end of the day what we say is that there is a middle ground where he can be both. and still fit into the overall picture of the tea party. it is not simply beginning with the decline of right it is him. whether through polarization, redistricting, whatever cause you want to attribute it to, the modern republican party appears to be less pragmatic. we see more ted cruises and rick perry's been john boehner's and mitch mcconnell's. the moderation we used to see is being replaced and as a direct result the middling area become smaller and smaller. it impacts republican and national policy. most importantly, the traditionalists and over terry and have blown -- grown closer together. there's more opportunities for

this bridge, especially during the reagan administration. that alters not only the -- political discourse but outcomes, especially for today's modern republican party. with that in mind, there are really four ways that these three groups can cooperate in order to achieve their ultimate goals. the first being the idea of a inferiority split. say, you have control over issue. you are in charge. there is much more give-and-take than that. secondly you could have a simple split. the idea of, we agree to disagree. something we are not seeing within those two camps. you can leave it ambiguous. this is an argument where activists kind of smudge the difference between themselves and reality it is not there. have a patterne of mutual reinforcement between

traditionalists and libertarians. they are not necessarily aware is occurring. that reinforcement centers itself on these -- concept of constitutional liberty. we can talk about emergent issues that do not have a common tea party economic thread. at the same time, they build off each other in a way that allows for a spirited discussion. this gives two examples. verytarian defensive is a ron paul. -- defensive. ron paul. stephen fincher. linking the economic libertarianism and the traditionalists i used to reinforce one another in different ways but ultimately making the same sentiment.

we argue that these contours still come from a reagan-style conservatism. starting and building with the idea that we have families and markets having a symbiotic relationship. the idea being that a good upbringing will lead to good workers, good workers will lead to the ability to raise a family. that family will lead to a good upbringing. at the same time we still recognize that government has a place at the margins. most of the time we wanted to get out of the way from a reagan conservative-era stance. to tax and incur debt needs to be limited. obviously conversation we have had recently. family should be left largely free to follow their dreams. ultimately, what we want from government is to protect security and liberty, including religious liberty, and not tell individual citizens what to do. again, the idea of constitutional pretty and mutual reinforcement.

this is a strategic situation. we have traditionalists who revere old-style politics. it is the christian conservative base. we have libertarians who have -- who want privacy of choice in economic matters. we have the pragmatist that understand that politics is the art of the possible. they are willing to strike bargains and deals to get things done. now we have a couple of different policy issues that kind of illustrate where we can see traditionalist and libertarians coming together and having an impact on pragmatic republicans. we will start by looking at obamacare. that -- wow, it does not like me. [laughter] an issue where we see all three sectors of the modern conservative movement in agreement. it starts with we don't like obama, we don't like obamacare. he would go deeper,

traditionalists have concerns with obamacare related to earth control. for libertarian -- libertarians, you have government intervening on something they believe the free market can do better. or the pragmatist, obamacare serum ems. for the pragmatist, obamacare is simply a mess. fiscal responsibility along the same way. you can go to benghazi where you have these groups in agreement. it brings them together in a way they otherwise would not. the key point with these is on these type of issues where you see the pragmatist, the average areas, and the traditionalists in agreement. the tea party is having a minimal impact because they're boys is one amongst many. is oneot -- their voice amongst many. it becomes a unified republican issue.

as traditionalism as the outlier. same-sex marriage. this is an important issue that they are willing to fight for and unwilling to fight -- unwilling to compromise on. libertarians coming you can argue that it is not an important issue or government does not have the right to regulate marriage. pragmatist view it as a bargaining chip. is not necessarily a quid pro quo, but something where they may be willing to make necessary arrangements like passing it off to states in order to assure they win in other issues. you want to look at libertarian -- as the outlier, look at the drone debate. we look at it internationally, drones are great. they're less costly. there is less loss of life. we can have more targeted killings that we would not have through conventional means. for traditionalists, we protect american pilots. there is famous quote about six months ago -- it does not matter

