what kind of brought you to that conclusion? >> people talk about them being angry all the time. you hear it constantly. and if you look at the television if you watch what is happening with the candidates especially people like donald trump they sounded really angry. they actually do sound like that if you don't know any conservatives. most of them within the communities they don't have that many conservatives and their family. just know what they see on tv. and they see them yelling and screaming and saying terrible things about immigrants and poor people and they say i guess they hate people. when i became a conservative which was in my 20s when i was

studying economics is because i realized that conservative ideas are the best ideas for lifting people out of poverty. we saw 2 billion people out of poverty with the free enterprise ideas. it's incredible what happened in this world and of conservatives themselves can't shout it from the rooftop out of the expect anybody else to lex >> guest: >> host: so the idea of putting on a different face, showing that we are welcoming in fighting what are some of the steps you think we can begin to take to do that because as you noted, you've got everyone out of the gate already sort of falling into these camps of this or that whether it is donald trump or ted cruz or others that have some pretty strong things to say at the beginning of the presidential cycle. how do you begin to change that in the body of the gop?

>> guest: to begin with we have to demand that the purpose. it's to remember the purpose of people in our purpose is never to fight against the particular policies. my purpose in the policy is the person at leadership position to fight for people. this is what great leaders have in common to say who am i going to fight for and the answer to that by the way having suffered a together singing how can we get that capitalist gains tax. we think about what can we do to create better opportunity for people left behind. that's what we talk about in our private lives, so remembering the purpose, fighting for people. the second thing is remembering the faces of those people and telling the stories. so in this book i have dozens

>> host: that was fascinating for me because in the one section you talk about going - lessons from an indian slum and austrian ghost town. you give these examples of how people live with their lives into deal and to deal with these issues and to talk about it from a very i think human aspect, not a political, not copulating - not calculating. and i particularly enjoyed what you say it might start with the monetary fiscal policy plus a healthy dose of hugo into all the technical stuff but then at the end of the day you talk about how the world is changing and how do you adapt to that change and what do you do to make that work and how do you explain that and express those examples of people's lives and their stories?

how do we as a party - how does that relate to those stories in this changing environment? >> guest: to begin with we have to remember each of us is indeed our brother's keeper and how - >> host: >> guest: the truth of the matter if we remember that then we can because that is the moral consensus. it's that the consensus that we are supposed to be good samaritans fighting for other people and people have less power than us then we can have a policy competition of ideas, conservative versus liberal where they might talk about big government solutions and we commend you and i have conservatives can be at the other side of the table to say i agree with you that we need to serve the least of these and we have actually authentically conservative ideas about the dignity of work about limiting the safety net only to the indigent to the things we do because we are trying to serve the poor better.

>> guest: >> host: i want to put a checkpoint there because i want to get back to this idea that you laid out about the dignity of work and the value of work and how all of that balances in terms of lifting people up. you laid out lessons that we can begin to learn from and implement to see this new party investigation into sort of address that and you talk about some of the things. fight for people, not against things which you've touched on. get happy which i've loved coming and i've always said that is a key part of it. and you make the point get happy and mean it. so it's not just what's been happy for the state of happy but but let's mean it. still all the best arguments which is something i've learned to do over the years ago you go where you're not welcome which toomey is a very important for

us because when i was the chairman of the national committee i emphasize to the national party every time we met. you need to get out of your comfort zone and be where you're not wanted and expected and when we talk about a couple that are doing that now, see it in 30 seconds into break your bad habits. i think those are pretty good lessons. of the seven not necessarily what is the most important but what is the most important jump off point for you. >> guest: the biggest mistake that because of the conservative wide trips people up believe it or not is the one that should be the easiest to just to get happy. it's astonishing. this is the greatest country in the history of the world we should wake up every day feeling so lucky to be american. but this whole scenario right and left everybody's doing it.

