human perspective on the way that congress worked. and an in appreciation for the legislative process that you just could not pick up from a book. >> mr. president, the honeymoon is over. >> the honeymoon is over. >> the honeymoon period is over. >> he will no longer get what he wants. >> we are going to take the present head-on. the honeymoon is over. those cliches of that goes back decades. the whole notion of "a honeymoon" for a new administration. this one goes back 80years, probably to franklin roosevelt. he had his 100 days. he was working with a democratic

congress. it was easier to push through his proposals at favored measures. there has been this notion that when a new president takes office they get a honeymoon. >> the journalist on the world terminology on c-span's "q&a." >> next, the discussion of barry goldwater and ronald reagan. the young america's foundation hosted a conference marking the 50th anniversary of ronald reagan's time for choosing speech, which he delivered during 1964 on behalf of barry goldwater. the event was held at the reagan ranch center in santa barbara, california. it is a little over an hour. [applause] much.nk you very and welcome to all of you, students and supporters of young america's foundation. as ron mentioned, today we are really here to celebrate young

america's foundation commemoration of the 50th anniversary of ronald reagan's seminole time for choosing speech. in that speech, the 53-year-old ronald reagan outlined his case for leaner government and greater freedom. in so doing, he did launches career in public service. but he also built a movement that would follow him for decades to come. panel,we get to the young america's foundation has created a series of five viral videos that outline the speech and how ronald reagan's principles are timeless and how they relate to today. the first video we are going to watch is about national security. you are about to see this video. i would urge you to check all of them out on our website at yas.org.

you can share them with your friends using #tsb50 after the session. [video clip] t> i am telling you isis is no already on american soil. they are coming. >> how did they end up where they are? was that a complete surprise to you? >> i think our head of -- >> those who trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us -- they have peace without victory. if we will only avoid direct confrontation of the enemy, he will learn to love us. >> a first strike nuclear attack. >> all who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. >> too dangers to be set free. >> they say we offer simple answers to complex problems. >> if the problems were easy,

someone else would've solved them. >> perhaps there is a simple easanswer. tear down this wall. if you and i have the courage to tell our officials that we want a national policy based on what we know is morally right. >> violation of international law by russia puts all of us in jeopardy. >> the military options are not on the table in ukraine. nation thatsaid an can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a -- and deserves one. there is no argument between peace and war. there is only one guaranteed way -- surrender. you and i ahve a -- have a rendezvous with destiny. we will preserve for our children the last best hope of men at arthur we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

[applause] >> today, i think we can't help but look upon this fantastic history and lament where's our next? ronald reagan won thing is clear. the conferences, seminars and lectures of young america's foundation that reach more than half a million young people every year have the very best shot at finding the next ronald reagan. not to mention that a visit to doubt del cielo is no the best way to inspire young person with conservative principles. youth outreach organization, young america's foundation is building a winning coalition of young people just as ronald reagan did and started more than 50 years ago. by introducingis

young people to the ideas of free enterprise, individual freedom, a strong national defense and traditional values. ur officeo claall o for more information. is an on her for me to do introduce our experts on the ronald reagan and his account asterisk. today our panel, they are going to give a few opening remarks. i may pose a question or two. but i would really like to hear questions from all of you out in the audience. so, please be preparing your questions and getting ready to test these two individuals up here. first, a leading historian of american conservatism, dr. lee e the author of 20 books including the very first biography written on ronald reagan. books on very goldwater and the history of the conservative

movement. dr. edwards is the to establish fellow and conservative -- at the heritage foundation. he also attended the very first yaf gathering at the home of wayne f buckley junior became the first editor of "new guard" magazine. dr. edwards has a profound knowledge on the conservative t grownt, having seen i since its earliest days. chairmands is also the of the victims of communism memorial foundation. a professor of politics at the catholic university of america. and a fellow at the institute of politics at the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard. our second panelist is craig shirley. the author of two critically acclaimed and best-selling books on president reagan, including " rendezvous with destiny." but there is more.

just two additional fines coming out on ronald reagan very soon, including "last acctt." "wilderness" which talks about his time between 1976 and 1980. shirley -- the know his firm is doing something right in representing conservatives when rachel madow bitterly complains about his success and effectiveness. been named the first year scholar at eureka college. so, please welcome dr. lee edwards to the podium. [applause] well, good morning, ladies

and gentlemen. it is a beautiful day in santa barbara. alive, day to be especially if you're going to spending the weekend talking about ronald reagan. begin being by saying -- by saying something that may surprise you. if senator barry goldwater had not been the republican presidential nominee in 1964, we would not be here today. why? because every other possible republican nominee that year was a liberal. and the last thing any of them would have approved would have been a national tv address by unknown conservative like ronald reagan. in political shorthand, we can say this -- no presidential candidate barry goldwater in 1964. no president reagan in 1980.