pakistanisnocent die, the american pilot will be home for dinner. for the libertarians we still have a problem. this is unnecessary interference in international areas. we do not need to be there. domestically we heard the argument. this was rand paul's filibuster. even for domestic security herbs is, we could turn these groups towards us. theook at where traditionalists and libertarians unite and oppose the pragmatist. i will speak to both the shutdown and the debt ceiling in the same vein. the pragmatic republicans, the mitch mcconnell's and john boehner's, understood that the faulting on our loans was not going to be a positive solution -- defaulting on our loans was not going to be a positive solution. they were willing to make the coppermine is to prevent that.

as opposed to traditionalists who are upset with where funding is going, libertarians who felt we simply overspend for the sake of overspending. they were unified in their fight against the pragmatist against this. it ultimately led to the shutdown. without that voice going against them it could have been accomplished our earlier. the central point this all comes back to is, obviously if you go to november, 2012, we had tons of media reports that the tea party was dead or in we also had media reports this morning that say the keyboard he is dead. -- the tea party is dead. is the tea party going to become their own party? no. that is not their stated goal or intention. they're still having an impact, even as the media xfone the tea party operative they are saying that at least we will -- at least we beat a rhino in a

primary. this will be one of many headlines looking back in 2000 well. -- 2012. piece, what we argue is that it strategically places things in the republican party and has the possibility to cause headaches forward. we can argue far longer. , the go back to the 1960's idea of explicit racism within the republican party was rebuffed and told it would not work going forward. even for the tea party today if there is an argument made or a question asked, they have a response of some kind. it may not always be the strongest response but they know what lines of attack are coming and what they stand for and believe in. that is the intellectual history. the simple idea that the tea party is not dead. if you look at the reports from this week, we can see where

there are arguments to be made that the tea party is suffering. you look at the alabama house race for the chamber of commerce through an $240,000 over the last two weeks. it prevented a tea party house member from entering the house. you can look at colorado or the been throwinghave $300,000 into school board races. you can with the virginia gubernatorial race. you can look at new jersey building on the data presented before. you have chris christie was no means classified as a tea party republican having no problem getting elected. what it really comes to to some extent is an idea behind -- the idea they cannot create their own party and be successful. as a third-party they will never have the power they need to get elected on their own. they can remake the party in which they reside.

that is what they are obviously attempting to do. if you think about it, if you have the libertarians and the traditionalists oppose, republican influence as a whole ultimately suffers. at the same time, if you have an issue where the libertarians and the traditionalists are sharing againstts and arguments republican pragmatist, they have a big chance to have an significant impact moving forward. the pragmatists are beginning to realize that they can't necessarily win without some minimal tea party support. at the same time, the tea party are realizingiers they're not as relevant as they would like to be without some support from the pragmatist. >> thank you very much. johnast presenter will be berg.

>> i really do talk about the tea party so i'm not out of place here. i want to think john green and janet and the whole staff for putting on this great conference. i have not come the less couple of times and i am great to be back. find a way to get your longer next we see at ran outside this building -- akron outside this building. i will kind of take the stratospheric view of this. i'm happy to see this data, but i'm not using that kind of thing. i have been looking at -- i have to go fast. here's how i see it. right now, we have intense party polarization. it is based on extreme disagreement on many issues. think there are several

important issues, issues that are important not just the technically, but to voters, that are kept out of the party debates. a couple of examples. at least out of the presidential level. time for may be passed by now, but during obama's first term, inre were two noble prizes economics. a former cabinet member who said, we need to stop worrying about the deficit and spend more money. stimulus twice as big as what we had heard a lot of people agreed with that and wanted to do it or it -- wanted to do it. it was limited after the stimulus passed. interesting debate. it left out a whole side of it. why yousy to understand would leave that out if you are trying to get a majority.

