book tv is on facebook. like us to get publishing news, scheduling updates, behind-the-scenes pictures and videos, author information and talk with authors during our live program. >> good evening my name is tom campbell and we are

thrilled to welcome nancy this evening for this model in both democracy and change. i've made no secret of just how important i think this book is in my humble opinion. we are doing our best. turn up the air conditioning up there? >> no my little experience in electoral politics, some of you might know i was on the durham city council in a previous lifetime, and it

seemed to me then that one very important thing in politics is to understand your opponent, and understand where they're coming from, what motivates them, and what they're really trying to do. as this shows that our understanding of what is called sometimes the radical right or the all rate or the libertarian right has been very limited and there has been a philosophy and a strategy that goes back decades that is behind much of what we see in politics now and so, i think there are a few things that can be more important for those of us who don't agree with that kind of politics and to read this

book, understand it, and i think will be in a much better position to counter the arguments that are being made on the libertarian right. nancy mclean is the william chase professor of history and political science at duke university. she taught previously at northwestern university where she served as chair of the department of history, and she came to duke university in 2010 we are very happy to have her here. thank you all for coming, thank you cspan for covering this. nancy mclean.

>> wow. i am so thrilled to see how many of you are here. we have felt such great community in durham and it's so nice to work out and see so many friends and colleagues that i haven't met yet but hope too. thank you so much for coming. i also want to give a special thanks to tom the took a special interest in this book when i was still writing and revising its butt contacted me to set this up. i'm really grateful to be here. >> can you hear in the back. >> oh dear. okay. i'm you get my big voice on. how's that. >> can i hold it?

[inaudible] i will do my best. can you hear me now? good. a military a little bit about how i came to this topic of what i learned and then i want to share with you a few passages from the book and the will open it up to your questions and comments. i am a historian of social movement. i have a particular interest in u.s. south and about ten years ago i had just finished another book and i was in philadelphia and i went into the american service committee archives that i learned about a story i had never heard about before even though i am a historian with emphasis on the south and that was the story of prince ed county virginia. once the aftermath of brown versus board of education where the county in the name

of sovereignty and individual liberty shut down the school system and sent all the white children to private schools with public money and let the black children with no schooling for five years because those students had had the temerity to go on strike in 1951 for a decent school, a school that might be at least a little bit as nice as the white student school, and for that act which then fumbled into brown versus board of education and became of the five cases in reynolds versus board of education. that active resistance caused them to cut down the schools and left them with no public education for five years. all they had was what social movement organizations could provide like the naacp and so forth. i was horrified by the story that i had never heard of and i was deeply moved by what had happened. i started to research that story and i learned that

tuition grants which would today be called junctures were crucial to the story of what happened in prince edward county. i learned that wilton freedman who is part of the map and resistance to brown and i learned that milton freedman, the chicago trained economist had issued his first school voucher in 1955 after the news had been coming up from the south for several years. segregationists were threatening to shut down public education rather than allow desegregation. at first i thought golly, milton freedman is part of the story. let me keep him on the radar. i kept moving with my school story which is kind of a civil rights meets liberalism story. in following up footnote, i learned of in 1959 report by two economists trained at the university of chicago and

worn who had set up a center at the university of virginia in 1956. they arrived in september just after the general assembly had passed massive resistance laws. i will give you a sense of that report in a moment but i would just say, it really shocked me to see two university professors making an economic case for what the arch segregationists were asking. and what really affected me or provoked me intellectually is that these economists were not making their case in racial terms, they were making it in the terms of their discipline, but it was clear they were opportunistically exploiting the crisis and tragedy that was unfolding in the south in order to push through their agenda.

