every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's stories, and on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard but squatting and adina for internetwork is even harder. that's why we're providing low income students access to affordable internet, so homework can just be homework. cox connects to compete. >> cox, along with these television companies, supports c-span2 as a public service.

>> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a fast pace report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> host: steven hayward, how would you describe the perfect conservative? what does that person believe? >> guest: gosh, i'm not sure it is such a thing as a perfect conservative. but i always like to say that i was six given kinds of conservatives and i will all of them. i am the ultimate old-school fusion missed, that's a term that some disrepute and anybody i think as geico is like the old parable the blind man and the elephant.

everyone says it's a tree trunk, it's a snake and it's hard to see the picture but i think someone has a generosity of spirit toward what can be learned from the other camps rather than having these theological disputes about who's right and who's wrong about particular points. >> host: you have written as much about ronald reagan as anybody, and a two volume work of several other books. of those different kinds of conservatives that you talk about what kind of conservatives is ronald reagan? >> guest: he was a whole idiocy theocratic conservative trend what does that mean? >> guest: to stop the conservative and of ways. remember reagan was fond of quoting tom paine who was the radical sympathizer of the french revolution and you love to quote him saying we have in her power to make the world over again. i remember george what the time saying anytime anywhere that is nonsense. it's most unconservative thing that could possibly say. people's in say this part of reagan's optimism and creative spirit and certain to do that

but on his headstone where spirit of the reagan library at simi valley i think the word is i knew in my heart that man is good pixel reagan was disposed by its character to look at the good site of humans but that certainly is at the whole christian doctrine of sin, right? which of the conservatives keep at the forefront of the mind especially in the design of our institutions and so forth. that's what reagan was such an idiosyncratic conservative. libertarian sympathies the course and traditional sympathies but he was his own special thing. >> host: when did ronald reagan become a conservative? >> guest: that's an interesting question. probably starting may be in the '40s when he adopted liberal anti-communism. he was a trim support in 48, a member of americans for democratic action but it's in the '50s a special and is touring the country for general electric and hosting general electric theater and of reading a lot of early conservative literature, whittaker chambers witness, the road to serfdom.

economics in one lesson. those are big conservative books in the '50s and he read them and work them into his speeches and talked into and be a conservative. he didn't become a republican until ice think that in 62 when he was moving to the rightful longtime. >> host: talk about that change becoming a republican. >> guest: i'm not quite sure, well, he said one summer i finally woke up one day and realized i'd been supporting all the people whose ideas i'm criticizing now. time to make a change. i think been part of democrats for nixon in 1960. he had had moved to supporting republicans at a pretty early time for you slowing changes party registration. >> host: stepping back from political philosophy to reagan the man, a quote from luke can do use in your book, ronald reagan was humanly accessible to people, would never met him and impenetrable to those who try to know him well.

why? >> guest: loose three which abaco with is that this had to do partly with reagan's upbringing as a son of an alcoholic. i guess again i will trust lou on this. there's psychological evidence people of who have alcoholic or remote parents. also reagan moved around a lot as a kid. he lived in a downwardly mobile family. his father struggled to keep a job. he's always the new kid in school and i think that tends to make you shy. these are some explanations for why he carried this remoteness and distance but a think it's not unique to him. a lot of people said similar things about franklin roosevelt, his own kids didn't get along with him very well. but like reagan, roosevelt had his great connection with the people. he understood the people intuitively and could connect with them.

in roosevelt case the radio and, of course, reagan radio and television. it's not an unusual trait for politicians at the highest level to be a little remote sometimes. >> host: at connection does it come from his acting career? >> guest: hardly the acting career. reagan as is often said never cared about the reviews of his movies becausehey did good box office. he was denigrated as a the actor, and so forth. but he understood box office. he always understood there are two audiences and don't pay attention to the critics. you want to pay attention to the people. [inaudible conversations] keep that through his entire life? >> guest: yeah. on the political area there's issues he sees upon that were not showing up in the polls. when he first ran for governor in 1966 he said people are mad about the chaos on the campuses. all the political people around him said nobody is telling us that in the polls. turned out to be wildly popular.

in 1876 of course he opposed the panama canal treaty. that wasn't showing up as an issue in any polls. pollsters were not asking about it but when he gave the line about the panama canal on the stump audiences erupted. he very nearly sank that treaty when on it finally was finisd under jimmy carter. >> host: the polls today versus polls during reagan's time come how much the present pays attention to the polls. did ronald reagan care? >> guest: yes, he did. his pollster was a very good pollster. one problem today is we do poll every 15 minutes. there's overload on polls. i sometimes do if i could wave a magic wand and make one change i would outlaw polls. not really. reagan to pay attention to polls. he was known as a great communicator and legend is it reagan carried all before. he gives very effective speeches but there some ever taken on central america about especially nicaragua which is such a big

flashpoint and lead to a big scandal of course in his second term. give the couple speeches in 83 and 84 and the polls showed public opinion didn't move at all and reagan found that very discouraging. he did pay attention here he just didn't talk about publicly. >> host: ronald reagan is the subject of two books, as 1600 page set of books on the history of ronald reagan. "the age of reagan", the conservative counterrevolution 1980-1989 is a letter of nine is a latter of the two. the former greatness, the former on-site "the age of reagan" the fall of liberal order 1964-1980. just some of the eight books by steven hayward and were talking about all of them on "in depth" this morning if you want to join the conversation. the phone lines as usual if you're in the easterner central time zone 202-748-8200. if you're in a mount hor pacific time zone, 202-748-2001. 202-748-2001. you can also send us a textbook

that number 202-748-8903. if we do include your name and where you're from. also on twitter it's at booktv. steven hayward will be with us until two p.m. eastern joining as throughout this entire conversation of "in depth." want to talk about ronald reagan and his relationship with mikhail gorbachev to gorbachev died august the 30th just last week. what was the relationship like when they were both in office and later? >> guest: that's an extraordinary story. initially they were inclined not to like each other. reagan wrote in his diary right after gorbachev took office in 1985 that people tell me that is different kind of soviet leader and reagan said i'm too cynical to believe that. however reagan had always said he hoped someday to sit down with a soviet leader and see if they couldn't make a breakthrough as part of reagan's confidence and other aspects.

gorbachev turned out to be that person but not initially. gorbachev for his part thought reagan was a dinosaur, that was a phrase gorbachev first use in what was the age difference between the two? >> guest: i think gorbachev was 55, 56 and reagan's wise, 20 years almost difference between the. he didn't mean dinosaur because he was old. gorbachev said that he's fully the creature of the capitalist class in america, very orthodox marxism. they came to like each other because they argued directly for the first time in a way that no american president or soviet leader ever had. they argued that fundamental ideological differences between the two countries. some of the transcripts of those are fascinating. we didn't learn about these until 1990s that these private exchanges between them were very frank and very serious and earnest but also jocular, what was the setting?

