wouldn't have wasted the last two congressional sessions on whether women should have asked us to contraception. [applause] we would have passed out all the other things to care about like national security and the economy and everything else. with 98% of american women having use contraception, it would be off the table. so that is the difference i think that women's voices are different and unique and have a different style of work and that would be very good for government if we had more time. last question. it's all you. >> the pressure of being the last question. so i actually know any internet, the two people you are talking about or survivors of sexual assault on college campus and i else when i want everything taken a semester off from my college in d.c. is so i don't have to be with my on campus every day in a thick graduate and be a successful student with them not being there. so i wanted to ask you for the survivors on college campuses in the survivors of old and

domestic and general awareness brave to come forward like that, what would you say to them so that they would be as brave to come forward and tell their stories and step up in fire and empower them? >> and most important thing they needed to get whatever support they feel they need. telling someone, telling a trusted person so if they need any kind of support, whether it's counseling, health care, whether it anything, guidance, advice, they need to get the support they need and then they should do what they want to do because not every woman is owing to want to report to her school. not everyone wants to report to him for his name. they have to make their own decisions. what i found is when women are empowered another option and when they know the lay of the land in what it will look like and how you fooled your perpetrator accountable, they can make an informed decision and they do pursue cases. it is very empowering -- this one woman named emma in colombia, nothing was done on her case.

she is now protesting medicare in a mattress on her back all around columbia to show her school the burden she is carrying because they didn't address her rape. she stood up in front of 100 cameras and told her story because she demanded some kind of justice. she's empowered. so sometimes it makes a difference to stand up to fight for yourself because you're controlling what is happening. each woman or man will make their own judgment about what is best for them and i am here to work very hard to be their voice and to demand what is right and demand the kind of accountability we don't have today. that's what i feel very blessed that i get to do. the thank you for coming. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you so much to senator gillibrand.

>> from the cato went to two consumer advocate and presidential candidate ralph nader calls for an alliance between progressives, conservatives and libertarians to take on issues like corporate bailouts, pentagon spending and civil liberties. this is about an hour and 30 minute. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome to the king no institute. embrey quincey, vice president of research aikido. it's my pleasure to welcome you to a book form today where we will be discussing the latest book from ralph nader, "unstoppable: the emerging left-right alliance dismantle the corporate state".

yeah, you heard that right. ralph nader is speaking at the cato went to two. that little puppy incendiaries heads exploding all over washington. the same sound year when people discover for the first time that the coat or others oppose the drug war and support legalization. when you look at the world through ideological spectacles and see everything in terms of left versus right, a lot of the most interesting things in the world become invisible. in particular if you look at the recent american has read, important parts of the story got lost. so when we think back to the 1960s in opposition to the military draft for more think of this is an heroic left-wing costa student radicals opposing the war and conscription. but the other part of the story is one of the most influential opponents of military inscription was none other than milton friedman, leader of the

chicago school and economic advisor to goldwater and nixon, but who had long opposed the military drafted and made the case against him in a seminal capitalism and freedom and then served in the nixon administration, which paved the way to the move to an all volunteer army. looking back at the end of his life, friedman said that his proudest policy accomplishment was his role in ending the draft. likewise, when we look at the heyday of deregulation, which we think of? would think of ronald reagan and the rise of conservatism when in fact many of the most important deregulatory initiatives of the 70s and 80s occurred during the carter administration and indeed airline and trucking deregulation, the leader in congress was none other than ted kennedy and his young aide, stephen breyer. one of the most influential

supporters outside of capitol hill with none other than our guest today, ralph nader. flash forward to today and ralph nader once again sees interesting development in the blind spot of partisan conventional wisdom. the prevailing picture of american politics today is that of polarization. left is left and right is right and never between show me. ralph nader sees something else. he looks past the cable news and sees the possibilities of left right convergence and a number of key policy areas. in particular, he sees potential for principled libertarians, conservatives and progressives to form a left right alliance of outsiders against a corrupt and overreaching bipartisan washington establishment. the most promising cause for such an alliance that ralph identifies her in my opinion on opposing the massive civil liberties violations of the

surveillance state here too, fighting hennig on spending and military overreach abroad and three, campaigning against corporate welfare and bailouts for privileged insiders. the common denominator for all three of these causes is a suspicion of power, power that can be corrected by using public power to enrich private persons in power that can be abused by turning the coercive machinery as coercive machinery as of this date against the people in his privilege to protect. of course this is a blind spot for the establishment. if there's one thing washington insiders are united on come in his love of power and a complete lack of suspicion of power. sure they're suspicion of the other guys having power, but power in the abstract is just fine for washington insiders be the only trick is making sure it is in the right hands.

but for libertarians, suspicion of power is in our dna, so any effort to reorient politics in this direction should come as welcome news on our part. and for my part, i can't think of a better leader from the progressive ranks and ralph nader whose whole career has been characterized by prince will opposition to uncheck power. notably in these years, it is easy to find people on the left criticizing civil liberties abuses during the bush administration. they got a lot more silent, the people on the left during the obama administration, the ralph nader has maintained an raise the decibel level is civil liberties abuses have been consolidated and expanded. of course, ralph nader and

libertarians have real difference is the most offenses are rooted in different conceptions of the power to be worried about. ralph is much more worried than i am about corporate power and we libertarians tend to worry more about expansions of government power in particular instances. we can certainly agree on this when big businesses and big government getting back together, we are unlikely to do and not over the baby pictures. [laughter] in any event, libertarians are a tiny minority in american politics and so when anybody wants to extend a handoff, i believe it behooves us to be hospitable and hence today's event. i'm introducers speakers for what is going to be a wonderful discussion. i will start with the commenters

