intellectual feast. every saturday american history he beat documents america's story and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more including charter communication. >> of broadband is a force for empowerment for that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications along with these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. ask if you are enjoying book tv than sign up for our newsletter is the qr code on the screen receive a schedule of upcoming programs author discussions, book festivals and more. book tv every sunday on cspan2 or anytime online at

booktv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ >> hello everybody o welcome. it is my pleasure to welcome you to this conversation about matthew continetti important excellent new book the right, the 100 year war for american conservative. it's intellectual and political history over the past century. to accept the ideas behind the rise the electoral coalition that composed it. the weight the coalition has sought power and use power and our politics for the weights thought about the country and its future. the book explores the tension between populism and conservativism between libertarian and traditionalist between pragmatists ands purist. it gives us a lot to talk about. and that is what we will be doing this morning. we will do it through a conversation between the booksks author matthew continetti and p

you might sit one of its subjects former house speaker paul ryan. a practitioner and a thinker about politics of the modern right. a word about each of them as if they need it. matthew continetti is a senior fellow where his work is focused on american politics and political and history. he is a prominent journalist and analysts. he was the founding editor of the washington free beacon. he was prior to that the opinion editor of the weekly standard. sick and tripping at her national review and calmness for commentary magazine. this is matt's third buffered in what way or another all of that with the evolution of the modern life. the former speaker of the house of representatives but he served in congress for 20 years from 1999 through 2018. representing the first district of wisconsin. s in that time he rose very quickly to serve as chairman of the budget committee and chairman of the ways and means committee. ultimately served as speaker for about three and half years.

sure it felt like a lot longer. resident fellow here with us as well ass serving on a number of boards. teaching at notre dame and other important work. our form will be straightforward and conversational bird no formal remarks, no opening statements. we will discuss book on its core ideas, but questions to matt. after back and forth between matt and paul which i will moderate, will open things up for questions. questions from all be in the room and questions of those of you who are watching live i online. if you are watching us online there are two ways you can ask questions of matt. by e-mail or if you must on twitter. e-mail you can send a question to john roach as john.roach@ai.org. if you're on twitter you can use the # ai the right.ir and with that we can jump in. matt, first of all

bcongratulations on and importance of her book. maybe the way to get us started help folks get a sense of the book tells a little bit about why you wrote it and why youou wrote in the way you did? why has the particular character and form you have given it? works great, thank you for coming and thank you all for attending. thank you to aii for providing e a home where i could write this book. which has been many years in the making. and finally when you fold came t to me said you have to write the book you have to help me come to ai where i could write it. i think the book it began in a few ways. firstly, i had an unusual habit. i love reading old journalism. when i started as a political writer in washington 20 years ago, my hobby was ring to the archives of the magazine where i worked at the time and then

moving there to the archives of natural review, the american spectator commentaryll magazine, all these little magazines on the american right. that is an education on the history but the history of american politics and culture. relate for the last half-century but thatpa is something i have been doing in my spare time for two decades now. however, after 2012 in particular, i began a more intensive look and investigation into the history of the american right. because of the 2012 election you played a part in. exemplified to me some of the emerging strains and tensions within the right. between the republican party establishment based in washington and the grass roots conservatism throughout the country. between various factions within the conservative movement in ths different ideas and principles they stood for. and also curing through 2012 it

seemed to be the populist moment which i believe began most recent populist moment which i big get in the second bush administration run 2005 -- 2006. it's only gaining steam. i want to investigate why was this happening? what was driving the energy? and when donald trump came down the escalator in 2015 eventually won the republican nomination and the presidency for the next year without a history of the american right was all the more necessary to figure out how reach this impasse. another reason why i wrote theho book that i should mention is i have been teaching this material atin some form over the years. some of my students are here and i'm happy to see that. i found there was no real one volume textbook i could just hand a young person and say this is the history. there are some great works.l

george nash's book that's kind of the key text of my field. but that buck really focuses heavily on the post-world war ii conservative movements. and it kind of ends its main body of the text ends around the late 1970s. i felt it was necessary to broaden the story and tell it in a narrative format and a way that synthesizes both intellectual development along with political development. so this bike and headed to my students preferably by a couple copies for you and your family. x may be by way of offerings and thoughts about the book maybe help us think about the question of the history of the right for conservatives? why should they care about the history of american history? >> say that country or c not. coming to an inflection point like all great countriesf do.

