smoke. you know you're supposed to drink -- not supposed to drink issuingrd beverages. none of those things have the health impact on children on adults that marriage does. we need to be campaigning on the public good of marriage. and we need to have policies that promote the two things i just talked about. work and marriage. [applause] there was a study i talked about it all the time. if you do three things in america, if you do these three things you are almost guaranteed, 2% chance you will ever be in poverty in america. number one, work. number two, graduate from high school. and number three, get married before you have children. you do those three things in america you'll never be in

poverty. now -- [applause] look to what the obama administration is doing on work and marriage. i was campaigning in wisconsin and the state senator came up to me and told me that in wisconsin if you are married and have -- if you are unmarried and have two children, and you make $15,000 a year, you receive $38,000 in government benefits. if you marry, you lose them all. do you understand what that -- and that's not just wisconsin. it's in every state. it's more in some states. you know what that means? that government prohibits, makes it economically infeasible for single moms to marry. it makes it a bridge too far. because it's economically impossible to make it work.

and the same thing with work. you heard all the talk about obamacare how it's a disincentive to work because the more you work the less your subsidies get. look at all the welfare programs. every single one of them, the more you work the lower your benefits get. we have a government right now that is fixated on keeping people unmarried and not working. and we have to be the party of work and marriage if we want to be successful and if america is o be successful. i think we're going to have a great 2014 here in iowa. i think -- we have great candidates. the great governor. great senate candidate. great congressional candidates. i have no doubt 2014 is going to be a good year. simply because of how bad the president and his party is doing right now. but you know what? and i understand why candidates and all of you want to go out

and just bang the president. it's fun. it's easy. it's getting easier every day. just look what's going on in iraq right now. his major foreign policy accomplishment, al qaeda has been decimated. yeah, right. this president is a failure on every front. but ladies and gentlemen if we want to transform america, not the way he's talking about it, but back to the values that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world, the reason why people wanted to come here, then we have to have a positive agenda. and we don't have to do what the establishment says we have to do. we don't have to be more like them. we have to be true to the principles that made our country great. which are the principles of the republican platform. and are conservative principles. cheers and applause] we don't have to compromise in

my opinion on anything. because what concervix is is simply this. what has worked. what we want is what we know has worked. to create a great america. we don't have to go out and appeal to different interest groups because for diversity's sake. you want to appeal to recent immigrants? you know all almost all recent immigrants are working up the economic ladder. almost all are in blue collar or service related jobs. start talking to them not about immigration. we don't have to talk about immigration. if we do you know what we should talk about? how immigration is suppressing their wages. and keeping their wages down. and not allowing them and their family opportunity to rise in america. that's a message that doesn't say we have to bring in 2.5 million people a year and give

amnesty to 13 million people. it's a message that we as republicans care about you as workers to keep your wages -- to have your wages be family sustaining wages and undermining those as the democrats want to do will simply do one thing. put you more on the government payroll which makes you want to vote more like democrats. and that is not what anybody wants. ladies and gentlemen, we have a message for average working americans. we are the party of average working americans. we need to be that party not but we need to talk about it, we need to campaign on it, i had a meeting just this week with the prime minister of australia, tony abott. you know what he told me? he told me he campaigned -- and the reason he was able to win as a conservative in australia s he campaigned on blue collar

values. on working people values. ladies and gentlemen, the people of america, the workers of america know that president obama's policies have let them down. thai just have to know that we care. and the last election, 23% on people of the exit polls answered this question this way. they were asked the question what's the most important issue in the election for you for president? 23% said does he care about people like me? those people were all lower and middle income people. all lower and middle income people. a quarter of the electorate. you know what? our candidate got 19% of those votes. i know you care about working americans because you are working americans. but you need to demand your leaders to stop listening to

the voices in the big cities who want to talk about capital gains and cuts for higher income individuals' taxes and start talking about creating growth and opportunity for all working americans. then we will be a majority party not just in iowa but across this country for a long, long time to come. thank you very much. and god bless you. [applause] >> next, a discussion of the influence of former arizona senator barry goldwater on a very kid -- libertarianism. that, some the speakers at today's iowa republican convention.

