you are choosing to be here. you're choosing to protect me and we move on from here. people who saw me being exactly like them questioned why i wasn't because i culturally was not the same. i was rejected by people because they felt i was rejectthem because i was being myself. we have been doing that all the time in communities. we feel people are exactly like us and we shun them because they are living a life different than ours when in fact they're living a life true to themselves. that is something i didn't experience at an extreme level

but i know what you're talking about. >> i was standing in the back and someone whispered in my ear, they said i always liked him because he was smart and funny. now i also know that he is a beautiful human being. so i want to thank you very, very much, for this remarkable event. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. [applause] >> i also want to thank bob weisberg for a remarkable conversation as well. thank you, bob. [applause] ♪

>> this is booktv on c-span two, television for ear juice readers -- serious readers. we have astrophysicist kneel degrass tyson lead as discussion on the universe. mit professor heather hendershot, remembers william f. buckley's firing line. we wrap up the lineup at 11:45, with author courtney martin, she talks about her latest book, the new better off. reinventing the american dream. that all happens tonight on c-span2's booktv. >> welcome to the hoover institution's washington, d.c. office. my name is mike franc. i'm the director here. it is my real pleasure today to be able to disused our honored guest, heather hendershot. she is a professor at mit.

she is a professor of film and media there. has written a number of books. we met a year ago at a conference that was put on by the buckley program at yale and i can see that at the time she has a real affinity for trying to understand the connections between the communications world and the media world on the one hand and different elements of the conservative movement on the other. s so it's a, this is a naturalon kind of outgrowth of her previous work, looking at that general area. open to debate is the book. heather has watched not maybe every single one of 33 years worth of firing line episodes but pretty close to it i think. she is probably the reining expert now on all things related to "firing line." hello me welcome, heather hendershot to the podium.podium [applause] >> thanks so much.h. it is really great to be here, particularly here at the hoover institution because the hooverer

was so important to the research i did on the book. i was out at stanford where all the papers are and, of course i they have, they have preserved all the episodes and papers and transcripts, it really couldn't have done it without the hoover institution so it is great to be here. the first thing that people ask me about this book, why did you write it? and the short, quick answer, well, in part it is this guy. i had been working on a book since 2011 and, about a year-and-a-half ago, it became more urgent as our level of discourse seemed to be deteriorating and the kind of shouting matches seemed to be increasing and so on. it seemed like a particularly important time to talk about a show that really valued civil discourse, civil debate between people who disagreed with each other. part of the reason, and genesis of the book is from that impulse. but the other force of the book

is more personal, about my intellectual development. the book that i published in 2011 was, fair on the air, broadcasting in the public interest, was about the extremists who emerged in radio and television, mostly radio, local radio but somewhat on tv. in the years following barry goldwater's defeat in 1964. barry goldwater totally flamed out in the election. he got 10 million votes but he was really trounced and people had a sense, oh, liberals will go on forever. the conservative movement is done, et cetera, et cetera.er but conservative movement blossomed in the wake of that defeat. some of it was on sort of legitimate side, william f. buckley was advocating for but there were quite a bit of extremism, pair know you yaw, paranoid thinking, john birch society. people thought the floreydation

of water was communist conspiracy. they took to the airwaves with their paranoid, con spiritter to thinking, anticivil rights and so on. buckley at first was appearing on some of thursday tv shows. this is him in the early '50s on fox forum, created by hl hunt a texas oil billionaire, put a lot of his fortune into anti-communist television and radio. buckley was regular guest on the show. he figured out pretty quickly he was bad for the movement, bad for the image of conservatism. he was extremist and paranoid and so on. and just to tell you a little bit about buckley, he emerged as a national figure in 1951 with the publication of god and man at yale. an attack on its all mamatter about humanism and secularism.

this made him a minor sent. it edged into the best-seller list about number 14 or some hec became known for this book. he really became known for in 1965, when he ran for mayor of new york. if you run for mayor of new york, you become a national figure, not just a local figure to new york city. he ran as a protest candidate. he ran on the conservative ticket. he was protesting john lindsay, you see him right in the middlea was running on republican ticket but was not conservative in any way. buckley very famously was asked, what would you do, what is the first thing you will do when elected, he said, demand a recount. it seemed so unlikely. s sure enough, he did not win butu staked a claim for conservative republicanism. this put him in a really good position to start his own tv show just one year later. because he was so articulate in

the media and there was a kind of a great coup for his campaign in the middle of it all where there was a newspaper strike. so that meant the radio and tv coverage of the campaign increased dramatically. buckley was great on tv.amatical great in part because he was so articulate and smart and charming and used long words that people didn't understand but he was not afraid to show what he really thought and felt. so here he is is with john lindsay. lindsey looks peeved. buckley is so bored because lindsay is not very articulate and smart and interesting. buckley complained that lindsey wrote his own speeches with ear-clanging sin tax. just terrible syntax. people sent letters to buckley. i disagree with you, would never vote for you, but thanks for being honest and pointing to how

much of politics was kind of rigger more roll. he would decline to go to parades. we'll not talk about policy at parades. that is image stuff. he didn't want to do that. he was campaigning part-time for mayor. writing for his magazine andam editorial columns. he was seen as sort of honest candidate even by people who thought he was much too right-wing and much too conservative for him. the year after the campaign, he started his television show, "firing line" which ran from 1966 to 1999, about 1500 episodes. i want to show you a clip from the very first year with david suskind as the guest. suskind was tv talk show host. he was well-known as liberal. he had a show called, open end. it was called "open end." it was open-ended, if the conversation was going well, they would talk for three or

four hours. if the conversation wasn't going well. it was cut off at 30, 40 minutes t was amazing. this is one of the guests buckley had the show. i will show you two clips to give you a sense of flavor of the program. >> we discovered for the firstth time in television history that people are interesting. it was he who founded the program, "open end." precisely to that proposition that which permitted viewers to listen for as many as three hours at a stretch to playwrites, artists, thieves, prostitutes, idealogues, permitting them full communication of flavor of their viewers and their ideas. for this we are very greatful to him. suskind is a staunch liberal. if there were a contest for a title, mr. eleanor roosevelt he would unquestionably win it. the question we are to discuss today is whether this is in this country prevailing bias and if so where does it point?