i think if we lose the country to the left lose with the countries all about. for me it's the constitution declaration rooted in natural law word the principals flow from that should be character in a policies mix the' country realizes its true potential. and if we lose that, we lose the left. and we become like other countries. other democracies. i think it is extremely important we are not anywhere close to where we need to be as a movement to be able to realize these things. my background is more fiscal base i worry about inflection points in the future with the musocial contract and that resee currency how much time do we have before can put in place important reforms but we have to win a lot of arguments in the country before we could do that. so why is it important? it is important so we can make sure the 21st century is a great american century. that democracy and

self-determination and markets and the rest and human flourishing t is advance which s what we work on here. i too want to thank forgive me a home so i could read.ge [laughter] return about this over here second ago, when i came to age and went to and 88 -- 92. i came of political age in the reagan moment. and i came into the conservative movement as a young person as a think tank or and then as a member insight of fight for the soul of the american party. it was live in well-paid bleak bill clinton had just one hit a big turn within the conservative movement and different factions fighting one another. this is not new. this is happened from the beginning on your book is a perfect example of that prayer for new young people who are shocked at this infighting so to speak of the conservative movement, this is what happens in movements. until you have a big

standardbearer and reagan type person you're going to have that type of fighting. we are where we have been before but where we go we do not yet know. but it is important the conservative movement in my opinion becomes the majority movement in the country with respect to winning elections so we can affect policy and can sell these big problems in front of us. >> it must be a challenge toen decide where to start in a booka like this. he mentioned george nash wonderful book really looks at american conservativism as a post-world war ii phenomenon. you do not do that. if you a lot of emphasis on the pre-war why? what is there to learn now before the new deal? >> for a historian the two hardest questions are where to a begin and what to leave out. those are the two things ever want to talk about and criticize

it once it's written. what why did i begin with warren harding's inauguration spring of 1921? i thought it was important to show the institutions that american conservatism saw themselves defendant. conservatism is the defense of inherited institutions. american conservatives are in an unusual place. the institutions we are meant to defend are the institutions created by american founding. the constitution, the principles of the declaration of independence. the political theory of the federalists. but in 1932, many people on the right believed a revolution had taken place in the nature of the american experiment. in the nature of the american government. and they, the people on the right were defending the institution of the constitution against fdr and the new deal.

i thought it was important to show how the conservatives came to define themselves in opposition to the new deal. and prior to 1932, where progressivism would settle in the american political continuum was very much up for grabs. teddy roosevelt aligned with the progressives. of course he was a very successful republican president. woodrow wilson line of progressives. successful in some ways, not in others. democratic president but it was not until the 1920s with republican party saw the gop align itself. say we are going to define ourselves as the party of americanism or of normalcy. was extraordinarily successful.o

the great depression, generalized gop claim to provide prosperity for the average american. world war ii delegitimized the terights foreign policy mainstrm america electric. so conservatism reconfigure itself for the post-world war ii cold war t era. it's been told in some places, like justin who considered himself traditionally wrote a book on the subject. but i wanted to incorporate that story into the story of the postwar conservative movement and carry it through reagan and the most recent presidencies including donald trump. mix in some ways the kind of work you are most engaged in the efforts to reform our entitlement system and to think about the role of government often depicted by the left as

attempts to restore free new deal america. is there some truth to that? is the american right still seeking some way to recover from an error made by fdr? click to 20 years. i don't think that is the case anymore. i think everyone has reconciled themselves with this. which i would call the social contract. look, the founders gives the system designed to reach political consensus. the issue is against us.nt i do not think that is a case nor take the social contract for the old age, for low income you have consensus on the right and left they have an important role to play in.