some obviouss to questions. who was barry goldwater? why was he called mr mr. conservative? 1964 presidential campaign it night a conservative revolution? well, he was a very unlikely revolutionary. he was the grandson of a jewish peddler. came from california over the mountains into arizona and sold his wares. barryoldwater was a -- goldwater was a college dropout whose books sold 3.4 million copies. it was once required reading for history 169b at harvard. he was a master mechanic. ham radio operated whose station

pass through more than 200,000 calls from u.s. servicemen in indochina to their families during the vietnam war. who never smoked or drink coffee but did keep a bottle of old crow in his senate refrigerator. he was a gifted photographer. black-and-white portraits of ofive americans and scenes arizona hung galleries. he was an intrepid pilot. who during world war ii flew c-54's over the himalayan's, the most treacherous mountains in asia. than 170 flew more airplanes, including the u2 spy plane. a man of contradictions.

and and fury in said of his presidential race, "i know i am going to lose, but i'm going to lose it my way." he was courageous and cantankerous. he said i did, not" come to washington to pass laws but to repeal them." and profound. classic axiom was "any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." theghted in saying unexpected. in his acceptance speech at the republican national convention he said probably the most famous thing he ever said, " extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

was vilified for saying that. let's reflect. it was patrick henry -- was patrick henry an is to music as he said "give me liberty or give me death?" or the brave american servicemen who fought against nazis or imperialist japan? was jesus christ an extremist? barry goldwater to conventional wisdom and turned it upside down. aking why can't we have voluntary option for our social security system which is headed for bankruptcy? he insisted that doing something about our agricultural program and the farm problem was, and there could be no equivocation final termination of the farm subsidy program. he declared that welfare ought

to be a private concern. by individuals and families, churches, private hospitals, religious service organizations, community charities, and other intitutions just as we did this country for the first 150 years of history. the constitution was his guide. the declaration of independence is inspiration. he is a man of enormous charm. i had the privilege of working for him and with him in that campaign in 1964. and self-deprecating humor, especially about his so-called old-fashion conservatism. would respond to a soviet nuclear attack, he said the first thing would be to circle the wagons. circled the wagons. bring them all together against

that. presse called a conference to announce that a hollywood movie would be made about his life by 18th century fox. wait for it. [laughter] i will wait for it. i will wait for it. friends, he affected american politics more than any other losing candidate in american history. , for the-- he raised first time in a national campaign, basic issues such as social security, government subsidies, welfare reform, privatization, and the jury over communism. he inspired thousands of young people like you to get into politics and public policy, including people like the head of the heritage foundation, ed crane of the cato institute, presidential candidate pat

,uchanan, a direct-mail guru david keene, who i see out here in the audience, publisher al teague, former congressman phil crane, and many other members of congress. he used to direct-mail and television in national political fundraising for the first time. the year, one million americans had contributed to his campaign. that had never happened before in american politics. he broke the democrats' iron grip on the solid south, enabling the gop to become a national party. he persuaded 27.5 million americans to vote conservative, despite an unprecedented anti-campaign run by president lyndon baines johnson and the democrats.

and that campaign included, the fbiher things, bugging the goldwater campaign plane. cia renting ae spy in the republican national headquarters. startends, it did not with watergate. voters laidillion 's 1980ndation for reagan and 1984 landslide victories. , and have tooday understand and realize that barry goldwater allowed ronald reagan to give his famous tv address, a time for choosing, and address, by the way, that goldwater's top advisers tried to kill, twice. finallyarry goldwater listening to this wonderful

speech, a time for choosing, who said, "what the hell is wrong gave his," and approval for it to be shown. a group of, not republicans led approachedlvatori reagan and literally begged him to run for governor of california. barry goldwater set in motion a political revolution, and led a generation of conservatives to understand that there is was a winning cause as well as a just cause. thate will once remarked barry goldwater actually was, in in 1964.ctually won it just took 16 years to count the votes. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much.

i do not want to make you feel embarrassed about our relative age, but i have been reading these books since i was your age. if you want to know about the history of the american conservative movement, read lee edwards's books. there is some really bad stuff out there now. there are people on the other side who are writing -- rewriting, reinventing conservative history, and i think all of us have to guard against that. but as we said, we are in santa barbara. it is wonderful. we are among friends. talking about ronald reagan, it reminds me of what mae west once said. she said, too much of a good thing is wonderful. i write books and articles and manuscripts, and various things like that. reasons,for a lot of but also to make money, for-profit. i am not sure that is always the case, given the time invested

and everything else involved. is they once asked, what most profitable writing? i said, ransom notes. but one of the things i love about bookwriting is meeting people, interviewing them, and talking to them. when i was working on a book on the 1980 campaign, i interviewed everybody room jimmy carter to walter mondale, everybody on the carter staff, john anderson. there was one person i could not interview, and that was rock star alice cooper, who was a ronald reagan supporter in 1980. he voted for him. he contributed to him. and he would not do an interview. my research assistant called his assistant and said, we want to do an interview. she said, it would not do any good. it would not help you at all. she confirmed, alice is a reagan supporter. contributes to the campaign. but it would not do any good.