it's like the zombie apocalypse or something. this is the most important election of our lifetime. the other is when it's going to be - no it's not. we have better ideas to help people and your better and divided. to have our values not as a cultural or a weapon but as a gift. and we have to present it as a gift and we would be happy presenting it as a gift. we have a responsibility in this country we should be happy. it's unethical not to be happy. why? because this country is a gift. >> host: but how do you do that when you're talking about the arcane avenues in backroom conversations related to policy and all the stuff that that stuff that you know goes into making up the healthcare reform. if the party comes out and us as we want to repeal and replace and that may apply and sort of amplified the sort of a visceral

reaction we may have to the big government intrusion in healthcare so how do you talk about something like that in a heavyweight? >> guest: you remember for policy. so when you talk about obamacare conservatives it makes them in same the whole obamacare thing because it seems like such an aberration for the american idea of doing things relatively simple and looking out for themselves. it you're a graphic and your credit and it twists all of these incentives kind of in the bureaucratic axle. one of the things conservatives take committee find themselves fighting against obamacare. if you want to be a happy warrior, remember the things you don't like and don't fight against it, fight for the people that are being hurt by this. it is an advantage.

nobody in my family voted for ronald reagan. remember what was written into in the thinking about bill clinton by the way. bill clinton fought against things. he fought for people who needed him. he was a happy warrior which is why when he went for his travails and impeachment in all of that kind of numbers stayed relatively high because people remembered that he was the fighter of them. they sold the context of what was transpiring as purely political and that is an interesting part because it is kind of how i look at what happened with something where does you use this and the gravity of the matter at the loss for example we didn't bring

the emotional feeling of the lawlessness. we just went immediately to the political. so it's like the loss of life and the matters of benghazi to something that is political like the impeachment of the president. how you handle it and how you talk about it still matters. >> guest: the conservatives would say he brought it on himself and he did remember during the impeachment scandal what was going on as republicans were fighting against bill clinton and the things he was fighting for. it was making it impossible. that was critical and everything that we do we have to remember fighting against things is not even worthy of us as leaders but fighting for people that need us that's never going to go away and nothing will be more important than that and we have

to ask ourselves that i cared about the people that are being adversely affected or am i in ie using their plight as an excuse to get somebody with something i don't like as the answer is the latter we have to examine our own conscience at that point and redirect our energies energies of asking conservatives to do. think about the education reform. a lot of people watching us care an awful lot about education reform all of the spectrum on this thing. we can all agree that we have an education system that is inadequate to training people to grow up in the workforce to be productive and in a meaningful way. virtually all the kids that are adversely affected to be our poor children. somebody needs to fight for those kids. innovation and choice and smart things for the kids cannot because to fight against the teachers unions are the bureaucracy. you want to fight for education reform because children are effectively being denied their civil rights. and that is a worthy thing to direct the energy to words and americans will rework the fight for people.

>> host: and it still matters how you talk about it and what you say even in the fight. so for example it is one thing to say i want to fight for you to reform education whether i want to bring the charter schools and to do this or that but then how you begin to express and explain that and talk about that particularly when the political blowback in the heat begins to rise batters i think more than anything else, right? >> guest: remember the face of the person your fighting and into the mother who wants to some place and her visit her child to the school. remember that it is more important than your political future. it's more important than how people perceive you in the press. that mom is the most important thing and if you don't think so then you shouldn't be a leader. >> host: so we sort of got the broad scope of the book. we are going to shift and talk a little bit about your journey because i think that animates the book and you can at least

for me you can see the various points where a little bit is here relating back and you talk about this movement in the 20s and refer to the gap is that a recognition that there is something else out there any to be thinking about or how is that journey for you where did it begin and how did you end up at the point that you are now telling this story and relating back to that journey? >> guest: to begin with, i dropped out of college i come from a lower middle-class family in seattle, democrats which is sort of redundant. i left college, i wasn't interested.