to educate people with that view is correct why a deficit is much -- is good is always much harder. national security -- you just mentioned drones. drones only made it into the presidential debate because it was an online petition that about 100,000 or so people saying, please ask about drones. romney said, they are great. a lot of people are horrified by drones. the whole national security thing, spying on people, assassinations. that's a much the drones as what they are doing. -- not so much the drones is what they are doing. climate. we are seeing how serious it is every day. -- spente debates that a significant part of time with both candidates talking about how much they were in favor of clean coal. we are here in ohio where they mine coal. it is a swing state. you can see in the two-party

system why you might do that. it does mean that we have a phenomenon going on that might destroy civilization and is not entering in any significant way into presidential debate. globalization -- the free-trade debate has been going on a long time. that is the debate that splits the parties. both parties are dominated by pro-free trade, pro- globalization people. what a rethink of the merits of those issues, they are issues where a lot of people are not well represented by the major parties. in the past what you would expect to see is maybe a real i'm in or something like that, some kind of change in the party system. what you would expect to see is maybe a realignment or something like that, some kind of change in the part of sid -- party system. it has not happened. i don't want to say anything about the reform party with

rapoport here because i would probably make a mistake. they had a run. really manage create a debate about free trade. they created eight debate about the deficit which was solved by economic growth. ofcollapsed, which kind proves that history repeats. it was farcical enough to make up for it. the green party made a smaller run. didn't make a difference in the 2000 election. didn't get any leverage out of that at all. they might have in past cycles, but this time it was led to a determination to destroy them. this is the context of what i want to say. i will be quick about it. ofre are lots about --

theoretical attempts to say why. it doesn't really work for this case because it doesn't seem to apply to anyone in canada or india. explain may be long-term why we don't have a multi-party system but he can , given that the republicans came out of nowhere to become dominant, the people's party became strong, it cannot explain why you don't get a short term disruptive upsurge of minor party activity. i think there are multiple causes. it gets harder and harder as time goes on. there is an interesting argument that with the adoption of the australian ballot at the end of the 19th century, we got to a situation where the government had to decide who the candidates were, who would be printed on the ballot. when checked in decide that you get to exclude people. for the next hundred years, the

major parties got better and better at creating obstacles. 2000, or 2004, the spent years battling this lawsuit in pennsylvania. it did not have much merit but it served the function of the state. it made hard to go on. that role has kind of been blocked. that has reinforced the ballot laws that control be presidential debates. become reinforced by the media and our political culture. is meantof this paper to be about what happens now. i think one reason -- i want to look at three mass process mass row test movements. i think bt party develop the way it did is because -- i agree with you guys -- they see there is not much independent -- potential as an independent

party and they have more potential as a party for spirited -- non-party force. i want to look at occupy wall street as reactions to the situation. i argue that they are. people are fairly familiar with the way each of those movements developed. i will not dwell a lot on that. compare themt of in several, dimensions. thats jack walker's idea you can overcome the irrationality of forming an organization if you have a patron. with the tea party, i think that -- i have toarly be careful. there is a book out there that says the tea party never existed. it certainly existed.

it is a real thing. it really did come out of grassroots unhappiness and protest. originally health care. originally, the stimulus and bailout. character's protest in washington was focused on what you call the pork it was built bill."kulus it was cut by freedom works, which i guess is a tea party group. it is funded by the koch brothers. they saw the rant on tv as it happened in a couple people said it was big and they put it on their website and it created a whole apparatus were groups could write in and tell them

where the nearest group was. it really added to it. which mayox news, campaign, a crusade about reporting on the tea party all the time and help it get going. -- i thinkin protest people are familiar with that, too. it sort of started with democratic senators leaving the state so that would not be a quorum but also the graduate students union at the university of wisconsin marching into the middle of the state house and sitting down. it went on for quite a while. clearly, their patron was the f cio -- fcio. they got control of the. it turned and -- it turned from a mass protest to a long, drawnout series of electoral campaigns.

