june 9th. the story goes that when the bird collection opened in october of 1940, mayor laguardia was invited. but we have it through oral tradition that the mayor velella velella robust digital bid, said in a chair and burst through the caning. and then it was retained perry's apparently that is the only non original part of this chair. >> but that is not a document is story. >> i have not seen it documented in any way, but that was passed to me in our tradition. >> thank you for sharing this part of your collection >> my pleasure. thank you for being here. >> you're watching book tv to let television for

serious readers. you can watch any program that you see here on line as booktv.org. up next on book tv after words with guest host matthew continuity, editor of the washington freebie can believe this week other cox richardson and her new book to make men free, a history of the republican party that in its discusses the was republican belief articulated by lincoln that government is supposed to promote economic opportunity for all. she explores the party's repeated abandonment of that principle and the 20th-century and its return to its roots after every economic collapse. this program is about an hour. >> you can follow me on twitter. today we're going to discuss any history of the republican party.

my guest is professor heather cox richardson, boston college. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> how long have you been teaching? >> this is my fourth year at boston college, teachings as 1987. >> surpluses do you teach? >> american history 19th century primarily politics and economics the pretty much anything that they wanted the lead me. >> the most unusual course you have taught? >> i taught a course in the history of comic books and the 1970's and my students but mccullough pockets as -- exhibition. it did a beautiful as of. >> a second book and comic books. >> no, although i am writing a book and comic books. >> why a book about the republican party? >> i lost all of the republican party invested permanente and century politics and economics, and if you do they must understand the republican party. but that i also teach spelling is a moving into the tortilla century seemed a no-brainer. >> when did you have the idea for this particular bill?

>> i am going to have to go with 1987. i wrote four books first. i taught again for couple decades. it has been in the back of my mind for a long time. it will be interesting to move on after this one. >> it took you a decade or more to write it. >> it took me more than a decade to think about a, for years to write it. >> i see put into use the is the intended audience? >> it is intended for a popular audience. it is a deer's teeth deeply theoretical in form but you would not know that reading it paid about the great stories that tell the largest issues of the american past in a way that i hope is fun and digestible >> how would you describe their own politics? >> i am a historian. that is i would describe my politics. people who read my work in says that diana floridian people who read my work from the right in style of far

left cheek and i am a historian. look at what happened and say what happened. >> would you say many republicans are on the faculty? >> we all really talk about a. >> there just would rather feel this? >> i think they divide politically according to issue provide the argue issues a lot, but i don't know how people vote. >> of what is your sense of the student population? have there been any political shifts among the students? more conservative than the 80's and more liberal today? >> you know, that's a good question. are not entirely sure i could make a statement on that because, of course, if you look at the students who come to you tomorrow i get enormous numbers of republicans students who come in and say, our republican like you. mayor of confessors city's history. so i don't think have a very

good sense on what the employer during reynaud because theirself selecting to work with me because they think, on the ride. >> your sene you don't really have political bent. the final chapter of this book, the conclusion is very favorable toward barack obama, at least that was the sense i got big is it fair to say? >> he is not in the final chapter. >> is in the conclusion. would you think it's fair to say your supporters? >> it's interesting started to run well over five to six underfinanced. at one. i am amassing more and more and more evidence because i wanted to make sure everything was grounded.

i literally was sitting at my desk, i've got to stop. if i were studying 1920 and the 19 teens are the 1880's, i would have stopped amassing evidence to get 400 sources ago. it is time to quit. this is what i think happened as a historian. think it is right. i suspect you will disagree with me, but it is well forced. he was never intended to be a diatribe some of my favorite presidents ended up not being my favorite presidency and. some people really did not like i think what most surprised me was the panic of 1893 and how it happened tonight completely new interpretation. a think what also surprised me was how all relatively

unimportant watergate turned out to be. watergate for me was the got me into political and economic history. it was used in my life and read and edit a book proposal i expected a would have an entire chapter on watergate. and when you look at the sweep of american history water is important, but it is not anywhere near as important in the scheme of american history as i thought it was. >> before we turn to the book, what conservatives -- republican journals or magazines to your reader draw from? >> well, the body in the 20th century is the national personally i read fairly widely across the spectrum could send you are going to the freebie can every day. >> i actually the weekly standard. >> jeter the weekly standard . >> but i will start of very