if you agree with that the question is let's make sure that is the case. then you have a fight about left and right worth whether individualism is involved in' this or if you are progressive you see is a way of extending government to reach people's lives. basically erected in that. was not to repeal these things but to rework the programs did not create a debt crisis. did not bankrupt the country and use markets and choice andn competition as a way of delivering on these goals without hamstring the country, slowing down growth and bankrupt

the country. icand populism about medicare al the time. it became clear to me there is no he wanted to embrace that. other than making good on the promise on repeal and replace which is an entitlement reform. we are one vote shy of getting it done in the senate. it was not popular in his mind for therefore is not going to be pursued. that was always really frustrating to me. that is the example of don't touch it or we reform it. trucks it's always a dilemma for the right in a variety of contexts, which left it is responding too. the right end of america's fell on the defenses because it had to deal progressives. it had to deal fdr.

and it had to deal fell dj at now we are in the obama era were dealing with that. we deal the great awakening as we deal here today. another left. each time they transform themselves and take on new guises the right often has to do it as well. whenever i teach the founding documents of review in the magazine was launched in 1955. buckley junior who is in many ways central protagonists of my story conservatives who are against the new deal and parentheses were not sure if there can be any other kind. [laughter] all aligned with national review principles. now for an american on the right today to read that clearly things have changed. passage of time in the small

conservative instincts of new knowledge to rock the boat. but also the left cto is changen many ways we are not fighting over the you feel as the cultural agenda of the left. it really comes out of the antiwar counterculture movement of the late 1960s. has waxed and waned over the decades rick asked him to pick up on what you said bill buckley being central character. seems to me too be you can see why. we were up to you would put bill buckley on the cover. what was he doing? we think about the rest of the massive buckley what was his

ambition?ng >> his ambition that young age he was and he said this to mike wallace in an earlier interview he said i'm a counterrevolutionary. in the revolution he wanted to overturn was fdr the revolution 1933 to how to go about doing this? there are many different avenues to pursued. the first was institution .uilding he was also responsible for the creation or played a part in the creation of the intercollegiate studies institute. does the collegiate network all continue to this day.

also launched quarterly the human life review. the place for pro-life you get it in terms of trying to build up a counter establishment to recruit people who inhabit these institutions would make conservative arguments to be treated seriously by everyday americans watching the four channels that access to in the 1960s. he also wanted to build fences around conservatism. the bigger problem in the aftermath of world war ii in the post- mccarthy. the mid- 1950s the mid- 1960s. was that it was considered a fringe ideology. america was thought be a liberal country not acidic capitol progressive on the liberal

country the constitution and the bill of rights are liberal documents. in conservatives these conservatives seemed a little bit odd they're all in the area of government expansion and regulation. fringe in the 1950s and 60s. buckley was very concerned and making conservatism respectable. going after anti-semitism. going after conspiracy theories could not be part of his movement because of her atheism saying libertarian offspring, most could not be part of his

movement because was a narco capitalist privatized everything get rid of the states totally. national security office played a big part in that. buckley conservatism was one of engaged nationalism. american should be strong and be engaged in the world to roll back the soviet union. that meant a large military establishment, a standing army that meant forward defense andnd forward deployment of our troops. then to alliances like nato and the intervention like vietnam. all of which the earlier rights would have been extremely skeptical if not outright opposed to. the version of american conservatism that bill buckley created. the last part of his legacy was political. working within the republican party the traditional vehicle of american conservatism to turn it

away from the modern republicanism. and toward conservatism. he played a big role in the goldwater campaign and barry goldwater's nomination mr. conservatives nomination for president in the republican ticket. tal mironically then the goldwater campaign which was managed by one of the most promise presidents of this institution he was afraid without political energy express itself in his early friendship with ronald reagan. and even got to the point later in this life heey is willing to intervene buckley that is in democrat primaries. support democratte candidates in order to get rid of me too the

original may 2. next i came of age at the tail end of it. in a group reading pages.t in econ prof gave me his issue of national review but i did know what was said i think you m should take this. i'll give you my copy when i'm done with it. and i consumed it took it too. you are a young budding conservative in the late '80s the path you took. this was the movement you came into. we have o different movements le this in different times when people are coming of age in the movement. and i think buckley of all people dominated for two or three decades.ll