on the next "washington journal," a reporter roundtable on the news of the week. and kimberly kagan, a founder and president of the institute for the study of war has the latest on the violence in iraq. we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span read -- c-span. covering started congress, you had people like senator russell long, wilbur -- , people who were giants in their own way. a couple of those guys got themselves into trouble. overall these were people who knew how to -- they were all very intelligent.

they knew how to craft legislation. they knew how to do a deal and they all worked with whoever the president was, whether it was their party or the other party. there was politics, but at the end of the data be usually found a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. today, you just don't see that anymore. i think the quality of members of congress of the house and senate in terms of their intelligence and their work nshed. have dimi they are great people and i should not malign -- there are wonderful members on both sides. but i think increasingly people are driven by the politics and by their own self-survival. i think the hardest work they do is raising money. not learning the issues and not crafting deals, it is making speeches and positioning themselves to get reelected. >> emmy award-winning journalist lisa myers is leading -- leaving

washington, d.c. behind. find out why at sunday night at 8:00. >> a discussion about barry goldwater's influence on today's libertarianism, the republican party, and the tea party. it was a longtime senator from arizona and the republican nominee for president in 1964. this is an hour. >> and now it is my great pleasure to introduce our moderator, mr. brahm resnik. [applause] brahm resnik is an anchor and reporter for 12 news, the nbc affiliate in phoenix. he has reported on politics and government at the local, state, and federal levels, and has covered every policy issue of consequence in arizona from education to immigration. please give him a very warm

welcome. [applause] >> great to be here. welcome to you all. can you hear me in back? everything working fine? good. let's start with introducing the panel. robert robb became an editorial columnist for the "arizona republic" in 1999 and his columns generally appear three times a week. he also serves as a distinguished associate for the morrison institute at asu. robert robb. [applause] in the center, david weigel, political reporter for slate. for most of his career, starting at "reason" magazine, he covered the conservative movement, and was one of the first reporters to embed with ron paul's presidential campaign. >> yes. >> shout out to ron paul.

a few of those tonight. [laughter] and reported from the rally in 2009. david weigel. [applause] >> to my far right, historian michael rubinoff has been an asu faculty member for 18 years and first interviewed barry goldwater as a little boy in 1969. they met several more times including one of the final interviews goldwater granted before his retirement in 1986. michael rubinoff. [applause] before i ask these guys, a few questions for you folks -- how many people in the audience voted for barry goldwater at least once? [laughter] ok.

did anyone vote for him in 1964? any goldwater family members in the audience? i heard barry junior was out of town. he was here yesterday. we can say whatever we want. [laughter] it seems we are having a libertarian moment. rand paul is being taken seriously as a presidential candidate. after his dad, ron paul, cleared the way for his son. libertarians on the right and on the left see eye to eye on protecting privacy and legalizing marijuana. is this a moment that barry goldwater help to create? >> i do not think there is any question about that. the historically important barry goldwater who wrote "conscious

of a conservative" and ran for established 1964 the libertarian viewpoint on economic matters and limited government, and a proper sense of federalism. the later barry goldwater and his reaction against the religious right helped to lead the way to libertarianism on social issues, which has formed, sort of, the mix that does appeal to younger audiences, and also to what has been, historically, one of the swing votes in american politics -- people who are economically conservative, but socially progressive. >> david, i mentioned rand paul at the outset. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. who do you think that the capital today is the real air of of barry goldwater?

