guess is what you would call a legacy. the second was to build your legacy. throughout that period, what type of movement, what have you seen so far as faith in barack obama. see i think his faith deepened. it's a great question. he said that himself. there's something about a constant stream of trials and different things you have to overcome. it slows you down a bit and gives you a sense of perspective. president obama's the last person in the room to panic in the first person to say hold on, let's just put a strategy together and people get through this. that's the perspective that god would have all of us do. it's so easy to look at the challenge is right in front of us and think that they are absolutely going to be the end of the world and yet we serve a god who has raised people from

the dead and done all kinds of things and moved onto another challenge. >> that's the dif i think he wants us to have. i have seen the president get it deepening faith in our mind himself as what is more important and spend more time with his family and wiping kids and focus on deepening their relationships. i've certainly seen as faith grow its great question. thank you. any other questions? >> i want to first of all thank you. i'm just curious you have a particularly favorite passage in scripture? >> there are few. there is a verse and second timothy that says god is not given us a spirit of fear but power, love and a strong mind and i go back to that every time you need to cast down here in my life and step out into and do a new thing. it's because of him that i go

back to. as my wife knows i'm always singing it around the house but it reminds me of our flaws as sinners all but the fact that god's grace is always ever-present. >> my name is brittany jackson and i met you and your wife at the first that this church. >> oh wonderful. >> now that you have moved into the new life of marriage are you going to be -- with your wife? >> we run a consulting company together along with paul monteiro. hey fall. look at that handsome guy. so we work on a consulting company together where we help institutions partner with the faith community. other questions?

all right, let's sign some books y'all. thank you very much. [applause] now christopher parker social justice and political science professor at the university of washington argues that the tea party as part of an american tradition of reactionary movements. the program from kolbe college in maine is 90 minutes. [applause] >> all right. i see i have two mics here. i promise you i will need only

one. [laughter] so let me just say by way of introduction i can do this the more traditional sort of stuffy academic way or i can do this my way so i'm going to do this my way and doing it my way consists of sometimes dropping and the cache and -- an occasional f-bomb so if you are sensitive wit and a foul language offends you i would advise you to leave right now because when i discussed this stuff i really get into it. so i'm going to offer a vehicle now to you and to c-span and i'm also going to offer one later. so thank you or coming out to my talk. i want to thank dan shea and his excellent staff for inviting me out. i really appreciate it. i have never step it in the

state of maine and this is the first time for me. i've been to a lot of places have never been to maine. that is off my bucket list now. so anyway, i also want to complement a student as well. i had the opportunity to have brought this then lunch with a really fine group of students and i want to say i'm so impressed not only by their intellectual acumen by the simple fact that none of them pulled out an iphone while they were in my presence. i want to complement the kolbe students on that. and let me say one last thing. this is a preparatory remark in that i did a year, i spent -- when i say i did a year it sounds like they did a year in prison but i spent a year in grenell college prior to receiving my doctorate from the university of chicago so i am accustomed to how zealous the students are when it comes to their education and i also

sympathize with the faculty and that you probably don't get as much research as you want to get done. i have people in my hours -- office after hours. i want to complement the faculty and the job you do. let me get started with this. the tea party and reaction to her -- "change they can't believe in." at i have a colleague that co-authored with me mad or read though. i love mad but i did 95% of the book and that is why my name is first. if you have any questions ask me because he doesn't know. [laughter] all right, so let me tell you what motivated the tea party. i ran a survey at the university

of washington i get tired of the same all-american national questions. i like the general social survey little more but i kind of want to do my own thing. i threw together a survey into matt's credit matt said whites and their question on their property party? i said this is january 2010. i'm like, all right so i threw question in there about the tea party. one day i'm sitting down with my little dog, she is a little down mission pointer mix. i'm reading "the new york times" a frank rich piece in which he says that people that are tea partier identifiers are basically crazy. then a couple of days later i read consecutive pieces, one by peggy noonan and the other by juan williams in which they both had tea partiers or conservative just angry people. so i look at my dog and i take a sip that might coffee because in

seattle we like our coffee and i said you know what daisy i have got data on this. let me check this out. actually i run a democracy, a real tight democracy. a small d. anyway i did a preliminary analysis. no matter what i did, no matter what i tried to do is to support the tea party it could be preference for same-sex rights, could the political participation. it could've been civil liberties. it could be patriotism to do could attitudes towards president obama, attitudes towards the health care bill that was in the process of being passed. attitudes towards the dodd-frank act. everything the tea party -- if you supported the tea party strongly there was no mistaking the statistical relationship. so what i did was they then

