♪♪ america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest event with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house event, the court, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes "washington journal" and live scheduling information

for c-span tv network and c-span radio plus variety of compelling podcasts. she's been now available at the apple store, google play download for free today. front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> how would you describe the perfect conservative? >> i'm not sure there's something is a perfect conservative but i like to say five or six different kinds of conservatives and i love them all, the ultimate old school fusionist but everybody i think -- it's like the parable of the blind man an elephant, everyone says the tree trunk, the snake and hard to see the picture but someone who has generosity of spirit toward what can be learned rather than theological disputes whose right and wrong.

>> is written as much about ronald reagan as anybody, all those different kinds of conservatives, what kind of conservatives ronald reagan? >> there's a whole bureaucratic conservative. that means he was not that conservative in a couple of ways. reagan was fond of quoting tom payne, the radical supervisor of the french revolution and loved saying we have an hour power to make again four years ago now george said anytime anywhere it's nonsense, most unconservative thing. people say it's reagan's optimism and creative spirit but on his headstone where he's fair at the reagan library, i think the word is i know in my heart man is good. reagan was disposed by character to look at the side of humans

that's good t but that leaves ot sin which other conservatives keep at the forefront of the mine, especially the design of an institution and so forth, he has libertarian sympathy and traditional sympathy but his own special thingng. >> when did ronald reagan become conservatives. >> probably starting may be in the 40s when he adopted liberal anti-communism, a german support and 48, democrat action but in the 50s especially touring the country for general electric and reading early conservative literature and witnessed the system, henry was economics, the big conservative books and he read them and worked them in and talk himself into being conservative. he didn't become republican until i think 1962 but certainly

moving for a long time. >> talk about that change become republican he said summer i woke up one day and realized supporting the people that i'm criticizing now, i think part of democrat for nixon in 1960 so he moved to supporting republicans in an early time but so and changing his party reservation. >> seven back to megan, the man, a quote use in your book, humanly successful two people who would never met him and impenetrable to those who tried to know him well. why? >> whose theory is it has to do partly with reagan's bringing as the son of an alcoholic and i guess again i'll trust lou,

their psychological evidence that people who have alcoholic or abusive parents tend to be more remote, probably wasn't abusive but i mention that from the literature. reagan moved around a lot, lived in a downward mobile family and his father struggled to keep her job so he is the new kid in school and i think it tends to make them shy, these are some explanation of why he carried this n into his adulthood but is not unique to him. a lot of people said similar things about roosevelt, his own kids didn't get along with him lyvery well but like reagan, roosevelt had a great connection, he understood the people intuitively and connect with them and radio and later radio television so not an unusual trait at the highest level to be a little remote.ee >> that connection, does that

come from the acting career? >> part of it, reagan was often said, never cared about the review of the movie that could and forth understood box office and always understood there are two audiences and pay attention to critics. >> did he keep that through entire life? >> in the political area certain issues he seized upon, we are showing up in the pool so when he ran for governor and 66 he said i think people are mad about the chaos a little bit ahead of time in 1976 he opposed the panama canal treaty and that wasn't showing up as an issue in any polls. when he gave the line about the panama canal speeches, audience erupted in nearly think the

treaty is finished under jimmy carter. >> pulled today versus during reagan's time how much president pays attention to the poll, did ronald reagan care? >> he did. a very good poster, we do a poll every 15 minutes and those overload unfolds. i don't if i could wave a wand and make a change, i would outlaw polls. not really but reagan did pay attention to the polls communicator and legend is reagan gave a speech who carried it for him he gives effective speeches for some particular on central america especially nicaragualy and a big scandal te second term, he give speeches in 83 and 84 and polls show public opinion didn't move at all and it was discouraging but did pay

attention to the polls, justin talk about. >> ronald reagan is the subject to of steven hayward's books, 1600 page on the history of ronald reagan. the age of reagan conservative counter revolution 1980 to 89, the latter of the two, former -- the age of reagan all of the liberal order 1964 and talking about all of them if you want to join the conversation. 2027488001 and sent us a text. (202)748-8903. include your name and where you're from. steven hayward will be with us

2:00 p.m. eastern throughout the entire conversation. gorbachev died august 30, the lastt week.we what was it like when they were in office and later? >> initially they were inclined not tonc like each other. reagan right in his diary, in 1985, people tell me he's a different kind of soviet leader and reagan said i'm too cynical to believe that. reagan had always said he hoped someday to sit down with a soviet leader and see if they couldn't make a breakthrough and gorbachev turn out to be that person but not initially. for his part he thought reagan was a dinosaur. >> what was the age difference? >> 556.

we got transcripts later but he's a creature of the capitalist class in america, very marxist but became to like each other and my perception is was because they argued directly for the first time away no american president or soviet leader that. dthe differences between the two countries.ce we didn't learn about this in the 90s private exchanges very frank and serious and earnest but also jocular. >> was the setting? >> i think the most interesting was was the summit in 1986, so dramatic because it looks like they were on the cusp of a deal to make nuclear weapons. unthinkable in the decades before the end it fell apart

because reagan get rid of the strategic defense initiative and that was the draw everyone concentrated on was always a notetaker in the room. at times there have tough arguments on ideology and reagan argues about the two-party system. we have a one party system which is in history and gorbachev says i respect your system and we have to exist and reagan says i delike to persuade you to becoma member of the revoking party and he says it's an interesting idea. getting back to nuclear weapons now, there's other interesting arguments that meeting and veered off the arms-control. >> to the public know they were having exchanges? >> no, dips came out especially

the first meeting in front of the fireplace in november 85 and reagan was tough but also friendly and reagan came back saying i think he is a different kindnd of leader, margaret thatcher is right, we can't do this and they said it liking each other better. still had sharp disagreements, one thing he brings up himself was all i can tell you still believe in the evil empire and speech from 1982 how the soviet union will end up in history, he is very defensive about this. what amm i to believe? it sounds like you want to wait this out and he reassured him we had no intention of that, this is just what i think and the argument goes on. >> how did he go about reassuring him? did you find anything.

>> it's interesting subject, tht only two people right now who can prevent the destruction of the world so once it was clear they were sincere about wanting to do that, it broke down just over strategic defense but technical details of the arms-control that got so comforted that everyone thought never had fundamental conversations both about differences between countries and how we unravel. >> it makes me think of the thing described in the book certain talking about gorbachev, reagan wanted to tell gorbachev if the earth was invaded by aliens, they have to work to fight the aliens. [laughter] >> reagan said that in the first meeting together it was a green speech in his age, george, powell was working on national security council and thought

this is crazy. reagan told the story of the speech a couple weeks later off the cuff and a great line on the. i'm sure gorbachev was wondering thisev line and cooperating. used to be nixon or carter, whoever and sit down, slow affairs, delayed translations and russians including premier have a notebook response or statement that was the first summit where they simultaneously had translation and note but they weren't referring to recent books it made it different from everything before them. >> 1990, not ronald reagan, gorbachev as a man of the

