the soviet union he had been anti- hitler. each and every one of them that i talk about were members of the communist party. a member of the communist party, you had to be from the soviet union. that was the only way you could get in. so the hard-core communists

when hitler decided to make his alliance with the soviet union stalin switched to be pro- hitler, but so did all of the communist party's members in the united states and hollywood as well. they would be making a movie picture about it glorifying it. don trouble was one of the greatest apologists. i go into some detail about how he became an apologist for adolf hitler at the one that is absolutely remarkable and a forgotten chapter. >> i guess it was new york, but i go into detail about the american writers congress.

now i didn't say we love you, adolf hitler. the church of new england. considered a pariah country so far as the hollywood left was concerned. the american writers congress -- american writers group. >> host: just to be clear this was after the pact of 1939. by that time to be clear who hitler is, many jews of flight. he has already shown aggression toward his neighbors, and these are people who if they are reading the newspaper every day know that and are in effect taking -- taking hitler side. >> guest: many of these

people are jewish, you have to remember that. who if they are reading the newspaper every day know that and are in effect taking to defend taking hitler side. >> guest: many of these people are jewish, you have to remember that. ten commandments was sort of the way that i view it. they felt that -- it was not the hitler actually made the deal with stalin. they get the eastern half of poland. it was said you could also absorb the baltic states. this was all part of the package. and so they said well, that's a fairly good deal so far as many of these people are concerned. but what it did was unleash world war ii. everyone understood august 23, 19 39 that was when the pact was made. invade poland, the western half of poland a knew stalin was going to support them. that was why he made that deal.

he invades poland and takes the western half, and england and france said over and over again that they would declare war if he actually invaded poland because he had taken over austria and the rest of czechoslovakia. so he said if you go into poland now we will declare war against you, and that is exactly what happened. to do it -- two days later they did declare war. invades western europe. he congratulates them. >> host: while this is going on and while the soviets and the nazis are clearly planning on taking over your what are there allies in hollywood saying about it? >> guest: they are on the side.

if you read the 2nd writers congress, the 3rd american writers congress, the league of american writers were they had all sorts of people from hollywood all taking what i would call the super isolationist.of view where we can do anything. we can't have -- we can do anything in order to go after hitler because that might involve more which would bring fascism to the united states. you have to remember prior to that it was anti- hitler after one what happens to the hollywood anti- nazi league after? >> guest: it existed to some extent, but it basically went away. it was no longer. everything -- all of the american mobilization committees the league of

american writers, all of these groups now had a super isolationist.of view that you could not do anything to irritate hitler. he was not the problem. and he basically said that in the remark. and the only reason they switched. [inaudible] as soon as hitler doublecrossed stalin than they came back and said, by the way we now have to help evening were no. >> host: that is my next question. the invasion takes place shocked to stalin. >> guest: it should not have been. churchill warned him over and over again. >> host: that happens. how want before stalin's allies and hollywood pivot and become pro- war?

>> guest: a week. >> host: a week? >> guest: something like that. the league of american writers were totally against invasion or the united states helping england even though it is a life-and-death struggle against hitler at the time. and immediately june 8, 1941 when the league of american writers and then two weeks later him and says forget about what we just said about england they asked for support and aid. let's not worry about it. it's no longer the horrible country that we said it was. the talking about this is the way. even though england -- the

reason why hitler has to win against the soviet union is because he basically lost -- i mean his air force had tried to dominate and was unable to do so and they lost all of various planes. so therefore he said i'm going to invade russia instead. forget about england. i'm going to invade russia instead. these people say, you have got to fight. we now have to fight. if you don't give us aid you are pro- hitler and that was the kind of rhetoric. >> host: the these are people taking their foreign-policy tool to the foreign-policy cues wholesale from a foreign power. >> guest: one thing

certainly the radio talkshow i have been on they don't understand, communist party the socialist party, but the.is, to be a member of the communist party he had to have your allegiance. at after one wholly controlled by a foreign power. >> guest: wholly controlled. i go into this. they talked to the people in hollywood in new york. in fact, turned out to be i swear. he escaped the united states and ended up in east germany which was of course controlled by the communist party. >> well, i'm not sure.

