require repudiation of false conservatism. and buckley's ideas led to them throwing out john burch. you mentioned that. john burch society and the ian rands objectivists. today, the movement in terms of immigration and a lot of -- ian rand has become mainstream. how did that occur? >> there was an argument about ideas which is one thing. what buckley was trying to do, remember, is construct a sa saleable package. that's changed in a lot of ways. i reference this in my remarks, when in 1955 and 1958, 1960,

there weren't very many conservative organizations. for example, when he held our first conservative political action conference in the early 1970s, 100 people attended and it was sponsored by four organizations. not because we were exclusivists but because there wseren't any other ones. so at the time that the john burch society was sort of publicly running down the street acting like fools, there wsht any other organizations so it was easy for opponents of a developing conservatism to say, oh, you're them. today if somebody runs down the street acting like a fool, he's 1 of 300 organizations and you don't have to worry about him. because you now have an identification that's much more accepted. so that's a, you know, so now if a burcher comes, you know, we have people on both sides of the political spectrum who believe in all kinds of crazy theories, conspiracy theories and stuff. you don't have to drive them out of the building.

you just have to say, you're wrong. in those days, in order to survive, because there wasn't any other way that they could be used to brand you, you had to say, you're wrong, and please leave. that's my point. the -- the objectivists was really in some ways a different -- the legitimate case that bill had, who's reflected in part by the whittaker chambers, i think which was assigned in the class, of "atlas shrug" was the strict ideological nature of objectivism. that was compounded in bill's mind by the fact he was a devout catholic and rand was a devout atheist. those say that's what it was all about. those who say objectivism without ideology, without the constraints is no -- is not a

big problem because we afree with a lot of those people and they have not only moved into -- after all, one of ian rand's most well known disciples was alan greenspan who was an objectivist. so yes, but it's a different world today than it was then. when you're looking at the history of a movement, you have to ask yourself, what was it like at the time that they did that? and that's why -- he was trying to construct something -- as i said, he was trying to open a bar he could get other people to come into. >> next question. >> back to objectivism. on that subject and on ian rand, chambers wrote when a system of materialism presumes to give positive answers to the real problems of our real life, mischief starts. and i was sort of confused by

that statement because i look at materialism as, you know, free enterprise and the pursuit of profit which the arc of history shows improves the standard of living, increases life expectancy, decreases infant mortality rates -- >> that would be hiac. and rand would agree with everything hiac wrote. then she would go further into this whole question of selfishness and the religious side. in fact, i have a friend who constantly argues with the people at the cato institute because their auditorium is the hiac auditorium. in fact, hiac also wrote that there needed to be these moral foundations which ian rand -- that's where she would part with him. but on the whole question of free enterprise, capitalism and

all of that, they'd be in complete agreement. remember the first great free market economist was adam smith who also wrote a book called "the theory of moral sentiments" and he was a professor of theology. so you really -- so that side of it, whether you -- you can -- the randian or the nonreligious libertarian would say, can you be, you know, a free market person, can you have decent values, can you do that without being religious? what experience says is yes, you can. but most people don't. if you get into that argument where they say, you have to leave because you don't go to church, then that's obviously wrong. but what rand was saying, you ought to leave because you do go to church. you know? that's just as wrong. that's where that tension came about. and that sort of -- it still

exists to some degree, but not nearly to the degree, to the fact that if in 19 -- i forget what year she published "atlas shrug." but picture yourself, you're in manhattan, and you're in the cultural, literary, philosophical, political thing in manhattan and who would then at that stage be two giants? if you're thinking on the right where there wasn't anybody, there would be william buckley and ian rand. then think about how they would get along. that explains a lot. >> just to make the point more strongly, i think if you were assigned the first chapter of goldwater's conscience of a conservative. he makes the case of a conservative being rooted in nature, he makes the case it's not an ideology but actually rooted in nature. next question? yes? >> it seems like the

conservative movement of the time became a victim of its own success. we received an influx. we weren't able to educate them. first off, how to we recover and get the core group back? that's kind of been alluded. the fringe. the others -- i hope we become as successful and see that kind of shift back into the movement again. how do we keep from repeating that same mistake? how do we educate everybody in true conservative ideals and not just these fringe groups? >> history would suggest it's very difficult not to repeat that mistake because that's the experience of successful movements of the right, left, or center. and is that as the rats join the ship, i say the problem is you need the rats to win, but if they're there long enough, they'll probably take over because they reproduce a lot. but in order to be successful over time, you have to do as much as you can and spend as much time as you can inculcating