decade. what did yous think about that? >> a ton of credit, the liberal conformity but that's another story. he didn't want to head the arms raceai but he repeated the one e set once the socialism defended by source is what they had always done announced in 1988 unilateral deductions in the soviet troops of eastern europe. he gave us that without concessions from our side which was remarkable. part of what's going on, imaginh especially go forward a year, the 1981 soviet union didn't exist anymore into backup to the nobel prize gorbachev got and times magazine% the decade, i thought part of that was academic establishment couldn't stand that he was vindicated in

many ways against their criticism. people said it was a disaster in slavery was about arms control and suddenly you got real deals and made them look bad he kind o of embarrassed them. i think it was one way getting backim was ignoring him and givg him all the credit. >> do they have a relationship later in life? >> federal how much they kept in touch, i know gorbachev, i don't remember if he was still in office or left but he visited reagan in santa barbara. they're getting together sharing jokes. i do know gorbachev said to somebody later is unimpressed with reagan's ranch, his house was 400 square feet, a bit tiny. big ranch but gorbachev thought the president of the united states to have a big manchin, not a little ranch house so as

the cultural differences i suppose. >> ronald reagan history to becoming a conservative, what was your journey? >> i grew up in a conservative town outside of l.a. with conservative parents. true story, my mother and dad in the goldwater campaign now is in the first race and everybody,ug stickers everywhere. windy wins by a landslide. not only did he lose but he lost by a lot. how's my first question saying the resty of the world must be different than my neighborhood. [laughter] from there i joke but asserted meeting national review in the eighth grade i said i don't understand where he sank but he seems fun and interesting. >> what did you start understanding what heu was

saying? >> i guess pretty early on because as a freshman i recall looking up words he used started reading them a lot. in high school used to how to do vocabulary, billing, quizzes and all t that and i was sending and crazy words from the national review to say where are you getting all of these? from buckley and they go that's weird. okay. i was precocious i guess. >> where did you go to college and what did you do after? >> lewis and clark college in oregon, i didn't want to go to a gigantic university. i was a student journalist and became opinion editor of the paper and learn how to write op-ed. right after college, we may come back to this, i went to work in washington as an intern, my first thing out of college.

hugely formative experience but while i lived in washington thinkha anyone notices if you lk around but capitol hill was run by people in their 20s. all smart, eager, ambitious and i got to thinking of things i want to be part of that scene, if i come back to washington, i need to know more to be a journalist or writer so i went on to grandma graduate school starting 40 years ago this week. i thought about chicago but i went there because as close to home. it had notable conservatives, professors there and i thought i'll learn from the best. >> focusing on american politics as your growing up, why was your first book on winston churchill? >> it's a funny story. i was stuck one day in the

leadership seminar i thought way much but the person doing the workshop mentioning churchill. he said at the end know a lot about churchill and you want to write about his leadership style and i thought was a terrible you so at claremont in graduate school, principles, the best way to learn about politics as biograspeclly of blinken, churchill, both roosevelt but basically, churchill i found interesting becauseus my parents were two generations and talked about a lot. that's why i wrote about churchill, i knew a lot already and i learned about better ways to approach life.

>> coming out in 1997, 25 years this year you come out with evans conservative with freedom, he read in the book the book could have been called why stand evans matters, why? >> is a series of short biographies in this genre. an unknown by the younger generation their aging out and a hugely important figure is a journalist, a thinker of some think and they usually kept separate and finally as a historian, his last book was a

serious attempt at vindication of joe mccarthy which is thought to be gone stand was everybody's favorite guy because he was friendly with everybody, funny in person. seldom in writing but everyone has the favorite stand evans joke and a great teacher for a generation of conservatives. other people viewers should be familiar with, john fund, i think mark at the washington examiner, a list of names in the book and now i am blinken which i often do. he influenced a generation of careless. >> what he looks like, stand evans from the archive, 1994. >> i am a conservative, a number

of times. what i mean by that, the things i was talking about and interested in serving certain things not just because of the status quo, often i've been critical for conserving this tradition of freedom of limited government which is the tradition of the united states and western culture generally. because i believe in those values of freedom. >> 1994, known for the sharon statement. with that? >> the founding document of young americans for freedom formed fall of 1961, the short version coming out of the boomlet of the 1960 convention, people said young people of goldwater, let's capitalize on

the, they came up with young americans for freedom, stand i think was 28 years old asked to writet a statement, 350 words long or something like that, contrast with later statement of the n new left which was 5000 words alone in a basic statement of conservative principles, believe in god and necessity of limited government and individual freedom, resisting communism which is the one part now that's archaic but the rest can be repeated today pretty much verbatim. stand never brag about being the primary drafter. if you asked years later, he say i can come up with anything original, are just trying to express conservative wisdom is our inheritance of 2000 years so never posted about it. >> from the statement, we as

young conservatives believe among the transcendent values into vigils used god-given free will direct his right to be free and resurgence of arbitrary force that liberty is indivisible political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom the purpose of government is to protect the freedoms to preservation of internal order, provision of prnatural -- national defense ad administration of justice and goes on from there. is it relevant today? >> there are three or four different directions analyzing parts of the. this orthodox marxism which says consciousness is material forces. from that, 1950s one of the rents was behavior and all kinds of versions and they said individual consciousness is

determined byfo subnational fors to partly pushing back against the idea that humans are truly free or genuine freedom. you could also interpret it as simply directly political is the view that government should plan or supervise more aspects of your life for your own good, a certainly present form of the political lives we see. >> half hour into our to our in-depth interviewte with steven hayward, phone numbers if you want to join, tools to. mountain or pacific time zone 2027488201. i want to start integrating michigan. glenn, good morning go ahead, sir.

>> thank you all for taking the call. i'd like to ask about what you think of the overall current state of how american history is being taught and higher education now especially stuff like the ku klux klan and founding fathers are basically on the same team, the georgeng floyd national psychosis in 2020. specifically, would you comment non the narrative that you commented a bit on your website, power lines, and american great article call america never existed. >> we have a whole extra hour on this american history question.

i could go on on that for literally days. i want of course. the short version is the teaching of history has been for a long time and now it is deplorable. maybe its started at older roos of the famous book, people's history of the united states, never mind factual errors but the conservative framework is this, defects in america represent the whole of america. i think it's wrong and new versions like the 1619 project and so forth goods defects and lapses in history. so the second part of your question, i may see him later today. there's an article about america never existed, trying to get peoples attention but what glenn was trying to suggest was let me

put it this way, i've been asking questions this week to several people of all of america's p leading cultural educational sedition shifts to his view that history is terrible, constitution stinks, going down the checklist can survive in its present form? >> i am worried about a lot of talk about, on the civil war that seems elected because we don't have the geographical division and so forth but i do think when you leave cultural institutions as a country so defective do not deserve any respect, it could be a problem for the longevity of the country so he's trying to say if the views become widely accepted by american citizens, the country may not fall apart, united states might go on for a couple hundred years or more but it

will be the same country we used to cherish and celebrate for great achievement and breakthroughs at the declaration of independence same all men are created equal which no one has said before that. >> what is powerline? >> a blog i write for. powerline blog.com still stuck with logging the title even though that's gone away and it's a big traffic, it became most publicly visible almost 20 years ago one of my co- writers on the side scott johnson 11:15 p.m. said the documents he's using to say george w. bush didn't show up for the national guard? they look fake to me. here's the first person to start the rolling and unraveled the stories and almost 24 hours anda traffic went through the roof and stick traffic ever since

scott johnson made famous and asked me to join several years later they write for it most everyday. >> higher education, criticism of higher education. hello or scholar or lecture at plenty of universities. georgetown university of colorado, boulder, pepperdine university, uc berkeley. why continue to do that if you have such concern about higher education? >> precisely because of the concern. it's a mistake of conservatives don't compete to be in them so it is true, and currently an inmate at uc berkeley, i put it whimsically that way because r it's a bad reputation, some deserved but it's a big place and there's more electoral diversity in the are in small private liberalpl arts projects, worse most places like overland in the news right now and i do like university life and it'swi good for people to hang around with people who have used.