never the less still had a bunch of people and others that there is a big fight. i think if he didn't put reagan on the cover. hooks i would say to and all of the debate were having at the moment over the new american right you go buy my book the third new right we have had over the last 100 years. i think there's great energy being devoted to building up an infrastructure that can compete with the conservative infrastructure that bill buckley began creating in the early neoconservatives helped build in the80 70s to 1990. that had been missing for this new right for many years. trump presidency in the year subsequent to that i think they

are building their own infrastructure. that just shows you the importance of institution. without thesehe institutions people riding in their basements. cracks buckley created conservative mainstream through these institutions. in no way was built around ideas that would have been very controversial in the old rights. but presented itself as a consensus of the mainstream off the right. within that main stream, within those institutions there is also a dividing line. a dividing line between traditionalists and libertarians. between freedom and tradition. and that dividing line came to kind of define the internal debates of the conservative movement. and over time the attempt to

overcome those divisions became known as the fusionism. o the defining projects police in the 1960s. tell us a little bit aboutea it was, what is meant to be, what it wasn't. did it make sense is the way to solve the problem he confronted? >> i think one of the underappreciated figures in the history of theer american right was a man named frank meyer is an ex- communist who converted to the right. he became a contributor to the right-leaning journals the freeman and the american mercury. and he became with national review. mention the r senior editor it's trained in communists he thought

very dogmatically these are the parameters in which we are going to operate as american conservatives. buckley used to call the air traffic control. he was making sure all the planes were going in the right direction, landing and taking off on time. so the 1960s meyer begins disputes with other libertarians on the right over the nature of the american defense establishment. whether a standing army back of communism including military intervention.

it will growth the state and reduce individual freedom. the course of the debate with libertarians that meyer says look, i'm going to describe to you what american conservatism is. and what american conservatism is, tracing back to the american founding is a synthesis of individual liberty and traditional values ballou called estraditional values. but moral order. because the american founding took place before the great ruptures of the 19th century, before the french revolution in 1789, americans have been able to synthesize these twofr principles freedom and virtue, liberty and order. write this essay it is a great essay. and his best friend who's built

buckley's brother-in-law and another senior editor and national review and who is moving toward a very devout traditional catholicism at this time. he became more and more devout as the years went on. he read frank's essay said this is ridiculous. freedom is not the end of politics virtually. what you are trying tome do frank, is some type of fusion. until fusionism is one of those words it begins with an insult ends up being appropriated. or neoconservatism. amthis is where the debate begis really within the american right, can you unify individual liberties and traditional morality? and people associate with national review said you could. even if it did not this is a workout in theory, it was revealed in practice. it was revealed in the lives of many american conservatives

themselves that these two things can coexist even if it does not quite work in theory. and as as conservatives we should not worry orth sin theory only about whether it works in practice. that was and not enough onto more religious right. he eventually broke off from buckley's emergent conservatism. it is notrt enough for who continue to critique buckley's conservatism.el because of its belief you needed powerful military and engagement with the world in order to defeat communism. so i see a lot of debates today about the future of fusionism. i continue to think yes it does not always work in theory. in fact the closer. you look it might break down. but it does so work in practice when you look at how people on the right actually live their lives very quickly put it this way, for people not used to fusionism. an example of it, when you go to

effectuating policy. on meaning going to politics absently fusionism y works. try working in congress and building a coalition a working majority in congress, it requires fusionism to come together. and members of congress people are up on the ballot running for election, except this. they know that in the big diverse country to have a working majority they have to coexist in a coalition of people who come from different regions, different backgrounds, different philosophies with inside the conservative movement or theou democrats take the progressives. where you have diffuse these things together. fusionism is absolute essential to have practical working majorities to pass laws. so, and the think tank it's hard to justify it hard to rationalize but when you are actually affecting politics and you're actuallyom practicing