mr. suskind, you are most welcome. would you in a few thousand words give us your preliminary views. t >> i wonder if i were unwelcome how would you introduce me. i suggest that introduction is rude an insulting mr. buckley. i hoped on occasion having your own television program you would abandon your penchant for personal bitchiness. your rude behavior is congenital and compulsive and forgive. >> always like the generosity of your broad spirit. >> what a genteel disagreement, right? suskind is just fuming. he has such a short fuse. buckley has not always a long fuse but in this case he does. it is really charming meeting of people you can't really stand each other. and i will show you one more clip from the same episode. >> under the circumstances i hope you're not here to deny by and large the news services and

the television industry and the schools and universities arean liberal dominated, are you, or are you? >> well, if you use it in any pejorative sense, of course i do. i think entire thrust of our country in the last 40 years has been a liberal thrust in our legislation, in our churches, in our schools and in our communications media. there is nothing sinister or evil. we call that progress. >> great. suskind is really expressing the dominant line at the time. it points to how lunatic it would seem to have conservative public affairs talk show in 1966. this is liberal country, what are you talking about? so it is this kind of amazing. in addition to political guests, buckley also had cultural figures, artistic figures, bach specialists. he was devoted to bach. he would have ralph letur playing and discussing bach. i want to show you a clip about

the episode with norman mailer, give you a sense what he did outside of strictly political kind of discussion. this conversation is not apolitical. it is from 1968 and mailer has just published, armies of the night and shortly after he appeared on the show he won thet pulitizer prize and about theti march on the pentagon. the opening is buckley reading aloud from i believe "time" magazine their coverage ofag mailer at this event. >> said after -- mailer introduced poor robert lowell who got annoyed at requests to speak louder. i'll bellow but it won't do any good. [inaudible]. by the time action took to the pentagon mailer was perky enough to get himself arrested by two marshals. i transgeesed the police line he explained with some pride on the way to the lockup where the toilet facilities were scarce

indeed and coffee mugs were pure octane. >> good for time. >> that is, you were talking about maturation. i don't know whatever that many syllables. >> it is influence, continuing correspondence. that is another example of "time" magazine at work though. they, earlier this way they talk of engaging in a scatologicallin solo. that was remarkable. what was i doing, acting like a monkey? >> that is what you get from the idea of scott logical. the concession i made that night about alliteration, wasn't it? there is a physical, spiritual and possibly difference between the scatological matters and maturation. >> i can see you're a student of buckley. i'm glad you came -- the syntax with it. time to refocus the discussion.

mine is that "time" magazine observed. >> so maybe the first and last time the word maturation was used on american television or any television show.ll i'm sure all of you are familiar with mikturation. it is very sophisticated discussion about theut scatological and micturation. people with different world views and people enjoyed sparring match talking aboutki their ideas on the show. buckley also had the spokespeople of the various radical social movements going on throughout the '60s and '70s. quite notably he had black power folks on the show. this is milton henry, and i'm not sure everyone can see, we have him wearing this giant onk. he had two security guards behind him in fatigues, who never move throughout the whole thing. they're unarmed but probably they usually are armed.. the kind of negotiation with the producer not to have guns on the

show. buckley never acknowledgeson they're there.. he never makes eye contact. he talks to milton henry. what is radical about the appearance of black power on the show is, that the coverage ofth black power elsewhere was mostly sensationalist, sound bites, this kind of thing. nixon had actually conveyed to the networks in the early '70s that they really shouldn't cover black power anymore. they should really, really ignore it. he encouraged them not to cover vietnam as well and they did not take that advice. they continued to cover vietnam. but they did minimize their coverage of black power. so if you wanted to learn about black power and didn't subscribe to one of their newsletters, this kind of thing, "firing line "was a good place to learn about it. t whether you thought it was great idea or terrible idea you could hear ideas expressed unedited on the show. that was really remarkable. he also had, here is eldridge cleaver on the show.

he also covered the women's liberation movement on the program. he had betty freed dan on early on and she was not a very good speaker. she was inarticulate. she was not invited back for 18 years. she was voice of mainstream liberal feminism.. much better episode with jermaine greer, who published the female eunuch and much more radical than freidan. buckley enjoyed talking to her. show you a little clip from the encounter from the early '70s. >> paradox which appears sometimes like a contradiction in my book, are you to make he and she words equal in estimation or are you to screen out she as forever incapable of equaling he in estimation? it is grammatically. >> grammatically? >> you could be anti-feminist but suppressing feminism, suppressing female of pronounce. >> there is no implied hierarchy

as i can see. >> there is. >> early man should refer to early humans which means you can't use -- >> not only that, what it meanst is that the real attitude isth going to be concealed by a form of primitive censorship, ritual observance where the actual situation won't change. like calling people ms., in fact they're married. doesn't change the character of their marriage. i think it is thought of hypocrisy. >> in other words you think the empa sis on nomenclature is preposterous? >> well, i think it is such a trivial aspect after real struggle and given so much attention, i think it is part of the general movement to co-opt a struggle for existence really, and turn it into something. >> okay. so it is really interesting moment because actually these two people sort of agree about the nonsense way liberal feminism wants to change language. they think ms. is really bad idea.