started doing more statistical analysis, more complicated statistical analysis. herschel correlaticorrelati ons and i did the full-blown statistical models controlling for various con bounds. in this presentation i just want to let you know i have in the book, have all the fancy statistical tables and graphs and plots and all that stuff but what i'm really going to try to do tonight is really try to stick more closely to the more if you will intuitive narrative and in you want to press me on that i'm happy to oblige you but for presentational purposes and because i know there are some people out here who are not very committed shall we say to statistical him methodology, i'm going to try to keep it real simple. if you want to press me on the stuff like i said during q&a i mourned than happy to oblige. we put another survey in the field in 2011 and that one was

more geared toward the tea party and everything that was happening. we came up with the same results at that point i started doing op-eds and doing press releases and i've got to tell you, the tea party is really, they are really really committed to their beliefs. and i have had a handful of sort of crazy e-mails and phonecalls and even snail mail. i got letters from tea party support saying all kinds of mean and vile stuff. i was attacked in "the wall street journal" by -- there is a columnist there and i forget his name. i was ready to throw something every time i saw him. occurred to me later on but he

said what do you expect these people to find because i have college students in grades to students. the name of the center to which i am attached is called washington in the study of race and ethnicity and sexuality. so matt is the direct her of that. this guy said what you expect him to find? you have a black man and you have a latino. what you expect them to find? i took offense to that and that's not the first time that happened to me nor the last time. on radio talk shows people would question my credentials. university of chicago ph.d., i served in the military for 10 years altogether. i was also a probation officer so what locks do want to put me in and what rocks can you put me in? you really can't. so, you can't edit that one out.

[laughter] but still one gets tired of people questioning one's qualifications. joined the military went to one of the finest institutions in the world but still my qualifications are questioned. my wife and i went on a vacation to linae ,-com,-com ma not even kauai, lanai. we sat at a table across from tea party people. if you know the people who have not been to linae is perhaps the most remote of the hawaiian islands. there were only two restaurants on the whole island, two and we happened to be sitting at a table next to tea partiers. do you know what they asked me? so you have the sort of basic answer. hey, where you from? what do you do? what do you do? guy said to me what you do?

i'm a professor. what do you teach? political science. what are you working on? a book on tea partier. what do you think the present? >> i was in graduate school at the university of chicago when he was teaching there. do you really believe he was born in america and i'm like baby girl we have got to go. we have got to go. so anyway this happens all the time. it's not something that's a one off thing. it happens all the time. i'm used to it now. matt is accustomed to it now and the fact of the matter is when we do in this book or what i do in this book is because i knew what was going to come i knew the scrutiny to which this book was going to be exposed and to what i was going to be exposed. i made sure all the bases were covered in pure glee, theoretically and historically. and so there is no way anybody

could attack me, matt or this book on substantive ground. they were all ad hominem attacks. they can't get at it in. we were theoretically. we are the first months to come up with one. nobody else had this. we are the only ones that have this kind of thing. so what you are going to see her tonight i thought about this a lot and discussed it a lot over the last three years. i'm not saying there's not questioned your going to ask that i don't know but i doubt it you can try. so, if i sound cocky or arrogant, whatever. i have been through a lot in producing this book so i'm pretty confident that i will have an answer to pretty much every question. okay, so this is my favorite point of this talk. hopefully we can get this working correctly.

let's see. you should get a play button here. there we go. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i'm sorry. ♪ i'm trying to press this thing here and it's just stopping. i wanted to point out something to you.

i will just point to it with my finger then. ♪ ♪ [laughter] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> okay so that is one version of the tea party. that is a version that the tea party, people who are true skeptics adhere to. here's a version of the tea party, the peace -- tea party supporters will get behind. >> the tea party event is not a top-down operation. to ground up --

[inaudible] [videotape] faisal is happening and they got involved. inside the beltway professionals who, in stand up and speak out for principles. who can argue about a movement that's for the people. government is supposed to be working for the people. this party we call the tea party is the future of politics and i am proud to be a leader today. >> okay.