i think that -- what hurt the communists paul jericho's is the worst mistake of the congress made was to live and sows with them. they lost a lot of credibility of that time and so the.is i don't know if the communists had not aligned themselves with hitler i think that the union with the soviets that the soviets would have been much better. pretty good country after all, but i agree with you. he was famous. he worked with the united press went over in 1929, seven years over they're.

he went over there as a stalinist. and he came back as an anti- stalinist and wrote a book called utopia outlining. certainly he was very credible. a new journalist and all that. when he said all these things, people had to listen. so far as they still like the soviet idea, communism. they like the economic idea. the american people never liked communism. but in terms i don't know. they are probably -- a number of people -- no question about it.

so a lot of people, no question about it. as i said, there is a movie coming out about it. the editor of the publication of the screenwriters guild. >> host: and a very talented guy. and editor of the major publications. became concerned. apartment and screenwriter. then he is another reason they read this book. all this information is coming out now.

somehow the communist party was a threat. they didn't deserve to be blacklisted. i'm not saying anybody would be blacklisted. and he joined the screenwriters guild. and of course the national review. when he was in new york, growing up in new york in 1895 who is part of the liberal.

the number of march brothers played at the time. won the pulitzer prize. my dad did a couple. when he came out to hollywood he was a left winger. >> host: about what time did he come to hollywood? >> guest: about 30. and they were basically a product of the left. but he liked the guilt like the guilt, like the idea. but he found that people like norman thomas committee goes to the screenwriters guild. they are a minority.

they are all communists. he talks about that. they are all communists. if you did not like the way they operate at all, they were like step, try to intimidate the non-communist members of the governing board. they we will would use all these delaying tactics in order basically divorce them to go home to there wives. outside the guilt. guild. all these communists running for office. stalin's criminal enterprise in the soviet union. one of the hollywood ten he lost a couple of places. by 1944 my bill famous

director at the time and also a member of the labor union and the reason i felt it is the screenwriters guild itself is dominated by the communists. his writing. and he joined in. i have a chapter in my book about the screenwriters. the becoming a swaggering. use it as a vehicle the tarnished reputations of people who were anti-communist. someone said talk about the soviet man. you get have john howard was in command of the communist

party in hollywood. and he will tell you about the evils. that was there. and then the managing editor he was the next-door neighbor. and at home. sort of amusing. 1947. well, they get along fine. this we will not help labor relations. >> well, i'll remember his talking to me about it and that sort of thing. i remember us are gordon i saw gordon and all that. but my dad had -- he found

out about how anti- us. so amusing. my next-door. i just thought it was amusing little anecdote. >> if father was called back to washington to testify. >> well, what happened in 47 thousand men. and the 1st major hearings on communism in hollywood. people think of it is joe as joe mccarthy, head of security. he was the senator. he did not even begin his anti-communist crusade even bill o'reilly gets one. but the west has still managed to miss misconstrue what is happening.

this is nothing to do with joe mccarthy. the.is you certainly viewed as an anti-communist bully. zero, well, joe mccarthy have it. it was a witch hunt. the factors committee basically nine people and it became famously known as the hollywood ten. >> they were screenwriters? >> mostly screenwriters. junior. and what they asked, just asking questions very politely. you have to remember, this was during the cold war.

all these agreements. free and fair election in east and central europe. in the soviet union was our enemy. basically stalin had. the.is that these people were asked whether they're were they were members of the conspiracy. are you members of the conspiracy that is loyal to the soviet union? are you a member of that particular group? and they do not have to in that way. i am putting and likeness of stack -- the subject of that. >> to be clear the question is not are you a communist but are you a member of the communist party. it's not a question of belief that membership.