>> guest: the most interesting one was the reykjavík summit in 1986. that was a one so dramatic because look like they were on the cusp of a deal to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons. which was unthinkable in the decade before that and all fell apart at the end because reagan wouldn't concede to gorbachev demand to give of the defense initiative. that was always the drama of it that if one concentrated on. i got my hands on the soviet transcript of their face-to-face meetings which was much more complete than the state department notes. at times they would have these really tough arguments on ideology. reagan is arguing about we have a two-party system. you have a one-party system. gorbachev says the one party system is orthodox marxism. reagan says i respect your system and went to coexist but i would like to persuade you to become a a member of the republican party. gorbachev was nonplussed.

an interesting idea. can we get back to nuclear weapons now? there's other arguments in that particular meeting that dared off of the arms control stuff. >> host: did the public know that they were having these meetings, the frank exchanges? >> guest: . no. they were drips and drabs they had in november of 85 with you both were smiling and reagan was very tough in a meeting but also friendly and that's when, reagan came back from geneva say i think he is a different kind of leader. i think margaret thatcher is right we can do business with the sky and the struggle like other better. still had sharp disagreements. one of the things gorbachev brings up himself at reykjavík was, all i can tell you still believe in the talk of the evil empire and your speech of 1982 about how the soviet union is going into on as sheep of history. he was very sensitive about this. what am i to believe about that? reagan had to reassure them we

have no intention of that. this is what i think and the argument goes on, how did he go about reassuring him? did you find anything from the notes? >> guest: it then connected back to the main subject which is reagan said we're the only two people who can prevent the destruction of the world, of each other's countries. once he became clear they weren't sincere about wanting to do that, it all broke down not just over the strategic defense initiative but technical details of the whole arms control they get so complicated. everyone thought we've never had fundamental conversations about this both about the differences between countries and about how actually unravel this arms race. >> host: i'm fairly certain he was talking gorbachev at the time that reagan wanted to tell gorbachev that if the earth was invaded by aliens they would have to work together to fight the aliens. >> guest: right.

so reagan said that in the first meeting together, and this is known as reagan's little green men speech. his aides, george schultz, colin powell was in work of the nationals could counsel thought this sounds so crazy. reagan went and told that story in a in a speech a couple weeks later just off-the-cuff. luke ten had a great line about that that i quote. he said i'm sure gorbachev was nonplussed at one and what the right marxist linen in line was on cooperative with imperialist to fend off martian invaders. here's one important difference. in summits, nixon or carter or whoever, you would sit down, they were very slow at first because it would be delayed translations and then the russians including the premiere what often have this big fat notebook and have a prepared response for question or statement. there's probably no page of alien invasion to gorbachev didn't do that. that was the first summit with its simultaneous translation. they had a few notes but there

were not referring to briefing books and that's what made it different from everything that a gone before them. >> host: time magazine selects mikhail gorbachev not ronald reagan as man of the decade. what did you steven hayward think about that? >> guest: look i mean gorbachev deserves some kind of credit. he was a general liberal reformer, i confuse one but that's another story. he didn't want to in the armed race and he did repudiate the brezhnev doctrine the one that said once socialism we defend by force. he announced in 1988 unilateral reductions into soviet troops in eastern europe. we thought that negotiations now they gave us that without any concessions from our side, which was remarkable. the part of what is going on, imagine especially if you go forward and your imagine if you'd gone to graduate school to study soviet history and suddenly at the end of 1990 with

the soviet union didn't exist anymore. now you back up to the nobel prize the gorbachev gf that was a lot of immediate establishment and academic establishment couldn't stand that reagan had been so effective and have been vindicated in many ways against all their criticisms, people like strobe talbott said this is just a disaster the way reagan is going to arms control salute you real deals. he made them all look bad. embarrassed them. i think that's one way of getting back at reagan was ignoring him and giving gorbachev all the credit. >> host: did they have a relationship later in life? >> guest: i don't how much of the kept in touch. i know gorbachev i don't know if you're still in office or had left but he came and visited reagan at his ranch out in santa barbara. if pictures of him there looking like two old house getting together and sharing some jokes. i do know gorbachev said to somebody later that he was unimpressed with reagan's ranch because reagan soused as 1200

square feet. it's really tiny. they grant but gorbachev thought president of the united states ought to some big mansion or big, not this will ranch house. just again cultural differences i suppose. >> host: talk about ronald reagan and his dream to become a conservative. your journey? >> guest: oh, heck. i grew up in a conservative town outside of l.a. with conservative parents, and true story, my mother and dad were big into goldwater campaign n64 and i was in the first grade. everybody goldwater stickers edward. he's going to win by a landslide. after the election i remember,, i'm a first grader that only did he lose but he lost by a lot. that was my first question mark in my head saying the rest of the world must be different than my neighborhood. i mean, from their i joked conservative by self structure but i started reading i guess i

was precocious i started reading "national review" in the eighth grade because i think buckley on firing line. i don't understand a word this guy sing but he seems fun and interesting. i wanted to be part of the action. >> host: when did you start understanding what he was saying? >> guest: early on because as a freshman i recall looking up words he used both on the show and in his books and magazines. and in high school those days you still have a new vocabulary, building quizzes and all the rest of that and i was always send in these crazy words from "national review." my teacher would say where are you getting all these? i'm getting them from buckley. well, that's weird. okay. kind of i was precocious that we i guess. >> host: where did you go to college and what did you do after college? >> guest: i went as an undergraduate to lewis and clark college in oregon. i didn't want to go to a big gigantic university, and was a student journalist. became the opinion editor of the

paper, startling how to write off heads. right after college pressure up ads at -- i went to work for m. stanton evans in washington as an intern. reversing out of college. hugely formative experience but one religion washington i noticed what i think it were notices if you look around that capital is run by people in their 20s. all smart all eager all ambitious and i got to thinking i don't think i want to be part of that scene. if ever come back to washington, well first of all what i thought was i need to know more to be a serious journalist or writer. that's when he decided i would go to graduate school. i then went on to claremont graduate school starting 40 years ago this week in fact. i chose it, i thought about chicago a couple of the places but i went there because one who is close to home. second, it had a number of notable conservative professors there. i've learned from the best.