i said, why? she said, alice was drunk. alice was drawn from 1969 -- 1983.from 1969 to he would not remember anything. it would not do any good to interview him. most people were sober when i interviewed them. lee touched on it before about the meaning of the goldwater campaign and reagan's speech. a famous swiss philosopher fashioned the theory of synchronicity, in which one seemingly isolated event, like dropping a pebble in a pond of water, concentric circles move out forever. reagan's speech, following goldwater's approval, is that couple that sends out concentric circles forever. not only would we not be here at beay's meeting -- we might

writing in cyrillic and eating borscht. losing the cold war. it is not too far-fetched of a notion to say it was possible for the soviets to win the cold war. everything,hanges including the arc of american history. reagan literally bends light, because he changes the future. we are on a path toward a more collectivist state. he rolled that back. the backdrop to reagan giving the speech -- i want to get into that a little bit. he did not live a serendipitous life, just going from opportunity to opportunity, always winning, hitting singles, doubles, and home runs. the early 1960's were a pretty bad time for ronald reagan. he had lost his ge career in 1962. in 1953 as to work the host of ge theater, the top-ranked show for many years

on cbs. he occasionally acted in it. he would also go on the lecture circuit. his contract stipulated that one week out of every month, he would go to ge plants. there were hundreds all over the country. those were the days he refused to fly. he had bad experiences flying in the 40's and swore off flying for 20 years. he traveled by car, but mostly by train. reagan, in the 1950's, giving speeches for ge was fine. but eisenhower was president. we were a country at peace. and startsy comes in taking the government off in a different direction. moren's speeches become wanted and more political. that was the last thing ge wanted. they did not want controversy. their motto was, progress is our middle name. they wanted to be mom and pop

and apple pie. they did not want to be associated with controversy. reagan was giving more and more political speeches. millions ofdoing dollars of business with the federal government, including the tba, which was a point of criticism for ronald reagan, the tennessee valley authority. is let go in spring of 1962. his movie career ended about the same time. his last movie is "the killers, which is a remake of hemingway's novel, made as a movie in 1946. he did not even get top ailing. bad guy.ays a the only time in 56 movies that he plays a bad guy. mob loss,ie, he is a a crime boss. he is seen finally slapping angie dickinson, who portrayed his mistress, knocking her to

the ground. the movie was poorly reviewed, deemed so violent it was not broadcast on television, but was moved to the big screen instead. that was the end of his movie career. his mother nell dies in 1962. he mourned her very, very deeply. ways, reagan was closer to his mother. jack reagan was catholic. now was a member of the assemblies of christ. reagan went in her direction, and neil became a catholic like his father. kind couple years, he is of the unofficial mc of southern california, emceeing garden clubs and junior leagues. he is not traveling, because of flying. in each of these speeches, he is working on a variation of what we now call the speech. it was called a time for choosing, and later "rendezvous

with destiny." he talks to supper clubs, but also political clubs. there was one called facts -- finders against communist and totalitarian systems. to be around in the 1960's. in thehad to be around 1960's. he is honing his skill. he had already done that on the lecture circuit for general electric. henry salvatori, justin dart, and others, they see reagan's speech. these are wealthy southern california businessman who are frustrated with the direction of the goldwater campaign. they have no input except to write checks. they say, if we rise the money, will you give the speech? it was really independent of the goldwater campaign, which tried to stop him twice. but they really had no autonomy over the reagan speech. of course, it went ahead.

said to many people, it is the speech that changed his life. he also joked he got more fan mail from that speech than he ever got as an actor from warner bros.. up after thestarts speech. to understand is that when he was giving these speeches to the junior league and the others, he atalways actor ronald reagan noon today at this club or that club. always actor ronald reagan, actor ronald reagan. after the 1961 speech, it is just ronald reagan, or gubernatorial candidate. .here is a draft movement salvatori, what becomes known as the kitchen cabinet. he said no. he did not think politics was in his future. he traded letters. maureen said one time, we ought to run for office. he said, if i did, i would run for president.

thans closer to a father anything else. a draft movement, and he says no. they said, you have got to think about it. he says, you guys go out. this is after goldwater's lost, late 1964, early 1965. everybody in california think the governor is going to be george christopher, the mayor of san francisco, who is handsome, a moderate republican. can you imagine that? the mayors of new york city, baltimore, maryland, los angeles, and san francisco were all republicans. thoughtt of people christopher was a very attractive candidate, articulate, and was going to be the nominee. the people invoice -- involved with the draft of reagan were shunted aside by the party establishment. almost immediately after the goldwater speech, there are movements that spring up on college campuses in california.