first over a judicial election and then attempts to recall various state senators and ultimately governor walker. none of them responded by trying to call state democratic senators. they did not recall any democrats. they recalled some republicans but not enough to change the majority. they also recalled walker. a lot of the original activists were unhappy about that thoughtn because they they were more interested in the protest. secondly, because once it was an electoral campaign, it looked just like any other electoral campaign. they lost the ideological thrust. they started looking for scandals.

a lot of people really not happy. some people were very not happy about the idea that you are going to elect a supreme court judge on the basis of how you expected that person to vote on a particular days. -- particular case. whichever way she votes it is going to be terrible. it would destroy her. she did not win. a lot of people said in the ,ampaign -- i am told that especially for walker, they did not inc. you should recall someone if he hadn't of done illegal. they might not agree with what he did but he should be able to serve out his term and beat him in the next election. the moment kind of still exists. there are still organizations and people gearing up for the next election. it is no longer what it was. goals. -- goal of the tea party

this is not quite right -- but it is summed up by winning primaries. it is a primary goal. they want to election -- when elections, but they care more about winning primaries and get their candidates and. -- candidates in. or at least getting candidates they don't like out. the first was to undermine a candidate. none of the tea party people i ever saw expressed any regret about that at all. they were delighted. there was getting rid of case,rate and, in her probably a liberal republican. the goal of the wisconsin movement -- the immediate goal was to reverse the budget repair act and restore the right to organize labor unions as it had

existed. the strategy for getting that goal became winning elections with the democratic party. was somewhat of a blunting of the original thrust because the candidates that they are supporting for governor were not the most row- labor candidates. -- pro-labor candidates. were nottising themes really about the real issues that everyone was voting on. say they didn't have to talk about, but it probably hurt them somewhat. -- goal occupy wall street they did not have any goals -- they did not have any demands. the goal was to win the war of ideas. for everybody participating, i think it was that. for the court, the goal was to

model a new society by running these things with a general assembly. i think outside of occupy wall street that was not understood very much. proud were tremendously the they have libraries in encampments, that they had medical clinics. they thought it was just terrible when the police rated the library and through -- raided the library and threw away the books. this was a major thing. in boston, they had major campaigns around the cities that you are serving food and it is not meeting sanitary standards. they went out and bought an industrial sink that met standards and tried to bring it in. they had a major confrontation with the police over whether they can bring the sink in or not. as long as they stayed there, every time they had a demonstration they would be holding a card will models that

cardboard models of the police -- cardboard models of the sink to show the ridiculousness of it to the police. modeling a newt way of running society. that is why they were able to move into occupy standing so quickly. sandy hit, they said this is what we do and did a pretty much the same way. the red cross eventually swamp them with the resources. they were the first on the scene, almost. this -- iere does think i got into my next point. i asked point is where is his goal leading to? the tea party are more ideological than the republican party. the wisconsin movement was democratic victory a majority. for occupy wall street, a new form of society. to how youack

evaluate the potential for these were kind of shaking up the party system, making it more responsive to the issues i was talking about. the tea party has had some effect. if the tea party was able to take over the republican party even more thoroughly, i think we would see some kind of realignment, probably to their disadvantage. we would see things falling out differently in some other it -- and some other issues being addressed. where that is going is another question. it looks to me -- i am lister -- interested in that last paper, but it looks like they're pulling back a bit. there is talk that we may be need not to knock off everyone in these primaries. i am not sure about that. where the wisconsin movement is is pretty much diluted and defeated.