after ralph speaks, our first commentor will be dan mccarthy , editor of the american conservative, and not against dean in direct relevance to today's proceedings of the standardbearer of realism and restraint in foreign policy. in contrast to the more bellicose tendencies that have recently been dominated everyday thinking. and mention this bit special humility is the end was right about these things back when i was dead wrong. they took the dismal experiences of occupying afghanistan and iraq to beat the old cold war hawk out of me. in addition to his work at the magazine come to written numerous other publications including the spectator, reason, modern age and even worked on the 2008 ron paul campaign. tim carney, rather commenters a senior political columnist at the "washtington examiner" where his speed is the often swallowed intersection of business and government. he's also a visiting fellow at the american enterprise institute where he helps competition projects to examine

barriers to competition in all areas of american life. he's the author of the big rip off, how big business and the government still your money back in 2006 and obama not mixing 2009. you sure those are two separate books? [laughter] and finally, our main speaker today, ralph nader surely here is a man who needs no introduction is saying goes. but it's my job to introduce him. it recovered him. if we got rid of the unnecessary jobs in washington, then where would we be? [laughter] so in a public career a half-century, ralph nader is an activist, author, critic, organizer, coalition builder presidential candidate. is in particular founding father of the modern consumer protection and environmental movements. overall, it is a career that has made golf nader according to the atlantic magazine one of the 100 most influential figures in american history. i personal note, and that ralph a year and half ago at an event

related in his book, but before that the last time i saw a ralph nader on stage, i was a freshman at prince in university, 18 years old. my roommate and i., both very libertarian and at the time very ron raab o'regan went to see a ralph nader speak on campus with kiddie anticipation of seeing one of frenchman in the flesh. [laughter] so if somehow or another might present itself could've whispered in the 18-year-old self ear and told that approximately 100 years from now, you are going to host an event with ralph nader, my mind would've been completely blown. so with warm appreciation for the weirdness of life in the special awareness of american politics, it is made her a pleasure to introduce ralph nader. [applause] >> thank you are much, drink and an antenna and in thank you all

for coming. this book is a long time been conceived and goes back a long ways in terms of my experience with people of different ideological labels. and it was quite clear to me many, many years ago that power structures believe in dividing and ruling and if they can distract attention from the areas where different groups agree to where they disagree, they can pretty much change that strategy of divide and rule into an institutional awareness level. and so you see all these arguments and descriptions about red state, blue state, conservative liberal, you see the polarization word used all the time. and it is true.

left right to disagree rather interminably on things like reproductive rights, balance budget, school prayer, gun control with variations on the margins. those are generally areas of disagreement. but the areas of agreement are extraordinarily numerous very fundamental. they are fundamental in terms of the procedural rights and a society that calls itself democratic such as civil liberties. they are fundamental in terms of minutes use of taxpayer dollars. for example, into the military-industrial complex, president eisenhower warned us against. they are very fundamental in terms of preserving local state and national sovereignty from excessive surrender to unaccountable transnationals this is the corporate governance like nafta and the world trade

organization. they are fundamental in terms of law and order for the rich and powerful, not just for street criminals. they are fundamental in terms of getting voters more voices and choices. that means lower ballot access barriers. we have the highest ballot access barriers in the western world. it means more parties. it means more boys than more choice for voters. structurally, it means if we give candidates more rights to get on the ballot, we are irrevocably giving voters more right to have the choices of those agendas and candidates. now those are pretty important areas and there are more areas of convergence between left and right. this book is for serious people who read, think and are very

serious about our country's future and its place in the world and some right satirists may say you can get almost equal in one room. i disagree. i think basically the left right convergence operates at various stages from inception to the area, depending on the issues. it operates in is almost there in terms of public opinion. we have large majorities find the issues that i've mentioned. the polls on breaking up the big tanks that are considered too big to fail, they come in at around 90% because people fear wall street crash mainstreet again. the polls come in very high on prosecuting big-time wall street croaks. that comes in off the chart. people think there is wrongdoing in the crashing of our economy

and employ 8 million people in burdening taxpayers with the gigantic bailout, not to mention the shredding of worker pensions and the savings of people. and yet, nobody was prosecuted, nobody went to jail. in contrast, this evenings in scandals further prosecutions, convictions and jail terms searched by over 800 officials of the snl's, a mere 25, 30 years ago. so things are getting worse in terms of where? in terms of what franklin delano roosevelt called fascism. he called it in a message in 1938 to the u.s. congress asking for the creation of a temporary national economic commission to investigate comp and traded corporate power. he said and i'm paraphrasing except for that word, which he used, he said whenever government is controlled or private economic power, that is

fascism. and crony capitalism is the phrase that people on the right use. corporate welfare is a phrase people on the left used. but what it amounts to is extraordinary power over government agencies and departments to turn their mission into the corporate capitalist guaranteed system. and i used over corporate capitalism to contrast the capitalism that we associate the small business, who with they don't succeed they are free to go bankrupt and big business if it doesn't succeed because of mismanagement, crime or other irregularities, they go to washington. if they do go to bankruptcy, it is immediately tied to a government bailout as we sow with general motors not long ago. the basis of the convergence to go even deeper is the preamble to the constitution, which is be

the people coming out with the corporations. there were a work company, the word article party, none of them exist in our constitution. so it is interesting to race question, why do they control us? why do big corporations and political parties control us? it is largely an out-of-control judiciary that is described increasingly at constitutional rights across the board with the exception of the sixth amendment self-incrimination to artificial entities known as corporations. and so the sovereignty of the people began to be subordinated to the sovereignty of the transnational corporation. the basis for the convergence then runs in the following stages. it starts in terms of public opinion is abraham lincoln's head with public sentiment you