forents who say, sign up legalize marijuana. sign up to burden your draft card. and right here, sign up for ronald reagan. actually did quite well on the campuses. handily,christopher and the photos the political experts in the primer for governor for the nominee. the photos the experts again by winning almost a million votes for governor over pat brown. fact, he always knew that one of his greatest assets was he was always underestimated. reagan actually worked at being underestimated. he knew it was an asset, so he always work that it. it is superficial to say from the speech that the rest is history. we will cover a lot in the q&a. a couple of things i want to leave you with. i think it goes to the younger people here. reagan was always recruiting.

think he probably never even heard any of his aides talk basic elections. if somebody said something to him about the base election, he would have looked at them like they had three heads. two weeks before, he was campaigning in new york city. in 1976 and kansas city, in his farewell address, he said all those democrats and independents , he is for a message accepting the nomination in front of 17,000 republican delegates, fans, and supporters, and calls for a community of shared values. he makes an appeal to join this community of shared values. he invokes franklin roosevelt's name to a bunch of republicans that grew up the spicing franklin roosevelt. reagan was always recruiting. it is false to say that reagan invented the phrase "the 10th."

i doubt he ever thought of it. lee atwater coined the phrase "big tent." reagan won the community shared values, people that believed in the same thing, not a lot of different things for political -- political expediency to get ahead. he was always recruiting. as far as his broad-based appeal -- a lot of primaries, one in 1976 and one in 1980. they were because of democratic crossovers. it is ironic now that you have republican parties in the states who are closing their primaries to republicans only, whereas reagan would not have been in the contest in 1976 and made a critical comeback in wisconsin because of democratic crossover voters. when frank was running wisconsin, he did not send reagan to some republican country club. he went to southern milwaukee,

which is 100% democratic territory. withew reagan could deal these people that later became known as reagan democrats. that phrase was not coined until after the 1980 campaign. reagan, in terms of his up deal -- the washington post, right after the wisconsin andaign, did a focus group, they show this group of voters the commercials for the various republican candidates. was, abush's tagline president we won't have to train. everybody laughed at that one. then, they showed the reagan commercials to this group of democrats, republicans, and independents, and discovered, to their astonishment, reagan commercials were more popular with the democrats in the room than they were with the republicans. but it was not about attracting liberal democrats. it was about attracting culturally and politically conservative democrats to his cause.

voters, theung oldest man ever elected president was the most popular man with the youngest voter. he tied jimmy carter in 1980. they both got 43%. which in itself is astonishing. young voters since probably the new deal had been the province of the democratic arty. you cannot imagine that john kennedy pulled less than 60% of under 30 voters in 1960. in 1984, as he is going to a landslide reelection, reagan gets 59% of the overall vote, but voters under 30, he gets 69 point i've percent of the vote. he leaves office with an overall approval rating among all voters 69%.%, among african-americans, it is 40%. there was some polling that had 85%rs over 30 raking and approval rating, which is

astonishing. i will just leave you with three lessons about reagan which i think are instructive. during the 1980 campaign, he was giving a speech to the american legion, and at the time -- you have to remember, vietnam veterans are praise and honors -- armored, deservedly so, but it was not that way in 1980. they were spot upon by american civilians. the conventional belief among waselites was that there moral equivalency between south and north vietnam, the pentagon was evil and corrupt, and it was a mistake to try to stave off the communist expansion in southeast asia. that was conventional wisdom. if you said anything to the contrary, you were deemed an unsophisticated fool. reagan wanted to tell the american people they were unsophisticated fool's. you have heard a variation about

this, the berlin wall. putting it phrase in, having it taken out. he wanted to push buttons. he knew when to push buttons. the speech to the american legion was noble cause. he wanted to give a national speech and say it was a noble cause and was not a mistake. the speechwriters took it out. ronald reagan put it back in. ronald reagan gives a speech, and the establishment am starting with the vapors and get all, he said noble cause. washington post editorialists and people like that -- but the american people loved it. the elites hated it. the american people loved it. that is when we started taking another look at vietnam war veterans. the second about reagan is, during the course of my book on reagan's post-presidency, i interviewed dr. roger peale, who is the head at saint elizabeth

hospital, where john hinckley was institutionalized for many years. one year after hinckley shoots ronald reagan, the doctor gets a phone call from the white house physician. reagan wants to go over and meet with hinckley. the doctor wants to know why. he says, the president wants to tell hinckley that he forgives him. and he wants to pardon him. he could not issue any type of actual pardon, but he wanted to let him know, in his christian faith and his boundless forgiveness, ability to forgive, that he forgave hinckley. because peelepen, huddled with the psychiatrists who were taking care of hinckley. this is after the trial and after the conviction. and he calls the white house back and says, it would not be advisable, because hinckley has no remorse. he is a sociopath.