buckley thinks that, you know, it is just not uphonious, so jarring. she says, well it doesn't change the structural relationship of marriage. if you call yourself ms., if you're in patriarchal construct. he thought she was lunatic taking down the family and so on, so forth. they agreed about the one issue in language.in after she was on the show wroten you a thank you note to his guests. he said, dammit you're good. he really enjoyed it. she didn't want to come back on the show. they debated at cambridge student union week before, resoundingly won the debate by a vote of cambridge students. this was a episode of a rematch after that debate. buckley also had of course anti-feminists on the show. subject of equal rights amendment came up a lot over the

years this is phyllis schlafly, the anti-feminist activist. he had margaret thatcher on the show twice. i want to show you a clip from the q&a she was not there to talk about women's liberation. she did not want to talk about gender issues at all. jeff greenfield, one of the common q&a guys on the questioner panel as a young man brought it up. this is their exchange. >> i'm wondering if your own tastes, your reputation, when you were a cabinet member with mr. eason's administration, sew bring kay, margaret thatcher, your objection to the free milk program, helped you and conservative party overcome some stereotypical objections might have raised for a woman holding office? >> no.

what would be very surprised at home on the whole, we just look at the person and not necessarily the -- >> yes. >> you would be. you're a man. you're limited. [laughter] >> no, that would be -- interesting things to me the labour government has not restored the free milk in spite of all the propaganda, but look, iraq these questions as very trivial. you don't mind my saying so? >> if i did, what would i do? >> poor jeff greenfield. he takes it but can sense the sweat breaking out on his upper lip, he has been told off by margaret thatcher. buckley is great. thatcher is saying gender is not issue in the uk and not relevant. buckley is poppycock, that is nonsense.

if women are qualified why aren't more women in office around he pushes back in an interesting way. he did a few episodes with claire booth louis. she asked to talk on the show about feminism. they were old friends and couldn't disagree with the ideap of having her on the show. so he did, he gave her this long, very positive introduction and he concluded the introduction by saying, i should like to be begin by asking if you find the way that people introduce you on television talk shows to be con today sending? here is what she says. >> bill, i thank you for that warm and extraordinarily detection. you will be pleased to know that reading the entire introduction

which was -- to say the least, there was only one masculine put-down. this is a high level of achievement for a mann introducing a woman. you spoke of the inability to hold the tongue. had you been speaking of the man, who spoke out and -- for himself in the process, whether he was speaking out secretly or rightly, wrongly, you might have said he, he is blunt. he makes enemies by what he says. he is overly candid. you might have used many phrases

but the phrase, hold her tongue is a phrase that men frequently use about children and women. >> comes out like "taming of the shrew"? >> it comes out of male desire, highly successful and through the centuries to mask the women. >> okay.the ce so that is the beginning of the show. and then at the end of the show as he cut to the q&a session, he says to her, the notion that women are inferior to men is an original sin i am not guilty. that women are inferior to men never occurred to me. that they are different is patently obvious but would not want to see them behind the wheel of every mack track, would you find that insulting and what would you really think? and this is her response. >> bill, i'm much too fond of you to tell you what i really think.

[laughter] >> i beg of you. >> i think you're one of the most charming and subtle and sophisticated male chauvinists. >> [laughter] >> so i love that excuse me i love that, so flirty and bashful but you know, she says, i never say to you publicly. over three-martini lunch, hisis favorite italian restaurant you can imagine her telling him off quite a bit privately. so it is wonderful sort of public moment of friendly disagreement between these two. so now that i have shown you a bit of the show, what i want to do is read to you from the book. i'm going to read to you some excerpts from the introduction and chap other on civil rights and black power movement. give you a sense of the flavor of the book. that is about 20 minutes. and then we will open up to q&a.

so, although the program was undeniably his for 33 years, "firing line" was not buckley's idea to begin with this is not all together surprising. it is hard to imagine a tv starr less interested in it. v than buckley.te he won an emmy for "firing line" in 1969. it was the longest running public affairs show with a single host in tv history. he remain ad tv outsider t would be somewhat unfair and uncouth to describe buckley as a snob. he wrote a fun novel about elvis presley after all. if he failed to understand how anyone could consider mick jagger a good singer, his voice couldn't be better than that of every fourth person listed in the telephone directory he did at least listen to the beatles during the weekly sessions with the personal traitor. this was masochistic choice because he really couldn't stand the beatles. in 1970 he consented to be

interviewed by "playboy" magazine. that made him practically hip. he appeared on the nbc come my show, rowan and martin's laugh-in, explaining i did an interview with playboy, because it was only way to communicate my views to my son. noting that he only agreed to appear on "laugh-in" because producers offered to fly him out to california on a airplane with two right wings. laugh-in stage ad presss conference for buckley where cast member henry gibson queried, mr. buck i also, i noticed whenever you appear on television you're always seated. does this mean you can't think on your feet? buckley can't diddly responded, it is very hard to stand up carrying the weight of what i know. asked his opinion about nudity and entertainment and tersely replied, it is excessive. asked whose image will be more harmed by his appearance on laugh-in, his or the show's, he laughed and i suppose it will make you more respectable, coy

wink inserted here and me less some both are probably scared. he managed to play along being a good sport while remaining dignified face of conservatism. it is doubtful ever watch ad whole episode of "laugh h in." he expressed fondness of all in the family. he noticed that the archie bunker is greatest conservative ripoff. you don't need karl marx. you need archie bunker. he is despicable but endearing in a way. buckley was once late for a dinner party hosted by nelson rockefeller because he was at home watching "all in the family." buckley once acknowledged anybody who wants effectively te understand what is going on has got to watch tv the most bookish man i ever knew, whitaker chambers, watched television uninterruptedly from 7:00 to 11 every single night of his life.