politics it becomes essential. lexi coalition that began to be built around this notion, took a shape through the 1960s. and in the 70s when the experience beats extremely difficult decade in a lot of ways the story you tell them this book is a story of extraordinary vibrancy. as a stepping back from the book the 1970s seemed like the most important decade of the ten decades you describe in the development. what happened to the right in the 70s? how is it different coming out of the 1970s and going into them and why? >> in the simplest answer involves new groups came to become associated with the right in with the american conservative movement through the 1970s. and a lot of that played out as a result of the overreach of

liberalism. and the radical left during the vietnam era. during the student rebellion, during the social turbulence of late 1960s early 1970s. people who wouldld not have identified as being on the right ended up coming into an alliance with the american conservatism. it became a question of how ivamerican conservatism would dl with these new entrants? i'll give you two examples. the first what bill gavin who was a speechwriter for richard nixon and a very good writer called streetcorner conservatives. these were conservatives who were not familiar with russell kirk great traditionalist author. they were often democrats. they were part of fdr majority coalition. and yet in the late 1960s and

early 1970s they looked on the television screens, read the newspapers and said what has happened to my country? is a rising crime, rising drug abuse, dissolving families democratic party wracked byy an argument over vietnam and the new rights revolution taking place. and so they begin moving into the republican column. and they come to be known as the hardhats because they tend to be blue-collar. they tend to be not having obtained a college degree. so the hardhats enter the republican coalition. they are critical to richard nixon's landslide when in 1972. they become part of the rights over the years they are the reagan democrats. they swerve in 1992, newt gingrich brings them back in and

94. they are defendants anyway are the trumps silent majority. most of the neoconservatives an lth anti-communist. who, for the same reason as the hardhats found themselves out of sync with their allies on theno left the democratic party. not alt make the migration to the republican party in the 1970s when irving kristol endorses richard nixon in 1972. it is a scandal. in many of his fellow neoconservatives don't make the jump until well into the 1980s. but these neoconservative intellectuals are often well-positioned within the liberal establishment migrating to the right. a national review conservatives

have to decide how they fit into the picture. they always to murmur moment i read during m my research editorial in the spring of 1971 responding to essays and commentary magazine. they were clearly indicative of the editor of commentary at that time moving to the right. the title of the editorial was come on in, the water is fine. [laughter] and then finally the last group that enters the picture on the american right in the 1970s is the religious, right? so the religious right had been dormant in many ways at least at the national political level since the scope trial since the beginning of my story. but it's because of federal decisions. and judicial rulings in the 1970s and also because of disappointment. in the presidency of jimmy carter that you see evangelical

and fundamentalist christians move en masse from the democratic party into the republican column the vehicle >> .because not only does it have that but the hardhats and the neoconservatives and the religious right as well. >> inside the parties when i came of age with the supply-side movement that was so from the austerity in economics and pain-and-suffering so our laugh or and bob hartley and the crowd of "the wall streetot journal", they really reinvigorated and reagan was not a supply-side or as a governor he came over from kant and blackburn from

california so i come from the supply-side crowd. that really reinvigorated and economic message. >> what did the supply-siders say quick. >> with 3 percent rule there was a fight inside the university of chicago nixon took us off of the gold standard. and with the supply-siders bringing answers to the problem of inflation and tax reform to show how you could have growth and opportunity

and in 1978 and in 1981 and 82 after passing the tax cut showing what real growth look like actually jack kennedy got it started because of the marginal tax rates. but with tax reform wanted to have evidence of our ideas is wrong coasting on the fumes of the reagan revolution that was achieving higher income mobility. and with faster wage growth because of the supply-side economics and then got fresh

evidence of throwing a curveball. within the establishment of the conservative movement of the republican party supply-side prevailed in past ideas and that really helped put the coalition together in semy opinion. >> and a peculiar evolution. >> it doesn't really culminate. i'm that's not the argument that you make and that the right in the left is a struggle with so who is this

person. >> . >> and then to be familiar with the book the great biographer of teddy rooseveltri commission by reagan himself and parts of c it it depends where you open it up but you have no idea what was going on behind the smile so we had have a fictional character people say reagan penetrated that smile but i'm not so sure. i think regular self-contained and very unusual for someone like that. he was always on stage.