>> i do think rand paul is. he brings his politics in similar ways to his detriment and his advantage. more to his advantage because unlike barry goldwater, paul always expresses his version of libertarianism, privacy rights, restricting government, as a way to reach out to voters. he never calls it extremism. he tells republicans that they have shrunk the party and the only way to reach out to young people is to move away from social conservatism and things you were talking about. he repeats some of the mistakes because if you go back to his intimates -- i guess it was still the biggest mistake he made in politics -- when he stumbled about whether he voted -- would vote for the civil rights act, he made the same mistake barry goldwater did as describing it as something he would not oppose morally, but he had problems with it because he did not want to force people to do the right thing.

that is how goldwater put it in 1964 after the argument was made that the civil rights act was unconstitutional. paul is the heir in a positive way. the us figured out a lot of what has figuredd -- he out a lot of what goldwater did. he is quotable. a lot of the politics goldwater mastered, he has mastered. he makes some of the same the stakes were he comes to the edge of libertarianism where he can not -- he cannot quite tell a voter who is curious and not quite sure what they believe, that he will protect their rights. >> is that his political stance? is that what he really believes? >> i think it is. i have talked to him a lot. i talked to him on the 2007, 2008 campaign trail, and it is a utopian, libertarian view of the world than it is more popular than ever, more popular than when goldwater ran.

the foreign policy side is so much easier for rand paul than it was for barry goldwater. he believes, as goldwater believed, that if you give people freedom, they will create a more perfect, more fair society. he has not made a ton of mistakes like the civil rights mistake since then. he learned in being aggressive to reach out to groups. also, he still believes that he is personally convincing and those ideas are convincing. again, some of the same mistakes, more of the positive lessons have been imbued in rand paul. >> if barry goldwater would walk the halls of the capitol today, what would you make of the place? [laughter] >> he would be disappointed. i think his problems would be

stemming from the extreme partisan nature of today's senate, and gone was the collegiality that he had known when he came in in 1963. i remember having a meeting related to goldwater with george mcgovern, and this was in 1986, and he said to me that the goldwater who came back to washington after 1969 was far different than the goldwater who had been the crusading conservative senator and presidential candidate. he said he was once the most partisan of men, but he said after 1964, something happened, and he simply became different. that is probably, maybe where goldwater would differ with things today because he wanted to get things done when he went back to washington for his last three terms. today, he would say they not getting anything done. >> dig deeper on that.

the common wisdom is carl hayden was the workhorse, barry goldwater was the show horse. i did not see too many legislative accomplishments you could link to very well -- barry goldwater. i could be wrong. correct me. what was it that changed him -- the loss, the defeat, or something else going on, and what about the legislative piece? >> goldwater biographers, and a number of them, lee edwards, john judas, richard goldberg, they have noticed the presidential campaign where people trashed him beyond belief, where he said if everyone had said these things to me and i believe that, i would believe i was nuts. i think when he went back to washington, he said to people that i went into politics to pay the rent.

he legislatively did that with the change of the control structure of the pentagon with the nichols-goldwater fact that he sponsored, and that change things in the pentagon for that it is moving mobley -- more smoothly to integrate all of the armed services as opposed to where it stood before 1986. >> let's stay in the present. we'll go back to the past and a moment. everyone will have a chance to ask questions later on in the discussion. today, barry goldwater has become almost a utterly hero to cuddly hero to liberals. they like his stance on abortion, gay rights. do they have it all wrong? [laughter]

>> there are three distinct phases of goldwater as a public figure and as a politician. the historically important barry goldwater, the author of "conscience of a conservative," the presidential candidate in 1964, was very much a hard-right, libertarian conservative. he advocated eliminating the federal role in agriculture and in education and general social welfare programs. he also was an insurgent. he spoke scornfully and wrote scornfully about me too republicanism. even though he supported eisenhower over taft, he referred to eisenhower's warmed over new deal-ism. he was hard right and an insurgent.