the values that created -- the ideas and values that create a movement into the next generation. i can relate a personal story, because it was mentioned in the introduction that i was chairman of the young americans for freedom, which as i pointed out was once described as the most important political youth organization of that decade. historians write about sds and all these groups but they never took over anything and young americans for freedom did. young americans for freedom became virtually a meaningless organization over time and it was in that -- the roadmap that resulted in it becoming meaningless was a roadmap that i created inadvertently. because it got to its largest membership when i was the chairman and it was a result of the vietnam war. so what had happened was that we

had a -- so i was able to observe this. we had a conservative organization, people were socialized, then the vietnam war broke out and violence took place on the campus, and our numbers began to swell because the fraternities and the football teams all joined us. you know, in reaction to a violent left. and in a period of a couple of years our membership tripled. but once the left went away, they didn't know why they were there. you know what i mean? in other words, they had come in as in reaction to something. and that's what happens in a political kind of context. you react to -- remember, this is a country that is essentially nonideological. it is a country that is not politically obsessed, but it reacts to things. so, i give you good example, more parochially. when a president, bill clinton,

barack obama, is perceived as being anti-second amendment, the numbers of people flowing into the national rifle association as members shoots up incredibly. now, when that stops, or when the challenge is overcome, a lot of them twogo away. they were there in reaction to something that was wrong. now, in a political movement, it's a little different because they come in reaction. they come in. your numbers swell. you know, and then they're there and they realize that they might get a job. you know? and so when they get the jobs, or when they, you know, rise in a political movement, if they didn't know why they were getting the job, then what value does it do from an ideas perspective to have them in the job? we had -- i mean, one of the important things about the reagan administration, and reagan was not a hands-on micro

manager the way jimmy carter was. but the people he tended to appoint knew what it was about. i mean, they knew what reagan wanted. they got -- i worked in the nixon administration. you could not get up in the morning knowing what the heck it was the president wanted. because i don't know if he knew. he may have, but he didn't communicate it anybody. so people went to work. there were studies at the time how many political appointees went bad, bad in the sense they weren't pursuing any kind of a unified, you know, way of looking at things. if you worked for ronald reagan, you knew. you might make mistakes. you might go bad. you might be captured by your agenc agency. all the things that always happened in a bureaucracy. you didn't have to get up in the morning and say, i wonder what the heck it is that president is all about. you want a movement that's led and run and down through it they know, they know what it is that

they're about. that's why i say it's important that they know that rather than just, i like "x." you know? because "x" might change his mind. >> david, what holds together this political movement? this fusion movement. is it the shared interest in holding power? is that sufficient to hold it together? >> no. >> what hold it together again? >> there are different views to that. bill kristol has written that the only reason for a political movement is to hold and exercise power and that anything that stands in the way of that -- this is the argument for big government conservative. anything that stands in the way of that needs to be jettison. he's argued over the years that this idea of cutting government stands in the way of holding power because people like government and, therefore, you shouldn't be for cutting it because -- and the conservative

argument is that's not why we're here. we're not here because we want to hold power. we're here because we want the power "a" restrained and "b" used in good rather than bad ways. >> use it in one way, the libertarian -- >> the neocon wants -- >> and the cultural conservatives do differently. >> they're all held together by the facts that if the other guys, not them, but the other guys, the big government liberals have it, they all lose. >> do they really lose? does the neoconservative lose? >> well, they -- they do currently, although they argued when -- they argued at the time when buckley and others were questioning the adventurism of the foreign policy. kristol said, fine, we'll go back to the democrats because we're more comfortable with them anyway. because their whole thing is essentially, it's foreign policy based.

the rest of it is veneer. it's based on the theory -- i think i related to you at the time the soviet union collapsed and before "the weekly standard" was founded, bill argued that america had to find another enemy. america had to go on a crusade because a nation is judged not by how it treats its people but how it performed on the world stage and therefore we needed an international crusade. i said, i thought that was evidence that he had never met any americans. we did not -- our grandfathers didn't send our fathers to war to be part of a crusade. they sent them there because they thought it was necessary to protect our country, our way of life and our friends. and when the war was over, they were perfectly happy to come back and run their tractors and work in their gas stations and their factories. and they do not sit around wishing that their son could go