it has set an example and it will come back but i think the momentum is lost. maybe they will be able to defeat walker the next time through. or not. dispersedl street was . i can say was an organization because it was not, but it was dispersed as a phenomenon. you still have the activists. i think there are still some general assemblies in the cities where it was that continue to meet and might decide to do something else. on the other hand, i saw someone that said obama would not have won without them. that is hard to establish but you can make a case for. they really injected the idea of inequality as an issue. the one percent sp 1% versus the 99%. romney was not being attacked. he was protecting himself as april -- a successful businessman rather as an

exploitative venture capitalist. that really hurt him. a guy in indiana whose company had been bought out by bain capital and lost their jobs, they have done the same thing when romney ran against ted kennedy for the senate about 10 years earlier. it was not a secret that they were around. occupyust the impact of made it more relevant for them to come out and give it more bite. i think we are going to be stuck in the same kind of stalemate situation for some kind the -- for some time yet. i think these things are percolating. it is not really biting enough to make a change for one final that -- someone mentioned earlier today -- earlier today, someone said that there might be a tea party developing on the left. i think there is a big difference. the tea party was government to

do less. it doesn't really care about what happens to the government doing for people about health care or for poor people. for them to shut down the government to block action is not painful. is getting a little bit of what they want. the democrats are really -- the -- protestersns in wisconsin worry members of unions. there were teachers and health- care workers and believed in what they were doing. they wanted to protect their own working conditions. more generally, democrats are people who want to provide social services. that is why they end up supporting moderate democrats because they have a better chance of winning. a -- for the of tea party, the prospects of

obama being president -- they hate him, but they can keep fighting him. they are not using -- losing a whole lot right now. prospects of are losing control the government is too horrible to think of. >> thank you very much. we'll move into the part of the talk where we are going to involve the audience. out with i would start the question of my own for our esteemed panel. mentioned that you don't envision a situation in which the tea party could split and become its own party. i talked to some tea party activists here in ohio that have mentioned the idea of possibly joining with another minor party, like the constitution party, for example. if any of you foresee that as a possibility or if you think it is more likely that the tea party will continue working on within the republican party.

think it is very likely they will continue working in the republican party. i think it has a lot more influence there. heard this morning, it really hates the democratic party. the choice is between a mitt romney or even a chris christie and then hillary clinton -- i don't think that is a real challenge to them. i think their goal is to take over the republican party. works, the freedom name of his book is "hostile takeover." i think that is the goal and that is why they are willing to support candidates who are not necessarily the strongest in the general election because they think that is the strategy, sort of ridding the party of the rhinos that they don't approve of. i really don't see that. i think you may get a few rogue

individuals doing that, but i think they have been fairly successful. i think -- i would be very surprised. we did ask a question about how you see the tea party and one of the choices was as a third- party. the only group that really bought into that were the ron paul supporters. of course, ron paul has run as a libertarian. maybe a tad, but very unlikely. >> i think that they would obviously stay in the republican party. it is a suicidal strategy to break apart. they would a cop was nothing more than splitting the republican vote and electing democrats. i'm going to quote david the earlierone of papers today. he talked about a deepening reserve of negativity and it captures what a lot of findings were on this panel. tea party activists were -- are

animated by their dislike of the democratic party. at the end of the day there is a motivation to see democrats lose. the most viable strategy out there would be continued to do what they are doing. after all, we are talking about the tea party right now. they had a major seat at the table during the whole government shutdown. it was all about satisfying the tea party. what they're doing right now by getting involved in the primaries has arguably been a pretty effective strategy. they may not be getting everything that they want, but, you know, i would imagine that there are enough smart people there who would understand that staying the course makes a whole lot more sense than trying to jump off and form a third-party. >> i agree. david wase time making his point this morning, it was also said that it is not that we also love our parties or

we our candidates, but hate for the other side can be a powerful, unifying force. if you look at mitt romney, the person who was the author of in massachusetts and was a moderate and had been referred to a four years as a of tea3 plus percent party supporters turned out to vote for him. there is your answer. >> one thing. i agree they are not -- they do not want to start another party at all. they made a big deal that they were against the republicans and democrats both as far as party establishment. we don't like george w. bush at all. that's what they were saying. i think they know their strength is that they are willing to lose