so just for the moment, let's leave aside what we may or may not take about sarah palin's intellectual capacity. let's just leave that aside and let's just take her at her word that it's about a real conservative movement, right? that is powered by real americans. i will get to that in a little bit. that is just really concerned about the size of government. we have these two views. we have one that is supercritical, saying that the tape party is a bunch of racist sexist zina phobic people and we have this one that suggests that's not true, that they just really care about the size of government and what's happening in the country right now. they want to take the lead in taking their country back. now people are trying to say the

stuff with a straight face because i'm a social scientist. however i know how the story is going to end so if i start chuckling and stuff like that please forgive me. i'm trying to keep it straight face. all right, so a question. what is the tea party about? are they crazy or irrational? are they sweet chinaris, that is to say something brand-new to american politics or are they really simply angry conservatives wax by the time we get done with the talk hopefully these three questions will be answered to your satisfaction. so, right now let me just proffer an answer to the question. some people might say they are crazy or irrational. this may sound counterintuitive given all the rhetoric that we hear especially like on "msnbc", but they are not. as frederick douglas once said

power concedes nothing without domain. never has, never will. it's not irrational for them to behave in which -- in the way in which they behave. they want to try to save their country. the second question, as we will see are they something new? no, they are not. and are they simply just really angry conservatives? no, they are not really conservatives. they are a type of conservative but they are not the mainstream traditional conservative that we see embodied by for right now john mccain, boehner and even mitch mcconnell. they are really not. okay, so the answers once again they are not crazy, they are reacting to social change. they wish to preserve their way of life. that is to say the white

anglo-saxon protestant way of life, right? where men are dominant, where white evil are dominant, where folks are in the closet ,-com,-com ma where black folks remember their place and let's not forget latinos now. where women know their place and where everybody considered an american was born in america. they want to preserve that wasp cultural hegemony. it's their way of life that they are concerned about. they are not new. they are similar to the ku klux klan of the 1920s, the john birch society and the john birch society in the 20th century. we can go back to the know-nothing party as well in the 18 50's. so each one of these quotes that i referred to, the of the 1920s and i want to stress i'm

talking about the of the 1920s, not the first that was worn in 1868 in tennessee and not the of the 1950s. i'm talking very specifically about the of the 1920s because that was a national political move. the of the 19th century was racial. the of the early 1950s and 60's regional. we are talking about national right wing reactionary movements each one of those had similar demographics to the tea party. they are not conservatives in the true sense of the word. that is to say true conservatives ultimately accept social change. the of wrenchingly, they hesitate to do so but they know that it's going that --

back to edmund burke's reaction most people would acknowledge the father of modern conservatism. his reaction to the french revolution changed, slow, gradual incremental organic changes preferred to revolutionary change so evolutionary change is preferred it's changed that happens is that of revolutionary change. conservatives are willing to abide change so long as it's slow, controlled, incremental organic. strip conservatives also honor the rule of law and the pride social stability. conservatism is about the preservation. a large part of it in united states, the preservation of a stable, liberal democratic forum. anything that violates that cannot critically considered conservative because what are you trying to conserve? conservatism is if you break it

down etymologically conservatism means you can serve somebody. in this particular case it's to preserve a stable liberal democratic court. why is this important? some people say you know what, beyond the obvious, that we have a shutdown, that we had another debt ceiling crisis, beyond the obvious. someone sitting out here who is in hiding under a rock, who has been hitting the books to harder hitting the pipe too hard, they are not cognizant of who the tea party are and what they are about and why this is important. this is why this is important. it's important because one of the big national tea party factions, the tea party express, resist net etc.. 10 other republicans in the senate in 2010 joined the tea party caucus.

however in this last election cycle none of them were up for election. tea party primary challengers in kentucky you have mitch mcconnell from south carolina. you have lindsey graham who is on the run. in tennessee lamar alexander. we saw what happened in indiana with dick lugar but we also saw what happened in utah with authentic in the last election cycle. gone, right? he got primary from the right. republicans need only to net six seats i think. this might not be chew anymore. it might be said 17. they only need to net 16 to win the senate out right. the last election cycle 59 were part of the tea party caucus and because if i don't count them as card-carrying members of the tea party caucus if i just want to

say people who got tea party support and they won their election we are talking 85 people now. 85 seats but card-carrying members of what was the tea party carcass in the -- caucus and i say was because the tea party no longer exists. 59 tea party caucus. of the 52 part seeking election 48 retained how seats in 2012 winning a percentage of 92%. these other folks you know retired or they lost. 92%. so you have 52%, we have 40 folks that are in the house right now that are part of the tea party caucus or identify with the tea party. anybody want to take a wild guess about what percentage of the republican conference this is? anyone want to take a wild

guess? we have about 200 how many republicans that are in the house right now? 238, something like that. it's 25% so people wonder why boehner and carrie rogers, the house leadership cantor are really scared of this tea party faction. one in four republicans that are part of the house conference are supported by the tea party. that is why. let me just tell you if you are inclined to like the tea party when you came in here, you've you might still like them after you leave that you're not going to like me. once again this is social science. let me just not get this twisted as the young folks say. we all have our own biases. we all do, right?