>> host: focusing on american politics as you're going. why was your first book on winston churchill? >> guest: that's a funny story. i will tell you briefly. i get stuck when to in one of those leadership seminars that i thought i didn't like it very much but the person who was doing a workshop kept mentioning churchill. i study churchill ostensibly in graduate school, i'll come back to that shortly but he said at the end you know a lot about churchill. you want to write a book about his leadership style. i thought it was a terrible idea until i seen such books were bestsellers. okay. so at claremont in graduate school one of the principal thoughts is is that the besto learn about politics is biography. and especially biographies of lincoln, churchill, both roosevelelle, but in particular churchill who i always an interesting because my parents were world war ii generation and talked about a lot.

took me to churchill's home when i was 14 years old. that's why he ended up writing about churchill because he knew a lot about it already and it fit with what i learned about a better way to approach understand political life. >> host: that book commit in 1997. fast-forward 25 years, this you you come out with m. stanton evans -- "m. stanton evans: conservative wit, apostle of freedom." you write in the book that this book had easily and called why stan evans matters. why does stan evans matter? >> guest: the reason i said that is the pollsters of pretty good short biographies of people like orwell matters, and so i i thought this fits that sort of genre. i thought he deserved a biography because although stan died some of my eager to go now he is already being forgotten and usually unknown by the younger generation i've learned. if you of the reagan era and all of us are aging out now, stan was a future important figure.

as a journalist, as a thinker of some profundity i think and as an activist. he combined all those roles that are kept separate and then pilot as a historian. his last book was a pretty serious attempt at a vindication of joe mccarthy which is thought to be beyond pale. he was everybody's favorite guy because he was like us i said earlier from the with everybody. he was funny as heck in person. seldom in his writing but i don't answer favorite stan evans joking is a great teacher for whole generation of conservatives. of the people that viewers would be familiar with the with the program include ann coulter, john fund. i think mark tapscott at the "washington examiner." i've a list of names in the book and i'm blanking on them but he influenced whole generation of conservative journalists. >> host: to give viewers a sense of what he looked like

what he sounded like a ln evans from the c-span archives december 16, 1994. >> i am a conservative. i don't think that's any secret to c-span viewers. i've been on here a number of times. but, i mean, by that very much the things i was just talking about. i'm interested in conserving certain things, not just because of the status quo. in fact, quite often i've been critical of the status quo at any moment but of conserving this tradition of freedom of a a limited government which is the tradition of the united states and the tradition of western culture generally. i think that's what conservatism means. and because i in those values of freedom, either conservative. >> host: m stanton evans from back in 1994. stan evans known for the shared statement. what is it? >> guest: the sharon statement was a founding document of young

americans for freedom which was formed i think the fall of 1961. long story but the short version is coming out of the goldwater boomlet of the 1960 convention a lot of people said all these young people of goldwater let's try and capitalize on that enthusiasm and start an organization. they came up with young americans for freedom. stan who i think was 28 at that time was asked to write the statement. it's 350 words long something like that. contrasts with the later her on statement of the new left which was 5000 words long and it's a basic statement of conservative principles, believe in god, free markets, the sensitive limited government, , the primacy of individual freedom, resisting communism of course which that's one part of it now that is sort of archaic but the rest of it can be repeated today pretty much verbatim as a conservative credo. stan never brag about being the primary drafter of it. if you asked them years later he

would say and he's correct of course that i didn't come up with anything original. i was trying to boil down and express conservative wisdom that's our inheritance of 2000 years. >> host: from the sharon statement we as young conservatives believe that foremost among the transcendent values is individuals use of a god-given free will, whence derived its right to be free in the restrictions of arbitrary force, that liberty is indivisible and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom, that the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense and the administration of justice, and it goes on from there. is the sharon statement still relevant today in conservative circles? >> guest: i think so. there's three or four different directions you can go in analyzing parts of that statement. there's orthodox marxism which this consciousness is determined by material forces.

dissenting from that, 1950s, one of the big intellectual currents was behaviorism. for ideas and there's all kinds of versions of it unveils the individual consciousness is determined by sub rational forces so it's partly pushing back against the idea that human beings are truly free, to be really fancy about it that with genuine metaphysical freedom. you can interpret it as much more simply and directly political as that you that the government should plan or supervise more and more aspects of your life for your own good. that's and less ideological but certainly very present form of the political divide we see the state. >> host: half hour in to our two hour "in depth" interview with steven hayward. the phone of us again if you want to join the conversation, eastern/central time zones 202-748-8200. 202-748-8200. if you're in the mountain/pacific time zones 202-748-8201. via text 202-748-8903 want to

start in michigan. glenn has been waiting. good morning. >> caller: [inaudible] >> host: are you with us? go ahead. >> caller: i'm sorry. thank you all very much for taking the call. ms. hayward i like to ask you about what you think the overall current state of how american history is being taught and higher education now? especially stuff like the ku klux klan and the founding fathers who basically were on the same team, stuff like that that is really taken off in the post george floyd kind of national psychosis that happened in 2020. and specifically would you comment on an article that you commented on a little bit on your website, power lines. it was an american greatness

article called america never existed. thank you very much. >> guest: right, right. let's see, do have a whole extra hour on this american history question? oh, goodness. i could go on that for literally days, and i will of course get the short version is the teaching of history have been in to give a long time and that it's wholly deplorable. maybe it started, i think it's older roots but howard, people's history of the united states, never mind some factual errors in it but the interpretive framework essentially is a best, that the defects and since of america represent the whole of america. i think that's wrong. the new version of it like the 1619 project and so forth also want to reduce america to its defects and historical lapses in history. so from there you can go on a long time. the second part of your question

was my powell glenn elmers i may see him later today, glenn almost wrote that article about and never -- america never existed, a provocative title to get people's attention that it does connect to your question because what glenn was trying to suggest was, let me put it this way. i've been asking the question just as we contacted several people. all of america's leading cultural educational institutions shift to say the howard is in view that america is rotten, our history is terrible, our constitution stinks, going down the checklist, can the country long survive in its present form? i'm worried about there's a lot of talk about are heading to another civil war? we don't have geographical divisions and so forth, but if you think when you institutions teach of the country is so defective as to not deserve any respect at all, that's going to be a problem for the longevity of the country. glenn was trying to say if those views become widely accepted by

american citizens, the country may not fall apart as an actual entity and being, the united states michael on for a couple hundred more years or more, but it won't be the same country that we used to cherish and celebrate for its great achievements and its breakthroughs like the declaration of independence saying we hold these truths that all men are created equal which no one had said before the. >> host: got to make an power like that what is powerline? >> guest: that's the blog i write for. powerline blog.com. that's a a pretty big traffic. it became most publicly visible almost 20 years ago when one of my co-writers on the side, scott johnson, about 11:15 p.m. said you know these documents dan rather is using to say george w. bush didn't show up for texas international guard? they look fake to me.