he ultimately became an establishment republican figure, probably best illustrated by his endorsement of gerald ford over ronald reagan in the 1976 primary. then, in his senatorial career, in reaction to the rise of the social right -- roe v wade was not until 1973. the u.s. supreme court decision striking down school prayer was in 1962. so, the historically important barry goldwater did not really deal with those issues, and in 1980 actually ran as a pro-life candidate. it was not until the latter part that he developed this antagonism toward the social right and its influence on the republican party. then, the third phase of his

career, rather than cuddily, i would say an iconic curmudgeon. >> a cuddily curmudgeon. [laughter] >> he was an historically important figure, and the american people, over time, developed an affection for those iconic characters, those important historical figures, even if they were busy denouncing them at the time that actually had some degree of political importance. >> so they are remembering the later period. michael, you follow these closely. you agree with that? >> i think he nailed it. there are several phases. if there is something i can pick up on what david was saying,

with rand paul, barry goldwater could speak with incredible self-righteousness which was noted in "the making of the president" in 1964, where he sounded like an old testament-type of prophet, and if anyone comes closest to that in a homing time -- call me and kind of way --calming kind of way it would be rand paul. his logic, people thought barry goldwater was far right, and for this time that is probably where it was. mainstream, it is a very meandering stream. [laughter] i think rand paul is a

refinement of that. it is a different age with, you know, video being done, whereas goldwater, he was not as exposed until the media got on him in 1964 and then bingo, we had all sorts of earthquakes. >> is senator paul the kinder face of libertarianism, and also, how does he handle the social issues? >> the way goldwater interpreted this, socialism did not exist in the beginning of his career until roe v wade and then until the 1970's. rand paul is able to exist when the opposite has happened, and the momentum, poll number results, all of the factors that made social conservatives

limited to gay marriage and abortion, all of that made it a winning issue for the party, and rand paul won elections in 2010, and since then he has seen support for gay marriage surging. he has gone to states that might decide whether to vote for him as president in a relative -- republican primary and say up to you -- the media happens to like that. he is riding a wave that goldwater really did not get to ride. now i'm -- now, with the media, it is pretty similar. the media coverage of goldwater, in the 1990's was always from the frame of one republican telling it like it was, the same way rand paul is able to handle

it. the difference is rand paul is on the ascent and republican party that worries that if it is that hard right on social issues they cannot win. >> let's bring up foreign policy because there's some -- seems to be a distinct difference between goldwater and paul. talk about that and how paul interprets it. >> he rejects the term isolationist. ron paul rejected it as well, and there's a lot of video if he runs as president really freely associating why we intervene, etc. it happens that he has really taken off, again, on the right, since people turned against the war in afghanistan, against the surveillance state, development basically from 2009 and 2013. drone warfare, when he started talking about it, not terribly unpopular, not terribly known.

he managed to describe, as a theoretical opposition to it -- many americans might have been vaguely aware that spying was happening, that jones were being used -- drones were being used. he put it in a framework that -- if you were a republican at that time trying to come up with the best message for the party, you would probably come up with are doing with americans that they should worry that they will be targeted or spied on by this technology, but it has become quite popular. i have been in a lot of republican meetings and i have found republican meetings, conventions, conferences, things like that, attacking the nsa as an applause line, the approach to afghanistan as an applause line, and in the mississippi election, i would go to tea party meetings where they were trying to overthrow a conservative senator, and at the

meetings they would speak about how america should not send people into a mission like afghanistan again. paul has happened to emerge -- goldwater was running for president before we escalated vietnam. rand paul is emerging on the scene after 13 years of greater intervention in the world, greater fatigue with that at home, and putting it in a way that makes sense immediately to libertarians. to the surprise of a lot of people, it is more effective. >> what would have barry goldwater made of drones, the national security state that we seem to be living in? >> that is difficult to discern or predict. let me go back to where the

natural libertarian position is, it and it is isolationism -- is not isolationism if you support free trade and integration, which most libertarians do. but there was an interruption. that is sort of a natural ground for libertarians and the canada -- and looking at the u.s. role in the world, that we should turn to the founders vision of being a peaceful trading nation. core libertarian conservatives in the 1960's until the collapse of the soviet union in the late-1980's, and early-19 90's, was that this was a different threat. that expansionary communism was just different, and it required an aggressive u.s. response, and in fact, barry goldwater and libertarian conservatives of the time objected to the bipartisan foreign-policy of containment to

