every intellectuals required reading. i read read it at 14. it was part of every young intellectuals by word, and readers of the 2004 novel, the plot against america read in the bush years recognize the plot of "can can't happen here," the plot, and i love reading philip for the most part, but this is one of the worst novels. it just does not work. in this case, lindberg takes the country over. during the second term of yornlg w. bush, new american law brought out a new printing, and newspaper columnists and bloggers and pundits draw on the books authority take over, bush saw as yet another down home

strong man, never specified the first one. some of you know, an unchallengeable revelation for some people, even today, pointless to argue. although, i sometimes bring it up just to annoy people. this one element of it can't happen here that relates to the present. he never specifies, and what he implies is what's needed a al gar ky of good people. , you know, not so different from the new samurai, and i don't know how the people are selected, these good people are selected, but you have to replace democracy with an ole ology gar ky of good people. how it's done, he doesn't have much to say.

when you read or listen to people around the obama administration similar to the view of the world, with one important difference i will not go into now, i'll pick up in questions and answers. let me stop with that. i've probably gone on. what time is it? oh, good, we want on too long, sorry. thank you. [applause]

>> i'm intrigued by capitalism, it's a persistent threat, and i wonder if it is because capitalism stands for a source of power that does not recognize what the intellectuals sell which is their intelligence or is there -- how would you explain it? >> what, you know, capitalism does recognize source of influence. the writings of f. scott fitzgerald explodes in the 1920 #s. they were richly rewarded by the society they dispias. it has to do with the following.

they suggest their vote is no more important than anyone else's vote. did back, there's much i admire and much i don't, admiration for the french revolution of 1831 and 1848 do not stand up well; however, mills argued for multiple ballots for people like themself, that they are not compelled to vote like ordinary people. this is long standing. it's -- talking about low information, and it's not a visible question. you know, i think now in the hometown voters, and i know the people are elected by a record low turnout. the turnout had not been that low since before women could vote. it's not as if there was a great

fusion of enthusiasm. the city now is entirely in the hands of low information voters. it's not that that's a problem, but that's not the problem intellectuals talk about. just this point on intellectuals and capitalism. it's not jigs capitalism that intellectuals don't like, but democracy. it's democracy. whether it be the love affair of intellectuals with kyeser, certainly not a lovely fellow, and curious, anyone read the british historian? may not be well-known in america, but he's very good on seeing how much of hitler and nazi was anticipateed. this has not been discussed, and part of the reason it's not been discussed is that the kind of

view of the world is simply triumph. the 20s were a horrible time. society redeemed in the 30s, and we best just understand that. michael, the washington examiner, congratulations, fred. >> thank you. >> one name you mentioned different from the others, and i wondered whether they paid attention to him at all or saw him as an opponent. you mentioned she was a frank file and i'm not really up to date on my comp, but i have the feeling that he's something like the opposite of what tokeville with some reservation admired in the america in the 1830s. >> exactly right.

what he wants is socialism imposed by a central power. he wanted central -- extreme central, and that's what liberalism represented no use whatsoever, considered him beneat the considerations, and i don't rem anyone read it today unless you are interested in this. it's very interesting. it's kind of socialism because that premarks, and a great deal of what survives socialism -- let me just pop over to hd wells. you wouldn't be well aware of this because little is written about it because a great admirer of utopian social experms, new

harmony was something studied closely. the colony, upstate new york, studied closely, and wells' socialism, the rise in part from the socialists, and wells, you know, he came an american, and the father was a crook tier, never made a living, thought about moving to america, and very nearly did so. wells thought he had one leg, one leg in america. was unknown to the people, wasn't important, and had he been read, would have. seen hopelessly. you know, it's all about how the

they are sub miewn, not metaphorically. it's the attitude picked up, and sometimes in the case, literally. >> hi, i'm tom curry, and i had trouble fitting what i thought was my understanding of liberalism and progressivism in with some of what you said. you used the phrase, some of the people had a sense that america was the worst of all possible places, something like that, and if you think about what happened a few years before the period you talked about, you know, woodrow wilson signed into law against child labor, struck down, and then in the new deal, it was child labor ban. it's not that liberals and