all it would do is empower him and make him feel like what he did was justifiable. it would not be a good idea to do. it was a courageous decision by peele, because and elizabeth was under federal jurisdiction. this thing about the d.c. government -- they were fighting it. but you get a presidential visit, that means a lot in terms of laying the hands-on saint elizabeth, staying as federal property. it would have rained down probably a lot more federal aid to the hospital, and they desperately needed it. the doctor told me that when he spoke to reagan, he had the strange feeling that he was ,alking to reagan as if reagan the president, was in the clouds. he later told him that reagan had called him rum air force one. reagan'sis about humor, which sometimes we over intellectualize. what is wonderful is, you see an

aspect of reagan you do not normally get in the textbooks. but he did have a wonderful sense of humor. he did have a rapier like wit. in 1967, i guess it was, during the height of the vietnam war, he is confronted by a very odorous, dirty, disheveled hippie, carrying a sign that says "make love, not war." he looks at the sign and says, for the looks of him, i do not think he can do either. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much for those wonderful remarks. i did just want to add it you things to this panel discussion today, and that is, we are talking a lot about how ronald coalition,a winning or assemble this winning coalition. a lot of it goes back to that

1964 speech, whether or not he knew it at the time. commented about our book, funding fathers. we talk a lot about the financing of the particular speech. and they do not want to dwell too much on the history of that speech and the financing of it, because i know you all are looking for modern-day examples, but it will translate nicely into an example you all have lived through. let me just say that when that speech was put on national television, it was paid for by three businessmen, as we talked about. was put oneech television with the caveat that they would run a trailer across the bottom of the video, asking for funds for the goldwater campaign. remarkably, according to ronald reagan's autobiography, that $8 millioned about

from americans. it was a really revolutionary time,hat happened at that to bring in campaign funds in that way. it is not so much the funds and the total sum that mattered, but the number of people that actually invested in the goldwater campaign. say that itant to is an important concept when you are trying to build a winning coalition to get individuals to invest in a cause. when an individual contributes to an effort, they are much more likely to follow its progress, to advocate on behalf of that recipient, and eventually, and this is a very important part, protect their investment by showing up at the polls. if you want to take a more recent example of this, we can look at 2008. the john mccain campaign decided in that year to accept a federal subsidy eventually of taxpayer funds of $84 million, to finance

the final months of his campaign. the barack obama campaign, of course, did not accept those federal funds, and instead raised cash at record levels, peddling further advantages to causes that already received significant favoritism among the academic establishment, the mainline media, and of course millions of dollars of unregulated union funds. mccain's approach by turning to the federal government instead of individuals for support implied there is something not quite right about asking individuals to invest in a cause. it implies there is something with it -- manipulative about that. in the final weeks of the campaign, barack obama outraised john mccain by a factor of five to one. it goes even further. this is where it relates back to the speech. in 2008, i am not sure if you remember this, but barack obama

purchased 30 minutes of air time fox, to speaknd directly to the american people and build restaurants support, taking a page right out of ronald reagan's playbook. unfortunately, we are still living with the aftermath of that decision, as barack obama has assembled a huge atlowing, to tap into critical moments. just one lesson that we can learn from. i am going to close with a few questions here. i hope you all have been thinking of questions as we have discussed some ideas today. there are two microphones, so i urge you to start heading to those microphones as we begin our q and a session today. my first question actually is going to go to dr. edwards. and iched on this a bit, would like him to dig a little deeper on this topic. he has often referred to barry goldwater as the most consequential loser in american politics, and i would like him

to talk little bit more about that. sometimes, you win by losing. sometimes. it depends upon what you are trying to set forth. example, lyndon baines johnson was the democratic candidate, and all the polls show that he was defeating every republican, who ever it was, whether it was nelson rockefeller or george romney, father of mitt romney, or bill scranton, or barry goldwater, or richard nixon. all of them could not receive more than 20 or 25% of the vote. why? because john kennedy had been assassinated the previous november, and the american people wanted his successor, lyndon johnson, to carry out the martyred president's program. so no one could have one in 1964-- have won in 1964 on the

republican side. but barry goldwater decided to go for the nomination for two reasons. number one, because young people like you all had come to him and said, you must run. you must raise the conservative standard. we have worked so hard for you these last couple of years. we want you to run, to be that conservative candidate. so he was responding to the call of young people and young conservatives all over america. there were issues that had to be discussed, that had not been discussed in american politics for 20, or, 40 years, things government, the idea of victory over communism had not been discussed before the 1964 campaign. very goldwater decided that, as he said, i am going to lose, but i am going to lose it my way.

that meant he was going to do it in a way in which he put forth principles, important issues, key issues which had not been discussed for. so whether he won or lost, and he knew he was going to lose, he felt he was going to win by raising those issues for the first time in a national campaign. shirley, we always hear leastfter 1964, media at at the time, and other pundits, claimed that the conservative movement was dead. 2009, andhat again in continue to hear it even today. how would you reflect on those comments, and what would you say in response to the conservative movement in dead then, and dead now perhaps? >> that are different aspects to american culture and different -- we are different.