general question. how would you summarize the basic thesis of your book the central fifth american history, the conflict of independence and the declaration appended sets for the concept that america is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, equal opportunity. it was a great principle on which men rally to fight the american revolution, but it was not the founding of the country. the founding of the country was the constitution. by the time they were concerned with something very different. they were concerned whether the protection of property. that became another founding principle. the conflict between the quality of opportunity in the protection of property

has never been fully resolved and americans is a society. the republican party was the political arm that set up to resolve the profound conflict area there is that the system of the larger question is a question for americans whether not they care about the party, have the resolve a conflict to an equal opportunity in the protection of property both of which are legitimate and very important principles. >> the question i have reading your book was one not write another book about the democratic party? >> you know, the issue here the 19th century, not really very interested paris of the mark. i can talk about the democrats, but they're much more interesting in the

20th century was to mind is not as interesting as the 19th. it is a different set of questions. >> your knowledge of possible war history is very impressive. also the passion that comes from it as well. you mentioned this tension which i also identified in the book between equality of opportunity and property rights of the protection of property. i have two questions. typically those are not seen to be in conflict. you take a step back. the small liberalism. i mean, the kind of foundation concepts my first question would be, why do the conflict? my second one would be usually in american political discourse it is not so much the quality versus property as the quality verse is liberty. so what property and civil

liberty? >> first of all, it is property that is established in the constitution. to put this in an american context employees in finding nathan to the plot -- funny ways. it plays and a really cool way. that is that one of the factors in play here in addition to the conflict with an equality of opportunity and protection of property is expansion in the expansion of the american west. you can come up with new ways to construct a society that has a limited space and argue about those ways and nothing will have changed as long as you're not expanding. once you add the expansion you, but new kinds of conflicts. as soon as the american

revolution is under way and there's a lot of the americans cannot cross the apple ashton's to and he does it, opens up kentucky and we have this new concept to various reasons that filters back to the east coast. when its peoples but sapporo and what happens is a conflict, a very explicit obvious conflict. it is our region. in kentucky between the idea that poor man can go out there and make a fortune verses the slave owners, the planters to come in and takeover the legislature and take over the loss. so what the founding fathers see because this will take place in the 1790's, what they see is this conflict.

can men actually rise in this new land or is that going to be taken over by wealthy slave owners to then change the laws, manipulate the laws so that they are able to amass land and property in their own hands. >> of the abundance of free land and the american west has ignited this conflict between to this drivers, the goal west german followers, scrappy entrepreneurs verses kind of what you column with a all call during that time the slave power who wanted to expand their economy. >> of professorial joke. it is quite a bit later. "i am looking for here is the in the logical

conflicts, if you will, between these two quite legitimate, quite important and quite fundamental principles. so what happens, the articles of federation. as you know, they don't do a lot, one of the things they do that is important. all kinds of attention to the lack. the northwest ordinance makes sure there will be no slavery. but the first thing, it outlaws primogeniture. one of the things is trying to do is make sure that power does not get a master's in any small group because not that they are objecting to the idea of people having but because of what that does to the concept of democracy. if a few people get too much and, of course, the numbers here talking about look ridiculously small, with it looked very big in those days. if a few people did too much

it will buy the press. once they do that and pilaus will change so that individuals will no longer have a say in their government and they will not be able to have equal access to resources to the will to rise on their own. and the whole concept of government which is what they're talking about, they're not talking around individual wealth wars social good but the concept of creating a new kind of government. that whole concept will collapse. and that is a concept that the founding fathers are struggling with if there's sure going within that foundational time. craigslist turn to the creation. what role did the kansas and nebraska act play in that? >> it is my favorite event in american history, the

first i ever memorized, one of the fewer canallers come up with the reasons for that is the kansas and nebraska act july 1854. it is enormously important because it is the act that passes congress that convinces north man on the make that there is a slave power. under the power of of very small class of slave owners were going to monopolize the executive, legislative and the court. and with the passage of the kansas nebraska act which negates the missouri compromise which had previously guarantee that the northwest to my huge, huge piece of land was stay free.