>> host: that's a lot of work for a french horn player. >> guest: i played jazz and then i wound up in the barcelona symphony. i married a girl and she dropped out of high school. she wanted to sing with a rock band. as we get kind of a similar parallel track which didn't bode well for the future, so we need a plan together. we plotted to move to the united states and she was going to get a job and we moved to the united states when we we ran our late 20s. she didn't have a diploma or speak very much english. neither of us have skills in the market and she got three job offers in the first month. and she said something jimmy. to me. we were nonpolitical, leftist non- political. she said this is the greatest country in the world for people that want to work and it hit me. i didn't know anything about the united states except for my

preconceived notions. we needed that money to get on our feet. i was seeing it through the eyes of the becoming of this country so i started to studying and i'm studying now working through the day teaching music and studying at night sitting in the economics and the main question that i have was about poverty. poverty is the most important thing for me. and i remember when i was a little kid i remember coming at you had this experience, too probably. when you first saw real poverty are numbered as picture in the geographic seven, 8-years-old saying how is that possible in the world and it haunted me me and stayed with me when i

studied economics in my 20s, i learned what happened. i couldn't know him for sure. i didn't have a picture but what happens to the poorest people in ireland that 80% of starvation in the world's poverty had been eradicated since i was a child. it's like a state secret. 80% of the number of people living on a dollar a day or less had gone away since i was a kid and i learned why. it was not united nations or the world bank or the usaid. those institutions were bad. it was the globalization, free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship. it was american-style enterprise spreading around the world and feeling they were open for free trade because the u.s. navy in places like the pacific for the first time in history it was american conservative ideas that have pulled 2 billion people out of poverty since i was a child. so coming to my country

experiencing real opportunity with no education effectively. and i have discovered that the ideas of american conservatives have lifted up the world and i listened and conservatives were not even saying it. all they cared about was money. and i went on a quest into what needs where i am today which is to work with leaders and to try to get this message because you know what, we have a moral obligation to save the next 2 billion people and bringing the wave of immigrants that can earn their success, too. >> host: we have a problem as it is articulated today, you go back to what the bush administration at least the framework laid out in the president's state of the union, which unfortunately dissipated and fell apart subsequently and then picked up again by the gang of eight in the house and the senate house and the senate to service gets to a compromise on immigration reform before that

fell away. if we now seem to be in a space where the immigrant story is not one of aspirational entrepreneurism taking advantage of the opportunities that this country offers. it's taking advantage of the country and avoiding the responsibility to come into the right way to get welfare. so how do you then create a counter narrative of aspirational story because women with the gop - when we were talking about the gop was the party of assimilation. how do you make that turn into pivot in light of the narrative that you described the manic and the book that speaks to this

aspirational story that your wife had about america. >> host: >> guest: the gop will be able to get its his mind around how we think about immigration once it makes the turn from the party and that is going to take a visionary leader that talks about aspiration as opposed to anger. anger is easier than masturbation. aspiration means you have to have hope and you are trying to make new friends. anger is all about fear and it's very easy. aspiration is the way to go in and aspirational candidate will feed through, not candidates but leader that will feed through all sorts of different things, so there are systemic remedies that's necessary. it's not sufficient because we have to have policy. the second thing is that republicans, and by the way, democrats, too data stop thinking about it as if it were one thing. it's not.

and we need an incremental approach towards progress and a grand bargain. they want to to please and please and do well on immigration and pull the band-aid off all at once it is always going to go down in flames. let's do the easy and important things first, for example, high skilled immigration. the average high skilled immigrants from china or india creates five jobs for the nativeborn americans. the second thing is the guestworker programs available stop being exploited coming to the united states and so on and so forth and we can make real progress going down the list understanding that it takes a lot of years. >> host: this is a good feedback from your personal journey and how that works in the book to the point that you talk about practical help. you referenced hope just now. now for you what does that mean?

i had flashbacks to guess we can , hope and change. we talked politicians and the political system that talks about the hope. but you gave it a new emphasis for the gop. you talk about it in terms of being a practical help. what do you mean by that? >> guest: it is what we have come to understand hope and change for 2008 in and the obama campaign, it was all about i hope the government will help me and that's to say i hope you hit the lottery. i hope i don't get hit by a car today. you can hope all you want about events that are more or less outside of your control. it's outside your control that's not the traditional understanding of hope made by the way the good psychological study shows when you talk about hope for things out of your

control it disempowers you. it cuts your dignity. the traditional understanding is two parts. it can be done and i can do it. that is the hope of my great grandparents coming to the united states saying my hope is that i can be reworded for my hard work for the first time. >> host: that's where you related to the american dream. is that the pathway? >> guest: the pursuit of happiness is intertwined in the concept of hope as a and it can be done and i can do it and if i understand it can be done and i see how i can do it, that's where the pursuit of happiness starts. >> host: you talk about and i was a little thrown off by this portion of the book where you reference pope francis and you talk about this weariness and