we wouldn't be human if we did not have our own biases. but a social scientist, we have to suspend their dies and go with the data. folks, every place we go tonight that data are taking a stand not me and my biases. it's the data that are taking a stand. another reason why this is important, other reasons rather. approximately 600,000 core members are part of one of the six major tea party factions are national tea party factions, this is tripled since 2010. ..

>> it was a little more nuanced than that. voter suppression because they were challenging the idea of these people at the polls. wait wait wait wait. wait are you telling we that voter fraud is a problem in the united states? >> absolutely. >> site your fax. but we hear it. >> i had to give to forms of identification to marry my wife. >> i want to hear the voter fraud fact. >> anybody can claim they are a citizen. >> people like me? brown people? black people?

and now we get to the point. illegal aliens. we can have a debate. i will give you my microphone. come up here. voter identification is a problem so these people are registered to vote mostly black or brown or poor people is that right? >> you don't have to know me but they need to know who i am. >> a real american? thank year. [laughter] spec a proud american citizen. >> why don't you, pierre and sit in the front row.

then i can look at you i to i. >> they are trying to use that issue to decimate for those people who have the right to vote. >> was a central exchange of ideas but i appreciate your comments so i am going to ask that we will move on. >> will you stick around after? [inaudible] >> if you want to stick around after i am happy to entertain your questions. any of their questions? >>

[inaudible] >> that is the small part. interrogate people for social economic reasons to be we cannot afford to get the voter id. in texas if you have a hunting license you can vote. if you have of college id id, that is no good. id no good. social security card, no good. but you can have a hunting license. i did not deny that. i ate knowledge that. it is a part of that. i am not saying nobody but that is not told thing but

the truth of boat is about interrogating people who will vote probabilistic leave for democrats by saying they don't have the state id but often did license will get you to vote in texas. a report conducted the international organization on education and human rights they did on north carolina because they have similar presence there and it got a lot of people of color, poor people and college people in dead people also. so you stick around and we can have this discussion. let's move on i promise i'll

give you an opportunity to ask questions. 46 million people are sympathizers truism'' of attacks on women's reproductive rights in the state of virginia you had governor bob mcconnell who wants to get past the transactional probes in order to get an abortion. is it from any stretch of the imagination to women in virginia were turned off by the transnational probe in he lost the race he very well should have run. to party supporters in

congress were slow to support the bias against women act. another part of the war against women and don't forget the anti-immigration bill passed in arizona. the first date that the governor appointed in the president's face. i will not get into the disrespect because bush got some but fell level of disrespect that obama has objected if you don't have respect for the man but at least have respect for the office. you can disagree with the obama policy all day i am not even completely happy with everything he has done bayou still have to have a fundamental respect for the office. bush was my president to.

i respect to the office. other people felt the same way but if you start to disrespect the office that the man represents, that is a problem. that was only one state but what was passed in south carolina and thai immigration bill passed since you have the anti-democratic so how do people come to these conclusions? we will go through that in a minute and empirical

evidence would not get into the main body but we can also discuss that 42 tea party websites in 15 states "the national review" that most people would still consider you have "the weekly standard" reason reason, those have not been around as long as "the national review" founded by bill buckley in the '50s. of the conservative intellectual standard by which all others measure. more traditional so we can have a confidence analysis 2009 through 2012. the also interviews that we interviewed people with the two-party some of those who

so we identify with it a and those who are in the middle either somewhat supportive or not. and we have survey data the first tea party supporters is a cry from reactionary conservative. social change is missing with their version of their way of life. not to be tolerated as a more traditional conservative argue. but for reactionary conservatives it is the version that they believe they enjoy. real americans.

but conservatism in political talks shows a predisposition that it is socialized from the times we are little kids there are certain predisposition partisanship is one in ideology and patriotism is another. what happens according to david sears and his work is that it takes something in the current political environment to trigger these dispositions. we argue theoretically their reactionary conservatism is a predisposition triggered by the election of barack obama. therefore theoretically it is a departure from other dispositions ideology

ideology, partisanship and everything else is just mentioned. here is the background daschle reactionary movements the kkk of the 1920's were formed from protestant morality hard work, a temperance. and those against catholicism is the perceived jewish threat in the preservation of the of white supremacy with the return of the new the growth. -- the new negro. preservation of the american way of limited government, individualism and social conformity. those are part of political culture. no doubt about that.