so the passage of the kansas and nebraska act to the house of representatives in may of 1854, bears is really cool meeting that takes place in washington. the rooms, and another member of the house of representatives. he's a fine character. this is a father sometimes. then me in their rooms. they actually picked up room because that boarding house has the best food in washington. they come together center around a group of three brothers. and they come to that meeting from a number of different parties. but they leave that day saying, we have got to start

a new party will stand against this late hour. begin the call themselves republicans. it becomes a republican party. but that meeting in dickinson's room, those 30 men, republican party. >> fascinating. >> is wonderful. >> i want to talk to you about your book. the verses iran lincoln, the second is james henry hammond. what do you most admire? >> an interesting question. eisenhower's another one. his ability to figure his

way through a problem without taking banks personally. exceedingly bright. >> of course steady yucas geometry and applied that method of reasoning. >> it matters. we don't teach logic anymore . >> of stern said james henry hammond. the figure was not familiar with. but he comes to take on great historical importance. he was from south carolina, senator, democrat. why was the important? >> well, fascinating figure. you did know him, you probably just did not know his name. he gave the speech that i talked so much about their videos on to say, ms. king and we will win his

everybody has got to have cotton. but hammond is almost a cartoon character in any number of ways. sexually abusive not only to his players but businesses who are extraordinarily well-connected. that was part of the hampton family. it tells the fascinating story. he believed that the way a healthy society worked, and mines u.s. living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world at the time, enormously wealthy, well-educated. they on a beautiful paintings. >> beautiful pottery barn and a stand.

>> reason to believe they finally got that right. and they're not making excuses to say that this is why they got it right. they're not making stuff up. their wealthy, well-educated if they have good ideas and he believed that they had truly care about the ways society should work. in the way society should workers, lankan exile was a response to read what he argued in a speech before congress was that society was healthiest when the fuel their well-educated, very wealthy man ran things because they were the only ones to have the education and the brains to direct society as it should be. and the proof of that was the fact that they were so wealthy. god had not read them with extraordinary wealth. they figure that a good

society, and the way it worked was for them to direct a labor of lesser beings. now, those lesser beings in the south were men and women of color. but to those people james henry hammond believe that they should not have education because that would only make them crumbly and want more than they could get. they should not certainly have any voice in american society. they should not give much in the way of clothing or food because that would simply be wasted on them. money should travel upward so that it would create this extraordinarily intelligent, powerful class. and that was the way a healthy society would work. to see that i am right, and he says this in the speech, look around. the richest, most educated people in the world. this must be the best with do things. >> of course abraham lincoln, as you mentioned, give his speech, wisconsin agricultural fair repudiating this doctrine in offering his own. give us a summary of that.

>> he says -- james henry hammond calls the majority of people the pieces of was slammed into the ground on which house press. so they are the foundation of society, but they literally live in the mud perry lincoln says, this is not healthy society works. a healthy society works the exact opposite way, the workers create value, not the people at the top of the heap, the people at the bottom of the heap. a healthy society works in such a way that those people have access to education answer resources so that they can produce and dry us. in the more that they produce the more capital will create, the more they will employ other people and the way to make a society move and advances to put government on this side of equality of opportunity for the average worker. >> later in your book to make some direct connections between him and and the

movement of conservatism, the span of activists. help to take over the republican party. why is that a fair comparison? >> isn't that great? could not believe that when i found out. the conscience of the conservative, 1960, under barry goldwater's name, if you actually line that directly with james henry hammond and of the points are almost point by point the same. >> the defense of slavery in the conscience of the conservative. >> a major issue but the idea that government should work in such a way that should protect property because you create. i mean, he does talk about society being directed by an elite rather than a democracy. the founding fathers did not set up a democracy because

they were afraid of the redistribution of wealth. certainly was not advocating slavery. no one to make that clear. >> you save your book that he wanted to return the world. >> the concept. that's really good. >> you say someone wants to return the world to pre civil war. >> i did not say that. he said that. that was in the national review. >> he said that frank myers, you believe he wanted to reinstitute slavery? said. >> the thinking of putting words in my mouth question asking you a question. >> and and try and answer the question, but you're going to have to let me finish a sentence. that concept, that idea that a small, educated, wealthy class should direct society is the same in these different times. now, before you get angry about that, that is not and

a legitimate argument. it is not one i happen to adhere to, but it is not an argument that you can inherently say somebody is attacking you. awful lot of societies have worked successfully that way. that is not the weather republican party started, but it is not an attack to say somebody believes that. worked very well for a long time. >> to associate a public figure was slavery is a negative? this. >> well, be clear, you're the one who keeps talking about hell i'm saying -- >> james henry hammond was the one who was talking about slavery. >> yes. but the concept of how society should be ordered is the same. now, you can disagree with that and come back and say that is not the way he wanted sign the order, but you can't say that they are