>> there was a construction within the communist party in which you can deviate. >> and it was administered from a abroad. >> well, that were controlled. it was basically controlled by the communist party of new york. and he would get coded messages. i have some of them. i did not -- it was not my -- >> but this came to light after 91 and the collapse of the soviet union. >> before all that. much of this came before. that is what people don't understand. the house committee they all have these wonderful hearings. but anyway we are back to the fact that these people were asked the question.

instead of just even politely saying, well, we are all we are not well we don't think does the constitution. you have a right to ask us. instead they hurled all sorts of file kinds of words and rhetoric against the people who asked the question is. >> they went right back of the members of congress. >> he was the chief investigator of it. they call them quizzically. that is the kind of thing. they answered the kind of question. the.is that what happened even though hollywood paints a totally different picture, this terrible parnell

thomas. arbitrarily from the witness chair. he kept asking please answer the question. finally he said that's how that came about. >> worded taking whether taking a position on orders? >> they have this idea from the first amendment.

>> communists of the time. but they acted in such provocative way not to be so much. the fact that the studio did not want him wanted in the 1st place. it would hurt the box office. threatened before we went and said we don't want you going. but they acted in such a provocative all of us were asking very calm and judicious manner.

the americans for democratic action he couldn't belong to the ada if you are a communist. there were still on stalin side. and then he acted provocatively that's when the institute the blacklist. if your member of the communist party part of this conspiracy to refuse to cooperate with the community you can't work in hollywood. that is how it began. that's what it was. >> the studios corporately together? >> yes. the waldorf-astoria.

>> didn't want anything. we have to do this. >> meanwhile, the so-called hollywood ten refused to cooperate went to jail. >> well, for contempt of congress not because there were they were communists. they use the first amendment. but the.is -- >> how long did they go? >> about 11 months. each one was different. the.is the talking about the first amendment. the court has never held that you can refuse to answer whether you're a member of the communist party or the plan. you can say, i want to answer that question because of pleading the first amendment.

because they went to jail for contempt of congress the lawyers said how about the fifth amendment. and we don't have to testify. that's on the grounds of discrimination. that's like testifying against line testifying against yourself and all the big you can use the first amendment or you go to jail. the father wanted to get rid of the house committee on un-american activities and one of the support of all

the people that were being questioned. so they were all -- and that's what became a big brouhaha. the committee for the first amendment. he created the committee for the first amendment but the fact is as a result of those hollywood hearings the house committee the communists were washed down they were churning out these pro- procommunist and stalinist things.

the north star talk about how wonderful style of stalin the cultural program was. 3 million people at least died of famine. >> at least? >> that's right. a mix of and they said how wonderful it was. after this hearings all of these people left hollywood. the fact is that hollywoodcommand the screenwriters guild had an election. the studio unions a major labor union leader in and he had to defeat them. they were on their way out after 47 hearings. hollywood began making anti-communist. one of the things i want to bring out as the boat, in my view they are the good guys. the did the right thing and hollywood is no longer churning out all these things saying how wonderful the soviet union was. >> it's hard to debate the

stone was bad, isn't it? >> but that is exactly what the movies to. the soviet union in world war ii, but the fact is, these people were beyond that. i mean,, mission to moscow. and that is howard koch. constant casablanca, one of my favorite films. he put in a little pro- soviet propaganda into the builder character. >> i want to ask you about that. your father was a favorable witness, nonhostile. >> absolutely. there were a lot of favorable witnesses basically a part of the motion picture line. she was -- >> but what i was interested

to read with the hollywood ten famously blacklisted, went to jail for a time some moves to mexico, a lot of them are of hollywood movies after the hearings for decades. your father, by contrast never worked in hollywood again. >> no, he didn't. it is a complicated story, but i do believe -- he had done about 50 films. i do believe it is more complicated than just that he could not work in hollywood again even though that is a certain truth. but the reason i say this -- and i do believe his career was heard because her because of the vacuum and before the fall but i think he could have gotten back in the fact is 1st of all, he had a health problem a terrible also. after 47 we would come back