aging and it goes back to as i mentioned before grandmother europe and in that part of the book is also part of this hope narrative or is that a different approach you are looking at with the pope francis idea how we give of ourselves and make ourselves accessible to others and how this plays itself out in a political context? >> guest: what he says about capitalism and the environment i'm talking a different set of ideas in the book. pope francis talks about a society that effectively stops itself out and stop having children, has no sense of aspiration, too tired to carry on. he's the one that claimed the term. i have a lot of family in europe because my wife is from barcelona and when you meet

these people in their 40s, 30s and 40s and there is even a word for it being not studying and not working so all of these adults that don't have jobs, they don't have education committee typically live with their parents and have no religion they just have nothing. they have tv, video games. this is effectively what leads a society to stop evolving and that's what pope francis was complaining about. he had a captured audience of european leaders before. and he gave them the speech. i don't think people quite understand or get.

of those that rail for him and conservatives that rail against him and and you realize neither one are getting what they are saying because otherwise he's consistent but he's making the point that you just did. you need to take a look at what is happening through the policies and the actions you are taking or not taking i thought that was fascinating how you worked that into this narrative of a political process and party changing itself and so i thought that was very well done. but i'm curious then moving all those pieces around that you have and you are looking at the pub the pathetic landscape today but it means how does an institution like the american enterprise institute, how do those institutions feed the beast or not?

because we've seen for example a number of organizations and i do not need to name them that have sort of perpetrated the narrative because it translates into money but then you've got others trying to lift the conversation. is that a tension in the political process has to reflect as well? >> guest: thousands of people are watching us right now and are very frustrated with washington, d.c.. they say it's pure gridlock and people will say what you've got to do is agree with each other more. you need more liberal republicans and conservative democrats that can overlap but that's wrong and it gets back to what we talked about a minute ago what you need is a consensus around which both sides more or less the great purges we are

fighting for opportunity for people that need it most. that is the consensus of the american experiment and the competition of policy ideas. i can contemplate that consensus that's what they are supposed to do. the policy differences become a holy war and that is a problem and if so what is - it's not forget these are policy differences and we are agreeing on something in the middle of it and if we can do that we can make a lot of make a lot of progress without pretending that the progressives and conservatives have to agree with each other. >> host: you used the word that is important for me and in my time as elected official and political figure, the one word that i've always avoided using because it has become so

polarized his compromise because all of a sudden people think we use the term i've got to give up something and so the word that i think seems to work best in this political environment is consensus. i'm not asking you to give up anything i'm taking what is true to you and bringing it to the table of conversation. it's put it in here and see where it lines up and where it matches. and that's where i think institutions like yours play an important role not just intellectually but also setting the guidepost for the argument because you're kind of putting it all on the table looking in exploring a lot of these consecutive issues and a lot of times breaking them down and trying to make them not just with and understood. and avoid the conclusion that leads me to not like you because you have a different position. how do you see that playing itself out as we go into the

presidential cycle where these folks are going to be taking some very hard cues not necessarily from institutions like yours which they probably should not permit easier lower common nominator faces? >> guest: it wasn't that president barack obama was elected. it's that he campaigned on unity and optimism that governed. that is a disappointment because it was a is a huge opportunity. now liberals watching could say he was blockaded from doing what he wanted to do about but you and i are in the chief executive organization and know that you never blame people that are lower down the food chain whether they are professors with tenure or not the boss is the boss. lyndon b. johnson didn't make

that excuse. ronald reagan didn't make that excuse and both of them by the way were pretty optimistic. so governing for the division of through the division of pessimism has led to a dangerous phenomenon which is the pessimism and division. you see the most divisive republicans today they kind of came from the obama air a into that means we need visionaries. we need conservative visionaries who declare their independence and we could have competing pessimism or optimism. >> host: what is the formula that you offer? with elements were the elements in the pages of the book that you would pull out and focus that visionary on to begin that process because to me it is all about the process of evolution how you evil from where you are