try to keep the soviet union from expanding so that it would collapse naturally from its own internal contradictions. instead, they advocated a liberation approach, where we should actively be trying to undermine and liberate, particularly the captive nations, in eastern europe. so, he was very much a pro-security, anti-communist guy, and probably facing that threat would have constants fairly aggressive surveillance, including internally, but without that overwhelming threat, my guess is that his instinctive belief in individual freedom, privacy, in chesterton's praise our right to

be our own selves, that today he would be rand paul. but if the security threat, he felt were serious enough, and many conservatives feel that is true of terrorism, he might come to a different conclusion. >> we will go back in time, and part of the fun in preparing for this is i read "conscience of a conservative" for the first time and i found this headline from his election to the senate in 1952 when he defeated ernest mcfarland, a democrat. this is the headline from "the washington post." the hustler kind of politician, fast talking, modern in the air age sense, 1952. one of the

achievements was bringing us the republican party that we have today to an extent, it isn't it michael? >> yes, it was not an age when people in arizona were inclined to vote for women governors, which shows just how far we have come. [laughter] he did the same when he ran for u.s. senate in 1952. one thing that a lot of people do not probably realize is goldwater was already well-known from his grand canyon camping movie that he did in color. he had shown it right around -- all around the state before world war ii so that when he ran in 1952, people had known the barry goldwater.

arizona was a small population back then. he seemed to be very tacky, and we know his hobbies of ham radio and flying jet aircraft, that was actually a very apt way "the washington post characterized them at an early time. he was 43 years old. >> talk about his influence on the republican party. what did they see here, what do they do to make the republican party the force that it is becoming? >> well, his family background was that his uncle was a democrat in the arizona legislature, but goldwater went through a transition as he became a young man, goes into world war ii, and comes out. when the phoenix city charter was redone after the war, he joined on the team and is elected to the city council and through a very interesting way of noting the fact that phoenix

had been run rather corrupt, and they also said made it very efficient, and they did with low taxes and creating a more favorable business climate, and along with people like eugene, bob's free and current boss, and publisher of "the republic" ways back, and people that had vision -- developers, among others -- who had this vision for a phoenix in a streamlined, postwar setting. goldwater caught that spirit. it meant get government off of our backs. lean and mean. i do not know if that was libertarian or conservative. goldwater would prefer to use the word conservatives. he transforms the republican party as a version of himself.

then these others get elected behind him. it is like a small club which basically chose its officials and so forth in the three rooms. the rumor barry goldwater was baptized in 1909 -- the room where barry goldwater was baptized in 1909. >> one of john rose's favorite stories was about barry coming in to try to talk them into running for congress, and as john would relate the story, he told them but i do not want to go to washington, and they said do not worry about it, john, you will not win. [laughter] and what of the interesting things of that period, the post-war period, phoenix almost doubled in size.

all of those new residents became republicans. >> not really. >> did they plant a seed there? >> they definitely planted a seed. barry goldwater did rewrite the history, but republicans did not gain more registrants than democrats in arizona until the mid-1980's, so arizona was voting republican far quicker than it actually became registered republican as the plurality party. >> i want to take a closer look at his politics and start with the book "conscience of a conservative," and sat with the word conservative. this was not a bunch of republicans getting together to

put him on the national stage. >> in those days, libertarian and conservative were nearly synonymous. the conservatism that was concocted in the hallways, the editorial rooms of "national review," had a very libertarian orientation with a belief that a spiritual life was key to a successful politics, and the "conscience of a conservative," goldwater echoed that sentiment. there was an atheistic dissent from that, but it was very much a minority. it was not until the development of social is use -- social issues that the split between libertarians and conservatives became pronounced and the terms ceased to be almost synonymous.