and you are suffering. so he really did not have the energy to do a lot of stuff. he talks about it in his book. >> the shot an elephant. great title. >> part of the much for this thing. but anyway we were talking about -- right. but the thing is the labor union leader and all of that and others i mean, roy told me and i knew roy pretty well as an anti-communist leader in hollywood. he told me that he had gone -- i can't remember the producing now. my dad could have written about pope we will be

command my dad said he just wasn't up to it. he could've done it. you just was not to it. i do believe health problems were important because a lot of people like a of munge you and others who were under pressure did give back to work in hollywood. they were threatened and all about. but anyway, i guess the people who were anti-communist, i'm a reporter more than anything else. i can't say something. >> let's go back to the psychology. it is so striking that a smart and in some cases very smart, very talented one of my favorite books clearly is superior guy in some ways. how could they people like these self-aware people wind up in effect working on behalf of joseph stalin and then by extension adolf hitler? what would drive them to do something like that? >> they believe in the theory of communism excuse

katharine hepburn and all that. he was a funny guy but he became a revolutionary socialist. and he had in the league of american writers. he was elected and 37 and 39 and writes a memoir about it. he never not became a revolutionary socialist. and he said that the communists controlled. i was head of it, but the communists were in control. this is a believe in the idea that they would have to be a revolution in the united states where the have-nots would take away from the house. he agrees with it. my.is they believe in force and violence.

the whole.was to stir up a revolution in the united states. >> you don't mean a metaphorical revolution. >> no. they talk about using -- in other words, using force and violence. they say it. they talk about that. you have congratulatory -- in the league of american writers was formed you have these congratulatory telegrams coming from the soviet union never else and knowledge do in all they do is talk about violence and revolution. somewhere i have -- have the

proceedings of what they say. and not making it up. you can go and get this american writers congress command anyone who wants to can look at this document and just look. this is exactly what they were proposing. this said you can't -- basically what they said was everyone who comes has to believe that revolution is inevitable. this would be formally associated with the international union union have revolutionary writers in moscow.

>> the irony of course is the freedom of expression was completely abandon the soviet union and the soviet sphere, so why would writers whose livelihood depends upon freedom of expression -- >> i think that nobody understands that because they always used this idea of freedom of expression because that is the only way they could advance the minority. nobody believed -- few people believed in pollution. the only way that they can advance their goal was to make sure that in the united states -- this is what the communists always do. therefore freedom of expression until they take control. that is what they would want to do. in fact it was interesting. in position in hollywood. on the opposite side but they did a very good book. i give them credit. in terms of information. a very excellent book.

they didn't mince words. they talk about all writers. yes, it is. they defended everything that stalin ever did including his monstrous crimes. that is what they say. it's not just me. you know somehow not highlighted the way my book is. but someone who is favorable to them acknowledges the fact that they were soft. and the reason they were soft, i still get back to the.that philosophically they believed in it. they believed it. >> so it's religious? >> well, the.is, did i mention this? i can only but whether i mentioned it but supporting north korea the granddaddy. the.is that help the poor

have for independence. >> invaded south korea. >> yeah. the reason we were in the ward all. the united nations to get my letter they leave.

>> did any of the hollywood ten never repent? >> venice director in hollywood. i knew him back in 1997. the 50th anniversary. hollywood put on this big dramatic show that the terrible plight of the hollywood ten. i feel differently about hollywood. but the fact is, i would feel differently if they were truly talking about people who have been blacklisted unfairly. if they were not stalin us if they were not members of -- you're in the united states trying to destroy us and impose this awful system upon the country. the.is if you --