can achieve anything without public sentiment come you can't achieve much of anything at all. the number of convergence is in terms of public opinion i reduced to 24 partly because i ran out of space. there are at least 24 significant areas including the opposition to the use of eminent domain to seize homes and private businesses and allow the state to level the area and give it to a corporation. the supreme court ruled that was okay. was interesting to say five-four decision in for a good five for liberals. so this is a major convergence of opinion is wrong. it's one thing taking private property for building highways for building a highway or preacher whatever. but when you take private

property from the powerless and give it to the powerful private property corporations that is wrong. following the kilo decision, the new london case, five-four case i just mentioned, about 20 some state legislatures immediately pass legislation say not in our state are you going to have eminent domain of private property, not to be transferred to private property. at the state legislature level, a lot is going on, could not go on without left with legislators. juvenile justice reform with the sentences passed in about 15 states. it could not have been passed without bread left cooperation by the state legislators. moreover, what we are seeing in many state legislators is a

reevaluation of the war on drugs, which he says severe economic and civil liberties dimensions to it. we are also seeing increasing questioning of economic development policies they require taxpayers to fund stadiums, ballparks and an assortment of companies that wouldn't have otherwise made a pun there. i had a talk with ed crane who had something to do with the cato institute. he said ralph, i oppose all corporate subsidies, unconstitutional wars, the civil liberties restrictions, patriot act and the federal reserve running a period except that's a pretty good start. those are not minor issues, are they? so the question becomes, how do

you turn large majority are in come the left public opinion operationally so that it moves into coherent disability, moves into coverage by the press, and then it goes further on a table of candidates at local state national elections and then it becomes part of debate in the media covers it in the posters cover it and basically we are off to a strain of political dynamism from which there is no return. they become part of the public discourse. surprising as it may be to some, it was dry distinction between conservatives and corporatist. corporatists have no problem with the business running their political upon me. they are not read about big money in politics. they are not worried about having to shredding corporate greenwich trade agreements.

they are not worried about wall street wants to love this behaving. that's okay. that's the way free market operates. the rise and fall, except they fall on the backs of the taxpayers. and they are not worried about the reality that there is virtually no agents your department in our washington scene for which the most important outside. they put their officials in high government positions. corporate lawyers become federal ions.s. corporate lawyers become federal judges. so it's important to ask ourselves issue by issue at what stage from public opinion convergence to becoming mopar had a visible to recognize that the media and the pollsters is to be put on the table by the candidates. into the part of the public

discourse. an interesting one is the minimum wage. the minimum wage is anathema, probably to strict libertarians. but it isn't just libertarians and liberals that are converging. it is basically many libertarians, many conservatives who never would call themselves corporative. liberals and progressives. when you come than 70%, 80% for restoration of the minimum wage to what it would have been at the level of 1968 adjusted for inflation, which would be just under $11 an hour now a $7 a quarter federal. when you do that, you know a lot of conservative workers in wal-mart and elsewhere who are not going to sacrifice the bare necessities of life for their family and reject living up to the 1968 inflation-adjusted level because they are.or near conservatives. and this raises an interesting

point that a high level of abstraction as we get asked this agreement because political power brokers realize they can get people disagreeing, fighting each other, working themselves in movable possessions at abstract levels of general philosophy and general labeling. but when you bring it down to where people were, where people raise their families, at the community level, the reality begins to weekend the ideological abstract rigidity that people might hold otherwise. in the book, i took an opportunity to see how corporatists masquerading as conservatives and conservatives vastly outnumber corporatists. corporatists happen to be more

empowered, how corporatists misinterpret or conveniently avoided recognize you but their principal political philosophers, starting with adam smith were almost uniformly as worried about corporate coercion as they were about government coercion. it is just a corporate coercion spilled over into government coercion at this principal instrument of control in addition to direct coercion and consumers of recipients. adam smith who was probably the most widely read political philosopher of his time, if you've been waiting to customs report. he read travelers who went all over the world at that time and trading and wrote their

accounts, a voracious absorber of knowledge in very insightful person into human nature. he believed in public education. he believed in public works. he warned repeatedly about this this is getting together to collude. he was against government regulation because he believed he would be taken over by corporate power and used against the people, twisted. even someone like frederick k. x was someone who advocated in the words of his biographer, regulatory mechanisms to prevent fraud, deception monopolies and said there was a strong case for government providing, this is hayek's quote, subminimum of food shelter and clothing sufficient to preserve health and capacity to work and for organizing a comprehensive system of social insurance for sickness and accident.

he was against medicare and medicaid because they were universal. they were discriminatory. it is important to also show that there is a larger convergence between many of the heralded liberal philosophers as well as the conservative philosophers. i want to say just a few brief words on the issue of government waste. this is one of the early convergences as far as i was discerned and what really convinced me that left right convergence is likely to be the only political realignment that can get this done in this country in the next 12 years. you can see above the enough even in congress with over a year ago conservatives, liberals in the house of representatives

to find john boehner and nancy pelosi almost passed a bill to block the dragnet snooping of the nsa, the american people. you can see in the passage of the whistleblower protection bill of 2012 and the false claims act of 1986 to give public employees the rights and protections to blow the whistle on corporate and other fraud taxpayers on medicare or pentagon contracts. but in 1983, our groups were fighting a project called the clinch river breeder reactor and news on the clinch river in tennessee and there was a pet project of senator howard aker who said the just passed away yesterday. and it was the pet project also have westinghouse and general

electric and was supported by ronald reagan. what was interesting about this was that already spent $1.3 billion there wasn't a shovel in the round. the projection was that it is going to go three to four times over the original cost estimate. now our side didn't like the breeder reactor because of safety issues, of plutonium perforation rest and how it diverted tax dollars away from more efficient energy modes. and we're getting very far in senator bumpers called us from arkansas and said what it should connect to some of the right-wing groups i've been hearing grumbles here. so i called fred smith. evil kitty strip or libertarian than fred smith. he was running the competitive enterprise institute. he says i don't like this for taxpayer protection reasons. it's a waste of taxpayer