buckley also noted he was too busy to watch tv very much himself. he had no idea who jabba the hut was. admitted never watching professional football. during his run for the mayor of new york city he was stumped by a reference to mickey mantle. all which is to say, buckley was not unaware of the importance oe mass culture nor plugged into it himself.f. he was devoted yachts man and harp sy cordist, got his kicks listening to bach. listen towing the sherr ward schwartz school of music, here is the story of a lovely lady who was bringing up three very lovely girls. awe audacious it was to choose the expert from the brandenburg concerto for his own program's theme song. he would sit down watching old movie on tv, what buckley loved was power to click from show to show. his family sought to slip not only jar of peanut butter into his casket but also a remote

control. individual programs were fleeting interest to the founder and editor of america's most important journal of opinion, a man who took vacations with the reagans at clawed debt colbert's beach house in barbados. thought a peanut bet butter sandwich could be emproud by a rothschild. taking daily ski breaks with david niven and john kenneth galbraith.e give hen his high culture bonefides if buckley originated hosting a tv show, even a political one. in his 1989 book on "firing line." buckley says the idea for the show was pitched to him in 1965 by a young entrepreneur. buckley was agreeable tote notion but deferred production to 1966 so he could complete his symbolic run for mayor of new york. in his posthumous bock on ronald reagan buckley publicly revealed "firing line" was the brainchild of conservative businessman, tom o'neil.

his company, rko, produced and syndicated the show from 1966 to 1971. firing line left commercial syndication behind for comparative stability of pbs. "firing line" was imagined as 13-etch sewed series. ultimately ran for 1500 episodes. considering how oppressive, successful program runs 7 seasons for a total of 154 episodes. there were the 635 episodes of the long-running gun smoke and 466 episodes of "law & order."." buckally claims in the beginning with some pried his ratings were exigous. means scanty or meager if anyone doesn't know that buckley wouldd never turn profit on "firing line" or "national review" for that matter. these are labors of love and idealogical he had dedication. buckley, supreme free market capitalist, observed enterprises

in life are not deviced to generate profits. we accept them as institutions that need to be patronized because they do vital work. as an ardent advocate -- i lost my place. "firing line" was not only unprofitable public affairs type talk show on public tv. there was david sus kinds open end and mike wallace, interview and "meet the press." if "firing line" was unique as w specific conservative publicicpc affairs program it didn't mirror the dull aesthetic of other public affairs show. as buckley scribed it, my television program was modestly designed. no production values explained one horrified tv executive. it was to say the least not a good-looking show. the carpeted dais was drab, the lighting never varied, many of the guests men in suits, their

legs crossed, trousers riding up black socks revealing a pail white skin. exceptions, black power spokesmen, feminists sporting smart plaid pantsuits. anti-pham nists sporting ann landers style hair does only occasional relief buckley's distinctive mannerisms, his almost british accent and inclination to dart his tongue out like a lizard. jeff greenfield, said television is set to be visual medium. only visual interest on firing line i have ever been able to detect if buckley would sometime part his hair with his tongue.le it didn't matter. viewers came for the words and ideas and when perhaps the show premiered in 1966, novelty seeing a right-wing conservative explain his position. whether you watched the show as liberal or conservative viewer you would find your politics

defended and challenged. david who have set letter, attributed right-wing thing to paranoia, anti-intellectualism and arranges sight. whether you saw his politics brilliant or abhorrent. he seemed to be the walking talking proof of hostettlerr claims. one of "firing lines" earlier guest, that many americans try of liberalism and waivering of extremism hot set letter described. buckley was determined to show the world that conservativism was alive and well, struggling for foothold it needed to dominate american politics.an that paranoid conspiracy theorists of john birch society should not be considered for the conservative movement. to understand firing line we must understand the show to stake a claim for goldwater and what seemed the pipe-dream, the possibility of a thriving conservative movement purgededth

conspiracy theorists, and kooks. they seemed to have strange gele hold on american conservatism when "firing line" began in 1966. buckley would have to forge a new version of conservatism from scratch.h.im that is how the introduction concludes. i will skip ahead. a deep more dive into the show.. to the chapter on civil rights and back power. in its first 10 years on the air "firing line focused on civil rights and black power movements as right-wing conservative buckley was concerned by the systemic upheaval called by both approaches to problem of american racism. it would be much too simple to reduce his approach to alloyed resistance. he did not oppose elimination of racial discrimination, existence of integrated schools or the preferential treatment of blackings in hiring decisions but he did oppose most federal government intervention in thesn issues.ment

it was one thing to express his convictions in columns and books and quite another to deal with them in dialogue with avocats of civil rights and black power or on the other side for advocates of maintenance of racist and segregated status quo. this is what makes "firing line" so unique. on paper, for example, buckley might be comfortably aligned with segregationist, senator, strom thurmond on every issue but in person, it was conversation with con touchtives and liberals that subtleties of buckley's position were revealed. black power and civil rights leaders took advantage of buckley's program as venue which to air their positions. indeed one get as subtle sense of black radicals most opposed to buckley were using his program to air ideas in full, away from the sound bite culture that pervasive for the media. on "firing line" they had to put

up with a right-wing white guy asking questions. they could express anti-revolutionary and marxist arguments that saw the light of day in newsletters cranked out by hand on minimum yo graph machines. they avoided invective. there was more than self-restraint here. producer warned, a blustery man with perpetually untucked shirt gave lectures a stern lecture on the show. blue language was off limits. he alan ginsburg complained he would have so censor his thought patterns. there was extra concern about eldridge cleaver. buckley made a point following up siebel's lecture before they started shooting that the fcc fee for cursing would cancel out his payment for appearing on the show. if there was any guest who did not need coaching on how not to incur the wrath of fcc was civil