nt>> and then there's other qualities as well to make them important and inconsequential. he was very consistent over the decades reagan shows up in my story 1947 testifying in the capacity as president of the screen actors guild and he is interviewed. he talks about freedom and democracy and american exceptionalism in 1947 is almost word for word what he said in his 1 farewell address in 1989 very little changes in his basically system. part of that has to do briefly he was very old. born 1911. doesn't become a republican until he is 51 years old. votes for fdr four times.

but he had in his had a picture what america was like before the new deal. it's a practice rather than the theory so dixon illinois was america and that life he lived was how american should live. and that was in his bones. a few other things look at fdr and with the reagan's famous address in the last week of the campaign reagan is picking up the rendezvous with destiny. he would love that on radio reagan does the same thing it's you and me having a conversation so that orientation toward the future

is unusual as a conservative i'm looking to the past but here is reagan looking at the future but then there are some personal characteristics that make reagan stand out mr. taft mr. republican. he was not the most charismatic person around and they have a tendency to be pessimistic to go to hell in a hand basket. but that was not ronald reagan. nothing phased him so this made him unusual and also made

him appealing to parts of the electorate that typically when they hear the word conservative or american right, they flinch. then here comes ronald reagan with a quip and a smile and the baritone in the movie style hair and that's not what i think of when i think of conservative all these qualities made such an extraordinary figure who was with the american right. >> i live on the rock river 80 miles upstream now and i mentioned that because the guy down river and it brought people looking into the irish catholic family and that is

where a lot of people from my family raking from he had such a very great way about him such an amazing intersection in time and that's the confusion that occurred the reagan coalition really came together. >> you have that with buckley with reagan's departure in 89 then post presidency was cut short because of his alzheimer's diagnosis in 1994 and then buckley's lengthy retirement. he stretched it out. first he retired from public speaking and then the board of national review.

he never retired from his column. >> he was writing it the day he died. >> that with these figures and with thet conservative movement sought as unifying. and then it comes to the four. >> you entered so where does the right think it is headed there is the fusion right there with the heads of the three different movements working with people that project for american future.

i never thought of myself as much as a neocon as a supply-side or. we were fighting pat buchanan a little bit of ross perot and ii read from college on the national review that with guys like that at the national review it was not the weekly standard yet but the project for american people? the neocons fighting the paleo cons with the point being that when the reagan year ended with the defeat of h.w. bush by clinton attend of soul-searching was going on in the conservative movement turned in word not and then

with that compassionate conservativism. and never really replaced a solid fusion with the wars and the rest but and with that internal struggle for the future of the conservative movement and wean are frankly. we have had positive and have one some white houses but we have never settled into a posture of the center-right movement that's capable of racking up majorities and presidencies to put in place and that is still underway and dominated by trump not just

untethered populism it's really not an agenda but a theory. so underneath that the kind of fight we had in the early nineties like right now only with digital. >> in a way your book describes post reagan right and he is the exception but there isau a way populism rose to the forefront. we don't thinkut of the nineties that way now but there was a time when the populism that has been held so how do you think of the post reagan years? >> one of the themess of my book is between conservativism and populism in the irony w that oftentimes the only way

conservatives get into power is to populist politics which conservatives like buckley and meyer were ambivalent and conflicted.s but this is clearly evident in the reagan election populism being one of the driving forces to synthesize populism with the supply-side agenda interest of the religious right, tax cuts, defense buildup and with his departure from the scene the argument begins a new and i always thought it was very interesting the 1988 gop primary in many ways was a missed opportunity because there was a moment when the republican party could have been forced to choose between camp and buchanan.