liberals look at the world differently than conservatives do. that means they are drawn to weferent jobs, different -- have always known that in the communications industry and an education and other aspects, liberals tends to be drawn to those. they have traditionally been drawn to those endeavors or campuses work, college and wherever. it has just been a fact of life. i think as you go deeper, it goes to an ideology. liberalism is based in collectivism and based in the acquisition of power. places to acquire power or places like hollywood or places like communications, or places like the academy. even in italy, whether or not liberals are part of the overall broader viewpoint instinctually, there is still an attraction to the institution,

whereas conservatives tend to be attracted to the power of the individual. >> how is it that the conservative movement cap rising after defeat after defeat, like the phoenix coming out of the ashes of defeat? that was certainly the case after 1964. we were dismissed. conservatism was dead. 1976, whencase after ronald reagan did not win the nomination. thele said, it is not only end of ronald reagan, but the end of conservatism. jumping ahead to the 1980's, bill clinton had won. that meant the end of conservatism. contract with the america. that had some bumps after a couple of years, and people said, that is the end of that. barack obama comes and is elected, and that is going to be the end of conservatism. what was it about the conservative movement that

enabled it to keep coming back, and coming back, and rising, and rising, and rising? i think the answer is very simple. we have the right ideas. the right ideas based upon what the founding fathers laid down in the constitution and the federalist tippers. ideas, such as limited government, individual freedom and responsibility, the free enterprise, traditional american values, and strong national defense. those five ideas have enabled us to overcome temporary defeats that keep roaring back. and i think we are going to be coming back in about a week. i think there is going to be happy news for conservatives. cannot wait for 2016 to come along and the great debate we are going to engage in sisi who

is going to be that nominee for the conservative cause in 2016. [applause] >> i would also add something important that we have seen at young americans foundation. that is that sometimes in the face of defeats and disaster for our cause, rise up in generation of young old who happened to be in battle during those times, and their courage is strengthened, and their principles are strengthened, and we find some of our best activist during those times. defeat, i the face of think there are some really positive things to look forward to. i know young americans foundation has found some really incredibly talented young leaders who are now rising up through the ranks and i envisioned being in these leadership positions in the years to come.

>> my name is nick james. i am with young americans for freedom. the question is for either panelist. how do you think reagan would respond to some of the infighting we see today? mainly, you have the tea party faction, and you have some of the more libertarian groups. then you have the more true, traditional conservatives, the more traditional values. i personally think we need a more united front to win this election than occurred recently. how do you respond to what is going on today and trying to make a united front happened? >> reagan was the source of a lot of fighting inside the party, because he had a sense of ideas. there is a new book out by brown university of the history of the republican party. it said reagan was a reactionary. nothing further from the truth.

eureka, he gives a speech denouncing the administration because they want to fire professors. he is challenging the established order. everything about reagan is challenging the established order. in 76 i taking out gerald ford. the republican national committee, the state parties, all the elected officials are behind gerald ford, with the exception of jesse helms and a handful of others. reagan is challenging the established order in a political sense. but then you get into a policy framework, especially between 1976 and 1980. the conventional wisdom from the 70's wasé up to the containment, but the soviet union is a thing of armaments. they will always be there. comes up with what

became known as the reagan doctrine. he discussed it with his national policy advisor, the defeat of soviet communism. cuts.ea of tax the republican party, up until 1978, when he first starts endorsing them vocally -- he really embraces them in 1978. tax cuts were a democratic initiative. it was the balanced budget, eat your spinach, green eyeshade party. -- ihe would think today despise it when people say, this is what ronald reagan would have done. no one knows what ronald reagan would have done. all we can do is go off of his actions and writings and what happened to him in similar situations. he was a revolutionary and always challenge conventional thinking. that is why the elites of washington always despised him, because he was always challenging them or going over

the heads of the american people, going through them. you read his speeches, it sounds to me like your tea party. >> it seems to me that ronald reagan and any winning politician understands that politics is based upon addition and not subtraction. multiplicationn and not division. when you are looking at candidates who might be -- i hope i am not getting too political here. is it all right? as you are working with people in your own district or your own , look for the candidate who is reaching out to different bring and trying to people together. that is the mark of leadership, to build coalitions to create

majorities. that is something ronald reagan was very good at, based upon ideas. he did not compromise. , hebased upon certain ideas would reach out, whether they were a reagan democrat, so-called, or a taft republican. >> thank you very much. thank you both for speaking today. both of you talked about the goldwater,yed with reagan, and the coalitions between youth. in madison square garden, goldwater spoke to thousands of youth. and the progression that occurred -- lee edwards was there and shared it. that playedt role in getting both of these people to the national stage. at more of a modern thing, how do modern conservative leaders