dollars. so we created a group called taxpayer protection group and it was the umbrella group of left and right and we went to work on capitol hill against all out sprint away. taken on the nuclear industry, ronald reagan, powerful legislators in the congress and the lobbies of ge and westinghouse is pretty well insurmountable viewed at that time. the vote came in the senate with 156 to 40. that was the end of the clinch river breeder are. now why did this for? because a new group was formed. it was a very elaborate, which was the umbrella over both sides of the people working under that umbrella went to work every day and they only had the clinch river on their mind. the problem with think tanks

like heritage, progressive policy institute, economic policy is two, cato is they've got a lot of issues. all of those groups have come out years ago with attacks on corporate welfare. they put out reports on corporate welfare. but the next stage didn't occur. they didn't get into an operational mode to do something about it. that to me is the problem. unless we start nonprofit advocacy groups that are singularly focused on converging issues, it's not going to happen because everyday people go to work for cato, heritage, public citizen, economic policy is to sue. they have other priorities for which they get funding and those other priorities for which they get from a are usually left right disagreement issues. they are not about to have the elbow room or the space to work

on what they idealistically believe in that we call convergence. this happened with john kasich, perfect example. i persuaded in 1993 to hold the first hearing in american history of corporate welfare. imagine that, the first hearing. he invited grover mark was, media and others left right. it was a marvelous day, but the press hardly with ported it because they knew it was going nowhere. they read john kasich is saying it's a sincere person. he believes in research and corporate welfare at the time he criticized the military budget, but whether it was newt gingrich about him or what have you, it was not going to move to the legislative stage. governor kasich of ohio received

three letters for me when he was the lack afterward saying now you can do something about corporate welfare at the state level and have received no answer. that's because there is no infrastructure or convergence to push his matters further. when i was debating the friedman , i got him to agree that there should be regulation of duchenne. he didn't think there should be licensing for doctors. he thought the american medical association was the worst cartel, but he agreed there should regulation against pollutants, much of which sends long-range damage, not exactly to market choice. i was debating ronald reagan once and i challenged him on corporate subsidies and he came right back and he said i always tell my friend in the business

world not to put their hand in the washington trough. so he came out against corporate subsidies. but when he became president, he didn't challenge corporate subsidies in the comp and expansion of corporate welfare proceeded under his watch by and large as well. now again, there's lack of an infrastructure out there. public opinion convergence may raise the alarm in the minds of politicians. but it doesn't get very far unless it can be cogently visible and get media and get polls and start to get on the table of one or more of the political candidates. there is this book called dear billionaire. some people think i'm on a kick trying to find enlightened billionaires. i figure the following.

there's never been more billionaires in the united states. some of them don't even know they are billionaires, but they are in terms of their net worth. there's got to be a few mbyte and one junior 70s and 80s that are no longer thinking of just amassing wealth. they are thinking of posterity, one of the favorite words of our founding fathers. they are thinking of children and grandchildren and they are very worried about where this country is sliding and where the world is going. so to start these connector nonprofit advocacy groups for convergence, for left right alliance is to dismantle the corporate state is going to require some of these groups who are not conflicted with other agenda priorities for which they are receiving funding day after day. i want to and on this note. brink has the priorities of the

military budget and empire civil liberties in the peach reenact and crony capitalism. there is another libertarian in new hampshire, steve erickson in. his big game is turn limit, gerrymandering and election reform. i'd point these differences out because there will be differences of priorities. these are shifting alliances. they don't have to be written in stone. there will be different priorities and son disagreed since over a means to an end, although there are less disagreements on these to the end when you post something and you want to abolish it. so the aggregation of concentrated power is so heavy that there's plenty of stuff to oppose and abolish without boiling down into differences of

what food do you take to a commonly agreed upon and. last point i want to make the necessary import. crony capitalism, which is sort of the binding phenomenon, the convergence of big business is the government run by corporate democrats and corporate republicans. that is convergence we're up at the left right alliance for dismantle for the state. that is inextricably linked to a double standard in the enforcement of the law, to the weak enforcement against the corporate crime wave, whether it's corporate damaging your health and safety through products, through air, through soil, whether it's corporate corruption and take over government, whether it's looting

of taxpayer dollars, the issue of corporate crime does not come close in terms of political attentiveness to the issue of street crime. i call corporate crime crime in the suites because i'm a little bit prone to writing. crime in the suites has got to brace itself in terms of priority here. and this is something which liberal progressives are much keener sensitive to ban the conservatives than liberals that i spoke to. not that the latter aren't sensitive, there is just a different of liberations the, a different level of urgency about waste and programs that don't work that a lot of liberals and progressives. the impunity and immunity of corporate crime and all its

complex manifestations as well as its global presence of deviations brings down the very principle of the rule of law in this country. if there's anything conservative liberal economists have agreed on, without the rule of law, without the freedom of contract, without access to the courts for a wrongful injury, you cannot have a just and efficient economy that we have lost the freedom of contract with fine print contracts not competed over american express and visa and the same general motors. we all sign on the dotted line and they all have pretty much the same fine print. what it comes down to was down to is we have lost their freedom of contract for the vast majority of trent actions because we cannot go across the

street to another vendor because the contracts are all pretty much the same involving unilateral modification, compulsory arbitration, better. i hope i have conveyed enough of the convergence. it's very to elicit disagreement. that is not what this is all about. we agree we disagree, but now we have to focus on the green where we agree and turn it into operational change for our country and its place in the world. thank you. [applause] >> well ralph, thank you for those remarks and thank you also for this book. transfix transfix. before i launch into my remarks, i should say this does contain