not the same if he ever about the documents. they just are. >> i find a real emphasis on liberty and -- it is i believe the longest chapter, that national security in that thread to communism which was not something that was present during hammons time and all. >> now that is a leap. that is quite a leap. when i talk about coming as much talk about communism coming out of the 1870's which is not what happened is talking about. he does talk a lot about the redistribution of wealth. a very big problem in his speech and the big problem throughout the rest of american history and it is a huge problem for moving conservatives. but that is historical. >> again, barry goldwater was talking about it. one thing that i find really interesting, your discussion of the paris commune.

>> another great moment. >> how that interview with american politics in which i don't think is a story that has been told at all. so -- >> it has been told by a few academics, but it is a fascinating story. not least because of the material that could not make it into this short book and the reason that americans are so much about the paris commune was because there was only one foreign observer left in the city during the paris commune, and it was a man who was in line to be the next republican nominee. he did not wind up in nomination, but they let him stay, and he actually sent out dispatches. the paris commune happens in obviously paris after the franco prussian war. end americans have just made the first six -- laid down the first successful transatlantic cable, getting new dispatches across the table from the franco

prussian war while it was going on, and people read the newspapers to read what was happening in the war. when the war ended there was not much going on. in order to keep those cables popping and to promote the candidacy of the observer in paris, the republican newspapers trumpeted the paris commune. now, i am not a scholar of france. i have no idea what is actually happening in paris. what shows up in the american newspaper, workers of taken over the city, they kill a bunch of priests. and most shocking, women filled bottles with this newfangled stuff called petroleum, lighted on fire, tosses into buildings. >> is that kind of the beginning of a molotov, when his letter called molotov. >> i guess so. but the way that place back in america combines with reconstruction because people in the south, democrats in the south or not getting any traction in the north and northern

politics keep saying that in america after 1870, african-americans will be voting, there are going to vote to redistribute wealth, destroy society and going to try and take everything for themselves. workers were turning the world upside down. northerners are like, yeah, whatever, you southern democrats who just fought a war. we'd all like you. in a look at what is happening in paris, and it looks like this is exactly what southern democrats are saying is happening in the south. that starts to get traction to the concept of having workers participating in government. and, you know, it is a phenomenal story, lithograph, really major event. >> and i believe one thing you say is that the specter of the workers taking over government and appropriating wealth of the rich, it really deals a death blow to the original vision of the

republican party. >> yes. because again, more complicated reasons then i will go into in the book, but the linchpin of 19th century politics is new york. weigh more electoral votes than anyone else in the country. of course new york city. upstate new york is republican. new york city is democratic. in order to older york state yet all the york city debut new york city is held by the democratic machine. some republicans in new york city grab ahold of this idea to say, look, you have to stop the democratic emigrants from voting because if you do they're going to take over the government and redistribute wealth. so from within the republican party this gets picked up, but not nationally for other reasons in 1972, the reelection of grant dividend from then it becomes a trip in american society from then on. >> was cut to the point where it's rediscovered.

was the connection between teddy roosevelt's imperialism and his domestic policy? .. teddy roosevelt reveres lincoln. and is very concerned about the drift of the part in the late 19th century. one of the things that the party does is it argues that it is, in the 1880s, 1890s come is

that it is a party that advances morality and individual responsibility, and individual uplift, if you will. for various reasons, largely because he supports the navy so much and very close friends with henry cabot lodge also supports the navy, both and also with alfred hon. writes a very important book about the navy, they begin to say that the need able to take this morality overseas with the arrival of the concentration policy in cuba by the spanish. people like teddy roosevelt say it's got to spread around to places like cuba. if you do that at the international level you have to bring that home. you have had an example at home that proves difficult that america is as good as we say it is. and that's the case with the cleanup the tenement, and to get kids into school, get literally a dead horse is off the streets

because of course in the late 19th century we have a sanitation system, without any of those things. those have to be fixed at home in order to be a beacon to the rest of the world. it's kind of reversed. >> host: destiny. you also discussed robert, a great progressive republican. tell us a little bit about him. >> guest: under the men that is much more colorful on paper than they suspect he was in real life. humorless man. at least i found him so. he's a little bit different. they all have their political epiphany in 1884, the election of 1884 when the republican candidate is corrupt enough and thrown in the pocket of big business that he loses to cleveland. a democrat after the civil war. the end of decide to stick with