pat doesn't run for president in 1988 and waits until 1992 because he recognizes smartly that reagan's successor will likely be george h.w. bush who was the establishment republican. so then we get the fight between the establish republican bush and buchanan 1992 representing the resurgence of the old right and the attitude toward 'immigration and in the 96 campaign. >> so that debate but that successful and then into thousand leaving the republican party and runs for president on the reform ticket when one of the rivals is

donald trump.ld >> a think buchanan is the first to recognize 16 years later trump ascends to the presidency on many ideas he was lambasting buchanan from the 2000 cycle so at the moment i do think it has been settled with the forces of populism in the governing class that came to power with ronald reagan was moved up to capitol hill during the republican revolution and then came back down pennsylvania avenue with george w. bush that conservative governing class lasted about 30 years has been displaced. >> looking at my time in congress over to periods.

and our goal with that plan is to recruit members of congress because what had happened to the majority is be got fat and lazy they recruited the next guy in line who just wanted to earmark their way.ks so the movement got intellectually lazy we got fat and happy with earmarks and that was ugly and those young upstarts many of us argued we deserve to lose our majority and then we went out and recruited people that we thought would be willing to

take votes and we were excited about the tea party movement. so it was our chance to get supply-side two.zero. so supply-side 2.0 is progrowth economics and limited government with getting entitlements under control and a robust foreign policy with the issues of trade and immigration and then we got the majority back so we couldn't effectuate much but in retrospect is that what it was. >> buty there was a bit of a fight with the paleo cons trade immigration versus the other issues. and hindsight looking back we

did not understand the potency and where the establishment republicansud that this is the effects on the forgotten man and how that played into not just policy but people thinking with that libertariantr supply-side all of us more or less agreeing but then what ended up happening the trade immigration issue overtook the movement is something like it is today so there's a moment in time that we really thought we had a shot when finally the

majority which we lost in 12, people freaked out it was not fun losing in 12. [laughter] but when we lost in 12 people freaked f out. and then what happened from my perspective enough having the nice guys on the ticket. is just send the apex predator not the velociraptor so let's just throw hand grenades. so i think the entertainers replaced with the international buckley heights and and then in a reactionary moment to the best entertainer and the best bomb thrower.

but trump was the biggest bomb thrower they could find they threw him and they want. >> and rememberan ben carson he was a rotating lead. and this testifies to the importance of the 2012 election had that gone aay different way so the world would be a very different place but i totally agree that 2020 was a hinge many people in the right had eternal is the idea because of american exceptionalism barack obama a has to be jimmy carter reborn and could only be one term and was so interested in moving

america and then to be the progressive reagan the change politics so the right believed and this is the battle. and this is called for obama election a 2012. by the 11:00 o'clock news people were just stunned. if we are reaching this point where we input scott brown in massachusetts we have the tea

party but they cannot do anything but then and 14 we get a republican wave again capturing the senate and then obama says i heard the people voted for republicans in congress i also heard thoseoi that voted and i will govern for those people it is infuriating but the elections should matter to say we need a night outsider we need an external force to shake up the system that is the only way we can achieve any of our goals and they got it. >> please think of your questions. you mentioned three issues immigration or trade? those are the issues where things really broke open after

that moment so why was it those issues and with that consensus in the bush years was an illusion that the right was wrong what they were actually voting for quick. >> if it was an illusion it should have been apparent at the time as a reporter was covering immigration debates and working for a magazine where the editors were very supportive the comprehensive immigration reform but my reporting was saying no way that was going to happen because even if it passed the senate republicans in the house would not allow it. because i three see the grassroots break any establishment party in washington over immigration.

>> and then they stood behind the republican president and then beginning 2007 with ron paul and the liberty movement there is this discontent with george w. bush for foreign policy. and protectionism and what trump did to the transpacific partnership or tpp. is basically provide and assemble for the depth of despair ravaging america. for the opioid crisis arise and alcoholism the

unimaginable social crisis he said the entry into the wto that is what is giving you this whether that is true is the empirical question but politically it is brilliant and it speaks doing a similar thing with immigration complicated issue is something porepublicans and conservatives oppose. but what happened with the rise of isis in the second half of the obama second term. truck proposes the muslim band and he takes immigration to combine that with national

security. now we have to close the borders those who may beab searching for jobs we need to make america safe. you can see how he is able to threaten these issues together but he could not do that andy 2020. >> is time to ask a question. put your statement in the form of a question. [laughter] >> i work at third way. so one reason we have these discussions it becomes apparent with the premise of