progressives it was incapable of being redeemed. they thought it was capable of being improved, and, i mean, your view, it seems, think back to humphry, never said it was utterly contemptible, but wanted to improve it. >> he was against affirmative action there's none of those in america today. liberal long ago. you missed a point in the argument that there's a break in liberalism and progressivism. progressives believe america is redeemed, and they very much believe in america. liberals break with that over wilson. they see in wilson, embodiment of progressivism and want to break with it, nothing whatsoever to do with the massive american society. they are not progressives.

that's all i can say. i hope you read the book. >> [inaudible] >> who are they? they are just the people who i described. they want -- they want a new aristocracy to govern the land. >> not to reveal contempt for the people, clinging to guns and religion, but at times, it's all about forward and improvement and blah, blah, blah. >> the term "progressive" came to use because the term "liberal" was sump a pa seniortive because the world died off and replaced by the george mcgoverns and much worse.

i would be describing the president as a liberal, and when he belongs to reverend wright's churnlings, one of the things he preach against is middle classness. preaches against middle classness, avoid middle class virtues. how do we get to be middle class about the virtues? explain this to me. contemporary liberalism -- i'll leap, closing chap r chapters in the book anticipate elections in the new york city. i'm not promoting the book that way. no one will then read it. the election of new york city put into power every major office, people very close to service employees and international union. sciu and 1199 and health care workers combined.

deblasio, the new mayor, new speaker of the counsel. both worked for iciu at 1199, and you can go on down the list. one of the ways liberalism changed is that when lost the american majority, and i talk about this in the crisis of american liberalism, it was in the wilderness, and it discovered a new middle class. public sector unions. public sector unions like liberals because, like liberals, they want to extract from the state. private sector unionists, one of the key -- i don't know how many people follow governor christie with no interest in defending governor christie. the way governor christie succeeded to the degree he has is by working with the president of the state senate, steven swanson, head of the steel -- iron workers union because as a

private sector unionist, he wants a vile economy, and new jersey's economy is dead in the water pretty much. he opposed private sec sore unions, but like 1199 want is they want extraction. that's what governor walker was dealing with in wisconsin. there's no interest in growing the economy at large. if you can ship -- if you can show me where obama's policies have been designed to grow the economy at large, i want to know about them. so liberalism becomes a deeply connected, and recreates itself in a sense by bringing public sector unionists, and acor is closely connected to acisu.

it's not going voter registration anymore, but they are an effective voter turnout operation for liberal democrats. >> what are the end goals of liberalism, this new aristocracy, was it to have socialism without voting when they are in control of all the resources, sort of communism without any party? i'm not quite sure. they don't like any threats, it seems like, capitalism's bad, democracy's bad. religion's bad. i guess global warming's good because they think they control it. i'm not sure where they want to get. >> well, i -- couple years ago, joel and i wrote a piece for the weekly standard talking about the tendency to rule through executive order, and we'll see more of that, especially if he loses this upcoming election.

we are going to see some really nasty conflicts. he's going to try to govern without congress. obama, and my wife, who i can now criticize sitting in the front row is from chicago. people from chicago have a lot to answer for. [laughter] they knew obama was a fraud way back when. when jan, my sister-in-law, like my sister, the parties in chicago, and all these people who knew obama, former tax attorney, who knew -- knew him rather well, and i asked him, what are the accomplish. s, what's he done? nothing, absolutely no qualifications, no reason -- so i said, why are you supporting him? this is going to be good for chicago. money will be coming in here. why should i oppose this? that's the chicago way of

thinking, for which i criticize my wife heartedly. [laughter] what he's done is bring chicago-style politics to america, america at large. what's good for the machine, good for people who paid the machine off, so he's not opposed to all capitalists, just those paid off. you know, here i'm not speaking as a historian, but flapping his lips. >> gangsterism. >> i wouldn't call it gangsterism, but it's not appealing either. >> [inaudible] >> woodrow willon is a a pivotal figure, but you didn't recount the agents of his that liberals found.

prohibition was one. another was the ban on german use of germman language, use of german foods, and wilson's toller raps of the attorney general, a. mitchell palmer, the american protective lead, repressed german-americans, and there were fights in the streets of american cities, milwaukee, chicago, between german-americans and polish-americans and non-german-mens. it was ugly. what they disliked about wilson was this repression. not necessarily from the executive office, but accountabilities by the executive office. >> [inaudible] >> sure, as many as you like. >> one in the far back. >> and the front row too. >> yours can be the last. >> okay.