when they send the report to one of the state legislators who is one of the leaders of massive resistance, they actually said they were making the case in the terms of economic, in terms of their discipline in letting the chips fall where they may. that phrase haunted me. that put buchanan and his colleagues on my radar but i still thought the school story was my story and milton freedman was just an actor. then i learned, again by chance, from a political scientist who also worked on latin america that although many people have heard that milton freedman went to chile and advise the dictatorship on how to combat inflation, the virginia school had had a more lasting effect and the

buchanan school. [inaudible] then i started to get more interested and thought what is going on here. what trailhead i happened on. i continue to follow it. and then i moved to north carolina in 2010 and at that point milton freedman was still my focus. i thought what is going on, and following all these connections and then something happened in 2010 after the midterms here and a radicalized republican party one majorities in both houses of the legislature. suddenly all these things i was reading and buchanan's work, and this is a man who workewrote very abstractly but i was trying to understand these abstractions and suddenly it became real, concrete and frightening because i was seeing these ideas play out in what i'm sure you all remember, and have responded too. what i was seeing, it comes

from buchanan's thoughts. he only argued it was a mistake to focus on the focus of who ruled. the real question was the rule. if you didn't like what was going on in the government in society, you should, which none of his libertarian and right wing or alter free markets light, his argument was you need to to fake focus on the rules and change the rules and breakup collective power, kind of power you would see in labor unions and civil rights organizations, any collective group on government that would lead to transfers of resources. his solution was to alter the nature by radical rule change. let's come back to north carolina where this was becoming real to me.

what we saw unfold after 2010 was changes one after another. extreme gerrymandering with operation red map, attempt to undermine unions, hostility to public education at all levels and radical cuts for public education and changes to the government. refusal to accept medicaid expansion that was part of the affordable care act even though there is a desperate need among low income people for healthcare. rolling back measures to protect the environment and address global warming. getting rid of the racial justice act and then instituting what some call the monster voter suppression law. what i found disturbing and frightening was that i could see this was an application of james buchanan's idea. a strategy got guided by his unique understanding of the political process.

guided by his ideas and driven by a libertarian morality that said it would be better to let people die from lack of healthcare if they cannot afford to pay for it on their own then to receive it from government. it's a morality that i don't think almost anyone in this room would share, but i think it's extremely important for us to understand that it is a coherent ethical system and frankly i think there's some people, some fanaticism that is shaping our public policy as we gather here. the bottom line idea is that what they really mean by personal responsibility is that you should be on your own. you should be a self responsible individual and if you fail to pay for your future needs, whether that's healthcare or retirement securities, whether it's your children's college or your

own, tough luck. your failure will teach other people that they need to conduct their lives differently and start saving from the moment. [inaudible] >> okay. so, in january, i knew i had to get into his private papers. there was a collection of his private papers, i have been trying to get in and i couldn't get in, after he died in 2013, i finally got access to his private archive at george mason. ironically, just as the government shutdown, led by republicans who had been exposed to his ideas and trained in these ideas were engaging the government shutdown in washington in a case that buchanan might have called coercive bargaining. it was just wanting to go into that archive. in those papers, they were everywhere, they were

chaotic. in those papers i found my hypotheses confirmed in a way that literally took my breath away. in one moment i'll describe his trip to chile in 1980. he was invited in by the most antidemocratic civilian associated with the regime in order to advise on the constitution and they translated his work into spanish and they gave him audiences with all these regime figures and he gave public lectures recorded and he later thank them for the accuracy of those reports. this is in 1980. chile was one of the world's leading examples of why human rights globalization, this was brutal. i could go on. the letter that really

stuffed my heart was he wrote a thank you letter to a man named sergio who was one of the top advisers and he thanked them for their lovely lunch held in his honor, the wine in the jewelry given to mrs. buchanan, and something else. not a word about any of this, just a lovely exchange between friends and i thought this is someone who said his life mission was promoting free society, promoting liberty. how do i get my mind around that. so then i went on, and another key moment was when i went upstairs into his personal office and found helter-skelter on a chair, a series of letters from a blowup that happened. [inaudible] people connected engaged in confidential whistle lower which is a violation of tax

codes so that was also pretty heart stopping. in any event, there were these hundreds and hundreds of documents and i found myself laying down pieces of the puzzle that literally nauseated me. when i saw the scope of the operations being guided by this individual, when i started to follow the career trajectory that let out his training that they established at george mason and i saw people coming from this program and the talent, all these major institutions, it just was shocking. as i took the measure of this project, i saw something else. the form of government that these men understood as ideal , that they referred to as liberty mirrored that of mid century virginia.