i enjoy challenges in a room being the only conservative in the room, a similar, i attend a lot of workshops and it's not that i disagree but -- i often raise my hand and people that they are glad to have a challenge from the right so i do enjoy that kind of life that have disposition for i think. i tend to be a people person and like everybody if they have different views from me. >> you see yourself staying at uc berkeley? >> possibly. the whole covid years of disaster. i did events and conferences but still not fully back to normal, is not quite back to what it was before the pandemic and it's slowly recovering. >> you talk about competing, a

book about stan evans, who are leading conservative thinkers right now? >> i mentioned glenn earlier, his book on harry, our mutual teacher. michael during controversial by, the famous light in the 93 election, usually interesting person who i hope will write longer serious theoretical books. think about conservatives, a lot of our -- tonsil is still alive at 93 or something, a lot of what you say is that we don't need new books, old books all the time so you can read henry's 1950 book economics lesson the prophet, thomases older books like knowledge and decisions from 1980s multiple. philosophical books, you have a

major twosome is not enough. leo's works, he's been dead 49 years and his books are still on the reading list of conservatives. we have a lot of literature andh don't necessarily need new fingers although there's new thought. those two figures are challenging,l the liberal sectn itself which is kind of new, different than liberalism barclays was criticizing. >> i want to focus on a name with old thinkers, patriotism is not enough, first, who was harry? >> long time professor of political philosophy most of his career at grandma, the graduate school known for two things of all. one was a rescuing blinken but

directing attention to abrahamnt lincoln as a more serious thinker historians thought of him and his famous book, crisis of a house divided.al more notoriously perhaps, the principal author of goldwater's speech in 1964 including the famous line extremism defense of liberty in defense of justice that was why and controversial and scandalous among political philosopher here's. a lot of those people who think of conservatives are liberal anti-communist and democratic party members but he cast his first vote for stephenson so anyway he's known for those two things and later on for with former friends which is what is partly about including older friends who i knew, one of a

handful of people who knew both of them pretty well and regretted their feud which turned personal. >> with regard to? >> a grievance, in the 70s he wrote attacks on a couple of scholars died and not around tom defend themselves. the other person in the attack, another important political scientists for conservative and walter took offense to that and came to their defense and it spun out of control personal insults going along with serious arguments. >> will different guys january 102015, what did the conservative movement was that they? >> a lot. a generation or two of students in the fact that they died the

same day at age 95, adams and jefferson on the same day 1826 i think and i wrote an article saying as jefferson put feud behind them and jumping over did, it died down some but there's a book and that in the book is intended to be laypeople not merited in academia, it's meant to be an introduction to this world they both represent and a literary model for viewers might remember, 40 years ago there's a book by william barrett who taught philosophy for a long time called centers among individuals, a member of the 30s into the 70s, estate on the left, a bunch of other

figures forgotten. >> patriotism is not enough came out in 2018, defined patriotism. >> the title refers to the fact that here's one thing they agreed on the patriotism is not an attachment to where you live because it is where you live especially the american case. walter conference called making picture and said patriotism doesn't have to -- doesn't happen spontaneously, it has to be taught deliberately this is how we teach american history these days. used to say we need informed patriotism and love this country unless you understand it and its

principals. >> the difference between ageism and nationalism. >> good question. i like to say except nationalism, my definition is patriotism they don't like. nationalism has this baggage from the mid- 20th century, journey comes to mind, italy and so forth. a lot of historic views like the former yugoslavia and passion. i think there's a case for your attachment to this nation history and cultural. patriotism is more connected with political principles of the regime that may be hard to understand. the distinction is hard to work out i think. >> how is that playing out today? >> you think about exit, it shocked everybody and then

donald trump which shocked everybody.n i think what is going on is especially in europe as they rebelled against centralization the europeanop union, european union began as this cooperative scheme that make everybody prosperous in this ambitious some culturally mothering organization and part of the country is saying one thing to have common currency may be, who will see of that survives long-term but another think they try to impose is cultural uniformity and the hungry member is a pariah people say bad things about victor lauren, i don't know a lot about the merits of those cases but the european union is really mad that we will make traditional heterosexual marriage matter of law. european threatening sanctions and things because they are not

on board with with other countries are doing. same-sex marriage and other aspects of identity politics. leave hungary alone, people can leave or go if they want. >> you mentioned donald trump. what would ronald reagan think of donald trump? >> i'm not sure. that is a hard question. reagan like most successful politician, they had a way of making attacks on the other party especially rose about and reagan. with some wits about them. we also talk about their friends and the other party. there was generosity to their disagreements with opposition.

some seem to have less of that, trump can be funny but not in the same way reagan was funny. trump is more formative and it's easy to miss it think so i think reagan might say, mayben effective rallying your own true but i'm not sure the independence you need, i don't think it leads the other party's lost election, the democratic party didn't except trump selection. at -- they just thought there was something metaphysically wrong about this which wasn't true with dragon, they didn't like reagan, they hated being defeated but accepted his presence. >> you wrote picked donald trump a liquor.

i would have loved the trump of administration without trump kept doing things i approved of that's why i say what part during things i liked, appointments and deregulatory initiatives in foreign policy, i thought that was unexpected and pleased. i did not expect him to be as consistently conservative as he was, there is some exception are trying to sort out the problem with china, it was a mess. it's a difficult problem and it may have been counterproductive. we'll see about that long-term. he did change in one thing about china, public opinion polls here and overseas public regard for china plummeted. terms a large reason in the biden administration is continuing with a disposition about china going back to business as usual and you have the bush administration or obama or even clinton.

>> you want to see donald trump run again? >> i don't think so, i don't know. i've been wrong about many things. >> if you run again you think he gets the republican nomination? >> as we speak right now, i think democrats are voting him in to make some mistakes lashing out about the fbi raid on mara largo, i understand that. i've worked for him in the past, you can't away on the guy, astounding how resilient he is. it could be that he has obvious flaws in his age because of issue but he may be the best vehicle channeling populist energies in the country right now.