one movement is structured around the cultural was some in the john birch society is the second for ideology. that is for the american way of life. so we talk about these pseudo conservative going back to work published in 1954. then he came out later with the paranoid style of american politics. this is what he says. he believes there is a conspiracy that undermines and destroys his way of life. not just hofstadter. what is the name of that book? it has slipped my mind the politics of unreason. i don't know what the word

quasi means carolina you have your folds of but this is what they called this to describe the current condition of those who have a stake in the past man in the present in the past could be a corporate identity with the identifiable lifestyle where the group has lost its status in the individual clings to the identification thriving to restore their former status. basically well hofstadter's said 1965. now they say this 1970. here is a theory. postwar conservativism cause talk about this earlier. social conservatives traditional social practices reverence for god, and community unity.

there is another facet that hinges on economic freedom. private property, a small government, low taxes, low regulation this is commensurate clinton even think if you want to fast forward through the century. i'm sorry. but first as part of this postwar is security anti-poverty. this is another part of the conservative triad fat decomposes the postwar conservatism fusion is some. the third part is important to makes the first to come together in working use and

-- in unison because the first to don't naturally go together they are not natural allies. one emphasizes community. one is autonomy so they need a common enemy and in this case call it socialism or communism, we are educated we know the differences but some people don't. just say socialism because communism the state is gone. but with socialism there is a big government a regulatory state centrally planned economy which will live is a fair -- laissez-faire conservatives despise. that there is no religion involved.

so they have a common enemy that permits them to fuse together national security or into a communism or socialism plays into this to allow them to come together to form an alliance. okay. these are more moderate conservatives so now moderate conservatives here about the conservation of traditions there is not change but what prefers evolutionary change to preserve a stable society. the conservation of economic freedom that consist of colorblind individualism, it is a threat to the work ethic and to private property. these are the more moderate conservatives. if we talk about those of

the '60s, think about mitt romney's father, and mr. nixon, nelson rockefeller come on the other side you have the reactionary conservative is some led by goldwater. we saw this split and we are seeing it again. reactionary conservative is some have these works that which is really an analysis first in the 1950's was about mccarthy but in the '60s it shifted to the jon. society from a retired katy manufacturer from robert welch initial border

director it probably will not surprise you that the coke brothers' father was on his initial board of directors. so you have american politics and the symbolic crusade that actually caused costs debtor to change the theoretical approach from status in society to status politics and suggest something revolts around the idea people are losing their way of life. the people that were part of that prohibition movement tried to retain a the lifestyle of the victorian, a purity and lifestyle for the people that work to disestablish prohibition. is about life style.

it had nothing to do with materials but the perception and the life that they knew was slow things away from them. -- slipping away from them. because clinton ross sitter was a theorist at cornell to -- he died in the 1970's but this is a single piece of work that what we did was combined these with this theory of rational conservatism and bring down the hypothesis that is tangible and could be tested empirically. so reactionary conservatism is a proxy for two-party or

two-party is a proxy for the reactionary conservatism. we did not have the foresight to measure this directly so what we did intel we could come up with the measure we would support it as a proxy. because of the proxy by definition it is messy, noisy. therefore we should not find any association between support for the tea party because it is noisy because of the proxy. okay. i will touch on obama related stuff then we get to the q&a. i am looking forward to it. this is what we find. we look at tea party conservatives and all conservatives and nine conservatives segregated.

we used an experiment that is a methodological approach used to answer sensitive questions. the treatment for this question is barack obama is destroying the country. we've made that question and deliberately provocative to get the conspiratorial nature of what we think is part of reactionary conservatism. the argument is once again these folks are conservatives. so we put that to test with obama as the attitude object. 71 percent of tea party conservatives believe obama is destroying the country more mainstream conservatives is six

percentage beverages at 35% from all conservatives. sunday when%, six, 35. this is the tip of the iceberg. i could do this all might. these other questions as generally every national survey conducted since 1948. presidential traits. knowledgeable, moral, strong leadership, cares about people. this is what we found. once again that have offices is of conservatives. but 72 percent of members is 43 percent of the tea party. and morals, a 60% non tea

