going to be growing more slowly

and the emerging economies are taking an increasing share of world production, et cetera spend that's a great question. the shorter answer is, for fundamental reasons that emerging economies are still catching up, this process has turned red, it made these reforms. they will continue to grow more quickly than advanced nations for some time, if we're lucky by the way. as they continue down the right path. but the great news is we can all win. so fast growth in the emerging world is good for us because as the middle-class emerges, in mexico, brazil, asia, africa as well, those consumers will buy more of our goods. though citizens as their incomes rise will be able to come to the united states, come to politics and prose on vacation.

they will bring more services. so this is a win-win. so the issue is, the worry is not that emerging economies will continue to grow faster than advanced countries, it is whether advanced countries will grow at the potential and right now we're underachieving. we need to get back on track. thank you. >> i'm very interested in what you say about trust, and like another speaker, he would be nice to see more of it on our own shores. but i wonder if you talk in the book at all about the opposite trust which i see as corruption? and i think there are many of the developing, that would be developing countries they can develop way faster if there was less corruption and. >> no question that you are right. i think it's important to be

clear, when i say that there are important lessons, and i by no means -- one of the things i talk in the last chapter of the book is there is still much work to be done. on issues like corruption, further reforms in other areas, that we build this trust. because in order for the emerging world to want to continue down this path they need to feel as though there's something in it for them. so trust is critical. corruption is an important issue in a lot of societies, but i think that better relations between the emerging world and the developed world can also help on that as well. >> well, thank you so much.

[applause] >> thank you. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here online. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. tv streams live online for 40 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> booktv recently visited mesa, arizona, with the help of our cable partner cox communications. don critchlow gives the history of the conservative movement in hollywood. his book is "when hollywood was right." >> the conservative movement started really in the post-second world war, although there were early examples of

conservative activity of the 1920s and 1930s come up that you need to remember that hollywood is, was and always is about making money. so the early studios were primarily concerned with getting established, making a lot of money. but the 1930s when the great depression came, we see in california particular resurgence of democrats in the 1934 socialist and well-known author, and upton sinclair was able to win the governor's nomination, or the nam -- the nomination for the democratic party. and the studios, hollywood studios went really dessert with the idea of a socialist coming into office.

-- berserk he was talking about the film industry. so the studios, people such as the warner bros. and others poured money into an anti-sinclair campaign. and they were able to defeat him in 1934. so that's the beginnings of conservatives and republican activity. but by the time of the second, and the post-second world war two era, the republican party was in complete disarray, factionalized. so what i explained in my book, "when hollywood was right," is how a small group of movie stars, studio moguls and california businessman got together and rebuild the

republican party, ultimate electing ronald reagan as governor and as president in 1980. the movie stars such as john wayne, robert montgomery, robert taylor, barbara stanwyck, many of these names are not known by your younger viewers. walt disney who was well-known for his cartoons, his disney studios. in a group of businessmen am a people like justin guard who was found of rexall drugs, walter knox, who established knox berry farms, people like leonard firestone, the heir to the firestone family, and they came in. they decided to rebuild the republican party to democratic registration in california have

far surpassed the republican party. and at the same time the republicans were very, very factionalized throughout the 1950s and the 1960s or and rebuilding the party, it meant putting money into the party and into political campaigns. but it also meant taking these well-known stars and sending them out to speak at civic clubs and fraternal organizations, republican clubs, throughout southern california. so robert taylor was a big star in the day was sent out to places like riverside, and people like ginger rogers was another republican who was sent out to speak to civic groups. primarily what brought them

together was they were republicans concerned with big government, especially the expansion of their government during roosevelt's new deal in the 1930s, and so they wanted to scale back government. they wanted what republicans always want, fewer taxes. but at the same time they were also interested in boosting the economy, making this, making the state of california a good place to bring business. so they were concerned with labor issues, especially the role with labor in the democratic party. and while they wanted small government and also wanted defense contracts. so they used republicans, such as former actor and dance man george murphy, who was at the tail end of his career, they use

him as a lobbyist to talk to vice president richard nixon, who was vice president dwight d. eisenhower, to make sure the eisenhower administration would send them defense contracts. republicans were quite successful. if you look at the very end, that -- 1980 when they elect ronald reagan, in other words, one of the actors he was involved in this campaign to revitalize the republican party. but this ultimate success shouldn't do live the fact that they were, they had their ups and downs. it was infighting over candidates in 52. some of the hollywood moguls, such as louis b. mayer in ginger

rogers, and others, wanted a man by the name of past win the nomination. they didn't like eisenhower. and then in 1964 when barry goldwater, the senator from arizona, ran in the primaries, actually some of the republicans, such as leonard firestone, supported nelson rockefeller. they thought that goldwater wasn't the best candidate, and he was supported by the far right, who they didn't like. so it's conservatives fighting on the far right. it's the story of the republican party then and today, factionalism and fighting and political power.

today, the conservatives in hollywood, the republican, republicans are trying to regroup. there's some well-known stars that are conservative. they have tried organize. many of the hollywood conservatives today are libertarian, which is a good politics for hollywood because libertarians believe in individual freedom, smaller government, and less taxes. anyway, i would say that the real story of "when hollywood was right" is in this period of the 1940s, late 1940s up to 1980. but conservatives and republicans who hollywood still has a history of how they were able to regroup and have

influence on southern california national politics. so there's history to be told, and maybe history for those few republicans and conservatives in hollywood to learn. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to mesa, arizona, and the many other cities visited by local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/localcontent. >> here's a look at some of the latest headlines surrounding the publishing industry this past week. ..