>> conduct on tv, steven hayward is our guest will 45 minutes in, we are taking phone calls as well. dave has been waiting in omaha, nebraska. good morning. >> steve, you are a prolific writer in addition to your academic duties write the power line in your podcast so could you describe your writing process? >> i think i know what dave you are but -- okay. you mentioned how i become conservative, a writer. in the fourth grade writing a short story or something overnight i came back the next day with 28 pages so i clearly have a problem. i try to live by the advice of brovary, a famous science fiction author who said everyone ought to write 1000 words a day,

doesn't necessarily have to be manuscript or something, could be a diary or a letter or something. i have lived by that for a long time so when i am writing a book i sit down, stan evans, one thing about writing is pretty your butt in a chair and start writing. people think it's hard work like anything else and there's a lot of times you don't want to do it and distractions, i'll check twitter, my e-mail again but my general discipline is i like to write in the morning and sit down and set out to write 1000 words and i won't quit until about 1000 words done not a good day i'll get more done. otherwise i'm working on a post online, an article or something in between or making notes for lectures and seminars but usually morning. afternoon as i run out of gas

after lunch at my age and i'll read and research and do something else. >> it's rare to have a guest collar who recognize hung up, a friend of yours perhaps? >> i've never read him, he's a loyal reader, i hear from him a lot and i know he's in omaha. >> how many of those you have? >> a lot. it is not unusual for one of our items, we try to do except to eight items a day with a couple of guest writers. it's not unusual to get three or 400 comments on each item. it depends on the topic, sometimes more. >> and dave is one of those? >> yes. >> is not unusual -- >> you got to turn down your television and talk to your phone.

>> we will let john work on his vephone while we go to dan in brooklyn, new york. the best way to have this conversation because we are delayed on the air, turned on your television. >> i'd like to get historical background to my question. uc berkeley and 64 to study the geology but i walked into fsm crisis which essentially was a matter of providing university students adulthood status instead of the chancellor. the fsm ended up with the victory with this notion which was 5000, 2000 student body 27000. that semester they were the originator of the whole thing.

there was a another referendum f fsu, the student union so the committee should rule student activities. we struggled with reasoning and they were defeated 21000 to the same 5000 before. clearly there was this issue of these students and i fought hard to understand why. when i looked into it looking especially in the history process because you learn history is an important subject but a malign subject by whoever is in power, i saw american professors of history, they see it as excusing the term and

important, twisting of facts leaving out the reality. as a result i see the next year the students have died. now graduate students or professors and doing the same thing as their professors were doing. they are still back there is third generation of cold war revisionists. what is this voting pattern historians, maybe they feel nobody believes them, they feel the right lie, deceive and misrepresent the material. as a conservative have to say conservatives are as bad as liberals. i'd like to know in medical

history of political science you don't have to do anything with the. >> i was a lot there. there are two parts to your question in my mind -- i recommend to you as viewers to look into this controversy of american historical association for the historian at wisconsin, african history and slave trade and liberal, he wrote what flicks the history profession academically these days is called presentism, i might call it historicism but the idea that we interpret the past to our current political bias and thinks it's a mistake, i think it is right. the blowback was ferocious and had to apologizeol within 48 hos for the harm he caused especially to scholars of color.

and i think it's the biggest problem, history hasn't always been that way academic history, one thing that's odd to me is there is is huge hunger in the reading public biographies, grant and hamilton and so forth, almost always written by nonacademic providers, turnouts. john adams. he almost never see a biography from academic anymore.an what are two exceptions? you go back 70 years, by the way, my age of rage and is the age of roosevelt. wonderful books for reading, a great stylist and made good

strong arguments for the liberal bias and that's okay so i decided to return the favor so that is a big problem. the speech question start that was, free speech movement is remembered around berkeley but the irony is i think you said it, students of the 60s said want to grow up and have responsibly now. we don't want them calling us and that was what was said at berkeley. hate speech, in response team so one thing is that every fall until covid, i usually asked to be on panel for homecoming weekend, often people graduated 4450 years ago, some like they haven't left berkeley, a little

tie-dye and they say the same thing, what is the matter with students today? ayou were for free speech and e met it and now is dying on campus. the second piece midsize there and that is true, a longer story so on the one hand free speech movement i still think was a great milestone for the principle of free speech, university was trying to control little speech too much, they wondered every step of the episode, a long and fascinating story. have the same time you have roots of the campus conformism we see that throughout of that. >> withstand berkeley in california, art via text, given you are a california native, what is your view of the current

state of one-party governments in california and reasons for that? is the potential for reform and how would be accomplished? >> let me go in reverse order. the hispanic vote nationally in california has been shifting right. a lot of people writing about this. california was a republican i state and presidential elections until bill clinton flipped it and 92 and it's never come close to flipping back. part of what happened is industrial base changed and the cold war ended. california i grew up in was big into aerospace and production. that was a very republican industry in fact left the state. it shrank and left the state. it liberal and entertainment industry always liberal. an awful lot of people have left

the state, a lot of republican voters moved to texas, idaho and everywhere else. as i say hispanic vote and asian vote trending more republican direction for a bunch of reasons. nrc democratic control being overthrown anytime soon but i do think -- i've said a lot of controversial things that i don't shy away from that, i think it would be less controversial to say when you have one-party rule, it is bad we don't have political competition to get corruption. california is losing population in 1850. how could they be losing population? there's something reallyat wrong with this picture.

>> one hour into our conversation, the confrontation with steven hayward talking about his book, the largest of the books by paige volume, the age of reagan, a two-volume work one from the 1960s to the 80s in his election and 1980 -- 99. i want to come back to the age of reagan. he said the entertainment industry has always been very liberal. ronald reagan navigating the entertainment industry and what he took from the. >> i may have overstated it a little bit. i say liberal, democratic navy but at least in the 40s and 50s and 60s, pro- american you would say. you asked earlier how reagan became a conservative, i skipped over the late 40s when he was

head of the screen actors guild and it was always thought communist influence in hollywood was a comment disadvantage but is not really true. we got documentation they try to infiltrate for the trade union. they didn't believe in the entertainment and reagan followed this and carried a gun for a while because there were threats on him for standing up for this and was threatened a few times and come to meetings and realize these groups were communist. >> and they were kind of dupes as opposed but fast forward to the 80s and before the first summit says to reagan, reagan ignored the book talking points and secretary scholz said therew

are some people at the state department and national security council worried you might not be fully prepared. i know what they are like. the washington person, that had to be an un- reassuring answer but he meant it so that ever to influence hollywood's trade didn't come to anything probably because of reagan and forgotten figures like brewer, reagan's right hand man, they work hard to peel off the threat to the industry for reagan later would like to talk about how i missed the traditional morality is one of my favorite reagan lines on journey person 1972 and kherson

said after you leave thenk governor's office you might go back to making movies. reagan said take off all my clothes and there he was. ... g his own briefing notes and you talk in the books about his writing process as a prolific writer. why did he have such an affinity towards winston churchill and quoting him? steven: here is how that came here's how that came about. i noticed reagan quoted churchill allowed and i started looking up all the usages and started looking a previous presence. i forget there's a canadian rider i forget his name who said it's imperative to american politics. bill clinton did in all the presidents have. in that era and it turned out reagan quoted or referenced

churchill more often than all previous american presidents put together. p imagine and then i noticed he was using not some of the famous familiar quotes from churchill. implying churchill in a serious way and sometimes obscure. a closer look the more i realized it was alike on important things like the cold war especially. what separated reagan from other conservatives and everybody was the thought that cold war had gone on forever not because it's a bad thing. because soviet union itself was unnatural. everybody else that the soviet union nixon and the liberals thought the soviet union was here to stay we have to figure out a way to get along with them and reagan said we can get along with them how this country can last. collect all the jokes about