rights james farmer who was very picture of decorum. in where the civil rights movement goes now, episode from 1966, buckley made boilerplate libertarian arguments about parents having the right to send their children to any school they wanted.to owe complained people kept discovering new rights. he argued james baldwin was all wet. baldwin was, buckley judged too pessimistic what could be accomplished in america. farmer cut a striking figure, radiating dignity and composure as he defended baldwin. conveyed mounting anger he tried to tamp down with each new cigarette he lit. in entrancing baritone, shades of james early jones, that baldwin concerns about negro ghettos are very important. the fact of the matter is, most of our victories legislatively spoken in the south, not to the north. 17-year-old dropout youth in harlem street couldn't care less about his second cousin in mississippi buying a hot dog.

i said man what about the rats that bite me and cockroaches. buckley, what about if they kill the rats? i'm so tired of that argument. i got rats and i put traps all over the place. they're still there. i have never been able to get rid of them.th farmer, you know in harlem you kill one rat, two more come back to carries his carcass away. buckley, why doesn't that happen in other cities? is there special refuse there in harlem? away do away with the refuse. it is political function to get rid of refuse. buckley, look, i'm not suggesting demunicipallizing the garbage collection. farmer, oh, you're in favor of garbage collection then? buckley, i'm in favor of socialized garbage. everyone laughed including farmer. and tension briefly eased but buckley went let go of his insistence there is nothing special about the ghetto garbage problem. when farmer asked if rats bit his children, buckley suggested

he is being mellow dramatic it. more rhetorically defined t moments in program. when think discussed nature ofov goals of the civil rights movement. their discussion about the tenacious rat problem in the ghetto is the most remember part of the shoaf and buckley is so incapable of comprehending of those living in squalor. that the rat problem was worth in harlem and stamford, connecticut was simply i am plausible to him. by the same time newton was on the show in 1973, the black panter this is were struggling. cleaver was in exile in algeria. several leaders were killed and fbi infiltrated the organization and planted seeds of dissension. newton would flee to cuba to on escape a murder charge. buckley was rhetorically flummoxed by his guest. at one point the host explains, i'm attempting to pin down a point and i'm losing track of it.si

it may be that one of thee difficulties you have as chief spokesman for the black panther party your total incoherence. that is to say people don't understand what you're talking about. i don't understand what you're talking about and i'm a very close listener. newton talked in a steerful steady stream of maoist propaganda, barely coming up for air. buckley performed the "firing line" version of throwing in the towel. he put down his clipboard. for viewers already in sympathy with newton's cause, oration would not likely seem incoherent as buckley found it. newton would come across as remarkably affable revolutionary. those skeptical of student radicals clutching mao to breast. a liberal "firing line" viewer in cambridge, massachusetts, i thought huey newton made a ass out of himself without any help from you.

whether or not he made an ass of himself, the black power movement was spiraling. this is one of the final firing line episodes to address the topic. later episodes that addressed race, mostly centered on issues of electoral politics and legacy of the civil rights movement. remarkably many years later, buckally would acknowledge the change of thinking regarding federalism and voting rights. he told "time," i believed we could evolve our way up from jim crow. i was wrong. federal intervention was necessary. anti-racism, prostates rightss advocate had come around. by then almost everyone had at least in theory. in his twilight years, jesse helms maintained the south should have been left alone wite its race problem. buckley may have shifted his thoughts on federal intervention he had not gone liberal in general where race is concerned. in fact his interest in discussing racism, civil rights movement and black power and various strategies for improving the lot of american blacks had

reach apogee in the late '70s. in 1998 buckley had an interesting encounter with aclu executive director ira glasser. buckley twisted glass ir's arm for years to appear on two-hour firing line debate titled, resolved, that the aclu is full of baloney. glasser rightly saw it was a bit of a setup but he finally consented to appear. glasser dug into the "national review" archives to find questionable stuff he read about sieve rights and read it on the show. glasser described "the national review" material as completely unrespectable and he says buckley knew it.ab shortly thereafter glasser was at dinner at the buckleyner at residence and bill's wife said why are you so hard on my husband bill on television? glasser, well, pat he said so many terrible things. you have to do something about that in private. needless to say she did not. this was just friendly dinner party banter. off the air the director of aclu

and architect of the postwar conservative movement got along smashingly. glasser took buckley to the first baseball game. they insisted they take the subway instead of buckley's limo and nathan's for hotdogs. this time buckley won. they took the limo. buckley liked flatter, despite several occasions backed him into a corner on "firing line" but because of it. price of advocating no-holds-barred tv debates sometimes you would lose and your opponent would prove decisively you had at one point really been full of baloney. [applause] >> can i takes questions? >> where to begin. this is the best idea i had.