to this new environment and whether or not you are willing to do it. but to help you get there. what are the aspects aspects in the? >> guest: the most important thing to remember is we are fighting for people. if it is a whole bunch of times. if there's one thing that will help us is to realize we are trying to create hope on behalf of people that do not currently have it. that is the job of the american leaders. >> host: but you just said that's something that barack obama did. he created this sense of hope but then you said he governed on the pessimism. >> guest: heated with a

typically but they typically do which is the shift blanks, they don't dig in. they basically are distracted. >> host: how do you flip that swept the lakers which, you spent 18 months of your life campaigning on hope and change and you have the elements. you can see this gravitational pull of people towards you, millennialist for the first time in the numbers recorded before. african american. others, so all these folks kind of coming into this space and then for the next seven years would have been? >> guest: how does that individual bringing all of this hope to the people all of a sudden get sucked into this land of pessimism? that was sort of a false image of that individual.

>> guest: i think it is just hard to do. it's harder to govern as a campaign. >> host: if you are saying to me you have to govern in the sense do i have to keep that sense of hope my self? >> guest: it's in the division of the optimism through the relationships that you have with people. you've done a lot of chief executive things. the first time that you and i met you invited me over as the - ura relationship guy. it's having a human to human relationships. if you don't do it at his campaign promises. that is why governing is hard work and the management outcomes and the leadership that comes that's why your job and mine are

actually hard work dealing and being with other people and remembering why. remember there are always people out there. the past seven years how many people have been left behind in this country that we need to fight for. do we see them as hard to manage or do we see them as assets to develop? if you see assets to develop and his conquest of this incredible adventure you will develop any relationship you can. on the other hand it's just exhausting. >> host: i will repeat it and i will give due attribution. >> host: health is important and hope is essential and that really struck me in that section of the book where you talk about that, that i think is where they

get tripped up on the idea of health and bogged down on the way that helps and lose sight of the fact that the hope is the essential element to all of that is that fair to say? >> guest: hell am i going to set my kid free thinking clearly about the children what can i do to get the barriers out of the way of my child. >> host: i didn't pick this up and a lot of theologians this is from pure science, the secrets are safe, family, community and

work. how can the government assisted those things? we don't need a government health projects like the department of state family community work. we need a a president in the united states that gets up everyday and that's what can i do today to get out of the way that americans practicing their faith, whatever faith happens to be, building their families, participating in the communities in having an incentive for hard ordinary work. we are bridging the roads of freedom and we are advising families, we analyzing families, we are fragmenting communities and creating disincentives and i understand it's kind of the mercy of hope and i understand what's going on and officials are trying to do something they think is going to be helpful but they are not helping ultimately because they are not providing help for taking away the barrier. >> host: so then you talk about and focus on the jobs and pay equity and things like that and the section of the book i thought was interesting in

chapter three you titled it pushing the bucket. what is the? i read through the chapter and then i thought what is that. >> guest: as a think tank i'm always looking at the data into the scholars are looking at data that this is all based on the fieldwork area vital dozens of stories and there's one place i went through and people i admire a lot. it's a homeless shelter that specializes in men mostly in their 30s and 40s a lot of them spend a lot of time in prison. so this is the population of people that we throw away in our society. people are the hardest to deal with. then without families have been in prison and are currently homeless. and if there is anybody that is a liability to society it was by a couple of new of new george

and harry mcdonald in new york city and they looked at everybody and said we believe that people are assets or not? okay. if we do, we are going to look at the hardest cases and through the ministry of honest sanctified work we are going to help them put their lives together and what they do is they come in and they are held to the strict behavioral standards which is to say the same as your children and that you and i were held to. and the first job they have is pushing the bucket down fifth avenue. they get out and they are pushing the bucket that means they are cleaning the streets and they get paid for it and it goes into a savings account they have to pay child support a lot of them have kids and then they migrate into other works programs. i met a guy named richard who had been there for one year after being about 18 years in prison who never had a job and never had an apartment or cell phone, nothing. after one year he pushes the bucket and then he enters the

program from learning how to be an exterminator and i said to him after one year he just got his full-time job in the apartment and set are you happy. he pulls out his cell phone and he says no, so he shows an e-mail from his boss says emergency job east 61st street. so that is the pursuit of happiness. >> host: that's one of the things we used to talk about as gop. that is something that was of value that we put out there, so you take that story and you take the best chapter you talk about pushing the look and viewing people as assets to liabilities.