their social dysfunction they have churchill thought the same thing. he thought the country in this form of rule can't persist. its attorney that will have to be thrown off for defense but it willag collapse. ronald reagan quoted winston churchill one of the many times in january of 1981 in his first inauguration speech. >> can we solve the problemss confronting us? and there -- the answer is an unequivocally -- yes. to paraphrase winston churchill didn't think there was the intention of presiding over the dissolution ofes the world's strongest economy. >> that quote that moment. >> i was there for that. i just shown up and being from california had grown up with reagan. the original churchill quote was i did not become the kings -- to

divide over the british empire which happened anyway. that's a whole separate story. reagan used to like to quote churchill. he and churchill had parallel thoughts about nuclear weapons. churchill in the late 40s or early 50's said you know what the united states and the west had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.cl is there any doubt if the russians had a monopoly of nuclear weapons they'd use it in a contest and reagan said the same thing in the 1960s most famously in a tv debate with robert f. kennedy. that by all accounts he clobbered kennedy. in any case you could see their thought patterns ran alike. which started churchill on talking about reagan's writing style and you get into your book in one of summaries between their writing and their preparation for speeches for moments like that.

explain the parallels. >> just on the speechmaking churchill -- reagan wrote more of his speeches as president that his speechwriters about police was easy to write for him. we just went back to what he said before in a dated it but he made a lot of changes. above all they both practice their speeches. i don't know if they did it in front of the mayor but they went into a speech having rehearsed it. i think reagan did some of that in show business. churchill came to that oddly enough because one day as a young mp around 1903 he froze one day in the house of commons and couldn't finish his speech. ever since then he always came in with notes on four by six cards like reagan used later in heat for her sis beaches. he always wanted to be prepared and i'll have to say i'm critical of speeches by modern

politicians but it's one thing if you want a great speaker. reagan had all those gifts of poise and an acting background but i see a lot of politicians politicians who i've got to say haven't worked their speech or haven't practiced it or read it thoroughly. in washington is senator will accept an invitation to speech of the national association and the speeches are usually bland. he was the mayor -- who was america's speechmaker right now? >> it's hard to say. obama was ase good speechmaker. he had an obvious natural talent at it. i don't know. nixon is not that good at it but he workedth out at and he usualy had some effect. >> the book on reagan and churchill entitled greatness, the reagan churchill and the making of extraordinary leaders.

what makes somebody politically great? >> so one of my hobbyhorses about academic, i think they were both statesmen in the serious sense of that word. that a term is disappeared from academic literature. in the 1970s you could read an article in political history and talk about statesmen and statesmanship. modern people would say there's no objective definition of that. that's not new but i think thomas read a famous republican speaker of the house a statesman is just a popular politician who is dead. and to be sure partisan passions were often say fewer liberal you'd call reagan a statesman. but i think when you drill down into a statesman as someone who combines two things. one, some key principals in how they think about work or what

the most important issues are in how they think about them. and combined with the were found grasp of the circumstances. there is principle but how am i going to maneuver in this world? that's why lincoln is such a great case study and also churchill and i also think reagan knew a lot about reagan's reagan's -- and the last thing and i couldth go on forever. less thing i will say there's a brief moment in the book about lincoln that is great. lincoln is talking with stevens the character played by jones and he says senator stevens and i'm paraphrasing you were like the sailors of the north star. i'm just going to go straight at it. if that's your goal of socialism whatever lincoln says you're not speaking to account the cello -- the shallow reefs in the swamps in the things you have to get

around to get through that will require you to do again. the people we bestowed that exalted a moniker of statesman were people who understood that. >> a phonecall waiting john from el paso texas. john you are on with steven hayward. >> yeah i'm concerned. i served in the military and joined in 1964. at that time there was a requirement to serve your country and we don't have that requirement anymore. we have politicians who are big campaign contributor's instead of the popular vote. the winner takes all state elect years running for president so the ones who don't get the

majority their vote doesn't count so why vote? my question is what do you think we can do to actually make somebody become a member of the united states other than paying taxes because that seems to be the only thing you have to do to be a citizen of the united states. >> oh boy. >> can i asked john before he gets off the phone? what do you think would be a good requirement? are you with us john? >> are you still there? no matter what would be a good requirement? military service again? >> i believe we should have national service. doesn't have to be military. could be social services. you could be an engineer helping to solve water crises in droughts or 10 states or some form of service to the country

because right now it seems to be everybody's out for themselves for their states or their parties and nothing is going back towards building a love for the country and support for the country the way we used to have. >> at least two interesting parts to your comment and question. the idea of national service periodically resurfacess and there's a lot to it in the abstract. ira think in practice it would e difficult for this country to do because of our size and their diversity that's rightly understood and in particular diversity. it would be hard to manage. i think it's going to surface again because on the back of it is the second part of your question which is what makes a citizen of satisfied legal requirement to pay taxes and registering to vote.

so national service would depend on the end they think real meaningful citizenship also depends on what we have. one of the things that bothers me today and a lot of people is we are emphasizing art differences all the time. it's what people say about identity politics for your identity is primarily determined by your skin color general orientation and so forth and if we start thinking of other americans as alien from each other it's hard to have the idea of common citizenship. you think national service might solve that with military service which there's a huge participation in military world war ii and afterwards. it's quite a ride of passage for alls americans but it comes down to what 2% of our population that are in the military? and the idea of national service would bring people together in a way that military brings people

together and old-fashioned melting pot. i think in practice what you get is the special-interest thing okay you don't have to join the army. join our environmental lobby or join the club with the nra sets up and we are very good these days that self-organize their special interest. i have a hard time seeing how you avoid that. if you say let's avoid that by having a one-size-fits-all like americorps or the voluntary under clinton i don't think that would work area well. i hopee i'm wrong but what would work? >> i hesitate. you often hear people say the personn on the street will say you know country comes together in a time of a national crisis.

people say we would need a crisis. lots of bad things happening crazies. with covid a crisis do did draw the country together? >> yeah, yes and no. i mean serious on this and the response i think a lot of mistakes were and we will be studying this for years and arguing about it for years but i think we saw centralization of policymaking. there's so much uncertainty that we should have should have been more open to lettingre local states and health officials experiment with different strategies. look what happened. governors they started calling them governor death santos. their experience with covid was

no better or than anybody else's. people are going to argue about mass forever and i'm tired of it all. in making one person like fauci the oracle for everything. he was on the tv every night on the networks and i think that was a w mistake. it was a lot more plurality of voices and improvise her way through it. >> is there certain crisis that you think i bring us together? >> one that's not a threat to the regime. world war ii. >> 9/11? >> 9/11 was shocking and for the first couple of years president bush enjoyed an 80% approval rating. they rallied around the commander in chief because they certainly never got 80% of the

vote. it probably has to be people perceived as a threat to the survival of the country and thac would make people -- you know you to put it that way. when something like that happen, people put aside a lot of their passions i think. we can get back to that later and i don't know if we can get back to that situation. what i to be this pessimistic that but we may be beyond the point of no return for a gifted leader can comment. >> are we more divided right now than we have ever been? >> i think we are. the differences it's not geographic. it's unthinkable you to have a civil war with uniform troops

but i could see some scenarios where the january 6 event that's one way it might happen. i thought of some pretty scenarios. right now i keep a note to myself. >> he wrote about january 6 in the city journal. the repubcan party on january 7 of 2021 the republican parthas experienced its worst day since the assassination of abraham lincoln or at least the resignation of richard nixon. even if lincoln were alive today and agreed to president trump'sd claim that the present central election is rife with fraud he would not convene a. >> lincoln's first favorite speech.