, to see the republicans lose. i think this is true. partywill to put a tea candidate in a moderate district even if it is harder to win for that candidate. that is where their unlike the democratic left. it is much more concerned with winning the general election. >> thank you. there's a gentleman with a bowtie. we will start with him for our questions. >> for rapoport, i am curious if you have any data about the tea party and turnout. we just had data drop on us but overall we know that turnout was down in 2012. was or any evidence that the tea party supporters stayed home and i could've hurt romney and republicans? for francia and extent is thet

drive behind the tea party movement race? >> am i on? one of the things that we just mentioned the paper is there was an enthusiasm gap that we heard about in 2010. it turns it -- out that if you run the data among non-tea party republicans show exactly, to the decimal point, almost, the same level of enthusiasm is democrats. the entire enthusiasm gap was tea party republicans. that is 2010. we do find and are able to look at is -- over time, we have data. this is not a mass sampling. activityt of tea party controlling for 2010 activity, 2008 activity, is quite strong. what we find is that the tea inty people -- i see them --

one sense, this is the right wing of the republican party but i think it is a super-energized right wing of the republican party. i think it is more active than what was there before. i see the tea party based on our data as tea party identification among the activists leads to higher levels of activity. among the mass groups, we can look at it in 2010 we find the same thing. that is a little different. i don't think you have this, i will take my marbles and go home. i think it is a group that is committed and i think it is not a diminishing turnout. i don't think the decline in white turnout was tea party people. i don't have real evidence on the mass sampling. allen may have looked at this more. , we putvid's question

up the numbers for government assistance to blacks but that could arguably be about government assistance. the table before shows that tea party members were the most hostile towards the government giving away anything. i think we have to be careful there in attributing that to race. it could be, but in light of the other number of we have to be somewhat careful. --e people say it is a good >> [indiscernible] there was one thing i do want to say to be a little more cautious here. we looked at the thermometer on the feeling from honor towards blacks. the numbers were 64 tea party republicans, 61 for establishment republicans, 64. dependence, six d 84 moderate democrats, 72 for liberal democrats. not huge differences.

social desirability effects may be in play, here. people do not want to say they are cool towards a minority group, perhaps. look at all the racial resentment questions for this particular paper. there was only so much we could percent, after all. on the feeling thermometer we did not really see it. with hispanics, similar numbers. 65, 71.s 60 versus 59, sort of on that same range. from the numbers we ran i cannot really give you a clear answer to that. >> ok, thank you. let's take another question from the audience. >> hello. following up, it seems like we have kind of established that hating obama, hating democratic

principles really drives the tea party. , now that it is possible or plausible because of their actions or their leaders' lose thehat they might house in 2014. it is tough, but possible. it would keep the senate but everything they hate would be remanded by the american people. have a trueuld they sense of expanding if everything they hate just got reaffirmed? wouldn't this small movement fall to pieces like a lot of them do, reform in another way, but in this together fashion, it seems the hate of obama and the eta democrats now really keeps them together. wouldn't a real mandate really be a true ending blow? -- re-mandate really be a true

ending blow? future events we are going to guess that. if we look at this week, the results in virginia have number -- members of the tea party doubling down. if only the mainstreamers had backed this up, we would have won this. there is a strong sense in that the end of days may be more religious. that might be a parallel in which the way defeated seen. -- defeat is seen. there are -- if you ask a tough question, they have an answer. they have a libertarian tradition. they have a moral conservative tradition that will provide answers for why it is that you are defeated. so the next up is to defeat

those forces that defeated you last time to stay in the game. in the american system we have two parties for some fairly strong structural reasons. in a winner take all election, if you take your toys and go home, home is a lonely place. the desire to stay within the party versus the desire to not lose your pretzels that to continue working harder -- principles but to continue working harder. i think it will be pretty intense. think emma to answer your question from a media , theective, the leaders media personalities that you can say,y look at and really these are the leaders of the tea party movement, they are not -- they don't rally the troops from a strategic's perspective -- strategic perspective.