>> i'm pete chase. referring to one the answers you gave earlier tonight, you said that what liberals dispias is in particular democracy. i guess because it empowers the average guy in a way they find deplorable. i'm having trouble scoring that with calls on the left. it's always for more democracy. i mean, the 17th amendment, the calls for the abolition of the college, seems like on the left, calling for more direct democracy, and i'm having trouble squaring it. >> stick with the word "directings" that's crucial. they want more direct democracy to create a centralize the society so when you control the center, you control the society. they are opposed to republicanism, small r.

self-government on local levels k responsibility on the the state and local level, and a lively fertile congress, something we don't have. opposed to the college, but only in the years when they lose. other years they are happy. i mean, i wouldn't take this too seriously. this is something that is tactical. the filibuster is tactical. is that an example, kind of an example of direct democracy? wouldn't be a good example because it precludes the debate and discussion. that's the whole purpose of the filibuster. it's deeply anticonstitutional. deeply, deeply. not in the literal sense, but in the structural sense of the spirit of the constitution.

>> a question here i missed. oh, yes, go ahead. then you. >> all right. >> you've been talking about the writers of the time, and i was wondering, these writers, writers of the whole lost generation of the 20s used to be the biggest writers. when i was in school, they were begin to us to reed in american literature, and now largely gone. why do you think that is? >> first of all, they read theory, not american literature, i mean, academia as we knew it -- i assume you're roughly my age, in your 30s -- >> 29. [laughter] >> people in college don't read. i taught for years at cooper union, and i don't know how many know it, a small school, on full scholarship, the top 1% of the american college student, and one of the reasons i retired was the students didn't read anymore. it was pointless.

how can you have a discussion or talk about thing with them and no vocab, and they were good kids, hard working, nice kids, but they did not read. it's not just the not reading american literaturings. they are not reading anythingment as for the writers, yes, they -- through the 1970s and 80 #s, i would say is there were on the -- at the top of people's list of things who people had it. you had to read f. scott fitzgerald. what it takes to be a college graduate now is not much. >> weekly standard, and i was kind of -- how you said liberalism how you described and the democratic party as a whole because it is kind of hard to

it's seems to me that is major democratic politicians in the past several ri, and truman and kennedy, has this profile, so i wonder how this fits into the majority. >> think about true mapp for a minute. truman was an old fashioned democrat, belonging to every old fashioned club in missouri. a slapper, a hill fellow well met. author dispiased truman. they wanted them off the ticket in 1948. they hoped to have eisenhower run even though they didn't know what he represented, but he was not truman.

he was too much a normal guy, dbt want that. what they like about kennedy, now, think about it, kennedy's father, joe kennedy, was not a pleasant guy in world war ii. [laughter] robert kennedy worked for joe mccarthy. whaftion appealing about this? what was appealing about the guy was he was not ordinary, didn't come from the middle classes, but represented a cut that was above. elevating american taste. the big change as a force collapsed with tromping of mcgovernism, and then reagan's republicans three electoral victories in the 1980s. liberalism reconstructs itself in the 1990s when labor reconstructs itself in public

sector unionism. that's dwr i say what happened in new york is an expression of the larger trend. andy stern, created the force that it is said, and i think, i quote in the book said correctly, it is the single most powerful political force in the united states. he's right. we'll have it deal with this into the future. >> please join me in thinking fred for a wonderful lecture. [applause] he'll sign books outside and for the c-span audience, you can buy this on amazon. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]