one reason it was such a disaster is because remember before the election in washington d.c. cities boarded up their downtown. what was the worry there? the worry there was trump w woud win and there were riots from people on the left. a big wind. to down the city's aborted themselves and realize people thought the threat of violence and unrest would happen. suddenly and january 6 it comes from the right and popular supporters in the whole spectrum of people involved in that mess so that muddy the waters and shocked a lot of people in washington. i heard secondhand from sources that a lot of people in the brockers he said we don't shut have the police force. he had some capital police letting people in and around the

other corner of the building there was violence against police officers and what a mess. alyou're really shook up people more than just the shock value that it happened. >> january 7ua of 2022 "the new york post" this is what you wrote hysteria among democrats over the shambolic riots at the capitol year ago revealed not ly the hypocrisy of the left but the deep insecurity, ideological hollowness and what is called projection, tributeloo others what's going on in your own mind. >> they are is an article i drafted that have been published yet and i think a lot of what you see today from democrats is very long roots. steven douglas one of his favorite attacks on lincoln was you and republicans, the republican party and that was a

straightforward appeal to racial which was widespread at the time.. maybe people in the north didn't want in their neighborhoods. so now the analog is not perfect that maga republicans president biden is using and a parallel. i think there are some others and i forget what some of the other ones are. oh there's a favorite cliché that's used a lot by political writers and political activists. our democracy, our democracy trademark. steven douglas and other democrats and 18 50's in the civil war said they referred to the democratic party ben as democracy and the subtle application with democracy was the sole proprietary thing that of the democratic party. so the talk these days if you

disagree with democrats or liberals on election went integrity or other wise it's a threat to democracy and this has a distinct echo of what you saw from the democratic party. there's a third thing which is the irony is things like the t 1619 project is that the founders didn't believe in equality that's what john c. calhoun and alexander stevens and all the confederates said 100 years ago. nobody seems to notice the talking point the left uses today for the talking points of the confederacy. >> in tucson arizona euronext is steven hayward on "in depth." are you with us? >> oh yeah.

hi mr. hayward. i went to school at southern alumni university and there was this great genius of the guy who designed the geodescent dome and the jeb -- geodescent bilmus 16 of the dome and one third of the energy to heat and cool. what a great time for this idea to come to fruition and how do you think this could be presented? the not the world's greatest public speaker myself but but ts idea should be acted upon i think. >> i was a teenage fan of lucky as i called: him. he was a futurist thinker. i made one high school with a couple friends of mine. it tookk all summer.

we bought a little bit of typing and we had to measure things out and pull them together so we made one. so i'm right with you about the concept that thehe problem is ie seen a few houses made in the geometric dome formed. i won't say they are but i don't think people would find it very aesthetically rewarding. on the energy efficiency thing i used to do a lot of work on it and trying to keep up but we now have lots of energy efficient design features that are being rolled out over the world. the security of the geodescent only had 50 years ago as opposed toic conventional building materials much less than now. >> energyne efficiency and clime change. your thoughts?gh

>> oh dear another hour. i'm what you call a lukewarm or. when i'm in on branded you have to be all and in the end of the world is coming. climates get tix they no, know this is all natural and the something happeningg here. a lukewarm or says mike matt ridley has written a lot about this. what we think is the world is warming not sure how much more it's going to warm. we think the extreme views are way over estimated. step two i say is a policy analyst is how i pass the day in washington we want to analyze policies with uncertainty and risk. certainly long-term climate change has what is sometimes

called a small probability of a consequential effect. we do have to take it seriously. i just look at what we have been trying to do his climate policy for the last 30 years. my final proposition on that is the more serious you think climate change might be in the future the more you should be frustrated and towards what the environmental climate movement has been looking at. they want to make carbon more expensive and energy more expensive than stifle natural gas. to understand why you want to phase out coal because it has highl, emissions so it's subsids and it's a lot of happy talk about how we can go completely carbon free in 10 years. for a while hydrogen was the thing. he later did a complete 180 about that. nobody is calculating and i

think i was one of the first persons with we now talk about netzero by 2050. we use 215 or 20 years ago talk about an 80% reduction in our carbon emissions by the year 2050. i figured out once what that meant by going to the energy subsidies but that would take us back to our fossil fuel energy use of 1910 when we had 100 million people in no cars. someone has to show me how we will power a country with i think 5 billion units of energy down to six. i think that's right and show me howow you're going to get there ilwith non-fossil fuel sources r .geothermal. >> eric and maryland he were on next with steven hayward.

>> good morning prethere's an idea from national review authors to unify libertarians and conservatives in reagan's coalition in some sense a has a libertarian i fear this is benefiting conservatives much more than libertarians. i'd like to hear your thoughts on how the social conservatives displace the fusionist coalition within the republican party issue leave the reagan era probably started it in 84. >> efvery well put. the fusionist more about the definition it was trying to bridge the theoretical and practical things that we libertarians want to maximize individual freedom and traditional conservatives who worry about tradition, you know cultural things like the family and so forth.

and the social conservatives and the new right come along and the traditional conservatives are pointing to things like and the erosion of morals and so forth and abortion. so fusionist him as one of stan at this point you'd miss him implies two things that don't go together better in natural match. you can't have liberty he thought liberty rested on some traditions and a moral understanding of what moral human beings are in that respect hayek felt much the same. there were always clashes. take an example of him abortion most libertarians arece pro-choe

and conservatives obviously are not so that's split, but i do think you want to say on behalf of socialal conservatives aside from the electoral consequences of a lot of them were democrats who switched parties. what ought to be said is abortion wasn't a national issue before the 70s. it was an issue but it was on a state-by-state basis with a lot of spectrum of views about how it should be handled in washington so forth. we nationalize it and then suddenly it became front and center in our politics and it was unavoidable. doesn't matter what you think about abortion or same-sex marriage are all the rest. would he think of national issues that the social security act will be hard toer seek that coalition. >> error, line from maryland. do you have a follow-up question tow- that? >> that was greatat appreciate s thoughts. >> the show on orlando, florida good morning.