the party but to clean up the portrait they stick with a party for the next decade but by the time they come of age in the 1890s, they want to reform the republican part in such a way that it is accessible again as opposed to the industrialists, the people who are dubbed robber barons at the point who are controlling the senate and, therefore, control legislation. >> host: and so he was part of this, with a successful in terms of cleaning up the republican party? >> guest: he's different from the others because he comes out of wisconsin. wisconsin is the heart of the grange movement. the grange movement, he's influenced by the granger movement. this is a movement where the third legislature tried to rein in the power of green clovers, for example, rein in the power of monopolies in the midwest. and the strong influence by the idea that you should be able to

use gap rest of the state and national governments to rein in a special monopolies but to make sure legislation is not skewed to much towards this. that's not the same background, of course that teddy roosevelt and albert beverage and cabot lodge, silverstone all, not beverage but the other two come from. so he brings it into the party so he's different. do they rework the party? absolutely. this is where you get the return back to lincoln's language of men on the make, haven't even had a government that works for everybody. and they do it very explicitly. teddy roosevelt deliberately echoed lincoln and stands up for lincoln and says he is lincoln's spokesman. it doesn't get more intelligent than that during his presidency. >> host: one thing i was fascinated by in your book is again and again would talk about i'm paraphrasing but when the

link tony language is forgotten and financial leaves for business leads are able became acutely great wealth and influence the system, there some type of financial panic or recession or great depression what comes to the. how did you formulate this, this thesis? was any economics that you drove on? assad john kenneth galbraith decided -- is this a pattern you discerned in history of the depressions were caused by inequality of wealth? >> guest: you're asking about my anti-graduate career. what have i drawn? i'm a little top smacked simply because, i'm in the footnotes on have for the most part primary sources because of the sheer length of them. obviously, i think keynes was onto something. >> host: i noticed a couple friedman and schwartz's

interpretation of monitor history of the united states was not mentioned. was a reason for the? >> guest: friedman is mentioned. the reason for that is i think if you look at the numbers, it is my contention that if you look at the numbers, america is the healthiest when wealth is widespread. when i was just art in this basis industry in the ideology which you think i care very much about his language and what it's used, which i think he's enormously powerful thing, william f. buckley was onto, and we don't pay enough attention. that's why started studying. i have an older friend who lived the depression and no matter what is said she would say who got the money? who got the money, heather? follow the money. if you follow the money what you would find is that when wealth is widely distributed the country seems to do better. reforms seem to happen. when it starts to concentrate there is a crash.

and that's a very simple level, discernible through the actual historical events at the time. now, economists if you read them, historical economists which are far more important to my business, have all kinds of charts and all kinds of ways a o look at the different grades especially the late 19th century. a great study of steery's fishing series of reports. what and how that happens. very important in the small problem buddies are trying to look at the larger question of the nature of american and american political parties, it seems to make more sense to go big. >> host: let's turn to eisenhower, the third big president in your narrative. you have this fantastic anecdote in the book about really his only political experience before becoming president with carrying a torch and a mckinley -- such a fantastic image of the young

eisenhower. what role, again, did foreign policy bring to play in bringing eisenhower into politics country i suck at involved in politics because he was determined to stop senator taft. but more importantly to me, and that's worth pursuing if we can talk about that, he gets involved in politics because he is so horrified by fascism and he is so horrified this really by his visit to the concentration camp. this is kind of in european history i understand. this is kind of a test to eisenhower saw at concentration get 80 didn't like it but if you read his writing, a very extraordinarily intelligent men. very measured writing. the letter he writes is -- east shattered. he comes to believe over time it didn't happen immediately but this is no secret if you read his diaries or his letters, or

his books as well. he comes to believe that the world is on the brink of annihilation because he now sees nuclear weapons. the only thing standing between today, the 1950s, the making \40{l1}s{l0}\'40{l1}s{l0}, and this fear of annihilation is the even description of wealth. i'm sorry, i put that badly. not even just a vision of wealth. the ability of people to rise because if you have extremes of inequality of wealth, they created a world in which it would be all too easy to gather followers, to gather dispossessed followers that are culturally or economically dispossessed. so he was extraordinarily interventionist man because he wanted the world, everywhere, individuals in the world everywhere to kill but they were not -- that because babies