what am i getting at? a great political scientist published a book and he said that virginia and mississippi is a hotbed of democracy. it was almost a corporate form. that meant they didn't have their freedom and they practiced extreme voter. [inaudible] they passed laws that prevented workers from organizing.

it was absurd. they brought in harry byrd to harvest his apple orchard because again, that was liberty. why should he employ american workers who might have access to the constitution. anyway, as i began to trace the operation built up at george mason university to apply buchanan's understanding of political economy to what charles said, he said i want to unleash. [inaudible] >> what was really interesting to me to is that he also said since we are greatly outnumbered, the

failure to use our technology will essentially lead to continuous failure. this is a man with three engineering degrees. when he speaks of technology he's talking about ideas. what he was doing was harvesting this understanding of economies developed by buchanan in order to achieve what he wanted. i think you'll know he wants a change in our institution but if you didn't, it's worth knowing he compared himself to martin luther. he has that ace janik mission in life. so he had been fighting intellectuals for some three decades until he found the technology he wanted and he found that at george mason and he turned it into an operational strategy. buchanan spoke. [inaudible] was very clear to me from everything else i found in his papers and his

correspondence and his writing that what he really meant was to in chain democracy and undermine the power of citizens and ultimately, and this is crucial, to make changes in state and federal constitutions to lock in with this cause had never been able to get through persuasion or the electoral process. they were advocating constitutional revolutions. we can talk more about it in the q&a. i would just say, before i go to reading a few selections from the book that i honestly believe that what is at stake right now that my book is talking about is the state of the american democratic system, and the kind of government that citizen action, remember i'm a

citizen of social movement, the kind of government that citizen action has demanded at least since the populist movement since the 1890s. there was a time when all social movements seem to think they could be in silos. in this world, they have been coming for every group that looks to government in order to achieve their vision of social justice, their need to fix the environment, all those things. this is really a unified challenge. okay. i'll stop there and say more the q&a but now i want to give you a little sample narrative with selections from three moments that illustrate some of what i just shared. the first selection is from an early chapter about the events of 1958 as the governor of virginia engaged

in what is today, around the country's being called preemption, using the power of the state government to prevent localities from doing what their citizens otherwise would like to do. the governor applied these laws passed in 1956 to take away the autonomy of local communities and to force, on the resident, the will of a dream and her conservative state legislature for any school in response should be set shut down. that's the context. it goes back to our phrase, letting the chips fall where they may. james buchanan did not put forward their proposal until early 1959. when they did, it was as if they had pulled down the shades on every window,

canceled subscriptions to all the newspapers and plug their ears to a new set of voices. the economists and their allies had said they maintain the fight was against the federal government, against coercion in a stand for liberty. they ignored the overt racism and turned a blind eye to liberty and constitutional rights that led to the federal intervention. the voices of 1958 and early 1959 defined their exclusionary framing of the conflict because they came from white middle-class virginia, from parents were shacked at the actions of their state officials and determined to resist. most were moderate republicans and democrats of the northern cities of virginia. they spoke to explained pu publicly what it would mean

in practice on the most pressing matter of the day, the school system. in the summer of 1958, three very different communities, the city of norfolk, home to u.s. navy base, charlottesville, home to the university of virginia announced their intentions to admit a few black students to some previously white schools that following september. they were moved to do so not because the white townspeople worse will board suddenly converted, no doubt if you did, but most, did not. still, many saw themselves as patriotic, law-abiding citizens and were unwilling to defy a court ruling even on the matter of race. several had instructed to desegregate, particularly schools that had been subject

to lawsuits and made plans to comply. those local plans triggered the implementation of the 1956 resistance legislation empowering the governor to shut any white school plan to admit any black student. it would deny public education to some 13000 students throughout the fall of 1958 in these communities from first-graders to high school seniors. no white students were suing to enter black schools so they weren't subject to this coercio coercion. so, in july of 1958, the week after they announced they would close the schools come september, a virginia country dr. who had paid little attention to state politics announced that she would run for a senate seat held by harry byrd.