>> here is the interesting thing in reading "conscience of a conservative." i thought if you tore the cover off the book, give it to me and told me -- without telling me who wrote it, i would say except for the military part it reads like a tea party manifesto, almost word for word what we hear today from tea partiers. am i wrong on that? >> not at all, and the notion that barry goldwater did not leave the republican party, the republican party left barry goldwater ignores the historically important barry goldwater who advocated getting the government out of education, agriculture, welfare. in "conscience of a conservative" he expressed the point of view that what the constitution means is not just up to the u.s. supreme court to decide, which is one of the beliefs of the tea party that is routinely denounced to show how

out of touch they are. so, i think the historically important barry goldwater has been lost in the remembrances of the iconic curmudgeon that he became later on in life. >> would you think about that? is the tea party the true heir of barry goldwater? >> i keep mentioning lessons learned, and in a negative way, in the imagination of a conservative activist, the goldwater run broke the back of rockefeller republicans. and never quite built up that power again. the way george will always put it is goldwater won the election, but it took 15 years to count the votes. it does not mention the things that do not exist because they did not exist yet because barry

goldwater had not run and led a landslide that brought in the democrats they give us medicare, medicaid, all of the urban programs, and a larger government that even reagan and george bush who did not try quite as hard as reagan, were not able to undermine. the one thing the tea party took from goldwater was that if you take over the party structure, and they can do that easier than ever with the way money and politics work now, the way you can win a primary with reaching out to outside groups, and you will be proven right in the end even if you lose a couple of victories. i think they made that mistake again in 2009 by opposing obamacare completely, hoping they could grind down the senate. they made that mistake, and other actions have been lost -- other elections have been lost. more than that, the complete resistance to growing government, on the one hand they

have shifted the debate to the right. on the other, they made this a mistake that was made in 1964, where you put -- i hate using these metaphors, but you go all in, and then you lose. you say to voters that 2011 is a referendum on obamacare. if we win, we will repeal it. you do not win, you do not repeal it. the ratchet effect of the growth of the state was not halted by a goldwater-state -- style campaign and it is not been halted by a tea party-style campaign. >> i want to go to some of the troubling parts of his record. goldwater fell in with john birchers. at one point he said i need them politically. opposed the civil rights act. did not agree with brown versus the board of education. what does that tell us about the man, michael?

>> i was at the gerald ford library doing research on ronald reagan in 2002 and i found a note that barry goldwater had handwritten to gerald ford in the fall of 1975 and it was very short and it said "i worry about some of the people backing reagan. some of them are absolutely nuts, and i know that because they were backing me in 1964." [laughter] so, he at least could take a long view of who his supporters had been. [laughter] if you do read his comments on the john birch society from the 1960's, he was reluctant from jet -- to just throw them aside. one of his closest friends was an active member of the john burke society. it is true that he will back away from the mass of the presidential campaign.

it seemed as if the john burke society was in one direction and barry goldwater was in another. it might have been that he needed them in the caucuses that helped to get his nomination, but they also discover -- discarded him for other heroes after 1964. george wallace would loom big in 1968 and beyond. i think that was the parting of the ways, along with the fact that you mentioned the civil rights bill that he opposed unconstitutional grounds. i do not know if history has proven him right or wrong. he might have been on the losing edge, but he was on the right edge of so many other things that i do not think we should begrudge him on this. i actually had a student wants when i was talking about goldwater who said a professor told her that barry goldwater was a segregationist, and i corrected her, and i said i'm

one of the few people that knew barry goldwater that you will ever meet and he was an integrationist, and his record was on supporting african-americans, and that is something that got lost. >> there was the political, the votes that he took, and there was a school here that he supported -- and correct me if i am wrong, it was one of the first two integrate. >> george washington carver. it is still used as a district office. he competed -- contribute it to the urban league. he was an international guard. phoenix had a long segregated history. people do not realize that. goldwater was at the cutting edge of the end of world war ii. >> i think we're getting close to the time for audience questions. am i right, tonya? >> 10 more minutes.