because has a moral imperative to do but because if they did feel like they were in trouble, either culturally or economically, they were prime fodder for dictator, either fascist or communist or religious. he was a particular. he didn't like any of them, to have huge numbers of followers. once they had nuclear weapons that could literally destroy the world. this is really a profound argument that i don't think people have given him enough credit for. he wasn't just out there screwing around with the law and are making a mess of vietnam or any of the things people complain about. he really did think that america had a crucial role to play in saving the world, and it was a well thought out and very intelligent argument. >> host: we always think of the '60s and '70s of these very tumultuous decades filled with political and intellectual cultural affirmative but one of

the things that comes across in your book that i've often thought about is the '50s were also a very wild time. this is where you start having the real kind of the getting's of the civil rights movement of the 1950s. prior to the civil rights act of 64. of course you're the founding of the "national review" in 1955 and the beginning of what becomes movement conservatism. you describe some of william f. buckley, jr.'s writings in the 1950s as rants, that they would be dismissed as fringe lunacy. and yet when buckley died in 2008, and he was kind of lauded by both right and left. held up as an example by the length of good conservatives. what's your interpretation of that change in perception? >> guest: i would like to get to that. let me say in terms of the ferment of the 1950s, on one of the pieces that people don't make enough of the connection between is the 1950s look extraordinarily like the

1870s. in both cases we are coming out of a dramatic war that has enlisted the support of minorities and women who don't have rights in the new nation. in both cases you get women's rights come you get african-american rights, you did native american rights. in both cases you get a redefinition of american citizenship, which i think is crucial at the figures are not just about candy colored cars. about who should be a member of the nation. buckley of course was young when he wrote god man at your. he was just young at yale but have you read a? >> host: i have. >> guest: it's not a great book but it's not well-written. it's not well argued. of course, he learned as he goes on. the our badly edited, badly written. they are not well argued, not logical. is going to get better as he gets older. we can forgive anyone for being on one of the things i think that made such a figure when he dies is that is quite genteel

arguments, if you will, is quite elite arguments that he made in the '50s at least in "god and man at yale," mccarthy is not a genteel book. the book almost quaint and respectable compared to the politics of the 2000, whic whics yale educational sample would virtually have had them read out of the party. i think the movement move rather than him. >> i didn't go to yield much but i believe both george w. bush, cheney of course dropped out, how do i believe -- george w. bush is not talk about his education. that's not reflection of him so much as where the party lies. >> host: of course ted cruz has the princeton harvard education or i don't see them being run out of the party either trade or celebrating that education tournament although it

does come across as a good lawyer. that he talked about the reagan revolution. you make a fascinating argument again going to this idea in the west as a playground where all these different forces interact. >> guest: the west playground, i like that. >> host: and then you talk about how reagan and conservatives played off the idea of the cowboy and the self-starter, was also launching a defense buildup that helps communities in the west. >> guest: straight out of reconstruction. again, very similar. so the west is fascinating. historians argue right and left about the west and there's all sorts of things you can say, but it is worth noting that the american cowboy was enormous the short-lived, but he lived during reconstruction, that cowboy

stretches of 1866-1886 about. when a terrible snowstorm wiped out the herd and barb wire takes care the rest. those are the 20th reconstruction. if you think about reconstruction and debate about what you remember about reconstruction, you probably can't name very many african-american leaders, and you probably can't mention any labor leaders, and you maybe could come up with elizabeth cady stanton. >> host: i feel like you're judging me, professor. >> guest: i didn't mean you in particular. but the way everybody knows the american cannibal. everybody all over the world knows the american cannibal. why? would have argued in previous work and i think is right is that one of the central themes of reconstruction was the argument on behalf of southern democrats, that the republicans had created a behemoth government that was taxing americans because republicans invent taxes during the civil

war. it was taxing americans to support black people. the very same year the west opens a. the west opens up because the american government has poured money into the west during the civil war and after the civil war with the railroads and indian wars and land surveys and later on damning in irrigation. they're pouring money out there but in the telling of it, especially in the southern newspapers and the planes newspapers what you did with the region that is run solely by individuals, by these hard-working cowboys who don't want anything but to work their own way out. it's an image, an image that people like buffalo bill capping to for popular entertainment. it plays hugely in the american south but also in the american cities. but it catches on. the cowboy, the westerner as an individual up against a big government and that's a scene that resonates from jesse james who was a criminal, let's just mention who murdered people, but