she minced no words in explaining why she was running because senator byrd resistance program is designed to close hours schools. it's hurting virginia children more than any other group. that was what moved her as a working mother of five to run for office. she didn't stop there. the problem was not just whether local communities should be allowed to decide to admit black children to formally white schools, virginia argued black and whites needed more and better schooling. that was just the beginning of the changes she was campaigning for. i think i would kind of scam a little bit here because i know you're kind of crowded in but i was just blown away by the story. i couldn't believe no one had ever written about her story.

anyway, they were fearless in providing an electoral system keeping citizens from the ballot box. keep in mind this is a cold war and people everywhere, in virginia as well as russia can have a chance to vote for a candidate who opposes the political machine that oppresses them. who was the organization protecting. she knows in the u.s. senate, both senator byrd was among the most outspoken and attends political machine had been depriving our citizens of their rights, now dictating to the school board what they can and cannot do. her campaign motto was virginia's own. [inaudible] i kind of want to read you more of that, but i think i'll hold back. the one thing i do want to tell you is the state in

which union unions, even though were the least unionized state in the south, our legislature is putting right to work in state constitutions and no future generation can change it and give workers the rights they enjoyed admit country. there i think you need to know who encouraged her to run for office. it was the president of the virginia. [inaudible] she had written a letter to the editor of a newspaper protecting the school closures, and he called the house that morning and invited himself over, came over, shook her hand and said we'd like you to run for the u.s. senate. and, they brought materials, gave her supporters, they did everything. it was a virginia labor movement and the mainline protestant church, they all supported her run.

it was the labor movement who first came to her aid. : offered a strategy to achieve even what president ronald reagan had drawn back from, radical change to social security. if you never read david stockman's book about this, read it. he basically said what they first tried to do couldn't be achieved in a democratic society. that they should have understood that and gone back. instead, he didn't want to hurt

people. he was talking about how he would be engaged in combat with old people, people in his own base and he drew back and we ended up with these steps. so, the point i'm reading premise after ronald reagan had decided not to push for the kind of changes that stockman, the libertarian, was taking and what happened after that. so, i picked up here. pick up here. these libertarians seem to have determined what was needed to achieve their end was to stop being honest with the public. is that advocating for their goals first, they need to engage in kind of a crime book even if it required advancing misleading claims in order to take the territory bit by bit in a matter that cumulatively but quietly

could begin to radically alter the society. the program that they tested this new strategy was to social security. social security as james buchanan and david stockman had observed was the linchpin of the welfare state. the most popular new deal reform is very successful and made it a target since its creation in 1935. now, no doubt inspired by the conversion to the tensions, the institute turned to buchanan to teach its staff how to walk, my term, not theirs. they made it the privatization of social security the top priority. buchanan labeled the existing system of social security a ponzi scheme, a screaming that as one pointed out in plac implt the program was fundamentally fraudulent, and indeed

fundamentally wrong. there was fundamentally wrong and if you look at the libertarians, because that was learned is that it meant in his term political suicide. because the majority of the voters wanted the system to continue as it was. so the professor, there is no widespread support for the basic structural reform among any membership group in the american politics among the old or the young, black, brown or white, female or male, rich or poor. the universal popularity of social security must mean any attempt to fight on some of the philosophical ground openly about the opposition. buchanan therefore taught a more secure and sequential and i would say devious and deceptive

approach. but one that served this newly. those that seek to undermine must do two things. first, they must alter the beneficiaries understanding of social security's viability. because that quote would make the abandonment of the system looks more attractive. there is a whole industry of the nonprofits funded but have been doing this as i am quite sure you are aware you have seen the commercials. step one would soften the public supported by making it seem unreliable. step two would apply a classic strategy of divide and conquer. it could be split apart in this way. the first group is already seeking to social security benefits. the current recipients and those