i would love to get your take on the context that you talk about work as a blessing. this is a proposition the party should expound. jeb bush a couple of weeks ago was talking about. it's casting something as a negative when in fact it's not. i think that in a real bind that you are taking up here about recognizing the values and the fact that we are cutting back on finance to have employers are

changing but the definition of the full-time work is to need to be arbitrary federal standards now so they don't get penalized and they don't have to pay extra but at the end of the day people want to work or they value that work. >> guest: one is from the department of labor and those are the people that are working with jobs but can't find them and that's been going down. that's not the problem. the problem as to the people that are on involuntarily underemployed. think about this. people do want to work harder and want to get ahead can do it.

if people that are well-educated and look from families that value their education. my mom was a laundry worker here in washington, d.c. for 45 years making minimum wage. it's amazing how we transitioned to the point now where that is not recognized to be appreciated

i don't know how many people look up this warning is all i want to be today's poor. the writers to examine his own conscience on this thing, too. i have never heard somebody say this. we should of course have the same standards of dignity. it's not helpful and number three is going to kill the republican party.

there are so many ways in the chapter on the protest movement to social movement. in a story that you the story though you create a narrative you start talking about. i believe in pushing the envelope sometimes to my own detriment. i love this quote and i think that sets up to tie-in to adams, rosa park, newt gingrich, the tea party which are all

revolutionary strengths and it starts with sam adams as you noted the original tea party organizer. it does not require the majority to prevail but rather the tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. that describes so much of that revolutionary spirit and you go and give going to talk about how the tea party doled with the republican party and that whole movement in that part of the century is you go into building the social movement and. so it's looking at the story of rosa parks and i kind of threw in the newt gingrich piece because i think that also could contract with america, that revolutionary idea that we will get the power back to the people, talk us through your

thinking in this chapter in the book where you kind of get into this sense of social movement is of being created out of the protest movement >> guest: the arab spring is a protest movement, mothers against drunk drivers. if it is allowed and they don't go from fighting against the injustice to fighting for the people that are the object of that how do you do it, by actually changing the locus of the attention of what you are fighting for and the people that you are fighting for. then having a strong metal overlay to it and trying to become a protest.

the majority started out to determine the minority protest. when we talk about rosa parks and the bus boycott and the march on selma doctor king was such a visionary because he understood that his go was for everybody in america to say i can't believe that we used to do that which is where we have gotten in america today. we can't believe that discrimination. it's insane. the amazing thing is the state of south carolina the indian

american woman governor. moving from protest movement to the social movement which is majoritarian based on the moral thing to fighting for all people it's kind by the republicans in the senate nothing is done there. you've got concerns about the voting rights that go help the states are implementing and you've got the shootings that have occurred and the tension

that has arisen and how does the party in flux and change begin to address the social conservative justice and for me rand paul for example who led this area a little little but how do you see this playing out? it's like automatically you're a liberal, just saying that. it's using the authentically conservative values but it basically starts with one thing which is values which is an evo's and that is for the family community work. it's very important that we talk about these things as a gift as opposed to cultural. they talk in the cultural war as if i'm going to beat you over the head with my morals until you are submitting.

i want them to have the best wife. your kids are old orchids, too. so that will help and one of the things i talk about is the republicans conservatives need to declare peace in the safety net right now in the safety and net that's not the whole thing but be well into government spending and provoking welfare. but the idea that we can actually help people that are poor that we don't know because of capitalism that creates so much more in the society in history is even possible that is a great achievement. to declare peace on the safety net and only for people that are indigent and only for the poor and the needy problem is the progressive ideas in the safety net for everybody in the upper-class everybody is taking effectively that becomes unsustainable in the case of greed which has unloaded because of the insolvency.