>> good morning. i guess my main question is this, the republican party leadership is very confusing. unlike what happened in watergate where finally the leadership came to nixon and idsaid enough. you were caught, you've got a problem and you've got to go. we have got leadership that on the one hand, on one day like january 6 and 7th will criticize trump and may criticize him on other behaviors and then we'll turn around like kevinro mccarthy and go down to mar-a-lago and make nice. so seems to me there are so many things that are such misbehaviors on trump's part

that he is not held accountable for in a public forum except for people like liz cheney. and so how can we except a person, the republicans except a person who has so much misbehavior most recently now with these classified documents and nobody comes out and says your behavior is wrong, get off the public forum, work in a different way if you wish but b. and yet they continue to pander to him constantly. >> was that aaron or michelle? michelle, i'm sorry. i will mark it down: as undecided. i don't mean to say that. although your first about the

confusion the republican leadership reminds me of roger's great comment about the organized political party. i don't think there's any mystery that's going on. that is trump has a lot of republicansru intimidate busy ds have a hold on an energetic base of the party and i think it's true in every various accounts that the days and hours after january 6 there were a lot of senior republicans who are saying it's got to go. there were rumors that people thought we'd do what we did with nixon to go to the white house and say don't even think of january 20, go now. there was some talk of it and i didn't know how extensive it was. someday maybe we'll find out through documents and e-mails and whatnot. i think it's just that simple. in an analytical statement i think is true it's indisputable.

he's the dominant political figure inth american life in ths last decade and my hunch is for the people who don't like him or think he's a drag on the party and that may include mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy they have got their fingers crossed and hoping he'll just go away. it looks like ron desantis is gearing up to run and my opinion is he out to run now. people say he's young and he can wait in it's true but their moments in that you have to do. i think his moment is now on if he waits another for eight years that moment night -- might not present itself so that could happen. >> with 30 minutes left with steven hayward on our "in depth" program this sunday joining us to talk about his various books eight dogs and if you want to join the conversation in eastern sometimes owns 202748 --

(202)748-8201. viewers on the close-up shot you have been seeing over your right shoulder the real jimmy carter. we talked about reagan and we have talked about donald trump. you're probably wondering what you think the real jimmy carter is? >> he bugged me but i should say i think it should be said that a sense of the presidency and the election was a thing of genius the show drill in sight. after johnson and nixon watergate and all the rest people really wanted in a person someone who -- taught sunday school. guess what he taught sunday school for real. in this campaign was brilliantly organized. it's his post-presidency that's the most interesting in some

ways. havete the book talked about itr they think he's the first president who took on significant causes after he left office. with the tiny t exception of herbert hoover and hoover commission in the 50s that restructure the federal government. he was the perfect person for that in a lot of ways. habitat for humanity working to eradicate guineas disease and humanitarian gestures. he also interfered with foreign policy a few times. most the accurately in the run-up to the first gulf war in 1999 was actually on the phone to leaders in the middle east. saying you shouldn't go along with what president bush wants to do. the bush administration got wind of it and was outraged. people were talking my can we charged him with the "logan"?

and he's a littles to the left. he wrote a book about how israel and is in the parkside state. i want to tell that story. going back to the 70s he campaigned for office in georgia. that's all been forgotten. somebody i forget who somebody saiddy he may be mock a billion behind the smile. muck of alien behind the smile. >> how to the medal? >> i wrote that book 15 years and i've forgotten the details of that but also huisinger communicating with people why reagan should be resisted and most presidents -- he seemed a

little more at that event his carter center wasn't just the presidential library. it was an activist organization and that's fine of course but he's a different ex-president and i've got to say he's the model for an ex-president. >> michael in broward county florida good morning. your next on "in depth." >> good morning. you mentioned desantis and history and i want to see we can weave these together. i am in broke into with an active school district in this issue of people -- a matter of life or death and its usually for the elderly. mya question is i think i'll be able to give reagan and trump and out here because based on history but i want to describe a video.

i wonder if reagan would have been there to the trump and desantis said they wish to increase -- spreading smallpox amongst the population and they said it word for word as the dictionary definition of genocide. my question is i don't think what they are doing is bad. i don't think these people are evil. with signs with pushed in the 18 50's based on what they are calling it cpac a natural order and hoover spencer who founded the education system and they came up with this false belief in competition and survival of the fittest. evolution works by cooperation.

>> michael a lot there. >> they are is a lot there. >> i've been trying to stay out of this in great detail. >> i'll restate this part which was i think we learned early on that unlike the influenza to 1918 children are at low risk of serious complications and the number of children who'd died from covid's in the single d digits. and some had comorbidities and the other is i think more people are coming round the british in the last week said yeah we should h have embraced a focused protection model which for the elderly, governor cuomo in new york sending elderly back to the nursing homes and covid was spreading.

the point is we should have had more focused protection for people who are the most vulnerable to it. more and more coming around to that point of view. unfortunately we were hoping we could get around the natural course of the pandemic without herd immunity. the idea that we have to get herd immunity at some point how you get there, the vaccine was oversold. that was a much harder question than people thought. i think those guys may end up being vindicated. the way he put it was a little harsh. >> columbus ohio john good morning you are on with steven hayward. >> hello. my question goes back to reagan and you were talking about carter. after the great depression were introduced regulation for the

banks to avoid economic catastrophes. afterwards we experienced decades of economic stability. when reagan came into office he had the decision to reintroduce deregulation to the economy. what role/responsibility do you think he played to the eventual 2008 crisis? >> i actually think not much. one particular part, one of the big d regulations that was a part of that was change in the regulation of savings-and-loan and those crashing late 80s 20 years before the 2000 a catastrophe and the legislation that regulated and change regulation of savings and loans passed congress in 1980 before reagan took office. that was a bipartisan fiasco.

now glass-steagall was the main banking regulation that separated commercial banking from -- and the banks the big banks and if that wasn't repealed until the bill clinton was president. i think the role of that in thef 2008 financial crisis was overstated but is one of many elements. i don't think reagan is a bad act during all of that. one last thing it was the middle of the 80s when you had senator mccain howard krantz and the senator from california and a couple of others that got caught up in the lobby and the savings-and-loan in arizona but you can blame that on the regulators for buckling under political y pressure but you can anblame reagan for that. that's a commonsense problem. >> arlington virginia you are on with steven hayward.

>> yes, good morning mr. hayward. it's great to talk to you today. i do think you are exaggerating on the covid-19. the former president was the executive at the time and i think we should keep in mind that my question goes to the american first movement in the 30s and when was spreading throughout germany they issued radios to every citizen. i i do believe that there cable media fox and "msnbc" and "cnn" are entertainment channels. what is the impact of their misinformation and why wouldn't we defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic? why would we want to do that? thanky you. >> we certainly do want to do that. one problem is in the first part of the question you put your fingerio on it we disagree on wo our enemies are.

the enemy is the other side to put it in simple terms. i would say this about the parallels in the 30s and now. one of the things that place and all of this you now get to pick the information you like. if you watch "msnbc" were on the left and if you're in the right you watchth fox. their common information channels. when walter cronkite was watched by 70 million americans a nights and out every news broadcast gets 20 or 25 million that's a great day. so even if you think fox is better "msnbc" is bad for talk radio is bad it reaches a small portion of the population and there's lots of competing information channels now. i think fox is the top-rated show i think it's tucker carlson and five or 6 million on a good

night. that's a lot of people but it's not 300 million or 70 million like walter cronkite got. >> you watch much television? >> i try to watch the network news. i start watching network news in college. and i still do because i like to see how they cover stories. my one observation these days has become a human interest story. networks have the spotlight on someone who's rescued a puppy dog from a tree in akron ohio or something. that's the sort of thing everyone would see on the walter cronkite rod cas. viewers like that sort of thing but the today show -- >> you are also a vote and we ask steven hayward what are you reading w d responses to the question amongre his favorite

looks paul johnson modern times the abolition of man leo strauss natural rights in history when some churchill who we talked a lot about today ts and adventures aristotle, j.r.r. tolkien. in terms of what is currently reading a short history alexander lee machiavelli is right sometimes and which of many of those books do you want to talk about? >> oh gosh. i could have given you different titles from churchill and so forth. i will say not "lord of the rings" because i don't like fiction. paul johnson modern times i'd like and it's a great read but it's a style he tried to emulate. i got to meet paul johnson. you tell a story.