how they might be able to influence the election to get more republicans in. they think they are right and they are claiming moral authority to rally the troops. i don't think that is going to circumstance of more of a mandate to the democrats or anything like that. those leaders are in place. they have their following. i don't think that will change anytime soon. as long as there is a democrat in the white house. >> ok. we have a question on the side. >> from ohio state university. i am interested in having you comment on the internal dynamics within the tea party movement. we know there are a whole bunch of moments out there under different names with different leadership. not agreeingare with each other.

we also know that the movement started out in 2009 as a moment that had two targets -- one was government, the other was wall street. that wall street target has long -- has a long history in american politics. that has kind of evidence were the anti-government part has extended -- expanded over the time. you see groups like freedom works that is more like a beltway group. the leadership is their driving the movement in some ways. it is applying a lot of the financing for it. please comment on that. how do we sort all that out? >> i think part of what we spoke to at the constitutional liberty argument hits on that, where they found the least common denominator thread so you can have multiple groups that are taking somewhat diverging views on similar issues but still tie it back to some broader peace

where they say i may not us earlier grew the policy statement being made, but i sympathize with the logic behind it. it ties back in some way, shape, or form to liberty. they have been able to successfully use that. >> as we talked about the occupied movement, i think a serious case can be made that the occupied movement not only was not funded but it prided itself on an utter lack of central ideology. so, if you have -- there are no occupied movement panels at this conference. for a good reason. was it got cold, it is time to go home. -- once it got cold, it is time to home -- go home. movement, andpied no one seemed to occupy their tents. every time we were there no one seemed to be there. the reason for that is that you do not have a central unifying idea.

it is difficult to rally people around that. if you do have ideas that can reinforce one another, to quote from ron paul, if you cannot defend life, and that you cannot defend liberty. it strongly speaks to the fact that they are finding ways that an outsider might not think can reconcile different views. on the one hand, libertarianism might tend towards anarchy board traditionalism might trend archy. autarky -- aut you ideologynified that i don't think we passing on anytime soon. >> there was an ongoing discussion in occupying tenants after a while, we have been doing this a while and we are losing news value. it is time to move onto something else. in boston, the proposal was to stay there until the first day of spring.

primarily because a lot of homeless people had joined them and they did not want to leave them out in the cold. he felt a responsibility. they were dispersed not because it was cold but the police rated them and destroy the encampment. i will make a production about the wall street bankers i think is the health-care debate goes on, now we are starting to hear of businesslements who are making money off of it. i think that the tea party is going to latch onto that. that is generally what they said about wall street. dodd-ent for don-frank -- frank, but they argued that a lot of government programs that are supposed to help ordinary people are really pumping our tax dollars and giving them to big business and wall street. >> limits a one thing a response. this is something i've been concerned about based on our data. the cces,ing was in we found that you have a lot of

awful -- eight an awful lot of to say you are a subscriber does not mean you are anything but on the mailing list. very large sample, over 12,000. i was able to sort out people on the list who had done nothing for freedom works but had worked for other groups. i found very, very little difference there. that shouldn't be totally convincing. i would love to have multiple groups. i think that is a very good question. ofas not able to find a lot difference and that gave me more confidence in it. on the other thing, i would say that the occupy wall street movement kind of misunderstood the fact -- they were inspired by arab spring -- they did not understand that it was arab spring an air of winter. that probably would not have been as successful, either. [laughter] >> what are most about the

occupied movement is saying, what are they protesting? we were not getting a clear answer. it seemed like the entire time -- we have a question in the middle. >> one comment and one question. the comment is about the opinions of big business. there is a feeling thermometer but -- to monitor question about big business in the nes. tea party supporters like big is this better than other republicans, way better than democrats. we also find -- >> they are pro-big business, not anti-big business. they might be against government subsidy to business. >> according to the weight we partydeep -- tea supporters, there were 63 for -- tea party and, >> my question is about looking

forward on based on what you have seen looking at the tea party supporters. how are they going to respond to a chris christie candidacy for president? in the republican primaries and looking -- will they rally behind a chris christie candidacy for president if he becomes the republican nominee the way they rally behind mitt romney? tie is better from their point of view, isn't he? he is more conservative. romney was governor of massachusetts at times. rights, he was pro-abortion. not have to do as much transformation. -- christie does not have to do as much transformation. this time they will try to put up their own candidate, but if they lose, i think they will be just as enthusiastic.