he was a first person to start the avalanche rolling to unravel the story and almost 24 hours. traffic with the roof and we have had big traffic ever since. scott johnson made the site famous. they asked me to join it several years later and i went forward almost every day turn with the caller mentioned higher education, your criticism of higher education. you have been a visiting fellow or scholar or lecture clinic at university. ashland, georgetown university of colorado boulder, uc berkeley. why continue to do that if you have such concern about higher education? >> guest: precise because of that concern. i think it's a mistake if conservatives don't compete for these institutions are don't compete to be in them. it is to i'm currently as a put put an inmate at uc berkeley. i put it that way because, berkeley gets a bad reputation. some of it is deserved but it's such a big place there's more intellectual diversity at berkeley and are in a lot small

private liberal arts colleges. the problem is worse at those places like i will pick on oberland much in the news right now. i do like university life. it's also good for people to hang around with people who have different views. i enjoy the challenge of sitting around in a room being the only conservative in the room at a seminar or i attend a lot of workshops at berkeley in a political science department. it's not that i disagree violently with what's being done but i don't often raise my head that people said the glut of a challenge from the right. so i do enjoy that kind of life. like a set of a disposition for it i think. i tend to be a people person. i tend to like everybody even if they have different views from me. >> host: do you see yourself staying at uc berkeley traffic possibly. oh, boy. the whole covid your was a disaster because no classes met in person. i didn't teach for a whole year. i did some conferences but are

still not quite full back to normal. student life is not quite back to what it was before the pandemic and it's slowly recovering and that's very discouraging. >> host: you talk about competing for the space. a book about stan evans, who are today's conservative thinkers? who are the leading conservative thinkers? >> guest: oh gosh. i i mention glenn elmers earlie. his book on -- i mutual teacher the soul of politics is really superb. michael anton very controversial guy. the author of the famous flight 93 election is a hugely interesting person. who i hope will write some more longer series and theoretical books. the thing about conservatives is that a lot of -- console who still alive at the age of 93 now or something, -- tom soul -- we don't need new books took a lot of our old books hold up just fine. you can still read henry hazlitt

1950 book economics. i think some of tom souls older books from 1980s holds up extremely well. a lot of philosophical books. leo strauss has been dead for 49 years and his books are still very much on the reading list of conservatives. we have a lot of literature. we don't need new thinkers. although there's lot of new thought. the impresario of a new thing called national conservatism and patrick, those figures are challenging the liberal tradition itself which is kind of new. >> host: i want to focus on one of those names you brought up, one of those older thinkers, harry jaffa. the book packages is not enough in part about him and walter burns. first, who was harry jaffa? >> guest: a longtime professor

of political philosophy most of his career at claremont and the graduate school. he's known for two things above all. one, i won't say rescuing lincoln but for directing attention to abraham lincoln as a much more serious thinker than a lot of historians treated him and that was his famous book in 1959, crisis in a house divided. more notoriously perhaps he was the principal author of barry goldwater acceptance speech in 1964 including the famous line extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. moderation in defense of justice is no virtue. that was a scandal line very controversial and do a scandalous also among a lot of his political philosopher peers. he had been a democrat to mike enzi to. a lot of those people we now think of as conservatives were liberal anti-communist and democratic party members. he cast his first vote for adlai

stevenson for example. so anyway the store for those things and later on for a lot of this fuse with some of his former friends. that's with the book is partly about. including walter burns who i knew. he was colleague at aei and so i handful of people who knew both men pretty well. i was a trip always regretted their feud which turned personal. >> host: what did to start over? >> guest: well, , disagreements, several things. jaffa in the '70s wrote some pretty stinging attack on a couple of scholars especially kindle who had died and were not around to defend themselves. walter took some offense to that. martin diamond was other person jaffa attacked another important political scientist for conservatives. walter took some offense to that and came to their defense and then it just spun out of control with personal insults going along with serious arguments back and forth. >> host: harry jaffa, walter burns both die on general ten of

2015. what did the conservative movement lose that they? >> guest: we lost a lot. both had a generation or two of students who loved them and learned a ton from them. the fact they died on the same day at a think both aged 95, that had shades of adams and jefferson dying on the same day in what 1826 i think. i wrote a short article saying adams and jefferson put their feud behind them in later years, and burns and jaffa never quite did. it died down some but i thought there's a book in that. so i will seek to think about it. the book is intended to be for laypeople who are not marinated in political philosophy or academia. it's meant to be and introduction to this unusual world of thought that they both represented. i don't have a literary model for that maybe a couple of viewers might be over. 40 years ago was this terrific book by william baird who talked

philosophy at nyu for a long time. it was a memoir of partisan review marketing from the 30s into the '70s that event a literary magazine of the left, the kind of stayed on the left by people like well, irving kristol is in their, a whole bunch of other figures now forgotten. schwartz, the poet. it was a wonderful memoir and i was trying to emulate that style. i don't think i quite caught it so i don't tell it as a story in the book -- >> host: the book is "patriotism is not enough." defined patriotism. >> guest: yes. so the title refers to the fact that here's one thing jaffa and burns agree to that. they could use not attachment where you live because it's where you live. especially in the american case walter burns last book was called making patriots and he said patriotism doesn't have, it doesn't happen spontaneously. it has to be taught.

