>> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors a weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> today at noon eastern -- >> and i booktv want to introduce you to charles koch, he writes for "national review"

and he is also the author of this book, the conservatory in the manifesto. first of all, what is that? >> this is my definition. i always wonder what other people think it i started seeing this were back in about 2007, 2008 at the tail end of the bush admin session. for people on the right but we were dissatisfied with being called republican or a conservative is. german-speaking facing the people who agree with the conservatives on foreign policy, on immigration and to an extent on abortion. but really did nobody came to questions of federalism, gay marriage and drugs, and they faced the wrath what am i, who am i and they came up with this work, conservatarian. i think over the last six or seven years it's been picked up in a way to spend the first two

are conservatives who felt let down by bush and the republicans. the second is younger people who are not on the left but really don't agree with all the conservatives on gay marriage, pot legalization, who are more socially liberal except on abortion. >> what's the significance of the title of the book? where did you take offense because obviously there's there's a point on the communist manifesto and the color being read is controlling. i wanted to convey this idea that that is an underserved group out there that really fits in the middle that is both conservative and libertarian strands. and is not being really listen to their understand why they're not listened to. you look at the public and party as they coexist. as a bit of a problem. does have enough votes to win nationally, outside of maybe a few senate elections. statewide it tends to suffer in

the bigger states. that's because it has two main groups. all, older people attended a social conservative and the other people are fiscally conservative. what do you do on gay marriage must be risk getting rid of all the older people in order to attract the young? that's tough but that doesn't mean these people don't exist. >> besides gay marriage what is an issue of contention between traditional libertarians, traditional conservatives? >> i think foreign policy and immigration. ir-2 at the end of the book that the way republicans and conservatives, the right engine will end up winning is to try to split the difference on most of the questions that are in front of the country. but we can't do that with everything. federalism is really the core of the book up until the point at which went to discuss foreign policy or immigration and appoint conservatives and libertarians are going to fight and they will fight hard because

you have one national policy. you can't have 50 immigration policies. if you want see with open borders, similar you don't want 50 armies. that wouldn't work practically. you will see a fight between the role of america place in the world and josie a fight on how america should act towards its borders but i don't think those can yield many compromises. and may be the conservatives have to win on those two questions. i am conservative on foreign policy and on immigration to believing those two aside for a moment it should be acknowledged but especially at the left becomes more and more -- conscious right to religious right speech rights come under attack, there is more ground for conservatives and libertarians to work together. they both believe in individual liberty. they both believe in federalism and localism. they're both fundamentally believe in the constitution.

so you're going to see these problems that comes to those two big issues but 60, 70% in the right, you can probably come together for the future. >> an issue that's close to the heart of "national review" is the legalization of drugs. is there a disagreement here? is there a movement towards agreement between conservatives and libertarians speak with there is among younger conservatives and libertarians. the problem that older conservatives are very staunchly anti-legalization of marijuana, sort of the rest of the drugs. "national review" has been in favor of legalization of marijuana for a long time. also the legalization of even of heroin. that's not the position most conservatives take. among the younger one once it i. i think as a solo way out. this comes to the heart of my book, which is accepting to these questions are supposed to run at the state level.

we do not need a federal policy on marijuana. we do not need a federal policy on cocaine. if mississippi wants to say no to drugs, that's fine. colorado doesn't have to. that way you about each politician in each area take their own perspective and when the votes that they can win. you can unite the right around the proposition. >> what do you think was about the bush administration that led people to start saying what you said that they said speak with to an extent we can blame current events or at least policy events. there is a role that nine 9/11 played in changing the bush administration attitude. he had run ask the man who was against nationbuilding. he had run as a man who wanted a humble foreign policy come in a sort. 9/11 changed that. that wasn't his fault. there's only so far you can make that argument. bush also ran for compassionate conservatives. it wasn't because we had to invade afghanistan or iraq or at least it wasn't the we chose to

invade afghanistan and iraq. it wasn't because the planes into the twin towers. it wasn't because of 9/11 that republicans in congress with control of the senate and the house and the white house expanded medicare. i think to an extent bush and his team early on that they could buy off some of the key constituent part of the electorate, older people, medicare and suburban especially women with no child left behind. that's not just bad policy but that's bad policy that doesn't work. it is encouraging in my view, that whenever republican party where those maneuvers would yield a significant pushback. not just in the tea party which i think has to have been a good force for economic, prominent senators would filibuster these bills. >> charles koch, prior to starting this interview i met

this lovely 93 old alice who's attending the freedomfest and she came over and said she is very, very conservative and she thinks that elizabeth warren has some good ideas. would she fit into the conservatory in -- "the conservatarian manifesto" logic that? >> in an extraordinarily oblique way. there's one area i think in which conservatives and libertarians who became disenchanted with republicans and conservative establishment, and that was in the relationship with banks and with big business. it is a time for the right to reassert itself to the freedom of free markets. but free markets and produces are not the same thing. dares no need for a government to back winners or punish losers. we should be in favor of anybody

who wants to get into the market and we should leave those private institutions to fight it out. that's not really have the bush administration move forward. that's not how republicans behave when the financial crisis hit and it is certain that barack obama has behaved. elizabeth warren stands up and talks about banks too big to fail, about corporations. a lot of that is left is boilerplate but there is a kernel of truth. does the government become far too cozy with big business? so i imagine when a conservative who is genuinely conservative here's elizabeth warren speak, they imagine may be she's feeling what i'm feeling. of course, her solutions would probably disagree them about that notion pretty quickly. >> from your book that primary weakness of libertarianism, that he become unreasonably ideological from reality. >> i think that is a long existing fight on the right,

right? a colleague puts it very well in the recent book. he discusses philosophies that, of course, being a conservative area in -- conservatarian myself i take something from both of them. the burkeans movement within conservative movements tend to look institution as if it's a bear it must be there for a reason. it's been different for a long time. it should be respected. it must've worked if it survived. the others interpol things done often in the name of abstract ideology. it is the weakest in libertarianism is to look at questions from first principles at the exclusion of the world around them. i'm thinking of immigration. on immigration policy it's not that in an ideal world we would have open borders and allow people to come and go but are not living in the ideal world and the open border policy would be to put the horse before the

cart. it was not the case 150 years ago. literature it looks on paper and says i'm in favor of -- pincers was a hold on, this is a working. on the other hand, they can be too slow to react. gay marriage is a good example. the war on drugs is a perfect example. this long-term but it's not working. if conservatives are going to be those people who stand up and say the government isn't working, this isn't how the constitution lays out american liberty, enough to get over the idea that this is how we have always done it. >> what's your background? >> well, i've studied modern history of politics at oxford, and and and so became -- >> you grew up in london speak was cambridge. i'm excellent in both places given the rivalry. no, i wasn't always a conservative. i was a bit of a soft british

star trek i have issue with the national health service. i wasn't ever of gun control, and i have found jefferson and adams smith and the federalist papers, and it changed my life. >> did you find it at oxford? >> absolutely. i thought that's what i am. >> were you an anomaly in britain when you started developing different political fought? >> yeah, i was always very well could at oxford. it's not quite like some of these college campuses you hear about. there was no burn the witch. i was an eccentric but people would debate my new ideas with me. but i go back to an idea centric at the end of the table who believes people should be able to own automatic weapons and speak freely without being arrested or gosh, how radical. in england this is not really on the table.

>> conservative and libertarians in agreement when it comes to the use of the police, the use of terror watch, et cetera speak was no. i think that's another flashpoint. domestically there i am more with the libertarians. some conservatives, not all, many conservatives have embraced this right on crime wave. but some conservatives are suspicious of the government until their agents are involved. ..