close to retirement should be reassured that their benefits would be cut. this is referred to as paying off existing claims. the reasoning behind it is the public choice analysis, the broader school of thought. for any change in the symptom, these are the hardest that fought to preserve. getting them out of the struggle to preserve the system was the remaining coalition. the second group buchanan coached at higher earners and it would be to suggest they be tasked at higher rates than others to get the benefit as an insurance program by making it look like the discredited and the unpopular income transfer

popularly understood as welfare. and if that method were repeated enough that the wealthy begin to believe that the authors were not paying their fair share, they in turn what was supposed s opposed to altering the program. the third group would consist of younger workers. younger people need to be constantly reminded that their payroll reductions were providing, and i quote, a tremendous welfare subsidy to the ages. i think if nothing else it tells us what we are looking at is not classic conservatism. that doesn't put people against their elders and say that grandma is a rent seeker. i do think there is one more

thing to add to. this patchwork of reform is to make sure the message is clear to those that he is devising. the package that had been before but still buchanan noted that the member groups of dignified coalition that protected social security might be induced by such changes to fight against each other. when that happens, draw the feelings that upheld the system for half a century might fracture. now buchanan's projection left unanswered how do i identify those that would benefit from the end of social security and turn them into active allies of the cause. and for that, to other people ae

at the heritage foundation contributed to this discussion with the leninist strategy for getting rid of social security. the right was not against people putting away for their retirement for the country they wanted people as part of their retirement and responsibility they just wanted to say things taken out of the hands of the federal government and put into the hands of capitalists and also they wanted to and employer contributions to social security. i will stop that section there. the final section i will close on his ironic.

to my reading kind of shakespearean. today you may have heard some of the former colleagues are up in arms and the book's portrayal of his ideas into the cause they move forward. but here is an interesting fact. the political teen and their academic allies at george mason university pushed buchanan aside when he called what they were doing at george mason university exploitation. and when push came to shove, top university administrators. it was over the first nobel laureates and they pushed him to the side, too. those who are now complaining the loudest about my book are in the new quarters while buchanan's papers were left to

rot in a building that was beginning to get old and was essentially unattended. there were a few people that remained loyal and one of them became contempt. he was a libertarian, not like me. well i'm about to tell you comes from a person who was the colleague that friend a job at the foundation in virginia. he was deeply involved in this cause that he got more and more disgusdisgusted after the turn e new century in the way that wealthy people were taking over what was supposed to have been a movement of ideas. and so, the conclusion opens with the rallies and unheated whistleblowing. i will share a final selection of this and then we can do wanto

the questions and discussions. it is a contradiction in terms to remain a self-governing intellectual and be part of this messianic movement. they do not entertain doubt. i suspect the rallies have change underway. if it didn't bother others about themselves, it bothered him about himself. but we also know that once they settled in and that's took over in this corner of george mason university with the economics department no mouse phobia schol of law, they didn't need the whole university, just good chunks of it. after they settled in and took over george mason university that concerned turned into contempt until they came to viscerally despised the academic enablers that are now occupying his campus.

he called his former economics colleague at george mason and now charles cook top political strategist a third-rate political hack and a man who was very appropriately named. [laughter] they said for others never dared to admit and i quote from a far too many libertarians have been seduced by this money into providing intellectual ammunition for an autocratic businessman. it has reached the point come he had come to believe by 2012, that there was no hope that any of those who participated in the free-market think tanks would speak out. he was blunt about the reason why. he said, too many of them benefit financially from the pocket money that is doubled off by charles anna david cook. the rally included a buchanan as well and has a suggestion of so many having been bought. you can in no longer came to campus after 1998 when he was

essentially pushed to the side to teach strategy to a new generation of operatives with the alacrity that he once showed nor did he play any other direct ongoing role that might have been able to trace what has now become the movement. buchanan continue to accept the honor and a malia meant that tht they send his way. in his memoirs, published ten years later, he went out of his way to say that looking back over his lifetime's work, i have no regrets. perhaps. but buchanan was far too smart not to remember the idealistic young manhood once promised university of virginia president but he would seek to defeat the keynesian economics and liberal politics by winning the war of ideas against the other side, not by writing training manuals. had he withdrawn after 1998 so he wouldn't have to personally