then you have to put analysis and about whatat it means so not just the fact of what happened. i thought he had an unairing -- churchill did the same thing in his book. he'd spend two or three pages on a one-day event. and as i say that's a style i try to emulate. c.s. lewis aboli of man is 70 pages long and on tface it's about literature but it's really a restatement of the natural law tradition going back to the greeks and romans for the criticism of what a modern times we called moral relativism. and it's a really elegant statement. "lord of the rings" i have a which is you can tell how someone ended up by how much

they read as a teenager. if they read "lord of the rings" they became traditional conservatives. >> "lord of the rings" and youe mention c.s. lewis the chronicles of narnia. why one and not the other? lewis and the toking folks. >> the tolkien book is more -- lewis worked in theological religious teaching. i'm more partial to lewises street science fiction book and the hardest tola get through. i think it stands up next to orwell's 1984 in the tolkien novels of the 20th century.

>> c.s. lewis writing a lot about religion. on this network one of your heroes dan evans in 1994 you asked him in an interview how much religious beliefs were in his book and in his writing? what how much aree in your books in your riding? >> not much at all really. funny you should mention it in currently noodling on a memoir. and it's aboutut my best friend who died a decade ago somewhat mysteriously. that's all we talked about was religious in politics and a whole lot of other things. his name was kelly clark. we a lot of time talking about all kinds officials about

religious faith. it's the things wills figure out sitting in the backyard with a cigar. i'm trying to use this describing our friendship whichh aristotle said to friendship is two people with same -- and maybe i can finish the story. maybe i will finish doing this on the look for a talk a lot ologand religion. i've never tried something like this before. >> is kelly clark someone that you could have those conversations with? >> is a say in the house of commons without so much alike about certain things. >> did you grow up with him? we went to college together we were inseparable. we kept in close touch. we used to write in the 80s to 14 on everything else we still write each other at the end of the year-long letters, eight or

10 single-space pages and would summarize what we thought and what we have read most importantly. i can't believe we did that. later on we dropped it. anyway there may be a story here >> if you wrote that letter today what would be the most important thing? >> this is personal. a year ago yesterday i had cancer surgery. a very minor cancer. i had a note on my kidney quite by accident. ever since then i thought don't wait. so i took my family on an extravagant two month vacation

every year. don't wait. and that's why and person, normally wouldn't start on the book about contracts. their chapters in this memoir that i describe and i don't want to wait on that either. not just the last year but the last several years ordinary things like not giving donald trump any chance of winning and who could have possibly predicted how it unfolded? increasing syncretic ignorance.t the more things i thought i knew but i don't know. again i have joked. the more i get the less i know. it's more confusing to sort it out. don't wait. >> we have 10 minutes in his conversation with several callers waiting chat with you. north carolina good morning thanks for waiting.

>> what a wonderful conversation c-span. i'm very familiar with professor hayward and a big pan -- fan of the happy our podcast. listening to him talk about his books and reagan i'm not friends with them but i feel like it could be a friend of his. the call from michelle and her question and i wanted to give -- give professor hayward spot about this idea which i just discovered in the last three or four years about nixon. i know we haven't talked much about nixon and it's not your area expertise of expertise but there's a person named jeff shepard who served underat nixon and in his entire presidency and basically makes the case that nixon was driven out of office as part of a plot by a series of people it took a damage of the situation that happened with the break-ins and nixon had no idea what was going on.

and he spun it to the point where nixon couldn't defend himself and there were no republicans to defend him and he resigned. if that had come out in totality there were criminal acts and criminal should have been prosecuted but it wasn't nixon who is the criminal in that situation. all of it off the air and enjoyed the next two minutes of this wonderful program. >> you mentioned shepherd who was a young lawyer in the white house. i did a two-part contest interview with him. >> it was on c-span's "washington journal" on the anniversary. >> a fascinating guy. there's ath lot on that subject and we don't have the time to do it. i'll say this. i have often wondered if watergate would have happened differently if we had today's media environment. that is to save oxen is -- "fox

news," it may have gone quicker. nixon might have survived. we can't know that i think there will be a lot of revisionist history at their watergate that will come to different resolutions. >> new york, you're next. >> first off it's great to hear about -- i'm happy to hear that everything is going well with that. >> your health. >> oh thank you. >> what hasn't been talked about with the reagan presidency is the role howard baker played his chief of staff after the debacle around contra what look like reagan was and did trouble especially with questions about his mental w capacity.

i would like you just to lay out how consequential it he was his chief of staff towards the end of the -- i'll hang up and listen to the answer. >> wouldn't it just in question. the whole chief of staff cycle in reagan's presidency, i would say this. one reason reagan shows howard aker who retired from the senate but in washington had been the ranking republican on the watergate hearing. reagan wanted somebody who had good relations with the hill will force vector than a pillar of washington, and in right the ship.e he was a good secretary. chief of staff and he knew that was a mistake. i'm not quite sure if your undertone of other question is was baker a bad influence like the first baker, james baker. i think that's not true.

i think this widespread view reagan that he was -- german turns out to be entirely wrong. >> how do we know back? >> documents had come out and people telling stories about meetings and his diaries. you triangulate a lot of source material and i could give you a whole lot of examples. lthe most famous one was the famous "star wars" speech in late march of 1983. just about everybody was against it like secretary of state shultz and he went ahead and did it d anyway. they are only two people on the staff. >> with about three minutes left on a program of the question on reagan but one that you come back to a couple of times and ta couple in your book including

the age of reagan you write reagan was more successful in rolling back the soviet empire than he was in rolling back the domestic government empire chiefly because the latter is harder. >> another big question is short amount ofam time. sinovac inclusion is in the second volume took criticism from the reagan enthusiasts when it came out at a lot of the pipe was conservatives say reagan totally irrelevant to today. you hear this a lot from people i know usually younger and the point was thatyo connects to the big problem that i will mention of the administrative state erosion of the constitutional separation of powers the entrenchment of permanent controversy and reagan battled that sum. i think the lesson what they learned while they were there as this was a popular form of

drucker say. nixon thrived in the watergate storye so now things have marcv on for a while and we look back in hindsight and you say reagan maybe could have been bolder. some of his own people said that in hindsight but it turns out our own homegrown problems are tougher than the soviet union. >> in her final 30 seconds we start with a question about the perfect conservative. was ronald reagan a perfect conservative? >> is a politician certainly. i thought about it as the subtitle of the book. he was so at domenico in his views. that current but that just came out m. stanton evans conservative whip. we have been talking to steven hayward the author of eight books among them "the age of

reagan" the conservative counterrevolution: 1980-1989 "patriotism is not enough" and most recently stan evans both. we appreciate your time spending the last few hours. thank you for joining us. >> think it's been a real privilege.

's >> i'm fred graham