embody some similar strengths that old water and reagan used to bring youth along with them? brother who older was there in connecticut in 1960. -- and i was like you all of those years ago. we truly felt that we could change the world. we truly did. we needed some help to do that. we need leaders like barry goldwater and ronald reagan. and we needed the right ideas. also, we had to be willing to take chances. should be calculated chances and catalytic risks. in september yaf

of 1960, and the first thing we did was say we are going to have a rally. center in newhe york city, which seats 3500 people -- there were about 90 of us there to share that. is it possible to get 3500 rally to turn out for a of an unknown organization of a bunch of young people nobody ever heard of, talking about conservatives in new york city, the citadel of liberalism? impossible. but we did it. helped we had very goldwater as our major speaker. we filled manhattan center. what did we do? let's go for a rally in madison square garden. got to be crazy. how many seats in madison -- well, 18,000.

we just filled 3500. that took a gamble. we are now saying eight team -- it's go for it. let's try it. we filled madison square garden in march of 1962. say, in alle to honesty, one reason was that very goldwater was our major speaker. he had never spoken in madison square garden in his life. that did help. but we had imagination. we had higher. we had passion. ourselves and in uncertain ideas. manhattan center, then madison square garden, 1963, what was the obvious place to have our next rally? anybody here from new york city? it would have to be yankee stadium, right? that would be a step too far, so maybe there was a certain amount of prudence which did enter that particular time in our

decision-making. the rugged idea you could accomplish miracles. that, reaganafter and young people -- i think it holds true for all of you. young people tend to be, in their own way, revolutionaries. you like to challenge her parents, challenge teachers. your parents say, be in at 9:00. you say, 9:30. you challenge the existing order. he was a revolutionary. is that what he was talking about in the 1970's? it was in some ways radical thinking. even down to the draft -- i think this was part of a libertarian part of him, but he was against a peacetime draft. that challenge conventional thinking, because everybody believed, both democrats and

republicans, in a military draft. i think part of reagan's attraction -- he was always talking about freedom and the future. for somebody playing the back nine like me, when you talk about the future, i am thinking about 20 years in the future, so it is not as important to me, whereas for you, it is 60 or 80 years in the future. to youngt a lot people, especially in the 1970's, when you had such malaise. who is finally somebody talking to young americans about their opportunity, their chances in the future. build a little bit on that, ronald reagan went directly to young audiences, as you mentioned. similar to what president obama has done. he has been on a college campus one out of every nine days

throughout most of his presidency. that is directly going to the american people to convey your ideas, and he knows if he can speak directly to american people, he will have them on his side for generations to come. i would say to you, look for leaders who may happen to admire. i look for the conservative leaders who are willing to go to college campuses, willing to speak to young people today directly, because i think that is a sign and a hallmark of a key leader who understands that this battle is not just about months from now, weeks from now, or even years from now. this is a battle for the generations to come. >> reagan's most important policy speeches were done on college campuses at notre dame, eureka. there were a lot of important policy initiatives he did before a college audience. >> thank you.

>> go ahead. >> my name is stefan pants, from mississippi college. i question is to you, lee edwards. when this was founded, and you have been a silicate or of the conservative movement's growth since it basically started. do you see -- i guess my question would actually be, what similarities do you see in the movement now than when it started? and will we need another election to lose an provide the same type of atmosphere that reagan was able to experience? >> there has always been a debate within the conservative movement between traditional conservatives and libertarians, always. froms always been there the very, very beginning, going back to the 19 is, talking about the modern conservative american

movement. with the libertarians being all out for liberty and the traditional conservatives like myself being more concerned with order. goldwatere like barry , in his book "the conscience of a conservative, and in his campaign in 1964, and subsequently ronald reagan -- what was their genius? what was their contribution? it was to be able to appeal to both sides, and to come up with the idea of ordered liberty. the right balance between liberty and order -- the right balance between freedom and security. that is not easy? you have to look at it from issue to issue. the patriot act was necessary after 9/11. were there certain parts of it

which perhaps went a little too far? there is a very honest debate about that. leader, you can get a like a goldwater, like a reagan -- i think we are going to be seeing more and more discussion of this very fact in the next say,e of years, who can here is my prescription for a blend of the two ideas, coming up with ordered liberty, and bringing together the libertarians and the traditionalist conservatives, i think you will find that is going to be a winning candidate and a winning leader. not agree more. there is always that creative politicalot only in a party, but also in american politics and culture. madison wrote in federalist 51, we must set ambition against ambition. the framers were aware that anything, whether it is government or parties -- it

could tilt one way with king , the powerthird tilted too far one way. reagan said, maximum freedom consistent with law and order. that is ambition against ambition. need for aion or the certain amount of security by the state. that has been the endless struggle in this country since 1776. towardow, we are tilted too much power to the state, and it has been going that way from the time of the new deal until 1980. reagan tilted it back, but in the last 40 years, you have tilted back toward too much state authority, in my opinion. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> my name is will gates. i am from florida. tank you all for going here.