to becomes a symbol of an individual who stands against the government which is trying to kill him through the present. cowboy means an individual. working his way up. cowboys were not, in fact, most of them didn't manage to work their way up. the work was terrible. but an image in american society, the reason that our olympic teams almost always poses with cowboy hats time of both parties play off of that image, or is it really kind of a conservative/republican thing? i'm just kind of curious. >> guest: that history of the west is not uniform. it's a very important -- and agents in an 1880s. to some degrees in the 1890s and, of course, the spanish-american war, buffalo, teddy roosevelt roughriders were named after the roughriders and buffalo bills wild west show. the early 20th century the western image fades.

during the depression nobody wants to be from the west. those are the okies. they don't have anything to do with that. the western energy takes a downturn and pops back up and takes off after brown v. board. the 1960s when we get westerns all over the american tv and the 1970s when, for example, levi's go from being on folks like james dean and his movies to ever. the sales of levi's take off in 1971 and the western imagery polls i think from the same scene that dominated america during the construction. >> host: at one point you talk about watergate. the right, and i quote, the paranoia inherent in conservatism. could you elaborate about that? am i paranoid? >> guest: i don't have every word of the book memorized but i think you were referring to when nixon resigned and he refused to

accept any responsibility thing he had done. and what i was referring to there was his argument that he makes in his speech and then in his memoir that he was taken down by a liberal media. and the whole concept of a liberal media as you know comes out of william f. buckley, jr.'s mccarthy and his enemies. >> host: that's a paranoid argument? >> guest: nixon turns into paranoia. i think buckley is making an intellectual argument that anybody that disagrees with him is part of a liberal cabal which is the entire new deal coalition. but i think for nixon -- >> host: the paranoia touches more to nixon and -- that ought to go visit the psychiatrist after this interview. thank you very much. we let a few more minutes so one thing, one question i had at the end of your book was, what does a lincolnian agenda look like today? we see some attempts by the

barack obama and joe biden administration, you mentioned very briefly, but just my reading of the economic data is they don't seem to have borne out in a widespread -- from your, reading of history, what is necessary to kind of return pashtun if i were a republican politician having read your book and i called professor richardson up on the fun and it's i want to return to the lincolnian vision, what do we need to do? what would you tell me country first of all i would write speeches for you because it's appointed and the form is education. a government that is not beholden to people at the the bottom of the top of the spectrum. and again if it's easy to do rhetorically than it is to do necessary in policy. but rhetorically it's easy to do. it's education, a government that is not beholden to people of the top or bottom of the spectrum. is equality of opportunity and

its in the middle-class but it's something not unlike you've written about in the past in "the weekly standard." eat your labor republican. about it is that it takes an outsider like lincoln, teddy roosevelt or eisenhower to throw off the party apparatus and say, we're going to do this the way we used to do it. if my e-mail is any indicator and, of course, the plural anecdote is not data, there's a lot of people who would like to see the republican party do that. >> host: it strikes me as you talk about education, for example, the republicans have embraced school choice and charter school movement and have waged campaigns against the teachers unions. how does that fit into education reform? is that a lincolnian tactic, in your view? >> guest: no. it was not at all lincolnian tactic if you break down school choice, reform, who they benefit. that's a much longer discussion,

but the idea that we should have widespread, affordable, good education, clean at a higher level because republicans start our state universities of course, unc not withstanding. the rest of them came from the lincoln republicans is central to a democracy. because we've had in education since 1980 have been absolutely untrue to republicans. >> host: as we speak today one of the major causes of the so-called movement conservatism is destroying this thing called the ex-im bank. a new deal institution against taxpayers, loves to corporations like boeing. that seems to me like it when tony in -- a lincolnian think, am i wrong? >> guest: i am a prophet of the passages so you know. i find that very, very interesting. this i think this puppy more than we have time for. i think this might actually be the rock on which a modern-day

republican party flips. which may be a good place to end this because by the time you and i argue that into the depths of the ex-im bank, everyone would be asleep. >> host: that's fascinating, professor, and as someone who believes xm should be defunded and someone who is disappointed in the republican leadership for protecting it, i hope you are right there i hope it may be the rock to which the so-called reformed conservatives can galvanize a new lincolnian movement. we'll read about in the sequel to your history. professor richardson, thank you for joining us.