fascinated materials for libertarians. ralph mentioned fritter kayak as one of the libertarians defend a great deal of common ground that. many others as well am a traditionalist conservatives, too such as peter varick and russell kirk. wherever you come from on the left or the right, a monk of server does come of, liberals or progressives, you'll find something in the book you didn't know before you will find very compelling and it will change the way you look at the political spectrum. let me think also the cato institute for the kind introductory remarks. ralph spoke really gives us a new set of tools for dealing with a very old problem. it's a problem that the left and right by themselves have both been inadequate for addressing. it's a problem that is very well diagnosed about half a century ago. carl oglesby, bitter students for a democratic society, a left-wing activist group or in the vietnam war era was asked to

name the system what was the system which the new left was opposing? what was responsible for the vietnam war, the militarization of campuses and for the sense of hopelessness starting to overtake an entire generation. carl opals be called the system corporate liberalism. i think he named it very, very well both in the fact he got the essence of the system right and also that the name itself convey something of the difficulty we face in fighting the system of corporate liberalism. the name corporal lis and sounds as if it ip may be capitalistic. it sounds like it might have something to do with free-market. certainly that support corporate means too many conservatives and libertarians. but is it in fact the case? ralph spoke shows effectively the political economy we have is not really a true free market. facts that, if the system does crony capitalist such as tim

carney doing brilliant work exposing exactly how government and big dismiss are in bed together. so what are opals be called corporate liberalism is not in fact capitalism and you can oppose corporate liberalism without necessarily opposing capitalism. there are in the grand coalition of left and right, people who have critiques they make of capitalism, that they are free to do that in those of us who support capitalism are free to say we are capitalism, but we don't want her to capitalism. we don't want favoritism. we don't want special government privileges they used to attain monopolies are all the copies. corporate liberalism also sounds as if it might have something to do with freedom. the word liberalism on the on the left in many libertarians to notice the idea of human rights, perhaps democracy amendment if the good things to come up our system of government and historical freedoms. the fact is it is not to oppose

corporate liberalism because corporate liberalism is a system of economics of politics and foreign policy. it is in fact responsible for the normalization of the past decade and the state grabs the meta-data of every man, woman and child in the united states and around the world. corporate liberalism is also responsible for the oppression of rights that date back to the magna carta and some cases earlier. now we have to tension without trial, without charge in many cases and the direction our government has taken. in a cute way over the last decade, but really in a gradual way of the last half-century if not longer. corporate liberalism is something that is really corrosive of many things without most dearly.

certainly the free market of freedom and government and indeed of human rights and basic decent heat. so why is it so difficult? by the spouse have to write this book, "unstoppable" to shirt the system? by sonata form recognized as evil for what it is. again, the name is very accurate because it shows us how a confusion has been introduced into our political discourse, which cripples us makes us incapable of fighting the system which both left and right recognizes extremely dangerous. makes it very easy for people in the mainstream establishment of a democratic arty to say if you're against corporate liberalism they don't use that word, but they used many of the words related to it. if you are against it come you must be against free market. juergens corporations? you must be against communists. juergens liberalism? humans everywhere around the

world are entitled to democracy and human rights. if you're against that, if you're against american military operations abroad come you must be against universal at six but has been espoused. there's also the complication which ralph nader spoke helps to solve that whenever the corporate liberals come whenever the establishment about local party spot preventative after a collaboration, they simply say luckier allies. sure you have differences with the mainstream for establishment of the republican party with the leadership of the democratic party, but are you closer on the weather on the left or right to the establishment in either party is the extreme on the other side? isn't someone like ralph nader can all kinds of market freedom and isn't a compromise crony capitalism better than a progressivism which may seem to be totally opposed to what libertarians believe in in terms of market economics.

nader spoke, especially with its genealogy really dispose the myth shows in fact it's not the case american progressives are opposed to capitalist bridge, but it's the libertarian conservatives are as well. but there's a deeper and more fundamental difficulty we face in going to war with corporate liberalism. that is corporal liberalism has enmeshed up at our very way of life, not on their way of thinking, but so many institutions of our economic life, weighs the receiving foreign policy and anti-government. corporate liberals are able to say what justification do you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that in fact been trying to attack corporate liberalism, you will be doing damage to the free market and you will be doing damage to human rights, liberty and democracy. because there's in such an historical convergence, that

convergence between corporate liberalism in the american way of life, we find itself confronting a difficult intractable problem and that his wake nroff nader spoke is extremely valuable as it shows practical types we can take a setting to differentiate these things, started to separate the american way of life from the of the american way of life that represents corporate liberalism. some of the difficulties we face in terms of foreign policy in the most recent of the american conservative for a talk about why capital liberalism for modern liberalism tends to go hand in glove with empire. it's not because it necessarily has to, but historically things have evolved into very dangerous way over the last 200 years source though. .. time. and it starts with much common sense practical ideas as auditing the pentagon, conservatives believe in economic rigor and efficiency,

progressives believe the pentagon is an institution that has committed a great many abuses. surely we can come together and say the pentagon should be subject to the same sort of auditing almost every other government agency is. this has not been the case until now, and it's something that does i think bring together left and right in a very practical and efficient way. as we walk through these kinds of practical steps that bring us together and that help desspell the myths that prevent us from cooperating i think we can then begin to address the three most fundamental questions the country is facing and i believe as we step back and consider these three questions, we realize they really are questions that can't be answered by left or right alone. that really are not -- they're questions that cannot be answered by some of the more reflexive responses that you get from conservatives lookber tareans or progressives. the first of these questions is, what kind of economy do we actually have in this country? is it in fact a free market economy, which liberals -- people on the left look at our economy and look at various abuses, look at the plight of the poor and the middle class