it has to be inculcated deliberately. this gets back to the question but how we teach american history these days. and jaffa used to say that we need to have informed patriotism. you can't love this country unless you understand it and understand its principles. >> host: what's the difference between patriotism and nationalism? >> guest: good question. i like to say the critics of nationalism by definition of its patriotism they don't like. nationalism has this baggage from the mid-20th century of course. germany comes to mind. italy and so forth. an awful lot of historic feuds like the former yugoslavia that sort of old national and ethnic passion. i do think that there is a case for your attachment to your nation because of its history and cultural traits. patriotism really is more connected with the political principles of a regime, put it

that way. that may be a little hard to understand. i'm not quite sure the distinction between those is hard to work out i think. >> host: how is that playing out today? >> guest: so first you think about brexit which shocked everybody. in the election of donald trump which shocked everybody. and i think what's going on is especially in europe is rebellion against the centralization of things i could european union. the european union began as an economic cooperative scheme that would make everybody more prosperous but it is grown by degrees into this very ambitious and somewhat culturally smothering organization. part of the nationalism is countries and say it's one thing to have a common currency. maybe, we'll see if that survives in the long-term. there are problems with that. it's another thing to try to post a cultural uniformity. you saw that, hungry right now is the right member of the european union. people say bad things about viktor orban, okay. i don't know a lot about the

merits of those cases but with the european union is really mad about is hungry acid we're going to make traditional marriage heterosexual marriage a matter of positive law. the european union is threatening them with sanction on all the kinds of things because they are not on board with what most other countries are doing with same-sex marriage and other aspects of identity politics. why can't they just leave hungary alone? people can leave or go there if they want. you mentioned donald trump. what would ronald reagan think of donald trump? >> guest: i'm not sure. why, that's a hard question. i know that a few times. reagan, like roosevelt, like i think most successful politicians, they had a way of making their attacks on the other party, especially roosevelt reagan come with a twinkle in the eye and with some

went about them. they also talk about their friends in the other party. there was always a latent generosity to their disagreements with their opposition. trump seemed to have less of that. trump can be very funny but not in the same way reagan was funny. trump is more performance art and jeff to come it's easy to miss it i think. so i think reagan might say, it may be effective in rallying your own troops but i'm not sure i do think we saw that in the election, i'm not sure if it moves over the independents you need. i don't think it leads the other party who lost an election to consent, i think we saw that come the democratic party really didn't accept trump's election. i don't mean that they just thought there's something metaphysical wrong about this happening, which wasn't true with reagan. they didn't like reagan.

they hated being seated by him but they accepted his presidency, you wrote in 2017 you take donald trump à la carte. >> guest: yes, right. i'm not original in saying this. i would have come by on opinion i would let the trump administration without trial. he kept doing a lot of things i approved of. that's why i say à la carte. when he was doing things i like, official appointment, certain deregulatory initiatives, some foreign policy things, that was unexpected and please with it. i did not expecting to be as consistently conservative as he was. there some exception. i think can't sort out the trade problem with china was a mess and i agree with the impulse but that's a very difficult problem and some of his steps may been counterproductive. we will see about that in the long term. he did change, i will say one more thing about china, public opinion polls here and overseas, the public regard for china has plummeted in the last seven, eight years.

i think trump is a a large ren for that and the biden administration is continuing trump's disposition about china. they are not going back to business as usual we had in the bush administration or obama or even clinton. >> host: do you want to see donald trump run again? >> guest: i don't think so. i don't know. i mean, but you know i didn't want him to run the first time. what do i know? i've been wrong about so many things, if he runs again do you think he gets the republican nomination? >> guest: as were speaking right now i think that democrats are successfully goading him into may be making some mistakes. he is lashing out about the fbi raid on mar-a-lago. i understand that. i don't know. it always worked for them in the past. you can't seem to lay a glove on the guy. it's astounding how resilient he is. and it could be, i'll say this in his favor, it could be that

he is still for all its obvious flaws and his age i think it's an issue, for all his obvious flaws he may be the best vehicle for channeling a lot of populist energies in the country right now. >> host: "in depth" on booktv steven hayward is a guest 82 hours, about 45 minutes and can take your phone calls as well. dave has been waiting in omaha, nebraska. dave, good morning. >> caller: good morning. steve, you are a prolific writer. in addition to your academic duties you write for powerline and you also have great podcast. could you describe your writing process? >> guest: by the way, dave, i think i know what dave you are, but okay. you mentioned like how did i become a conservative, how did i become a writer. in the fourth grade science had to write a short story overnight

hiking back the next day 28 pages singlespaced why clearly have a problem. i actually tried to live by the advice of ray bradberry, the famous science-fiction author who said of you out to right 1000 words a day. doesn't necessarily have to be a manuscript or something. it could be a a diary, could e fighters or whatever. i have lived by that for a very long time, and so when i'm writing a book i make it a point of sitting down extent evidence when it thinks he said the hardest thing about writing is putting your butt in a chair and start typing. boy, that is true. people think writers life is romantic. it's hard work like anything else that is lots of times we don't want to do it at these days all the distractions i will check twitter, e-mail again. what my general discipline is ii like to write in the morning when i'm freshest. sit down and i will set out to write 1000 words and i won't quit until i got 1000 words done. in a good of a get more done, if it's a book.

otherwise i'm working on post online. i work on article short or long or something in between. or making notes for lectures and seminars. but you do in the morning. in the afternoons i usually out of gas after lunch at my age and i will try to read and to research into something else. >> host: it's where we have a guest who recognize a call, dave has hung up but a friend of yours perhaps? >> guest: i have never met him. he's a loyal reader. i hear from them a lot from e-mail and comments and i know he is in omaha. , how many of those do you have on powerline? >> guest: a lot. it's not unusual for one of our items come we try to get six to eight items the day the three of us who write with a couple of guest writers. it's not unusual to get three or 400 comments on each item. depends on the topic, if it's a hot topic sometimes it would be more. >> host: dave is one of those

folks? >> guest: yes. >> host: long island, new york, this is john, it's not unusual -- >> host: you have to turn down your television and just talk through your phone. we had big ui with steven hayward. >> caller: long island -- >> host: you let john worked on his phone line as a go to dan in brooklyn, new york. best way to have this conversation just because we're a little delayed when we go over the air is to turn on your television. dan, go ahead. >> caller: i would like to give little historical background for my question fma. i came to came to uc berkeley and 64 to study in neurophysiology but i walked right into the fsm crisis, which essentially was a matter of providing the university students adulthood status instead of the chancellor dean -- [inaudible] and fsm ended up with a victory

for this notion which was 5000, or 2000 student body of 27,000. the next semester the left which had been the originator of this whole thing had, there was another referendum for the fsu which is the free student union so now there little central committee could all student activities. we struggled to beat that with reasoning, the steps and all this. they were defeated 21,000 to their same 5000 before. so clearly there is a great issue of the non-involve students. i sought very hard to understand why. when i looked into it by stepping out of my area and looking especially in the history classes, because in new york human history is very important subject, but it's a very maligned subject by weber