>> thank you for coming. >> every single word i have loved every moment of this. this has been great. can not wait to finish the book, which will be this weekend. okay. gore vidal, okay, you've seen the recent documentary. >> best of enemies. >> best of enemies exactly. what did you think of it? and particularly the, gore vidal, in the documentary, gore vidal knew that buckley wouldn't prepare for the debate such as it was. is that true? and what was his preparation for the shows if i was raised on this show, and so, what was his preparation on the show? that would be one question. the other question is, i've been told but don't know that english is not buckley's first language. it is actually spanish.

and is that true? and what's the source of that kind of cut glass contrition? >> that is lovely way to put itt answer both of your questions. "best of enemies." plug that movie. terrific documentary, last five minutes i think are a little too overreaching beginning of fox news and end of civil debate. i don't think that is quite spot on. it is really good film. they do note that the buckley did not prepare for first encounter with gore vidal.l. they were having a discussion as democratic national conventions in 1968. they paid them both handsomely to be on show. abc did, before they were on, they asked buckley would you dot-com men terri, yeah, okay. they said is there anyone you wouldn't want to appear with, i would appear with anyone except gore vidal. of course, gore vidal was a gotcha thing. they had several encounters on television.

first one it is true that buckley did underprepare and vidal overprepared, and practiced all his off-the-cuff quips. he scripted the hell out of this thing. he was very prepared, by the time they had the second discussion buckley was much more prepared and at the end of he lost his temper and forever mortified by that, that he had been uncivil and used cuss words on television. he did prepare for the second part. the question about the showt th preparation, he had a researcher at national review office and it was agatha schmidt for some years. and a few other people came in and out. i've seen the folders of research material. they would photocopy newspaper magazine articles, give background and so on, so he had all the materials in front of him. he was very busy man.yf he would be studying material in the limo on the way to the show. he read books written by people on show. he is voracious leader.

he read a book at the the basher. he was so busy he couldn't take a break. he would prepare on the fly and get in his limo and write on a special typing table in his limo in the back. he was very well-prepared for the shows. and you would see, one of the charming things about the show the way people have their notepads around them, yellow legal pads and maybe glasses and kleenex and glass of water and there is always lots of cigarettes on the show. this kind of clutter. no production values. poorly designed. so he is, see him during interview looking down, see it with the mail letter clip, what is next.it kind of figuring it out. in answer to your secondsw question, it is true buckley'sru first language had been spanish. his nanny was spanish-speaking. sew learned spanish first and then learned english and french. he thought he was very good in his french and a little awkward and weird. maybe it had a spanish accent, i

don't know. but he was homeschooled in the early years of his life. and they actually had aof townhouse with all the kids, eight or 10 kids. and they would rotate from floor to floor like, spanish on the first floor and political science on the second floor and go down for math and rotate in the house all day. at a certain point he was sent to a british boarding school. his mother was enduring a difficult pregnancy. they sent him away. they thought that was better. so he picked up this british accent that went away. there was a little bit of connecticut thrown in there. i don't think you sense a spanish inflection at all, but it is kind of amazing hodgepodgs of language backgrounds he had. his brother, james buckley had a similar voice. it wasn't quite as distinctive and weird but there is subtle almost british inflection underneath it. people thought it was put on. this is how i talk. he was interviewed on

"60 minutes" right before reagan was sworn in.sw they are why do you talk like that, use such big words? he said that is how i talk.. i talk to my dogs that way. i use big -- that is the best way. you need to find the right words to express what you have to say. sometimes very precise words are the way to go, you know. >> thank you. >> sure. >> [inaudible] >> your book is excellent. i really, really enjoyed it. >> thank you.eo >> one of the things you say ino the conclusion is that you think, and you said this as you talked about this, i listened to a few of interviews on radio as you promoted the book, but there is really a void in the contrary media landscape, there could be a place for a "firing line," that we don't have it on cable news. there is thirst for honest intellectual combat. and i think my question for you is, given that buckley really helped sort of mainstream and make the conservative movement

palatable to the left, by, not just taking on liberals, taking on liberal radicals as you point out. he helped people see that conservatives weren't radicals themselves i think in contrast. and that answered a real need in the conservative movement of the 1960s or0's but in sort of american conservative movement in 2016, it faces differentent challenges than the conservative movement then. so i wonder if there were to be a reprisal of "firing line," what service could it play? i appreciate i'm not asking you as a conservative this, what could it do for a modernor a mod conservative movement in terms of creditability or, because i m think in fact, given we're in trump era, a new era there is in fact a lot it could do? >> i agree.ta it is important to note thingsgs are different now than they were in the '60s, obviously but we

have a resurgence of extremism, right-wing rhetoric and talk. the birthers and so on. there has been a lot of, i mean, i sometimes talk about extremists as weeds in theli garden. buckley pulled them out and there they are they come back again and constant sort of battle within the conservative movement to deal with the fringe right. and of course on the liberal side there are fringe left-wing people. there is management on both sides i guess i would say. i would hope that there would be a space for this kind of civil discussion on television today. and you know, we're in a niche era there seems to be television for everyone. if you want a show how to buy a house and flip it, if you're interested in gardening and pets, subdivided marketplace of interests. and the thought there is not one niche in there for sophisticated political discussion that is long form, not cut up with clips, that is unthinkable. there has to be room for that.

what i say in the book in the conclusion thaw reference is that, possibly this could be on a hbo which has reputation forit quality. it is where the show was shot for many years. it's a place where a show wouldn't have to be interrupted by advertisements and people sit down and talk. so, it may be sort of pie-in-the-sky but i think it is useful to imagine what this kind of discussion could mean. what ultimately it could mean for the conservative movement it is harder to speculate about. i think too soon to tell what will happen next for the conservative movement and republican party. they are at a kind of a crossroads now. will a third party emerge at this moment? is there a sense that the republican party has been corrupted, or is that not the answer? i can't really, i don't have a crystal ball to predict that. but if there were a venue where people who disagreed very strongly politically could talk through the ideas without shouting each other and saying cut off his mic and nonsense we

see on fox news and also on msnbc, all this overproduced spectacle of shouting, that could only be salutary for the movement. it would have to be helpful, but i can't say, in a direct cause and effect way.he it would fix the conservative movement. it wouldn't. tv is not that powerful. tv is helpful though. i hope that answers your question a little bit. yes? >> at the beginning of the show came on the heels of the end of vatican ii, i wonder if he had on any leading figures of american catholicism? >> you know, he stuck to liberal, religious figures because he wanted to debunk some of their ideas. he was very concerned about the political involvement of the church. and of course he was notan thrilled about vatican ii. this is someone who found a priest willing to say the mass for him in latin for 30 or 40 years.