>> host: you have bernie sanders which is actively articulating the redistribution of wealth. clearly what i value has no value in it because you are going to take any given - esko. the greek system and norwegian system are very similar but it is more like what we would return to in a massive scale. the third part is the agenda and that means education reform and radical work creation and entrepreneurship pushed all the way back to the problem. republicans have been obsessed.

the book is full of the policy design details. we haven't gotten too far into the weeds on this conversation. i talk about getting rid of the licensing that hurt poor people and i look at washington, d.c. so that you and i know real well if you want to be a realtor that takes $130 to get a license and that is the job for an upper-middle-class woman after a kids movie out, great entrepreneurial thing. if you want to be a hairdresser and do nails in the living room for a single mother that is poor in washington, d.c. you are required to get a license with 1,500 hours in education. you have to go to school for a year it costs about $16,000. that is discrimination. that is anti-poor behavior. it's anti-- [inaudible]

we can be education reform warriors which is about innovation choice. we can be radicals for the works. every policy is to bring more work especially more work for people that don't have a college education but want to work hard and do something that is skilled and good. it takes five weeks to get gutters put on your house in the country and we have people that are laid off and can't find jobs. we have to do better on the vocation and especially helping people build their life by pushing the egos and the free enterprise system and the freedoms that we as other upper-middle-class people enjoy all the way down to the bottom. >> host: so, with this new game, where did you see us at the end of the cycle? >> guest: this is a prescription. it really is and when i said i

was sitting there thinking how did this man get in my head, and you've articulated what a lot of conservatives have felt had been missing. but this brings them all together and you're right we didn't get into a lot of the weeds. i believe those for you to read. but i am left at the end with a question looking at how this is unfolding now, where do you see this going? if it all fits in right now the way that you described i get it but where do you see this playing out in the current cycle and this book being on the table as it should be what is the take away at the end of the day? >> guest: this is for the conservative optimism and we have reasons to be optimistic. it's irresponsible for us not to

be because we live in the greatest country in the world. this is the manual to project optimism in talks with the people understand. if it works, then the republicans and the conservatives and the generals the matter what party they belong to are going to be seen as a much more aspirational force and will break out of the shackles of the customs that we have seen. if they are the only ones that do it they are going to experience incredible victory in 2016 and they are going to take the country forward in the likes of which we haven't seen since the days of ronald reagan. they are competing optimism is between the two party, there will be a virtuous competition and america wins unilaterally. >> host: 's is a new kind of conservatism. >> guest: absolutely. it isn't the compassionate conservatism because real conservatism, when we really see what is in our own hearts, we don't need a qualifier for the conservatism. >> host: i'm a conservative but i'm not one of those mean ones. i'm one of the compassionate

ones. conservatism as we really understand it was just to say that it is the dignity of work and the sanctity of every single individual as a child of god. >> guest: >> host: but how do we get off that path where what you are describing is not where we are? >> guest: people feel like they are losing their country in so many ways that they lash out and celebrate and follow someone like donald trump for a while and i understand the frustration that goes into it but that's not the right reaction. that's not it. when you feel like lashing out that is when you have to be most in control. >> host: is this where you see it going towards the elizabeth warren? >> guest: it is less interesting for the media. someone like donald trump u-uniform what is going to come

out of >> guest: how interesting can it be. but when it's moving to the left and the right they are actually moving not to the center but to the more flexible aspirational space and i think that it's better than the 50% likely that you're going to see a candidate that basically framed himself as the candidate of aspiration on anger. >> host: you got high praise from senator mike lee and george while, paul ryan who makes the case for why conservative principles should be at the center for the poverty fighting efforts and that for me is one of the most important takeaways from the book does get a prescription of how to fight for

something and how to be about the fight in a that fight in a way that brings people into it and i think after listening to you and playing in my head some of the sections of the book that stood out, i understand why this is an important book and i think people particularly conservatives begin to appreciate the struggle isn't overcome the fight isn't done, we have a lot more fights but we've got to put ourselves fully into the game and be happy about it and be grateful. >> host: ronald reagan talked about the happy warrior and this is the manuscript. it's been a joy and pleasure to sit down with you and be with you again and to share with everyone this book the conservative heart.

>> that was after words the signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every weekend at 10 p.m. saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" online. a "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the booktv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. ..