is in power. i saw that american professors of history don't see it as assigned. they see it as a kind of, excuse the term -- nonsensical a factual and ego important twisting of facts, leaving out facts and massaging reality. as as a result i see that by te next year the whole students struggle completely died another graduate students are all professors and they're doing exactly the same thing as the professors were doing. the cold war revisionists, you know, they are still back there with its third-generation of cold war revisionists at a just wonder what is this holding pattern that historians, maybe someone his age them or something they feel the right to just lie, mr. upset the

material. as a conservative i had to say that conservatives are as bad as the liberals. it is really a lack of respect to the professional historian and i really would like to know why you think that in america, history is such a bsd like political science that you going to do anything with it? >> guest: a lot there. there's two parts to your question in my mind. on the history business by the way i recommend to you and viewers to look into this controversy racing just in the last ten days at the american historical association where the president james sweet was a historian in wisconsin, history of african history and the slave trade, and a liberal. but he wrote that what afflicts the history profession academically these days is what he called presentism. my called history of is him as i do we interpret the past quickly to her current political biases

and he thinks that the right. the blowback was ferocious and had to apologize within 48 hours for the harm he cause, especially to scholars of caller. this is a very familiar apology psych we see now. so i think that's the biggest problem is history hasn't always been that way. academic history i can go on to get a long time about this one of things that's odd to me is there's this huge hunger in the reading public for biographies and so a grant in hamilton and so forth. they're almost always written by non-academic writers. david mccullough, the biographer of treatment and of the people and john adams. you almost never see a biography like that from academic historian anymore. one or two exceptions like david recent by frederick douglass merkel backs and if i just academic historians were people

like arthur schlesinger at harvard. by the way my age of reagan was meant to be a play. wonderful books reading wise. slice into was a great pro style is, a good strong arguments but it'll liberal bias and that's fine so i was trying to return the favor. that is a very big problem. the speech question you started out with, the free speech movement fsm use the old abbreviation from 64, is still remember around berkeley but the irony is that this. i think you said it or maybe you didn't, the students of the new left in the '60s all said we want to grow up and have responsibility now. we don't want administrators toddling us. down with administrators. that's what was said at berkeley. today what do we care about them? campuses, safe spaces, hate speech and bias instant response teams. one of the things that tears me as every fall, until covid came

along, i would get asked to be on on a panel for parents, homecoming weekend as often people who graduated 40, 50 years ago some of them come and look like they haven't left berkeley, ponytails and beards and a little tie-dye and i'll say the same thing. what is the matter with students today? wheel for free speech and we met it. now free speech is dying on campus. i think there is something that is true and the second part about how the free free-spe at berkeley then metastasize there and elsewhere into more radicalism that's also true, a longer story. and so on when the free-speech movement i still think was a great milestone for the principle of free speech. the university was trying to control political speech too much. they blundered every step of that episode. it's a fascinating story. but at the same time get the roots of some of the campus conformism we see today that grew out of the bad of all that, let's stay in berkeley in

california for a second from art via text. given your a california native now and are of the what is your view of the current state of one party governance in california and the reasons for that, and is or potential for reform, how would that be accomplished? >> guest: oh, boy. let me go in reverse order and just say the hispanic vote nationally and in california has been shifting to the right. there's a lot of data on this, a lot of other people writing about this. california was always a reliably republican state in presidential elections until bill clinton flipped it in 92 and it's never come close to flipping back. part of what's happened is the industrial base of the state, the economic base completely changed. and the cold war ended. had a lot to do with it. california, the california i grew up in was big into aerospace, defense production, all the moon rockets were built there in the station was built

and so forth. that was a republican industry and that all left the state. first of all it shrank ended up at the state. what replaced with silicon valley for some reason the street liberal, and entertainment industry, always been very liberal. and then an awful lot of people who, the republican voters have left the state. a lot of republican voters have moved to texas, idaho, everywhere else. and as i say, the hispanic vote and the asian vote is also trending in the more republican direction for whole bunch of reasons, and i don't see democratic control being overthrown anytime soon, but i do think, and, i said a lot of controversial thinks you're an adult shy away from that, i think would be less controversial to say when you have sustained one party rule, that's just bad when you don't have any political competition. .. california is now losing

population for the first time as a state since 1950, and that is astounding. assets losing population. >> guest: there's something wrong with this picture. >> host: we are one hour into our "in depth" conversation with steven hayward talking about his books, two of the largest of those books by page volume, "the age of reagan: the conservative counterrevolution: 1980-1989," a 2-volume work, one from the 1960s, 1980, his election in one 1980-1989. i want to come back to the age of reagan. you said the entertainment industry had always been very liberal, take me through ronald reagan navigating the entertainment industry and what he took from that. >> guest: i may have overlooked that.

liberal, democratic, at least in the 40s, 50s and 60s with john ford, frank capra, pro-american, you could say, one of, you ask how reagan became a conservative, skipped over the late 40s when he was head of the screen actors guild, always thought communist influence in hollywood was a comic misadventure, we got documentation the kgb trying to infiltrate trade union policies because they believed in propaganda value of entertainment and reagan saw this, carried a gun for a while standing up to this and he was threatened a few times, he would go to these meetings and realize some of these groups really were communist front groups and a lot of so-called hollywood 10, howard fast, they

were dupes i suppose, fast forward to the 1980s and george shultz with the summit with reagan, he ignored his briefing and wrote his own topics and secretary shultz said people in the state department and national security council worry you might not be prepared or the equal of gorbachev, there's nervousness about it. reagan says don't worry, i dealt with communists in hollywood. i know what they are like. to the conventional washington person that had to be a holy un-reassuring answer but he meant it and that whole effort to influence hollywood with trade unions didn't come to anything because of reagan, forgotten figures like roy brewer, they worked hard to seal off of the threat to the

industry but reagan would like to talk about missing hollywood movies that are pro-american, traditional morality, one is johnny carson 1972, carson said after you leave the governor's office you might go back to making movies and reagan said i am much too olds to take off all my clothes. he was good at that. >> host: you talk about reagan writing his own briefing notes, the writing process and why such -- winston churchill, quoting winston churchill. >> it was how much you liked the word, otherwise -- so here's how that came about. i noticed reagan quoted churchill a lot and the word