>> 10 more minutes. [laughter] don't worry, a lot more where that came from. let's put barry goldwater in arizona in 2010, 1 of the experiments tonight, as b-10 70, where would barry goldwater have come down on that? >> again, the immigration issue developed in the 1990's and in the 2000's there was bipartisan support for the 1986 immigration reform led by ronald reagan. alan simpson was one of the co-authors of it. i do not enqueue can project where goldwater would have -- i do not think you can project where goldwater would have been on it. my suspicion is he would have been on the side of arizona as a welcoming place, embracing its

latino heritage and would be troubled about that, but on the other hand i do not know that he he would be indifferent to the effects of illegal immigration on local governments, and his strong sense of federalism would have rejected, or at least argued against the notion that this is exclusively a federal problem, which local governments are powerless to do anything about. i think there are crosscurrents. >> michael, what you think about that? >> i would have to agree. i think barry goldwater would have said we should be welcoming, but he also would have said the state has its own rights, which i think he felt very deeply about. i think he would have been badly conflicted, as i think with a lot of issues, although i have to say, looking at things nationally, i think you would have thought that obamacare --

he would say god-awful. i think if you look at state issues, he would be tortured back and forth, and certainly on immigration, i think, he probably would have had some sympathy -- you have to note that he was very proud of his family's pioneering background from europe. i think he would say we have to be a welcoming society, not exclusionist. >> one of his legacies is he helped to give republicans the southern strategy that helped turn the south republican. is he responsible for that? is lyndon johnson responsible for that in a backhanded way? >> actually, republicans were in the south in 1964.

for anti-catholic reasons, republicans were able to crack the south. it was really nixon that was able to run -- campaign in 1966, run in 1968 as a centrist republican correction to goldwater. agnew perfected the outreach to the south that appealed to what goldwater -- i do not think was appealing to. goldwater had constitutional arguments that he asked for, reiterated, believe in. he believes and state rights without as many connotations. the nixon people understood the connotations and they really turned red. i don't think you can pin that on him despite that vote. i think it was really republicans who saw how rapidly the south had fallen away and took advantage of successive cycles.

you were talking about the way goldwater actually felt. he was replaced by strategists who lacked some of those better intentions. >> let's do a rand paul once around. does this guy have a chance if he decides to run for president? >> i think he might be an election cycle or two premature. i do believe that there is a growing sense of government's demonstrated incompetence on a wide number of avenues. in 2016, the social security disability fund will run out of iou's to reading, and the congress will have to decide what to do about that, and if nothing happens, social security disability benefits will be reduced.

so, we will come face-to-face, beginning in 2016, with the inadequate financing of the modern welfare state. the medicare hospital insurance trust fund will face the same problem in the early 2020's, so the country will have to face this moment, which will open the door for someone who has a more radical view of the extent to which we need to cut back the size and the scope of government, and the march of time, i think, would stand well for acceptance of his noninterventionist foreign policy, and for his more socially progressive views within a republican primary. so, my guess is he is premature

in 2016, but 2020, 2024, someone with his set of views, and i think he is skillful at articulating them from particularly compared to his father -- [laughter] has a chance to see that month -- seize that moment. we have some things to confront. i think rand paul is in a good position to articulate a direction that may be attractive over the course of time. >> do you agree with that and are there other rand paul-types? >> the paul movement, the liberty movement, with a -- what they preferred to be known as, they are cultivated people in the establishment has not been able to defeat the people they are cultivated. the congressman from michigan is being challenged by candidate north of the chamber of commerce. he is destroying him.

that wasvement of 2013 almost passing a bill that would have stopped the nsa data collection. you cannot fight against a guy by saying he does not bring enough money to the district. there'll be people in rand paul's wake. i think it is more likely than a candidate like rand paul, when you hit the white teeth of a vetting process, i don't think he will hold up. you have seen people who are very confident and successful at other levels. rudy giuliani, people like that, melt a little bit, when they are in the frankly, sometimes stupid barrage of questions you get is a presidential candidate, the questions about your background, associations. his father has talked to the john birch society. he is going further from that.