party conservatives versus 33 percent of the tea party conservatives. provide strong leadership. cares about people. 63 / 32. i am not finished yet. attitude about obama more conservatives to approve? sixty / 29. do you think his policies will fail? seventy-eight% verses 60% is more mainstream conservative. obama was born in the united states 52 states 38. once again depending on the hypothesis but what we tried to illustrate is there is a difference between tea party

conservatives that the distinction is theoretical between more mainstream conservatives verses more reactionary conservative as. when it is all said and done this is how the book breaks down then we do q&a after this. chapter one we take on the question if to partyers are really just conservatives. they are not. among other things that drive support for the two-party, we account for all of these other possible variables. says sense of group love, authoritarianism that if you have the moral codes of society used should be.

social dominance orientation that some groups are just more deserving to be on top. nothing. also control for racism. it does not affect the relationship between the support of what people think of obama in to we could test for ordinary things with this that is directed at obama. let me back up. they're not the conservative patriotic. a couple of minutes are south the radical but what is about sacrifice and duty versus individual interest? fed is what patriotism is the dow with the end to sacrifice his own

self-interest comment when patriotism is framed like that he go back to machiavelli or all these others and they all define it the same way. if you define it like that they're not patriotic. their cost dial to minorities i am not even talking about black people same-sex rights and controlling for all other factors they are really against immigrants illegal or undocumented because we ask questions that don't discriminate who is here legally or undocumented. it does matter. reject obama for more than political reasons that is to say that those whose support the tea party or who are sympathetic that their rejection of obama is about politics and partisanship for their conservative ideology.

that is part of the story but it doesn't explain everything. as it continues to predict hostility or animosity even defects controlling for the other possible confounding factors. but to their credit, which every is think about their politics or what they believe, to their credit they are far more politically engaged and any other electorate bar nine. in 2010 there is low information, low turnout elections. they voted more often or more frequently. they donated more to campaigns or were more politically interested.

they said it is a vote for republicans. whatever you think about their politics or beliefs the strategies, tactics strategies, tactics, they have the courage of their convictions. that's it. let's do q&a. [applause] >> please use the microphone so the camera can pick it up >> i am part of the two-party i am concerned about our debt and i have not heard you talk about that at all. also with the affordable health care act which is unfunded to make me buy insurance.

and the two-party talks about that. they do hold up signs that talks about the debt that is something we should all be concerned about because we cannot pay that back. >> my name is helen. >> that is my mom's name. i am not saying it is not part of the tea party ideology because it is. even if we say limited government does matter coming increases support for the tea party by 15 percent. i mean the more you move from big government to small government increases of probability to support the deep party by 15 percent. no question but when bush was in office discretionary

spending went up 49%. the budget increased by one 1/4% with clinton it was 14 percent look at t.a.r.p. with the bailout that also happened on bush's watch. the two-party was nowhere to be found. there are some debtor earnestly concerned about the debt i am not saying that is not the case but i will say that when bush was running up all this debt and increasing the deficit we did not see the tea-party then. i am not dismissing your claim but if it was really

all about fiscal responsibility the radically we should have seen them on bush's watch. but we did not. >> my question is have we compared the tea-party or should we compare them to the most mobilized populous fringe groupon the left? we did a parallel study with mouflon did work activist and conventional democrats and what you find is the parallel side of the we saw about obama and to see the same gap your conventional democratic voter in the activist who say enrages things you could find a bunch of them that were actually marxist.

so if you ran regressions you could come up with diagrams the further to the left you were more of a marxist. so is what you are capturing really just populist mobilization? or is it something distinctively on the right? >> that is a very good question. i asked and to levy used his office because they needed to read another article on the comparison between i should not even tell you where i got this i should say i made it up but looking in total there are some parallels between people the movements not a big reactionary on the left because reactionary is about conservatism if you are reacting against something

so a lot call the reaction is but you do have the radical elements on the left that people would say they don't break a compromise. but to go back to the '50s and '60s to really find that. we won't find anything analogous to the present day. even occupy wall street he will not find that commitment. where are they now? if they were that committed they would be around but we have to go back to the cold war to find that left-wing radicalism. not to say it did not exist because it did we just don't see it now but there is no way you can call that reactionary. by definition with the

united states but there was less movement for more democracy so there are those on the left before they were all skinned by mccarthy. there are the psychological traits that if you go back that far. >> with what you have presented in basically stating, how do explain the contradiction between that