count, started looking up the usages and previous presidents and the canadian writer said it is imperative you quote churchill. bill clinton did, almost all the presidents have. it turned out reagan referenced churchill more often than all previous american presidents, that is interesting then i noticed he was using some of the famous familiar quotes from churchill's jokes, employing churchill in a serious substantive way, sometimes obscure quotes and i realized their thought pattern was like on important things like the cold war. what separated reagan from other conservatives, everybody, was that the cold war doesn't have to go on forever, not because it is a bad thing but the soviet union was a natural,

reagan -- everybody else bought kissinger, knicks again, liberals all thought the soviet union is here to stay, got to get along with them and reagan said i don't see how the country can last. they can make missiles but can't make cornflakes. collect jokes about their social dysfunctions they had, churchill thought the same thing, this form of rule can't persist. it is old-fashioned territory and it will collapse. >> host: ronald reagan quoted winston churchill one of many times january 1981, his first inauguration speech. what did he say? >> can we solve the problems confronting us? the answer is an emphatic yes. to paraphrase west -- winston churchill, i did not take the oath i have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy.

>> host: that moment. >> guest: i was there for that, i had shown up in california, grown up with reagan. the original churchill quote, i did not become the king's first minister to provide preside over the liquidation of the. empire which happened anyway but that is a separate story. reagan used to like to quote churchill, he and churchill had parallel thoughts about nuclear weapons, churchill in the 40s said the united states has a monopoly on nuclear weapons, we didn't use it to conquer the world, any doubt that if the russians have a monopoly they will use it for conquest, reagan said the same thing in the mid-1960s in a tv debate with robert f kennedy that by all accounts he clobbered kennedy and that is when he disappeared from view and you can see their thought patterns

ran a lot alike. >> host: we started talking about reagan's writing style and it is something you get into, one of the similarities in their writing and preparation for moments like that for the big speeches. explain the parallel. >> guest: churchill wrote his own speeches, reagan wrote more speeches as president but his speechwriters say it was easy to write for him, see what he said before an update it but he would make a lot of changes but above all they both tracked -- practiced their speeches, don't know if it was in front of a mirror but they rehearsed it. i think reagan picked some of that up from show business. churchill came to that because one day as a young mp around

1903 he froze on the house of commons and couldn't finish her speech, just seized up and ever since then he came in with notes like reagan used later in rehearsed speeches, always wanted to be prepared. i'm conical of speech is about making by modern politicians. it's one thing if you are not a great speaker, reagan had those gifts, great voice, acting backgrounds but i see a lot of politicians who haven't worked hard on their speech or give it poorly. in washington a center -- senator will exit an invitation to speak to the national association of realtors convention and those are pretty boring. >> host: who is america's greatest speech maker right now? >> guest: hard to say. in the ordinary sense obama was a good speechmaker. he had a natural talent at it. oratory is not the way it used

to be. nixon, not that good at it but he worked at it and his speeches usually had an effect. >> host: the book on reagan and churchill, the title, "greatness: reagan, churchill, and the making of extraordinary leaders". what makes someone great? >> guest: i think they were both statesmen in a serious sense of the word and that is a term that has disappeared from academic literature as recent as the 1970, you could read an article talked about statesmanship. modern empiricists say there is no objective definition of that. that's not new. thomas reid, famous republican speaker of the house in 1900 said a statement is a popular politician who is dead and our

partisan passions often say, if you're liberal you wouldn't call it reagan a statesman if you didn't like him but a statesman is someone who, one, some key principles how they think the world works for the most important issues and how to think about them and combined with as i put it up profound grasp of the circumstances. i may have this principle but how my going to maneuver in that world, that is why lincoln is a great case study, also churchill and i think reagan. i go a lot about reagan's turns. i could go on forever but last thing i will say is there's a great moment in a spielberg movie about lincoln, has lincoln talking with thaddeus stevens, character played by tommy lee jones, and he says, i

don't remember the exact words, you are like the sailors who see the north stars and say all right at it. that is your goal. lincoln says you are not taking into account the shallows, the reefs, swamps, things you have to get around to get through that will require you -- i think people we bestow the exalted moniker of statesman understand that. >> host: more callers waiting for you, john in el paso, texas, you're on with steven hayward. >> caller: i am concerned. i served in the military, joined in 1964 and that time it was a requirement to serve your country and we don't have that

requirement anymore. the draft is gone and nothing has replaced it. we have politicians serving the demands of big campaign contributors instead of the popular vote because the winner takes all the state of lectures. the ones who don't get the majority vote doesn't count so why vote? what do you think we can do to make somebody become a member of the united states other than paying taxes? that seems the only thing you have to do to be a citizen of the united states? >> host: before you get off the phone, what do you think would be a good requirement? are you with us? what do you think would be a good requirement? what would you want? military service? >> caller: we should have

national service. it doesn't have to be military. it could be social services, you could be an engineer helping to build levees or solving water crises in drought stricken states or some form of service to the country because now it seems to be everybody out for themselves, the states or the parties, nothing going back toward building a love of the country and support for the country or the way we used to have the draft. >> guest: two interesting parts to your question. the idea of national service resurfaces periodically. there's a lot to it in the abstract. in practice it would be difficult for the country to do because of our size and our diversity as understood, mixing different ethnic groups, it would be hard to manage, but i

think it will surface again. at the back of it is the second part of your question which is what makes us citizens beyond simple legal requirements of paying taxes and registering to vote? national service would depend on and equal meaningful citizenship depends on what we have in common so something that bothers me today and a lot of people as we are emphasizing our differences all the time, what people say about identity politics. years identity is determined by skin color, gender orientation and so forth and if we start thinking of other americans as alien from each other, hard to have an idea of common citizenship. national service might solve that, not everybody but huge participation in the military in world war ii and afterword

was a right of passage for not all americans but a lot and now it is 2% of the population is military. the idea is national service would get people together the way military service used to get people together in different backgrounds. i think in practice what you get is all the special interests saying you don't have to join the army but join our environmental lobby, rifle and pistol club, we are good these days at self organizing special interests and i have a hard time seeing how you avoid that. by having the government define a one size fits all, voluntary national service under clinton, don't think that would work very well. i hope i am wrong. what would work?