success,about reagan's and how the conservative movement has been able to come back in the face of opposition. do you think that is related to a modern continuation of the idea of manifest destiny? >> i am going to interrupt myself a little bit. i tend to believe very much in federalism and local control. always liked, from the time i was a child i guess we all did -- the space program and nasa. i was very disappointed when obama canceled the shuttle thatam, because i thought was a part of manifest destiny. when we grew up, we were going to go to the stars and conquer the planet's, and all those things. i do think there is something

about a national spirit that is important to hold a country together. i do not believe in national greatness and nationbuilding and all those things, but there are things, you know, that bring a culture and the people together. and i think those things are lacking right now. certainly, the cold war brought people together. it is not going to far that -- we are traditionally divided as a country. the revolutionary war did not do polling at the time, but there is a lot of believe. benjamin franklin's own son was a spy. a lot of people favored the british system and did not support the revolution. the war of 1812 was in opposition there. about thewar was

divisions in this country. we were united december 7, 1941. that is the only time. manifest destiny is important. diversity and individuality. there are times the country needs to work together. >> it is ok, i think, for you and i to say that we are an exceptional nation. we are. all overved and worked this globe, in europe and asia, latin america. and we are exceptional. by reason of what we stand for, by reason of our founding documents, like the declaration of the constitution, by reason

of what we have done to hurt other nations after wars, as we did with the marshall plan, as we continue to do today. if we were not exerting leadership, for example, right crisis, lordola knows what would be happening with it. secondly, we go back to ronald reagan. a rendezvousve with destiny. what did he mean by that? i think what he meant by that was that our destiny was based upon certain ideas, certain principles, certain beliefs. and among them was our judeo-christian inheritance. and i think that is part of what makes us exceptional. there is reliance on our part, and believe on the part of mojo

-- most of us in some kind of transcendent being, and that doctrine which is so important to how we make our decisions, and which make us an exceptional nation. i would add one more point. when president obama began his first term in office, you may run for his grand apology tour he took across the globe, apologizing for being american. i would just say all of you can do your part to counteract those sentiments on a college campus by proclaiming how terrific america is, what a great leader we have been on the world stage, why we have freedom here, and why more people want to come to this country than any other country in the world. i would encourage you, on your college campuses, to be a leader in providing that voice. i think we have time for one more question, so we will turn

this direction. >> i am from michigan. reagan had a brilliant foreign-policy and was truly a humanitarian president. as an actor, a very learned act or, what do you think was his primary influence that guided him with his foreign-policy? >> tony dolan, who was president reagan's major speech writer for many years, throughout the eight years he was in the white house, in his first meeting with the president, getting to know him, so he would be able to do a better job of writing for him -- they were talking about this, that, and the other thing. president, are you familiar with whittaker chambers's book "witness"? the president smiled and said, well, and began reciting from

paragraph, then the first page, then the first couple of pages of the beginning , "letter to my hildren." intellectually, ronald reagan always understood with the dangers of carmina somewhere. and personally, he knew about communism, because he had been accosted by it and confronted by it when he was a hollywood actor in the 1940's, and the communists were trying to take over the trade unions there in hollywood. experience, by reflection, and by reading, he understood the importance of standing up to what he saw as evil. >> nuclear war -- i do not think ronald reagan was terrified. but nuclear war concern him

deeply. in kansas city in 1976, it was not a farewell address. foundationlaid the for the campaign. -- the centrality of the speech was about nuclear war. this is a moment that destroyed forever the civilized world. he was held back on eliminating nuclear weapons. we were dealing from a position of weakness. he knew that in order to negotiate, we need strength. we built up the military. that as far as manifest destiny and american exceptionalism, reagan believed america operated on a higher moral plane.

we did have a belief system which was about extending -- you talk about a revolution without orders, extending personal freedom, rights, and dignity. it was about not only winning the cold war, but about millions of people. from his readings and understandings and his pronouncements, and everything he learned from soviet dissidents -- one of his favorite philosophers was alexander sultanate some -- solzenytzen. a lot of historians say that reagan ended the cold war, which was nonsense. we were losing in 1980. --iets in southeast asia italy had come within a hairs breath of voting in a communist government.

troops were in angola. the soviets in every measurable are winning. gorbachev ister, suing for peace. they have not taken one inch of territory, which from 1970 through 1980, the soviets took eric tori under every president. they stopped dead in their tracks. it was not just military. it was using the bully pulpit to call them the evil empire. it was using radio free europe to boost the signal into the warsaw pact countries and the baltic countries. stopping the subsidy of their economy -- he used every available method, quite frankly. what hitts never knew

them. he hit them at many different levels. he basically brought them to their needs. upyou could sum all of that in a simple phrase, which he used. that is "he's through strength --"peace through strength." he was willing to negotiate with the soviets once