witness of the decades of work had brought? again, we don't know. they clearly continue to respect buchanan but not so blindly. for he presented us the 2012 election approache approach thae libertarian cause they shared may well suffer at least in principle serious harm for having to become the instrument of a tyrant. watching how they commandeered the institute for what they called the plan to speed up the libertarian conflict of america by using the very governmental apparatus that the libertarians have criticized made angry. he saw they had no scruples concerning the manipulation of scholarship. he wanted the output when a few libertarian board members and staff members raised questions, wheone actually said we support legalized prostitution that

doesn't meabut thatdoesn't mean. it was the social conservative and those that want anathema to libertarians. in the end, rallies loyalty was to the cause. he was concerned about kato, not america and certainly not about the faith of the majority rule. neither he nor any other insider ever went public with their concerns nor did anyone else sounded the alarm for the rest of us about what the proxy army as one army leader called it was doing to the country. thank you. [applause]

now we have time for questions and slick there is one right here. can you talk about the camps that were held at george mason to teach all this stuff? >> the question is was it about the summer camps to teac teach l this to the federal judges and others and yes, asp one point i believe it's when he actually gave the gif that gift that he e problem with the libertarian movement had always been a shortage of talent. so as a part of th the project d you will see this going on around campuses in the country now, they are investing heavily in creating these outposts in different schools. we have them where the students are trying to get the transparency in an uphill battle. western carolina university, faculty and students were overruled by belief by the administration. some really frightening stuff

playing out. but they create these training institutes that are for high school students and training institutes for teachers and training institutes for faculty, from different places. and training institutes for federal judges. so i did get into that and i gave a hint to the legal story but buchanan one of the colleagues was henry manning who was a crucial entrepreneur to build george mason's law school are roundabout and they ran the camp that at one point i believe that it was by the early 1990s had trained two fifths of all of the sitting federal judges in the united states, 40% of all federal judges have been treated to this funding curriculum. those continue and changed under obama because he didn't have a chance to put in a number of federal judges comes with the numbers are not what they are. this is serious.

these people are dead set is determined to transform the legal system and then in buchanan's terms, to walk at all in with these radical constitutional changes. >> what do you think it says about the class rule in this country and of the liberal opposition that they have been such an abject failure in the face of all of this? ywhy has the far right-wing idea received so much power when you would think there were plenty of rich people with intellectual ideas and to back it up in the opposition >> i don't think any of us have really understood that. i think partly there's lots of money in both parties now especially with citizens united. it's shaping everything. sso what we have is more attention to become more accountable to the donors than the citizens.

we saw this play out with healthcare. why was the republican party in washington supporting a house bill that only something like 12% of the american people supported. because, they were being pushed and they were answering to this network not to their own constituents. and if it is the idea, change the incentive. make it so they are afraid to be primary as they call it now and they will answer the donors instead of their voters so there is a larger question. frankly i think we've all been remiss and we are delighted that we buy our church. how many conversations have you been in that people are talking about politics and they say is it going to be hillary or, we focus on personalities in washington and i think we all have to learn this lesson that it's about the rules. it's about power. and the democrats i think in washington were so focused on washington that they didn't even notice they were losing all the

states. and again, this is a strategy that is informed by the virginia school of political economy and enforced by the donor network. they now have the trifecta control. both houses of th the legislatue and governorship in 25 states. the democrats have that instead. i think they might be starting to wake up at the national level. i'm not sure. but what i will say is people in places like north carolina and in kansas, actually the republicans broke rains with the party and institute a tax cut because they realized the schools were being destroyed and the state by this ideology. if people want to see the turnaround, it's going to be incumbent on all of us. everybody has a thousand things to do, but it's going to be incumbent on the citizenry not to wait for somebody else to do it, but to get engaged and make things happen. [applause]