>> his but what he said command another interesting stories earl broader was kicked out of the communist party. >> he was head of the communist party. >> he was head of the communist party it kicked out on the 19th -- in 1940 he was capitalism, please, a peaceful transition to socialism the war, even after world war ii that the united states and the soviet union -- it's a complicated

story but anyway people believed for a variety of reasons that stalin want him out or at least he had to change communist party because he wanted he wants the united states with the soviet union command i don't know. they might have been involved, but all of there's a i either have to believe when it will broader command i choose to believe

biographer said that was so these guys were all on a chapter. >> right. >> so. >> you talked to him and he went he praised as people. i can the ones the hard-core communists, all they had to do you were a member of a

longtime member of the party, you can get back to work say easily but easily. all you have to do was renounce were the the right-wing was terrible. the house would not.

it was written it was a very carefully done. he said, look, i was a communist. here is

that was the best thing. you can probably remember better

than i can i'll post up that did that he did a ton of stuff. i'm trying to remember the names now. he did get a an oscar for that. no question about that and he was a terrific, everyone understood that he was a terrific playwright and movie writer or director i'm sorry. but they wanted to deprive him of the award. i talked to bertie gordon who was the one that led, i called him on the phone and he led the fight against him. you can't get this award. he named names that fail main names. i asked him what you have against him and that was it. he had taken out an ad in "the new york times"." not only an ad in "the new york times" and said it's good to be

a -- and that was the major reason for it. they have felt they had been betrayed. victor navasky who i also met once. >> host: the former editor of the nation. >> guest: navasky has this book naming names which is a very good book by the way but the point is his attitude is he was terrible for anybody to name names. i don't think that at all. i want to know the names of people who are conspirators. we were in a life-and-death struggle -- struggle with the soviet union. husband with nazi germany? >> guest: arrival of nazi germany but this was afterwards. we were in a life-and-death struggle and we have a right to know what was going on and how they got control of the industry in 1944 and we have a right to

know that. >> guest: you make a persuasive case that hollywood was filled with members of the hard left communist party members but also fellow travelers. you think that an effect of the product that they created in the movies they made? >> guest: was clear absolutely in the point is as i mentioned before certainly during world war ii or even before world war ii you had blockade which was hollywood and it was a cry for the united states to break its neutrality laws and aid the soviet side in the civil war. the point is and i point out they leave out all sorts of stuff in the picture that was me. of course i understand why people would have been for the non-franco side. i think it turned out well that

franco actually won but that's another thing. i can understand initially he said this guy is giving aid for mussolini and aid from hitler. this is fascism and we want to fight it. i understand that but the fact is it was very clear by the time this movie came out that the soviet union stalin was in control. >> he wrote an entire book on it. he makes the point he hates them but he makes the point that the soviets were every bit as brutal against freedom. >> guest: absolutely so the point is when the movie came out the fact is basically it was defending they had to go through all sorts of the hayes code but it was very clear and everybody understood that this comet had a great ending with henry fonda talking about the bombings and it was a great speech no question.

in a great speech on behalf of the soviet side. the point is that they use that and they got clips from it and everything else. i think it was the new masses that said look we think we have the american people on our side and we can get rid of the restrictions on helping because of the net neutrality act. it was the neutrality act with all sorts of laws with world war i and all the rest of it but anyway they could help anybody. they wanted roosevelt to break the neutrality law and aid the soviet side. they did everything they could to do that but they failed. frankel one and i think it worked to our advantage in the long run especially after world war ii. that would have been deadly.

>> host: why is it important to know this for americans to know of this? >> guest: first of all i want them to know history. it should be correct. straighten out the record and i think it's also important because i guess in a way that is my major point. the point is if people realized all this i think i'd have a different perspective on history as well and they would understand. the way it is today robert taylor's name. the motion picture alliance yanked his name down from a building in los angeles. they took his name down because he testified in 1947. actually my dad though lancaster had a documentary that takes after my dad. it's false. i don't mind them taking after