small government conservativism like social security and medicare and to be politically toxic now so what does that mean a small government conservativism quick. >> working on a big book project here answering that question their 18 of us working on the project. and he has to reconcile our life with these programs that these are settled issues and then the question is how do you go achieving those in the best possible way to maximize limited governments in the economy? so once you get over the fact these programs exist and a social contract that we all agree should exist then let's

and making them perform the best. they want no private sector command resources means of production with the extension of their ideology. we want to use the pockets of choice and competition to adeliver these services reaching consensus. that may sound like me is just radical pragmatism. we are where we are so then l performing the tasks the right way so we don't lose the reserve currencies and don't have a debt crisis because of that happens then imagine with the social contract and the

polarization if we go down the path and ten or 20 years with the reserve currency these things explode and then you have a total debt crisis during real-time surgery taking benefits in real time and that's basically what happens when you do nothing. so conservatives you have to win the arguments and majorities and have to have a president willing to stick his or her neck out to get it done that's a key task for the conservative moment right now. >> investing in education. >> making a passing reference to the iraq war. where did the republican voters sour?

in the 16 campaign and then to eviscerate that in a passionate way. i thought it was a cheap shot. and that wasld spot on. wondering if you could identify when you felt that was soured upon republican voters. >> it's a complicated question because i think public opinion began to turn against the war february 2006 with the onset of civil war. and then to begin spinning out of control. and then to be ambivalent about the surge policy to send

more troops and change the policy but mccain and romney engage in a many debate in the run-up and it's a debate that mccain one. so even then we can see to achieve stability there allowing us for most forces it was still powerful among republicans however what was going on when trump attacked jeb bush there is also much more also ending the bush era and turning a page on the bush era. >> those that clearly were ending it for the rising two-term presidency from barack obama. and then domestically between

jeb bush and hillary clinton through the dynasty. so trump is to say it is over and there is disappointment there is a huge discontent which of course jeb bush prior to his run and the economic legacy of the bush presidency with the global financial crisis also on the back of voters heads so the important moment is not the trump

victory it ran off 45 percent of the total votes in 2016 have you lost the general election the anti- trump ioforces were in a very good position in that debate that goes on between populism and conservativism to be more evenly matched but winning that on kind of a fluke. and then in the electoral college victory. once you become president the most famous president in the role the most important person in the world but definitely the most important person in your party and then you set the agenda so it's not donald

trump winning the nomination it is in winning the presidency. to transform the conservative movement. >> your time is drawing to a close each of you thinking about the future of the right. the trump era ends now. so where are we? and then and then thinking what is the future look like? >> and the american conservativism and then it is

distinct to their founding in the american political institution. and that also is a great space. >> and i worry sometimes and that is a different rage. and even though the terrain of the politics has shifted from an argument with the skies and scope of the power and public policy to be leveraged last we forget american conservativism than the right to be something very different and also i would add with that coalition to attract nonpolitical

everyday americans living their lives for those concrete policy challenges. >> i do not become a radical institutionalist and then the legislative branch to become a strong institutionalist for basically what you said that we have to have a conservative movement that is uniquely american. with that populism that is disregards the uniqueness based on natural law and there are reasons for that i will get into that but it is extremely important.

and with those founding principles and then to have great debates on policy matters within the sphere of these principles. and then to have a strong vibrant debate not dominated just by one. so this kind of populism and then to get to a populism and i think we will. and the frankly with the economics. and then on r and on we don't have a lot of time and is still a center-right country.

and then can we put together a movement and then accommodate i the movement and then the center-right that has men and women multiple not just want to win elections and then to dodge bullets and get us back on track and then to go through some deep cycles. >> that's a note to end on and we will and their the book is right the 100 year war. [applause] hi there, welcome toe

latest iop speakers series event trump b >> hi there welcome to the latest event studying part of public policy and the undergraduate and for "the new york times" we have our correspondence here whose new book this will not pass trump and biden in the battle for america's future has been wracked by two years of perpetual crisis. and then co-authored a best-sng