and say, well, if this is the free market, we're opost officed to the free market. is it in fact the case that the economy we have is a free market economy or is it a mixed economy? or some other kind of economy? the second great question i think we're going to wind up address as we walk through the practical steps that ralph nader presented it the question of what kind of government to we have. >> guest: do we have a democracy and do we have a mixed constitutional regime, perhaps of the sort the founding fathers aspired to? or something else, deformed system, programs al oligarch di, die, and there are -- taking a lard look at the way the political system works and have come to dark conclusions. the final question, very gig one, is what kind of foreign policy do we want? what is america's place in the world and what strategy is appropriate to achieving it? this question has gone unaddressed for so long that a certain insider establishment which has very little

transparency and makes decisions behind closed doors hayes been able to use ideology and rhetoric to get us into a number of wars that have had tremendously negative implications for our economy, civil liberties and our very souls. so i think ralph nader's book, while it can't possibly answer all these questions in a comprehensive way no single book could, it does show us the beginnings of the answers and ground in such a way we can start to find out how to address the problems of corporate liberalism. thank you very much. >> >> [applause] >> i had a lot of positive stuff and a lot of criticism because he had so many

positive said mamie and heavier with the criticism but first of all, i about a suburban conservative libertarian catholic data was born a limousine liberal in greenwich village brought up by liberal parents the father was an antitrust lawyer who used reagan's name and i'll be inherited from him was a healthy distrust of big business and to start off with that healthy distrust but the idea of pro-business and pro free markets was identical dominated the right to prevent any interest of discussion on this topic and told the bailout then when barack obama was elected getting $1 million from goldman sachs the most anybody had raised from any company in that period with

the mccain-feingold then after obamacare was passed letting hospitals and drug companies write it that will double lot of people of the right that the single biggest enemy of free enterprise the single biggest threat is the big business lobbyists having more regulation. it is not ralph nader. sold bond dash holding about as the bogeyman to the left that was before the book. i think this will make it very clear if what you are fighting for is free enterprise their biggest enemy is corporatism then you'll have to ally with the left. one of the most important things with "unstoppable" is so warnings to libertarians

and conservatives you are being used by big business. gwen plight -- a 1.rights libertarians and conservatives have the platforms and then they throw up though welcome mat for the bay business lobbyist and slush fund there anything with libertarian or conservative with their demands. >> i tried to do this into books and he did it in one paragraph. my first book i was looking for of blurb on the back i went to one congressmen and said he once you to cite a people not put a blurb audit. why? could give think funds our campaigns? is not the family research council. that is the problem. the concentrated benefits go

to a the recipients and there is not of lobby against corporate welfare. that is what ralph nader always emphasizes to the point someone goes right to the institutions but there is a lobby right now regarding the import/export bank. there is a very strong lobby to keep export subsidies going there is of very tiny lobby. because they don't get the loans they will never be as concentrated or organized as those recipients. another interesting warning again i consider myself one. but nader rights since

institutions usually reflect the existing distribution of power, reckons separatism has been associated with societies were the few dominate the many. especially the first part, that argument is used to justify big government in many ways. with resistance to change. it is in the declaration don't change unless you have to. but that argument resistance to change is the corporatist protectionists. people would use that just with terrorist but i use it to refer to stuff like the wall street bailouts. people looky around to say we have this economy with the five big banks there are good things with the giant investment banks to create a

more even ocean flows of capital may be what 100 small banks can do. so the pinstripe protection looks at that. so we need to preserve that. so the wall street bailout was directed at saving the big banks the way in wall street was working. it was a lack of imagination with the conservative mindset. if things are good keep them that way. even if they would destroy that. to say off the record in conservative meetings somebody shows up to save this new technology on the internet is ruining the ability to make a profit. somebody raises their hand and say why should we worry about the record label ability to make a profit? >> it is illegal legitimate

institution that pays taxes and employs people. we ought to protect it. but it works to some extent. one of my favorite things about the book is it bourne's conservatives they use conservative arguments to pervert the free market to justify it the protection of the status quo. writing this as a liberal 50 years ago and called himself of socialist it is called the trial of conservatism. not talking about social and fiscal conservatism but the mindset of the preservation of the status quo of the construction -- structures ought to be preserved. and one of the most formative writers on my thinking is the book channels some of that.

with them in the domain my liberal friends say it is so confusing. i cannot say this will lead the to have her house taken but i root for antenna is sylvia? it is just things like that with the preconceived alliance is. and then the food trucks the restaurants in washington d.c. is trying to get regulations on food trucks not because the restaurant owners are tripping over the long lines but because they don't want competition you see it with the taxi guys and uber. but somehow it is a good way to have popular sentiment.

also where people can rent out their houses where technology is allowing for competition. and early with the privacy act some corporations are opposing but almost all lobbyists, all these congressmen sponsored the bill than dell withdrew their sponsorship. upper-middle-class elite willing to fight the food trucks. who is fighting for food trucks? it is not your average immigrant family. it is the urban elites. when the uber fight was going on in city hall the regulation to keep uber from operating here in washington d.c. we got lots of support on the left and then the editorial began.