my dad but it's falsely representing him. the point is to me -- which is politically incorrect. >> host: that's true. >> guest: they did a marvelous job. the 47 hearings and multiple hearings in the 50s and multiple hearings in the 50s and you got a picture. i look at the hearings. but i'm just saying those hearings you find out an awful lot about what the communists were up to. that's a good thing and as a result as i mentioned before you have here was hollywood producing as they said in the 40s and 1944 and 45 they were producing all these movie pictures and they were saying how wonderful stalin was. the point is as i mentioned the

screenwriters guild. after those hearings though because of what the house committee had done with exposure and people saw what was going on the fact is everything changed at least for while. as they said the screenwriters guild kicked out the communists and the other guilds to they were kicked out. so many people you mentioned went to mexico. david lange talks about that. there was a hard-core, he was a communist himself and he said it was all hollywood in they would massage scripts and first of all they would be taught by people who are communist theorists and they would actually have to get their ideology and then they would actually look at the scripts and they were powerful enough.

they like to change the scripts are massaged them in a way that they would be for the communist party. of course that explain one of the reasons. >> host: the original political correctness. we are amazingly almost out of time. that our went fast but i'm interested as we close up here your father at the end of his life looking back on hollywood how did he feel about it? was he bitter and if you still have friends? >> guest: he have a lot but look you can talk about groucho marx. roger was on either side but he was a good friend of my dad's. he would come over every christmas. posted he was a non-communist liberal? >> guest: oh yeah a lot of these people were just liberals. i'm not talking about those guys. the thing is i would like even with this particular book i would just like the soft left

not to keep honoring these people who are enemies and even if they didn't want to blacklist them which i'd believe they deserve to be blacklisted during the cold war but even if they didn't want to blacklist them it was the amendment awards. they said trumbull was going to be the great defender and advertise them for movie. he had big defender of the constitution. that is the way they originally advertised it. did you see breaking back? he may be a great actor i don't know but he is going to play and this is the way it's advertised. and then they were going to go after the anti-communist and john wayne was part of the head of the national motion pictures. >> host: you have done a lot to correct the record and the

title is "hollywood traitors" blacklisted screenwriters, agents of stalin, allies of hitler. thank you. >> guest: thank you. it really was fun. >> the constitution occupy the middle ground between the views.

after months of debate delegates decided the government should have more power than patterson proposed less than what madison proposed and furthermore it would depend more on local perspectives and madison wanted but less so than what patterson and vision. this was not merely splitting of differences. the framers sensibly blended divergent views and you can appreciate this to be read madison's notes on the constitutional convention. you can see them taking care to make sure that this compromise actually worked that the various pieces fit together into a coherent whole. it was a remarkable compromise for america in 1787. this was the people deeply skeptical of centralized power and fearful of creeping monarchy monarchy, monarchism yet they were in desperate need of a central authority they could deal with urging problems. the constitution gave them coming if the government and that power to meet the existing crises but not so much as to overwhelm state and local authority. it also distance the government

from popular sentiment but certainly not without cutting it off entirely. over the ensuing two centuries and more the american population grew from 4 million to over 300 million and society changed straining the original compromise and gradually forcing an effective revision of the governing charter. new problems emerged and repeatedly the public decided the power of the federal government had to grow to deal with new threats and grow it did. today washington d.c. has achieved the scope of centralized power that was envisioned in the virginia plan. for all intensive purposes the federal government can legislate whenever it sees fit. rarely does the supreme court reminds washington of any constitutional limit yet and this is where we turn to the problem of corruption. the country never substantially revised the institutions that channel governments ever expanding powers. we have tinkered at the margins

tweaked the electoral college after the election of 1808 of the direct election of senators and expanded the franchise. nevertheless brought the growth in federal authority that basic institutions remained largely as they were when the constitution went into effect in 1787. from the madisonian perspective this is a problem. if our institutions require a particular design in order to break and control the violence of faction and serve the common good than it is imprudent to give greatly expanded powers to institutions that were originally intended to do much less. but that is exactly what we have done. next a book signing and talk with senator marco rubio on his book, "american dreams."