they are the sorts of associations -- remember, for a moment the church barack obama went to almost took him out. [laughter] no, really. there will be problems with the way he deals with certain questions. who knows what will come up that he could fumble? i remember a time when we were covering rick perry's 20 point lead in the presidential primary and he blew four questions and it destroyed him. i think there is a bigger donor class that believes in these things, and the rising millennial vote, when you are asking them if government can't hack it, they have seen government as post-9/11 and obamacare. if they are not necessarily pure republican, their vote is sympathetic to someone who makes the rand paul case.

>> final thought, michael? >> i think the issue that will come out is rand paul has a base that he picked up from his father and it was heavily subscribed to by younger people at universities and colleges and it was reminiscent of how barry goldwater was so well-received received when the young americans for freedom were created in the 1960's and help propel him through 1964. there is a real similarity. younger people are far more idealistic and they do not have the patience for the current republican party. when you finally hit social security, you can be chairman of the party. [laughter] that is not what the young people are subscribing to and ron paul did this as a congressman and his son is doing it. this helped to propel goldwater, who was a minority view in the republican party, so the

light or did you captured the party and became the majority. that is the plan that has to be looked at. it might be too soon and 2016, but change the time and he could make a difference. >> you just made me remember that hillary was a goldwater girl when she was in her 20's. we will keep talking with your questions. >> we now have time to take questions from all of you. there are two of us with microphones. we are recording this. it will be on the website first thing tomorrow morning. we are asking that you say your first and last name. c-span is also here. tonya has the first question right here. >> well, it is not exactly a question. it is a statement in a way. my father, he ran against barry goldwater many years ago, and

one of the most striking things about goldwater was how amazing he could be so accepting of someone with opposite political views. my father was way to the left, he was way to the right. and yet they had this amiable, wonderful discussions. he was really a terrific man even though views were different. when he ran for the senate, arizona -- are you had to be at that time was a republican. i don't know why my father decided to run. [laughter] >> that is one of the more interesting parts of the run in he was hoping to run against 1964. jack kennedy. >> goldwater and kennedy knew each other very well and they were friends. friendly rivals and they respected each other. what you are speaking to was a

different time in arizona. it was like an extended family. the one thing that united all of -- goldwater knew that he was from a long time arizona family in the same thing with morris udall. the one thing that united all of these folks was the central arizona project, which was the major activity of a bipartisan nature, and this is where goldwater was effective. he might have been a show horse but you needed that show horse. goldwater was helping to make that thing work, and that is exactly the type of culture from which your father -- that you were describing. >> next question in the front. >> my name is roy miller, and my question has to do with the word libertarian. i am myself a libertarian, but i remember many years ago the word liberal had a free-market

connotation to it and it was taken over, and now most of us that believe in small government do not like the word liberal, so i am wondering if this new word libertarian will last and you think it will be consistently be represented by a limited government viewpoint. >> i do, and to sum up -- classical liberal philosophy from john stuart mills and john locke, and others, they did carry the liberal term, and around the rest of the world, it still does. neoliberal in most of the world describe someone who has a free-market orientation. i think libertarianism will stick as a political identifier in american politics because it represents a conservatism that is at least distinct from, and often in conflict with social conservatism.

so, i now believe the conservative movement has split in a way that was not true during the days of the historically important barry goldwater, and therefore there is a utility in the name to describe a point of view that has some distinction. >> i would just add quickly that one of the great surprise of republican politics of the last 10 years is that it was ron paul who may libertarianism more popular. -- made libertarianism more popular. that was not seen by the circles i travel in in washington, the libertarian circles, he was not seen as the best vessel to bring that forward. the kochs had spent 30 years funding institutes. the cato institute were worried that libertarian sounded crazy. the fact that ron paul ran for president and built a following