>> [indiscernible] >> one thing is that among people who in december 2011 rated -- not only did they not support romney, but they rated him below average -- 2/3 were active in this campaign. think it is that last slide slide, kind of. >> labor unions. thermometer, tea party is really not like labor unions. chris christie has made a reputation for being very anti- labor. that's an indication he does not love the guy. his numbers have gotten worse with the party republican since he embraced obama after the hurricane.

nominee,s up being the i am not sure that it's going to happen, but if he were, there are these things there that they can convince themselves they like. election, they will come around. >> i want to add to that. the one thing for chrstie that romney did not possess is that there is one thing they can point to and say, we really like this. that was not there with romney. i think the chris christie video where he was going off on teachers and teachers unions is something. they played at me very happy. with romney, there was nothing they could .2. point 2. >> the democrats have to nominate somebody. hillary clinton will generate a similar amount of dislike. we will have the same thing. whether it is hillary or --

wait, for now. >> she had a higher rating into that -- december 2011. willie went back to march 2013, her rating it dropped significantly. i think that is -- >> we have a question here. >> this may be to write medical question, but i'm interested in the question of resources behind tea party candidates and the impact of the mccain-feingold limitations on political party donations. plus citizens united, the rise of the super pack movements -- super pac movements. it seems to me that the availability of resources is a huge factor. if i am a moderate member of congress, i'm looking at the

possibility of not just an opponent, now i'm looking at some kind of super pac coming in. in terms of their staying power, and their ability to move forward and to stay prominent, resources seem to be a factor. please comment on that. i don't know if anyone studied that i'm interested in that point. >> if you are a pragmatic republican, you had better watch what you say during the campaign or the lead up to the campaign where you could be calling by accident on a challenge that you do not expect. you can look around the landscape and see there is no candidate they can get the funding who has connections with the threat of a super pac coming in. someone can come in from nowhere. else?one

i think john is going to want us to wrap up. do we have time for one more question? we have one more question from the audience. rooks? -- steve brooks? about six weeks ago, -- was here promoting his research that he spent doing on the younger generation. in response to a question about politics, he said that he thinks the liberal conservative dimension is going to diminish and be replaced by libertarian communitarian division. especially for the three circle guys. [laughter] do you see the tea party movement and that kind of movement willing to be more of a libertarian movement and the traditionalists being left behind? >> i think where that becomes

problematic is that there is no one thing called liberty. there is no one thing called morality. the two concepts work with one another and we made redefine -- may redefine what it means to be a republican or democrat or a staunch democrat or republican or a true believer, but the idea that we understand what liberty is -- with liberty be, for example, the liberty to get a meal at night or the liberty to carry a gun as a side arm? we may be redefining those things. in seeing my students as they go through, they sort themselves to be well bi-party. else?one else to go -- >> we need to do two things, ladies and gentlemen. the first thing we need to do is thank stephanie warsmith and our

panelists. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ladies"n's "first continues tonight with pat nixon. more thaned abroad any first lady before her. she also allowed more public white house to words and often her husband steadfast support when the watergate scandal broke. the life and times of pat nixon, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. you can also listen on c-span radio. >> on the ne next washington journal. looking at foreign policy challenges in the year ahead. also discussed in of the top political stories in 2014. growing security

fears in russia as the olympic games draw near. bless your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. live at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. ♪ cathy lanier chief discusses her life and her career in law-enforcement. the toughest part of being the chief of police of the washington metropolitan police department? >> out a tough job. it is the toughest bash the toughest part in the first couple of years was getting used to the press which was a challenge. that,than