it turned the urban progress of into a libertarian for one day. it is a natural. the victims of corporate welfare are not as permissible but you try to get the aisle limo ride. and now my references are out. [laughter] but "unstoppable" this is the target on a few points so in a constructive light we're in a new relationship and things are awkward we're getting to know each other a little better. some of the things identified under the word

conservative with the american bar association neither could be broadly identified as conservative. it is understandable. i have to defend one of my employers the american enterprise institute they hired me to fight against corporate welfare. maybe this is a new priority for groups on the right. lots of groups either honor that historically or are coming around. maybe if there is a republican president they can pretend that does not exist but the chief economist, fannie mae and freddie mac. in every corner, not every corner summer simply bought and paid for but there are

conservatives s.c. some mobilization against corporatism. >> fdr dissected enough scrutiny in "unstoppable". day yet won it describes it as a small cartel. even the brothers who own to a jewish deli that were abused by that nra. that what they did is you are not allowed to perform to yourself because the eckert kosher industry didn't want them doing that. >> those who are partisan. but i thank you missed how the liberal gains are tied up the liberal and disease

are tied up. but the minimum wage but the reason there's so much popular support is because it is an answer but after that economic issue for the minimum-wage. every regulation i have overhead cost with more broadly this system of regulation with airline regulation and it makes it harder but sometimes it is justified. and they put the ball in the court to so we're making it a home game for big

business. that is all structures and is a warning. i would say that the file although each if the flights can be ones to benefit but with his training and grover norquist of who started this? is corporatism government controlling business or the question business controlling government? i think the answer is both and a lot of people on the left including historians still see the government culpability as strongly. it is not of fact a public trust. but corporatism is first and

foremost, of supremacy the sovereignty of the people. i think that leads out the culpability to downplay the fact corporatism is an alliance between government and business. to make much more worthy of politicians. but that said the easiest way to do it they might think that is good. it is a little easier especially that we authorize temporarily.

that is over the left right coalition but the end of that fiscal year it expires. typically almost unanimous consent to renew. this is the fight to somehow become chairman of the house financial-services committee despite not doing everything the banks asked us to do do. for the majority leader who was a champion about one month ago to be replaced from kevin mccarthy flip flopped to say no way will not reauthorize. if no bill passes the national association of manufacturers because you have to get a majority of

either chamber of just one nobody ever heard of the import/export banks. may we opec they think you're talking about the arab oil company but the people that knew about they say it is a bad idea for u.s. taxpayers. ethanol is another one. and the ethanol mandate. this is a place that is good for the environment but it is not. that drives up prices it is bad for the environment. here is where it gets murky. especially for the liberals.

this is to roll been big oil although that said anything you have done make you uncomfortable? and this is probably worse the part of the farm bill and to have more money to the sugar growers. they forfeit to the government and he pays $0.20 a pound then resell it to the ethanol makers $0.1 a pound. so subsidies like ethanol is they all involve the legislation i think there is agreement on this it is amazing to see those that

benefit with the strategy with the businesses to get people to care about it with their groundswell. there are some exciting times with enough libertarians and conservatives do concentrate on this idea. again to figure out where we will agree. may be minimum-wage real live date -- will be beside just to focus on this the government should not take money from regular people to give it to big business that is something we can actually win. thank you. [applause] >> groth did you want to address any comments?

>> listening to the interaction and to go down to the living room of the neighborhoods of the left right to have this type of discussion. and to move that back comb with wall street legislatures. and in the audience they formed the ad hoc group. to meet and discuss these issues nobody can stop people from doing this the whole point of this discussion is to show potential and those watching on c-span can have these

kinds of discussions those from the left right alliance than the oligarchs and from congress whenever there is a rush of emails to say where they coming from? and that aid says it comes from both. that is why the book is called "unstoppable" and the fcc allows more concentration of big media over tv radio and newspapers there was such a huge uproar. and for the first time in congressional history the house of representatives challenge big media and voted to overrule the fcc

ruled by 421. it was about to go to the senate from the rise from the public but the senate slowdown tell the stamina of the big media prevailed and blocked it. and it is severely desensitized. >> now we will open for questions. >> citizens united was greeted with enthusiasm that is in some circles. is there any hope for government and big business without overturning citizens

united? >> item think corporations should have constitutional rights. i think their ability to achieve community and impunity make sure their supreme over ordinary people. when it comes to citizens united, it is a bad decision it enhances secret money and influence over elections procedurally bad. but basically allows corporations to independently spend as much money as they want. and there is no contest. and the congressional

campaign was under $8 billion. debt is the profit from exxonmobil. and then to spend time with each other to get it done. >> but let's get the republican party is has been a second power center against k street. now you see the action that is funded by rich conservatives that is different from big business. and some primaries and just

didn't -- justin is attacked with there outside groups and with the import/export think and the government involved to is allowed to participate in with the contribution limits to only get $2,500. why you would get around that amount is beyond me. that means politicians instead of getting the big check have to get 50 from a bunch of people. who is friends with a politician and a nose 50 businesses? it is the k street lobbyist.

chordata unintended consequences. and four outside players. >> but this could completely blowing up. >>. >> with a private equity start up a fund my question is how we could eliminate the corporate state but is that of a challenge to convince the republicans to say of the chamber of

commerce or the wall street donors with the republican party in particular and they have been taken over by the business lobbies and wall street. so how hard would it be to convince the republican party to challenge the corporate state? . .seen over the last five or six years has been the rise of a counterforce up in the republican party against the chamber of commerce in making so much of the corporate state. now sometimes it is not her one set of rich guys versus another set of rich guys, but having a competition is much better than having a system which combines economic power with little party to restrict competition. answering this question than the previous one in some of these

cases with citizens united, for example, you can perform judo here and say the case in favor of citizens united and not having regulation and political spending is a part of speeches you wanas mu as a part of speeches that you want as much competition as possible. you want the money to come from as many different sources in whatever quantities as possible in order to have a most sort of evolutionary and combative system possible so that you don't have just a few people who of all the resources in terms of power and terms of money. you can connect up with the team's ralph talks about in terms of access because the argument about access and widening the availability of conditions to third parties and independents is pretty much the same as a case for having unlimited donations in terms of our political system. if you believe in competition, if you think you should have as many voter choices as possible, then you should look close yet