he would have his own privatewo service in latin, right? yay. so, he had on reverend coughlin, reverend sloan -- yes, from yale to talk about what is the royal of political activism? shouldn't you tend to people's souls instead of these larger political activities? that was really interesting discussion. but, there were over the years not a huge number of catholics who were in agreement with him except for malcolm mugger ridge, who would convert to catholism late in his life. they would have theological discussions about faith and so forth. one thing interesting is the relationship to the christian right he voiced a kind of respect for what they were doing politically but i think, and but i think, it is hypothesis, but i think it's correct that he

didn't get that kind of faith practice. he didn't get this kind of loud, seemed crude to him compared to catholicism the way evangelicals were practicing and directev translation of politics, religion into politics in one-to-one way and so on, so forth. he thought some of the things they were pushing for were right on but had very few people on the show, at a moment they were impacting the conservative movement, from the0's into the '90s, he didn't care for pat robertson. he did in theory, knew him outside of the media sphere but he wasn't having these people on the show. one of the interesting shows was with jerry falwell, where falwell comes on and speaks moderately how he wants a liberal, pluralistic society where everyone can express their opinions including fundamentalist christians. sir, i read all your literature, and you seem very moderate here.

you're very different from how you convey yourself to your constituents. acknowledging your spinning yourself for mass audience and we know you're a radical guy. falwell wouldn't acknowledge it. one thing is interesting how hee wants all the big politicals players on, but when it comes to the christian right, yeah, their ideas are good but doesn't welcome them to the show. i would say if you want to look at his engagement with ideas of faith and catholicism, look at the malcolm muggerridge episodes. one of his favorite episodes was an episode with malcolm muggerridge they shortened half hour run every christmas for years. one of his favorites was panamaw canal debate for two hours with ronald reagan, he was on thehe other side of the fence from ronald reagan with most conservatives. other favorite episode was and

they replayed it on the show. >> i'm looking forward to the book. i'm a huge fan. in russia probably there is not enough fans to make a proper "firing line" society. had to come all the way here. my question is, related to, the making of the leader of conservative movement intellectually. how do you think, what was so special about buckley that really garner the clout of a sort of overreaching, supernatural transsent ant figure that -- transcendent figure, that would, that would, if needed, cast aside the birch society and always be there in

terms of overlooking the movement you know? because, as far as i see now, there is not a single person on the right with whom anybody, everybody on the right would agree, within five or seven minutes. i think that was different 30, 40 years ago. >> i wouldn't want to overstate that everyone agreed withve buckley on the conservative side but he was very popular. there were always some people on far right, this guy is elitist, he went to yale, that more populist side was opposed to him. but you're right, he had this kind of almost consensus among the movement. hard to say how that happened with the sort of magic formula was. he was so unique. not like we'll have anotherr buckley who is that erudite and smart and funny. what was appealing about him he had such a fine-tuned sense of humor that, you know, conversation would turn very serious and not like he would

suddenly crack a joke. but he had a sensibility that politics has a humorous side to it.le we have to keep our sense of humor and that keeps us human and talking to the other side and so on. that is something that seems quite lacking today. notably one of the very worst episodes of "firing line" he has groucho marx on. he is very funny excepts when he talks about humor. he doesn't get i in of groucho's jokes. worst watching a terrible show. appealing in its awfulness.fu like the worst godzilla movie you've ever seen.like t . . i'm not sure quite how but the humor was a key part of that, and i think also just being on a mass media era, saying about this niche stratification of the culture. it's hard to imagine one figure emerging as this key voice on television because we don't have three channels and pbs. we have hundreds of channels.

so, its harder to make a splash in the media in certain ways, unless you are extreme and loud and paranoid or crude or whatev those kinds of things that are graphic. >> in any hypothetical be made. [inaudible] [inaudible]th someo >> some unlike the president-elect you mean? towards the end and thank you for referencing that specific moment where buckley responded to current events by the always

had a look at the bigger picture and so unlike the news media cycle where you have to respond what happened that day, on the show you could bring in someone to talk about what is the future of the conservative party which is what he would be talking about right now. where do we go right right now? where do republicans go on where they can service go? he would look at the big picture and he would have to p conceptualize it and so i hypothesized in the book that you know if he were around this moment he would have an episode like up with outsider political candidates? in which they would discuss how does this person come from out of the blue and who might be president and they would have a discussion about what was going on and try to sort it out. now as for president-elect trump specifically people ask him all the time what did he really

thought about this guy and we don't have to speculate. he wrote an article in 2009 or 10 not where we usually turn for our policies necessary but he wrote an article there aboutt nr trump and jessie the body ventura was the wrestler who whs became governor i believe of minnesota and the article was called something like attack of the demagogues or the demagogues are coming in the handle he really picks on trump as he tried -- describes him as a narcissist. he was really offended by him and he was offended by these notions of propriety that a person would run for office without qualifications. so i think he would have been very proud of that dissent in the election. they were one of the first big fires to come out against trump with a cover of national review with yosemite sam caricature of trump with the guns firing in

all and really just saying like, no way. at the same time the magazine t, had a place for conservatives who supported trump. their official line was that they did not support him but the magazine was always a stage where different conservative points of view could hash it oui and it was never strictly banned up one ideological perspective and so i think he would have been pleased with how the magazine negotiated in the days leading up to the election. what i'm seeing now is more kind of pragmatism in one national deal where they are just luck okay this is what happened and now where did we go from here? what is he going to deal and their speculating about polling and so on but they are being very focused and wondering what's going to happen with i ran and kind of sorting it out. so, yeah. >> to follow questions one with