i hesitate, i think you often hear people say this, person on the street will say country comes together at a time of national crisis like world war ii, we would need a crisis to draw the country back to gather. lots of things happening crises of that kind. was covert a crisis? why didn't you draw the country together? >> guest: yes and no. serious illness but the response, the mistake made, a lot of mistakes made, we will be studying this for years and arguing about it for years and centralization of policymaking, when there is so much uncertainty, we didn't know early on, we should have been more open to letting local

states, health officials with different strategies but look what happened, governor desantis they started calling governor deathsantos, their experience was no better or worse than anyone else. a lot of interventions didn't have a lot of affect, people argue about masks and i am tired of it all, but i think that making one person, oh anthony fauci, the oracle for everything, he was overexposed every night on the network, that was probably a mistake, need more plurality of voices weighing in and improvise their way through it. >> host: a certain kind of crisis would bring us together? >> guest: covid was not a threat to the regime, world war ii was, 9/11 was shocking, the

first couple years president bush enjoyed 80% approval rating, the country rallying around the commander in chief, never got 80% of the public. he had a lot of cooperation from the other party. that's a long unfortunate story. probably what people perceive as a threat to the survival of themselves and the country would make people put aside. the margins invading. you hate to put it that way but when something like that happens people put aside a lot of passions. we could come back to that later and i don't know if we can get to it by persuasion. the need to be pessimistic, we

may be beyond the.of no return where inspiration or gifted leader can do that. >> host: are we more divided than we've been since the civil war? >> guest: i think we are but it is not just graphic. it is on thinkable you would have a civil war with uniformed troops but i could see some scenarios where january 6th event might be a fire ball in the night, one way it might happen which i thought of some crazy scenarios it might erupt. i'm keeping those to myself. >> host: you wrote about january 6th in the city journal. the republican party on january 7, 2021, the republican party just experienced its worst jasons the assassination of abraham lincoln or the assassination of richard nixon. of lincoln were alive today and agreeing with donald trump's

claims the president election was rife with fraud he would not condone a mob up rising. >> guest: the first address of 1838, looking around a little bit, one reason that was such a disaster, before the election washington dc and other cities boarded up their downtown. what was the worry? that trump was going to win and there would be riots from people on the left, trump did win, they took down, cities on boarded themselves, people thought the threat of violence, unrest and destruction would come from. suddenly on january 6th it comes from the right, from trump's populist supporters, people involved in that whole mess and so that muddied the

waters, it did shock a lot of people in washington not just because -- it was so unprecedented but i heard secondhand from reliable sources a lot of people in federal bureaucracy said we are not sure if we trust our own police force. confusing scene talk, some capitol police letting people in and around the corner of the building violence against police officers so what a mess but it shook up people more than just the shock value that it happened. >> host: january 7, 2022 hysteria amo docrats over the riots at the y yoga reveals not only the hypocrisy of the left but its deep insecurity, ideological hollowness and what psychologists call projection, attributing to others what is going on in your own mind. >> guest: an article i drafted but haven't published yet. a lot of what you are seeing

today from democrats has long routes. stephen douglas, one of his favorite attacks on lincoln was you and black republicans, the black republican party. a straightforward appeal to racial bigotry, widespread at the time. people in north were opposed to slavery but didn't want free slaves, that was demagogic and so now, not perfect but amaga republics and on -- the phrase president biden is using, they -- there are some others. i forget what they are but you see deep roots. there is a favorite cliché used by liberal writers and liberal activists, our democracy. our democracies under threat. the joker used is our democracy trademark, stephen douglas and

other leading democrats before the civil war referred to the democratic party as the democracy. the implication was democracy was the sole proprietary thing the democratic party, these days if you are for trump, if you disagree with democrats or liberals on election integrity or whatever that is a threat to democracy, this has us distinct echoes of what you saw in the 1850s, that is a strong thing to say but another thing i will mention which no one seems to see, things like the 1619 project but said that said the founders didn't believe in equality, that is what john see calhoun or alexander stephens and leaders of the confederacy said and no one seems to notice the talking points but left uses today are the talking

points of the confederacy in 1860, we are in a big mess. >> host: in tucson, you are on "in depth". are you with us? >> caller: yes. i went to school at southern illinois university and there was this genius of a guy named buckminster fuller there who designed a geodesic dome. the geodesic dome uses one sixth of the building materials and one third of the energy to heat and cool, and what ideas to come to fruition? how do you think this could best be presented like i'm not the world's greatest public speaker myself but this idea should be acted upon?

>> host: i was a teenage fan boy of bucky fuller. a futurist and thinker and the geodesic dome, the promise, i made one in high school with a couple friends of mine. it took all summer because there were no kits for it. we bought aluminum piping and had to measure things out to different lengths and put them together so we made one. they are neat in concept. but they are domed and if -- a few houses made with the geodesic dome form but there are design features, don't want to say they are ugly but don't think people would find them aesthetically rewarding if widespread. on energy efficiency i used to do a lot of work on energy policy, to keep up a little but we have now got lots of energy efficient design features being

rolled out all over the world, the superiority of the geodesic dome as opposed to conventional building materials. >> host: energy efficiency texas to climate change and the threat of climate change, your thoughts. >> guest: another hour. i am what they call a luke warming, the climate -- you have to be all in on the end of the world is coming and we have to hand our car keys to our gore right away, climate skeptics say you have to say this is all natural, nothing is happening here. luke warmer, the preeminent lukewarmer is matt radley who thinks a lot about this. the world is warming, human activity has something to do it, not much more it will warm, that the extreme views our way

overestimated, but step to as a policy analyst which i did half the day when i lived in washington, one who analyzed policy, uncertainty, and risk, long-term climate change has what statisticians, fantail risk, small probability of a really consequential effect so you have to take that seriously. i look at what we've been trying to do in climate policy and finding it a farce. my final proposition on this and i will stop, the more serious you think climate change might be in the future the more you should be frustrated and contemptuous towards what the environmental climate movement has been trying to feed us because they want to make carbon more expensive, make energy more expensive, stifle natural gas. i understand why you want to phase out coal, very high emissions, so subsidies, it is

a lot of happy talk about how we can go carpentry in ten years, hydrogen was the new thing, later did a complete one hundred 80. a lot of frivolous stuff because nobody has calculated, a fact that i was one of the first people to dig up, we now talk about net 0 x 2050. 15 or 20 years ago we talked about 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 and i figured out what that meant by going through energy consumption. that would take us back to fossil fuel energy use of 1910 when we had 100 million people, no cars, and someone has to show me how to power a country, i think it is 5 billion british

thermal units of energy, i think that's right and someone show me how -- >> we are going to break away, take you live to the senate. c-span2. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 18, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom carper, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.