and there are black tea party groups serve out the country like kids to stand, rocky mountain and tea party, the south-central los angeles. >> very good question. two ways to answer that question. not directed at you but white people with a tea party and there is another way that is way off the grid. the politically correct answer would be id my first book fighting for democracy i show that black veterans in the south were skeptical about government because think of the tuskegee experiment they did not get credit for what they did but the tuskegee experiment how

were they infected by the government? with jim crow that ran rampant all the way through the korean war. so there is a part we need to do this by ourselves because we are skeptical of the government. that is not not a part of it but you will see that in the book of all the strong tea-party identifiers 6 percent are black. 90 percent are white but there is still this element. together explanation is there is black people that don't like black people either. not only racist or homophobic course you'll fall back. [laughter] >> if i don't like another white person i don't see

that racist element maybe i just don't like the personality there is a conflict or politically speaking someone goes in that direction nettled think is healthy. >> but if you prejudged them because you have middle-class white folks who don't like those from appellation. that is class andreas. >> class may be. >> it is class and race. is class and race. >> i hate myself if i hate to another white person? >> let me tell you something. there are black folks who don't like themselves because of the norms of america. the stereotypical american if you go to doozy association test invented by

my colleague that is the implicit racism and sexism he shows black people don't like black people and white people don't like white people and sell fading homosexuals because of the way they are portrayed in the media that they hate themselves. so i have the empirical evidence that will show empirically you have groups of people that yourself hating. data like themselves. i will recommend a book for you. that will explain in far greater detail than i can right now. i will be happy to give me your e-mail address ciba will e-mail you this citation better people that are black, latino, the white

that don't like themselves and in this case with blacks there are black folks that they fancy themselves that want to be white so therefore because the stereotypes are ingrained in american society they want to identify more with being white so they reject the black people. is that simple. i am happy to tell you but the classic work is to books >> if you see the tea party as say major issue of american politics what is your solution? >> this is a great question. here is my solution. it would be this.

right now everybody knows gerrymandering the whole idea every tenures what happens whatever party is in power at the state level gets a chance with some exceptions, to redraw the district lines that affects representation at the state level but also at the congressional level. so if you have some states like california is the most recent example of the top two primary systems in which it doesn't matter your party identification. everybody gets to vote in the primaries. what they have shown is that it tends to moderate the candidates in moderate the people that are eventually elected to office. one hypophysis is that something i.m. working on

there are two ways to do is this. one is the way "the national review" buckley did in the '60s and he basically wrote the john birch society at of the mainstream conservative movement he said these people are too crazy even for me. he marginalize them. there are some who are aligned with the tea-party. those that are not supportive of the tea party so that is one way to do it but another institutionally with the top two prioress system for those that will

start to develop more but never to one way to do this is to pick people not strong to party supporters but people that sum was support the tea-party and that can be done i would like to do something experimentally to manipulate the issues to move them off that is the empirical question but the strong to party supporters will not move. when this conservatives emotion will always overruled judgment.

with social ens psychological aspects always overrule cognition with fear, anxiety will always overruled the idea may be the policy is better. media should not vote against my economic interest. so was i would like to do i am still trying to work this out to have an experiment to see a the progressive direction and maybe weekend but referendums for ballot initiatives depending on the state. id with his top two primary it is the only way i can think of.

what is the word i'm looking for? and i am not saying politics was not polarized before but the rise of the tea-party especially in the congressional election as increase the polarization because of democrats that have the white house but this is a bicameral system you cannot get anything done if the republicans refuse to even accomplish -- are not willing to conference then we have a problem something needs to be done about that. said your question maybe for conservatives to be a more institutional level with the

weak tea party supporters with the ballot initiatives for the referendum at the state level to go to the top two primary system. >> i have not heard that the tea-party is afraid of losing their way of life. when i have heard is they are much more concerned about our constitution and losing our constitutional government which is a republic not a democratic government. the tea party is for constitutionally limited -- limited government and fiscal responsibility but basically it think it is the constitution and that is what the tea-party ears are afraid of losing with racism

and obama i would not have voted for him if he was white or red. nothing with his qualifications. >> is there a question? or was that a statement? thank you. >> can i say something real quick? who wrote the constitution? what color were they? and they were wealthy. in their approach in the 3/5 claus. anyway. [laughter] >> if i could ask you to elaborate on the third point why it is not patriotic because in their mind they

are trying to preserve a certain sense that what is about their behavior? >> thank you for the question. what is patriotism at its most basic? sacrifice? let's work through this. we call people who fight for the country because of the willingness to sacrifice everything. if we think about folks to know what is this policy that is considered republican patriotism as well. it takes time to participate