these restrictive regulations that dictate only certain kinds of candidates, only certain parties have the most privileged access to ballot. you can create electrocution here, not necessarily along the lines ralph has envisioned, but on the line submaximal competition within the system. >> one of the points in the book is community self-reliance, local businesses, whether energy and agriculture, food credit unions, community banks which is burgeoning around the country as a way to shift power from wall street to main street here this is the area of huge convergence, huge convergence and is a lot going on. yes magazine is a magazine that chronicles a lot run the country in terms of local community self-reliance. the most interesting comment that will return eric cantor and this reflects liberals why is concerned with two much from all

sides. but too much emphasis on mass begins to ignore the wisdom of his comment, because he was outspent 2721 by eric cantor. i'm even have a selection he he was interviewed by fox news is that money doesn't vote. voters vote. that is a reflection of get down here with the grassroots and mobilize people. in soviet session with money in politics we should not forget about the other side, which can negate a lot of money in politics, which is local mobilization of voters. >> the woman here on the i/o. >> thank you. this is a question for the panel, but mr. nader in particular since the financial recession and particularly the housing collapse, was in a lot of time talking about balancing the benefits and risks of

government sponsored enterprise, but i find particularly interesting we are not seen a lot of discussion about the farm credit system, which was intended to help young small farmers, but is now starting to get multimillion dollar phone to verizon. i'm curious if you think this is an opportunity for a left right alliance to rein in the mission and return the focus back to young beginning and small farmers intended by the farm credit. >> i've never heard of that issue. i loved learning stuff like that. my father works for the credit administration choices say anything until he retires and then abolish it. in general, what you were pointing that happens in all foreign subsidies for years the purpose of the organization and then it ends up serving the big guy. in my mind i actually learned

the phrase regulatory capture from ross nader and its regular. the guys who are supposed to be regulated capture it or if it's an organization that hands out money, event of the big guys get their hands. even the small business in the station, this is happening. for me, that is a lesson in the kind of conservatism saying when you create an institution in washington, the guys at the best lobbyists are going to be the ones to get their hands on. >> let me at the danger regulatory capture isn't simply that the regulated industries can buy politicians to do their favor. it is the fact you can't regulated and is it without having massive amounts of information so you can make intelligent decisions. you can get that for the industry itself. they have a monopoly on the relevant information. they feed it to you in the right way, freeman in the right way and so it's very, very difficult

over time for regulators not to succumb to the worldview of the rate related industry and its intellectually as well as fiscally capped. >> one more quick point. this is a left right compression point on this issue when you talk about tanks. the molson center smart rules. these think regulations awaited us. we have regulators in this finance. that is asking for capture. a cap on the size of the paint doesn't involve as much math. it doesn't involve as much as looking to the expertise and is much lobbying. when rules are called for such his banks and our taxpayers, then the rule should be as simple as possible and as transparent and not as one of the great ways to make a nike capture. -- not get captured. >> gentleman in the bushehr. >> thank you. ron allen. mr. nader, you mentioned the phrase 12 years.

i don't know if you were referring to two years of hillary and one of chelsea, but someone needs to ask about 2016 in your thoughts on it. >> was the question? >> your thoughts about 2016 in terms of the enlightened billionaire. >> yeah, it looks like right now if you wanted to guess, it is the two dynasties, jeb bush and hillary clinton was the republicans want to implode on people like rubio for clues, but the big business is going to get behind jeb bush. either way, he's different than george w. bush. he is known to read a lot of hooks. [laughter] in the back. >> good afternoon. jeff steele. i know their skepticism given

the argument made the system has been performed to compete in the 20 century against two arguably very deformed systems, germany and the soviet commune. given that we -- given that her power structure had been built up to compete against those monstrous entities and we still have a one-party state in china and the argument is made that, you know, most of them, the uniform it caliphates risk is a monstrous threat, it seems easy at the status quo just continues because the power structure has been built and very difficult to deconstruct the massive power structure that is necessary to meet the 20th century. >> i think the issue of path

dependence can allocate to the national security faith in particular is of great importance and the kind of failure of imagination to rethink the premises of the national security state after the cold war and the reflective look for enemies of equivalent stature is part of what is maintaining the failure of imagination. >> some of it's just a matter of time. the introductory remarks and some of our discussion before the event talks about how the experience of the cold war has changed its perception going into the war on terror. i think now the experience of the war in terrible shape our perceptions going forward and hopefully lead to some rather substantial roof warms a very military outcome industrial national security state. >> s. only if we have a different level of civic motivation back home. people define themselves as powerless and take themselves out of the equation.

people have no idea how powerful they are, even if you point to areas in american history. again and again, major changes have occurred by less than 1% of the people organizing broader public sentiment. rate through american history. occupy wall street made a big deal of the 1%, the richest 1%. they might've talked about the 1% immobilized reflecting public sentiment can turn this country around again and again and not almost inherently means the reflection of opinion. the book does talk about ship to power from the future the money and some rather unique areas providing facilities so people can voluntarily paying together more easily as consumers, as taxpayers, as voters, as workers. but we didn't have time to discuss it. a lot of these paddles about big

money in politics of the rights of big business can be handled by shift of power in the private sector. you can see a lot of the environmental advantages in our country came by a handful of nonprofit environmental advocacy groups starting with earth day and they represented a majority about choking air pollution. that is why they got it through. they represented a broader consent. the book cites a lot of examples like that. >> one more. this gentleman here back on the end of the aisle. a microphone will come to you.

>> hi, my name is brian from louisiana. my question is based on the ballot access in what you guys were talking about earlier. the federal election commission is seen in my opinion is one of the biggest carriers for third parties and other candidates to get on the ballot. my question is would you recommend reforming it, abolishing it in a few recommend reforming it, how would she do so? >> you now, during one of our presidential campaigns, we assembled enough information about the democratic party pushiness off ballot, all kinds of unsavory manners in tying the second quarter. we received 24 times in 12 weeks to get us off the ballot in the states in the summer of 2004. our petitioners were arrested