[inaudible] i will say the single most important thing. the question was given the scope of this, it's been decades in development and how collaborative it is, how do we combat this. and my preliminary answer to that is that the single most important thing about this book and about the story that i tell is that they are doing this because they understand people don't want what they want. and if they told the truth about what they want, we will recoil and not let it happen. so i think the most crucial thing we can do is inform ourselves when we see that it is make them tell the truth. if they say i want to reform social security, say do you support the security entrance and a challenge but because they have to get out of this language that obscures what they are

doing. actually, i made a list at one point of things that i think follow from this analysis, but i think the main thing is to realize that is a source of tremendous strength that they understand if the majority knows what is going on and the majority sees what kind of society they would bring into being, people would want to stop it so the task is to reach out to one another and get engaged in civic organizations and whatever, get involved in your church, there's so many different networks people are plugged into i think that can begin to make a difference. on healthcare, what better conditions do they have? [applause] they didn't like what they were seeking and they really responded. >> there are clearly parallels between what buchanan was doing at george mason and what friedman was doing at the university of chicago.

did you see any documentation of collaboration between the two schools? >> it's actually quite interesting. buchanan came out of chicago and then they talked about what he set up in the university as being a colony of the university of chicago. i don't think he liked that idea. but in this kind of hothouse crucible of what was happening and then in the later chapters i talk about how even the university was being democratized from the university of virginia was changing, the poles ended. gerrymandering in all these different things happened and finally we are making virginia inclusive and democratic for the first time and it was in that context that buchanan developed a distinctive school of political economy that came up with these operatin for these og conclusions i just described. now, milton friedman, not by favorite person or economist but in some ways what they were

doing is a bit different. different. buchanan always smart because he didn't think he could get adequate recognition. but they were all part of this which was promoting these ideas for the world fighting chicago maintained somewhat of a different feel. although i don't know, maybe it's because i haven't gone deeply into the archives. maybe there will be somebody else here writing the book about that. >> the question was this fox news part of this network. i would say that archival information was mainly from buchanan.

it was part of this libertarian network and they had a letter they were talking about and they were a convert to the clause. they talked about when they were launching the program about making use from the cognitive psychology and biology so the effort to keep right-wing people in a kind of constant faith to a state of fear because someone hates their religion i think a lot of that is consciously exploited and i am on the direct mailing list is a member of the groups invite him to and i can tell you some of the things they send out our horrific.

you realize many of the illegal aliens are about to steal the election, that's one of the things they're sending out. citizens can start holding their elected officials accountable to the kind of stuff that's getting people to the polls. understand by changing the incentive they can get elected officials but they have no sentimental loyalty to the republican party's. they've made that very clear that they turn it into a delivery vehicle so even people that don't agree with the them h in what they see or lose their position but where are the people encourage who encouragedn say that it's wrong i don't need

this office or your donor money. [applause] that will change things to create that voice that would be one thing. >> [inaudible] or evangelical colleges to separate church and state [inaudible] >> the question was how does they funded the cause of network organizations related to groups like the federalist society, evangelical schools and so forth and at this point i think you will not be surprised when i

tell you i found charles was one of the earlier people supporting the society hoping promote its program. one thing i will say it again there is no question about their intelligence and i think there is a danger on the left. that is the worst thing because it does make people look like slobs also what keep but also ts from understanding how incredibly shrewd and some of these people are. what he got from his father he's increased over a thousand times.

three engineering degrees from mit always thinking six moves ahead and that's something others will have to start doing not just paying attention to what celebrities have what it how we change the institution. i talk about the nausea that i felt when i started researching and i swear for a while i felt like claire danes in homeland with my files. [laughter] but then i would dig into it and it was just crazy how the same people circulate and how the network is connected.

i'm actually starting to work on digital graphics. one more question. >> [inaudible] the financial crisis. [inaudible] >> first of all at this point in the story you will not be surprised to know it brought us the financial crisis.

economists in the senate when he was pushing for the financial deregulation they created with george mason all these people were involved or pushing opening up the financial industry for deregulation. was there a moment of shame that the ideas did not work out? no, not the moment, just a more aggressive push to take advantage of the crisis and the dislocation of the financial collapse. i think our time is up but i'm thrilled to see so many people here. [applause]