off some place, or their daughter in this case, go off some place to be in harm's way. they hope that that won't happen. they're prepared to do it if they have to. but going to war is not a positive goal. you know, the last president we had that felt that way was teddy roosevelt who thought it was -- manly virtues, you have to look for a war if you couldn't find one. that's really not the american, you know, the way of looking at things. but the neoconservatives actually sort of believe that. that's before the muslim threat, and osama bin laden died. >> 1989, the berlin wall falls. so does the muslim threat now take the place? >> they had to search for a while. the muslim threat came a little later, you know. >> they had to search. is that what's taking place now? >> yes, exactly. exactly. and that doesn't mean that there isn't a threat, but is what's going on in the middle east the

existential threat that was posed by the soviet union? and if it is, is that the way that you solve it? >> next question? gentleman? cadet? >> in the current republican primary there's no clear consensus candidate right now. do you think that will have an impact on, i guess, how much these fringe groups like you talked about will have in the general election? to you think the media will focus on that more than normal? do you think that will play a big role? >> i think what will happen, the republican -- if you recall at this stage in 2008, there were all kinds of journalistic reports and pundits saying the democrats wouldn't be able to win because of the viciousness of the fight between hillary and

barack obama. the charges of racism and all this stuff that was going on. as soon as the nomination was decided, all that ended and it was one team opposing the republicans. the same thing will happen this time. the -- the liberals -- the establishment press, they're sort of saying, maybe ron paul will, you know, run. because that way that would hurt the republicans. he's not going to do that. and the republicans are not going to be stupid enough to completely shut him out. and the other candidates -- i like it because i know people who would like to do that. i said, you know, the problem is that we have the single greatest unifying factor that we have ever had and his name is barack obama. and i said, if you stood up at a group of conservatives and said, i don't really like the nominee, i think i'll run as an independent, the other ones would beat you to death because they'd say, wait a minute, you know, this is -- this is too

important for that. this is not what when we're going to play games. i think that becomes a non-problem. >> next question. mr. ford? >> sir, you said we have the one common threat, that's barack obama. how come that hasn't caused a reactionary force like was caused with mr. buckley and establish a strong candidate for the conservative movement? >> you mean one leader or one -- >> right, well, buckley was a reactionary force to the new deal and the progressive movement of the early 20th century. you say right now we on the right have a unifying opposition in barack obama. why haven't we developed a reactionary movement to create one solid candidate as opposed to having these -- >> solid candidate is different from a solid movement.

a candidate is the result, you know, of various people with ambition who want to be the candidate. and, you know, reagan did not become the candidate unopposed. that went on quite a while. when he challenged ford, of course, he lost at the last minute. so when you're talking about individuali individuals vying to be leaders, that's a digfferent thing. we also have, frankly, we have more conservative leaders, if you will, now than we've ever had. so it's more -- you know, all barry goldwater had to do, and i'm a goldwater fanatic. all he had to do was stand up in the senate and say, i won't do this. nobody else stood up. they said, there's our leader. that's it. if he were there today and he stood up and said that, 18 other

people would stand up and say, we're with you, barry, and then there wouldn't be a leader. so i think that -- i think that that's a different kind of tension, different kind of process, if you will. and it will end up ultimately with a nominee. you'll never get -- the movement and the republicans will unite around their nominee. they will not all -- they will not unanimously agree over drinks that this guy was not better than that guy. you know, in other words, it shouldn't have been somebody else. that's a different question that goes to their evaluation of individuals. >> mr. lacey? >> there's conservative ideas then as you mentioned the conservative movement ended up sort of taking oifr te ining ov republican party and using the republican party as a vehicle to

enact these ideas. the necessity of getting elected and such, there's still a lot of things that pass with republican congresses or republican presidents that are not very conservative. do you ever see things getting to a point where actual -- there isn't the need for these compromises, you know, something, for example, farm subsidies, where conservative government can't get rid of those, having to keep them around to remain in power. >> we did get rid of them once then they came back again. it is two things. one, power is seductive. and let me tell you a story when i went to washington. i was hired by vice president agnew. i had just graduated from law school at the university of wisconsin. i put all my stuff in a trailer and hooked it up to the back of my ten-year-old station wagon and i drove to washington. and i got a job with the vice president of the wrooiunited st

in an office, it later became the old executive office building. now it's the eisenhower building. it's the building next to the white house that used to be the war department. and it's a beautiful building. so i got this office and i decorated it and hung my pictures and all that. and this was 1970. and about a week or so later, the vice president wandered into my office and he looked around. he said, dave, you've done a great -- this is really nice. i said, thank you, sir. and he said, you know who had this office when hubert humphrey was vice president? and i said, no, sir, i don't. he said, it's funny, neither does anyone else. and then he said, two things are going to happen to you in the next few weeks. he said, the first thing you're going to conclude is that this job you have is really important. and then you're going to decide that there is one thing more important than the job, itself, and that's the fact that you have it. and he said, i don't know how to tell you this, but neither one of those things is true. well, when you -- and i've often