in the campaign because it is our nature so that is a sacrifice of the opportunity cost. at the essence of patriotism i will submit it is sacrificing and this is why i say in chapter four there not necessarily patriotic. there are a few questions that i ask that tap into the republican and patriotism that aristotle talks about what is my meighen's name? i can remember. that is what skitter talks about. i will ride with you on this

that the founding fathers america went to war. we were outnumbered as americans, outgunned and out everything. these men had to fight against insurmountable odds and had to sacrifice. that patriotism is not just about sacrifice so is in chapter 41 question is you have a choice if it is increasing the education of quality of all americans would to be more willing to pay more in taxes? people love the tea party brought willing to do that. if not all of our country

and makes sense to have the educated citizen. and make sense seven healthy citizenry, right? it presupposes education, right? it was one of the main things that chief justice warren wrote into the brown versus board of education and right? it behooves us right? in order to do that you have to pay more in taxes, right? is it not patriotic to pay more in taxes if you care about the welfare of the community? if that is your objective you have to sacrifice a little better. what it you think? >> i want to follow up with a number of instances it seems that your interpretation of responses shapes your perception of

the tea party motivation i find that problematic on the education peace. there is the assumption that if people don't want to pay more for education they don't want everyone to have a good education. i think a lot of people would save more is not necessarily better. the heart of the motivation would be better education but they disagree how to get there. kim knew it mitt there may be places that this might lead you in the direction they don't want to go? >> no. for example, the patriotism questioned that theoretically those that empathize sacrifice and i do say better education right? quality education right?

for the more educated citizenry makes this country stronger with anybody disagree with that? the more educated citizenry would strengthen the country. would anybody disagree with that? seriously. i am asking the question. >> i said we would all agree with that. >> but not if it all requires to make a sacrifice patriotism at its root boils down to sacrifice if anybody wants to come up with a better route definition if it is not about sacrifice then what is it about? what was the constitution based on? it had nothing to do with a sacrifice what they had to do?

>> [inaudible] >> if we lose the constitution? >> [inaudible] >> dell whole education. what i'd be willing to pay more in taxes for the education that is in the public school today under no circumstances would i be billing to do that because education even from the day that i went to school and i only graduated from college a couple years ago, but i obviously went to high school and the quality of education today is so much

less than it was even than. even then history today is nonexistent. it is made up. why would i pay more in taxes for that? no way. if they could guarantee it really good we a quality education commissure but not for what is there. >> then make the supposition would you get better teachers? >> it is not just the teachers. teachers want to teach it is the taking of a common core for one thing, but did is the taking of the local control of education to put it at the state now into the federal. we need local control of schools because parents and local teacher ls -- teachers will do what is best what is

local students not the federal government. >> i do not deny that. but if we increase compensation for teachers and faith of the market. would you like better quality teachers? would that not attract better teachers? >> unfortunately we have already had an hour-and-a-half maybe we happily time for two quick questions. >>. >> this is not quick. >> you have intimidated based on race and intimidated the founding fathers were wealthy. >> i suggested. not intimated. >> whenever.

>> dr. benjamin franklin 1773 against king george at the risk of being traitors had a society to end slavery. 1773. in the continental congress congress, in the constitutional convention convention, much debate was given to anteing slavery. that is the 56 founding fathers out of 39 that signed the constitution. so i hear you in your speech continually, continually talk about race. i don't see the race factor among us, like jesse jackson he wants to make money of the continuance of race.

i will tell you a story during katrina relief. i met a lady at the desk and she helped us and for every night for eight nights we had good conversations then her husband came to pick her up. she introduced me to her husband and a first thing out of his mouth he said did you vote for a obama? is assisted by but as a property right keeps losing rights. and i started with clinton even bush was controlled by the democrats in control of the house and senate. he could not get anything done. it is there issue. so talk about the issues we did not vote for obama because he was blocked by

the -- black i said no it was issues. but i said to you the same thing. the only reason why you voted for him is because you are blacking and you are the racist. you bring up the race factor. this country is being taken over by things that go against why our founding fathers left england to know your english history and your american history but then to turn around to condemn clinton and condemn bush and condemn obama. what do you say? are you just like jesse jackson holding up the race card? >> i guess i am. [laughter] [applause] >> let me back up. you are right.

there was debates over slavery right? what happened ultimately? what happened? did slavery continue? . .