respect to ratings which youou>t reference any reference them in the book and the other was funding which we know about the early stage of the funding but as a long-running show on pbs how involved was buckley and the continued funding with the shows on cbs -- pbs and how did the ratings matter or not matter? >> that's a great question. the ratings were up and down. he said they were always poor. they were up and down a bit when he was syndicated. he was sold on the market to market basis and produce the -- by our ceo. the ratings were up and down in part because it was a clunky system. they were scheduling him poorlym people who loved the show were watching it every day at 8:00 8:00 and then suddenly they moved it to sunday morning. what? actually they moved it to sunday morning right after it won its

first emmy and buckley wrote them a letter saying you know what you doing? we just won an emmy. every respectable person is innm church, what are you thinking? [laughter] he had tube plead to cbs and where the ratings were less relevant, you look at the riseel and fall of ratings and they weren't selling ratings on pbs and one thing that's interesting about the show is you have this person who is this huge voice of the free market and he has to leave the free market.live t he acknowledged a something she don't do for-profit prophets is because they are good. one point someone said why do you do this when it doesn't maku money and he said to expect the catholic church to make funny and in fact the catholic church was doing fine. but his point was you could be in a not-for-profit endeavor and it was worthy. once he was on cbs he did about as well as the other public

appearances on cbs so cbs nevers published or showed their ratings but they would hire nielsen to do numbers for them and since then the numbers outut to their producers. he was doing you no okay which means on the low end. the highest number for cbs were 73. they were up it upstairs, downstairs in the british imports that were popular in tho 70s and 80s and to buckley's chagrin monty python's flying circus did very well on pbs and it did much better and pbs was thrilled because you know they had no young viewers except the toddler set from sesame street so they were getting young male viewers watching and specifically watching monty python.n.

and buckley, monty python it was just beneath him even toto consider that this was a good tv show and i say in the book he must been so chagrined when margaret thatcher. he the dead parrot sketch fromom monty python and a public address you know? although he might not even got a pitch he said something like the liberal party is dead if this is a dead liberal party making fun of the dead parrot sketch and he's probably thinking what is she doing? he got along on pbs and then when the reagan administration defunded pbs and nixon tried to defund it and all of pbs programming that ups and downs but when reagan defunded pbs it's great to read the letters that buckley sent out to people raising money.ou to pa reagan defunded pbs and now we need to fund it. was supporting s. and a lot of crony capitalists were like yes, it's a great show so the orange

foundation, but other private foundations and so on and so forth funded the show over the years. so he had some ups and downs on pbs but basically there was never a doubt that he would get the money he needed once it wasg funded in the 80s so it soldiered on. last question. yes. >> in your preparation for research on the book you must to read some of his looks. i'm sure a lot of them. did you have any favorites among those. his other stuff where you felt like he really had power. >> i think it's cruising speed, is that like 72 or so?o? that's a really fun one and i

would recommend cruising speed. it ranks up there with the new journalism and so on and so forth. i think it's okay but cruising speed is a uninteresting read and part of it is powering now and so on. he is dealing with politicalng t issues but it could be a sense of this lifestyle but it's not so heavy-handed that some of the later books and he talks about personalities. he's just sort of comfortable with that, we, what? i would say cruising speed would be one that i would recommend. >> please join me in giving. heather hendershot a hand. -- [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> we are here tonight with ambassador andrew young the former mayor of atlanta. tell me about your book "andrew young and the making of modern alabama." >> i became mayor of atlanta in 1981 and that was right after ronald reagan became president and there was no money coming from washington to the cities. it was probably a blessing to me because it meant that i had to go to the private sector and i had to attract international investors from all over the world and atlanta has grown from less than 1 million in 1981 to about 6.9 million now and most

of that has been the result of our becoming a truly global city and i think that that is the pathway for our economy, that there is more money outside of government than there is inside of government. the money that came into atlanta, the billions of dollars has created jobs, new housing opportunities and we are really making this a truly modern city but the key to it was i think largely with coca-cola they realized that bad race relations was bad for business and so the business community worked with us so that almost everything we have done since the 1970s has

been black and white together, male and female together, rich and poor together, and straight together and anybody that is not in the deal can mess it up. so the key to our success has been helping everybody to be part of the city. >> how do you think your experience as the mayor of atlanta helps you in your job to be ambassador to united nations? >> actually i was ambassador first so my job as an ambassador let me know that there was money all over the world and i didn't have to just go to washington. so, i think it was the other way around but actually i started traveling around the world when i was a student and i was pretty comfortable. i had hitchhiked throughout

europe. i had been to, throughout a lot of latin america, not southern latin america but the caribbean and i was comfortable in the world and i realized that almost everybody in the world wants something american and they like what we say we are. sometimes they don't like what we are but everybody wants to be like us in some ways. we just invited them to come and be a part. >> thank you so much ambassador andrew young. your book is "andrew young and the making of modern atlanta", thanks for speaking with us. >> it's not my making up modern atlanta. it goes all the way back to the days right after sherman burned the city down and how we have been piecing it back together

ever since. [applause] [applause] [chanting] >> thank you very much and there is just about five minutes between my welcome to you and senator sanders so thank you so much for being here. [applause] i am malou harrison and is trul a pleasure to welcome you here to the miami book fair. this book there would not be possible without the support of many, many sponsors such as the nye foundation, oa tell, the degraff foundation, the bachelor foundation and many other sponsors as i said. we also are