thought that everyone who comes to washington should have a boss who tells him that. somebody gets elected to congress, and this was the end of the so-called revolution of 1994, in the summer of 1995. the new speaker of the house, mr. gingrich, called his caucus together and said, the single most important thing we need to do is be re-elected. so here are the cardinals of the appropriations committee. anything you need, they will give you. because all of a sudden, that job was important and it was more important that they hold it. and as a result, all of the reasons that they had argued to the voters were essential to send them there went out the window. and that is the story of coming to washington. and all too often it's the stories and you have all kinds

of reactions to that. but the -- the thing that always amazed me, and this happens time and again, in 1994, and it's happened since then, the candidates railed on about wasteful government spending, earmarks, all these various things, you have to send me there to fix it. then they got there and decided within a matter of months the only way to get re-enacted was to involve themselves in wastef wasteful spending, earmarks and all these different things. i asked, why what worked once couldn't work again? because you became what you opposed once you got there. and that's why ryou yohave the e of the tea parties, these outside groups who say, wait a minute, we sent you there, you had a majority and nothing happened. and nothing happened not just because it's hard and not just because there's an opposition to it, but because there's a good chance that you're going to become part of the problem if

you're not careful. and that is not a -- gingrich said one accurate thing. that's not fair, he said many accurate things. he said one accurate thing in 1993. and '94 as they were preparing for that election. and they were attacking the corruption and the abuses of power of 40 years of democratic rule. and somebody asked him if -- a reporter asked him if he thought that democrats were somehow congenitally crooked. he said, no, it's just they've been in power and they're human, and if our guys are in power long enough, they'll be just as bad. he was right about that. but the learning curve was quicker. it didn't take 40 years to figure out how to do these things. so occasionally you really have to get rid of them all, or get rid of a bunch of them or bring in new people. and -- and that's one of the

reasons that bush lost. one of the reasons -- one of the reasons that we lost after bush is that he, as buckley said, was conservative but not a conservative. he didn't understand that part of what conservatism was about is the size of the government. his people famously would say to you, don't ask us about how much we're spending, ask us about how we're spending it. in other words, that would be your farm program. you know, we're not giving it, you know, to build public housing in brooklyn. we're giving it to farmers in iowa. you know? so those are our vote rs. isn't that good? no, that's not good. if you were a conservative, you'd understand that's not good, but it's easy to be -- it's easy to be seduced by that as a way to get votes. i mean, you see it with barack obama now.

and after all, when he ran, he was accusing -- he was running on some of these same things. and so now every one of his programs is sort of targeted at some voter group he's trying to get. they're not designed to solve the economic problem or anything of the like. they're designed to buy votes. republicans do that, democrats do that. they do it not because the republicans and democrats, but because they're human. it's one of the reason the founders didn't trust human beings. that's what the constitution's about. >> who are the good guys that understand conservatism today? who are some of the major ones in our senate and house? >> there are an awful lot of good people in the senate and the house. >> let me take the word "good" out. who are the people who understand conservatism, as you just mentioned? truly understand it.

>> truly or are representative of -- >> truly understand it. >> we all -- i think in the house, she's now running for governor, that mike pence had an understanding of all -- had it all together. very good example of that. we have some who are very good economic conservatives. some who are very good values conservatives and some national defense people. it's hard to put that together in one person. always has been. reagan was unique in that way. some of the others are not. >> sir, speaking as obama, as a unifying force, it seems that back in 2004, with the democratic infighting going on, john kerry eventually becoming the nominee, maybe he's more electable than howard dean. it seemed that the overall prevailing message was anybody but bush. can that really work this time

on the other foot? >> it almost worked that time. for the democrats. and, of course, it did work in 2008. one of the problems that all presidents have is, and this was really the formula for obama's problem, is that the reason a presidential candidate is elected is often very complicated and has less to do with people loving him and what he wants to do than he thinks. and this was -- this is always the case. in 2008 when obama was elected, it was anybody but bush, remember all that. that was partly true because the -- remember bush had an unpopular war. he had lost the sort of resonance with the public that he'd had right after 9/11. he seemed aloof, then he had the economic proem