in 2012. >> i became convinced toward the end of the process that he is very competitive and i think he had made a decision to do it and if he had he would've had his heart and soul into it. , itfrom the very beginning is not something he ever thirsted after. host: this week on "newsmakers," the president of the american enterprise institute, arthur brooks, joining us from the aei studio in washington. joining us in studio, we have james hohmann and alex roarty. if i could begin, what is the american enterprise institute? mr. brooks: aei is a thing take -- think tank that has the same sort of mission as a research university, but without the students. we have a dedication to the free

enterprise system. we do a lot of work on economics, foreign policy, health, and education can be have been here since 1938, doing work on how the american enterprise system can benefit people around the world. host: what role do you think aei plays in republican thinking? mr. brooks: for the longest time, although it backed the late 1930's, republican policymakers, and for that matter, democratic policymakers too, have relied on think tank analysis. our scholars are dedicated to the highest level analysis. policymakers here, in washington, and to a lesser extent, around the country, they just do not have time to do the statistical analysis are

different types of policies. they will come to think tanks, and many of them for decades have come to aei to find out the truth about policies and how policies can be improved. host: let's get to the latest debates. mr. hohmann: you wrote a book about how conservatives can better connect, show heart. there's a lot of talk of who can replace john boehner. we want to talk more about that, but everyone is kind of pushing paul ryan as the guy who can bring people together. specifically, we have seen a lot of resistance from the right here a conservative saying that paul ryan is weak on immigration from their perspective, he supports the competence of solution, he cares too much about immigrants, also criticizing him for his vote on some compromises that have passed. what do you make of that conservative resistance to paul

ryan? do you think paul ryan is someone who can't advance the conservative movement? when he be able to solve some of the problems that john boehner hasn't? mr. brooks: i think he could, if he decides to do this. the real luxury that paul ryan has is he is such a leader in the republican party can look around and say how he can best serve. it is not that he has just one leadership opportunity. i think he can bring republicans together, and that is not to say that we cannot have dissent. there should be dissent. that is fundamental to competition of ideas. i think this is the big opportunity for the next speaker of the house to bring the republican party around the why question, the purpose question. the products, natural policy design, this should be racked with dissent and arguments. remembering the three or four big things -- the next bigger the house should say, this is

what it means to be a republican, this is what it means to reconstruct the american experiment. that is what the speaker can and should do, read to speaker position, it is kind of a public visionary for the republican party. i think i'll could do that if he decides to do it. mr. roarty: you know the congressman, do you think he will do it? mr. brooks: i have no idea. i think it is a tough decision because he has so many opportunities. i think it would be good for america if you did. i think he is a terrific leader. mr. roarty: let me follow up on that, if he does not do that, some republicans have suggested that you may be speaker of the house.

would you like to categorically rule that out today? mr. brooks: i did already on twitter. i pointed out that america is not ready for a bald speaker. our people have suffered greatly. host: should the next week or say from the beginning that they are against amnesty? is that having a conservative heart? mr. brooks: no. i think it is important for the speaker of the house to be a high level intellectual force and visionary for the republican party, and for the conservative movement, who is not saying, we stand categorically for or against particular policies in this juncture. we need to have those debates within the republican party. we do stand firm certain humanistic principles. what i read about in "the conservative heart," it is important to remember that the

why must be pro-people and not against things. it is important that republicans do have a debate on immigration, but to say that we are coming down on one side of things would

rule out the dissent going on now, and would make more bad blood, i think it is unproductive. it is not productive because some leader could not win a debate, but rather it feeds into this narrative that we have right now that republicans cannot get their act together, they cannot decide if they are more racist or more greedy. it is completely unhelpful. what we need to have is a respectful airing of different points of view on that, where what we agree on is the moral consensus that we are fighting for people, instead of against things. mr. hohmann: to that point, almost one year ago, republicans won the majority in the senate and expanded their majority in the house. it feels like republicans are debating over greed or heartlessness. one, do you feel that conservatives have shown that they can be a governing coalition? two, if not, why not? mr. brooks: they have not show this yet. part of the reason is because they did when these really big victories and they're trying to coalesce a lot of different voices of the republican party in a huge party. it is not actually shocking that they have not come together yet. the other thing to keep in mind is it has not been, for a very long time, there has not been a role in the republican party for a strong and visionary leader. there is an opportunity right now because of the success -- this happens, by the way, and private sector companies where they grow a lot, and they go into crisis, and require a turnaround. to get a turnaround, you do not just spontaneously find a new leader who is doing more or less what the last leader was doing. you have to find someone who will change the job and say, look, this is a new day. we need to create a new bright

for a new day, -- a new right for a new day. mr. roarty: you said has not happened yet. i want to payment now to the presence of primary. i wonder if you see it happening there, in particular with donald trump. you write in your book that republicans need to demonstrate more compassionate. that does not seem to be mr. trump's strategy on the trail. how do you feel about him? mr. brooks: basically what republicans need to do is to things. they need to show more compassion. i don't need the bush era compassionate conservativism. the reason i am a conservative is because poverty bothers me the most. remembering that compassion and fairness, social justice is what we are all about. compassion is number one.

the other characteristic that moderate republicans will have to have is happiness. actually have to be happy warriors. what we have right now is to cap -- two camps. you have the front runner who is the happiest guy in the field, and you have the others who are a plurality. you don't want to split compassion and happiness. you want them to come together in one person, and they are not right now. in europe, with a parliamentary ticket, it would look like there is not fractures. i'm pretty confident that these two ideas can come together. mr. roarty: do you think donald

trump is a conservative? mr. brooks: i think donald trump in the past has been relatively nonideological. he has been a nonpolitical non-ideological businessman. to the extent that he a for a particular point of view, they are all over the map. he has not thought of himself as being coherent. the result is you can find him saying what the different things on every subject. from normal, mainstream politicians, that would be a real liability. so far it has not been for donald trump. mr. hohmann: is there candidate the you seen that has come close to merging that happiness and compassion? mr. brooks: sure. when you speak to the candidates privately, you see they have all kinds of potential to do that. the bush campaign could do that,

the rubio campaign. the walker campaign looks really good, obviously they ran out of money and steam. the john kasich campaign could do that. in the fall and spring, i think you will see more merging of the compassion and happiness. if the new right is not compassionate and happy, it will not win. it is as simple as that. the way i see it, looking at the data, in 2016, if republicans are seen by more people, particularly those that are relatively persuadable, as carrying -- again, americans do not have to agree with republican policies, but they have to agree with the republican heart -- if they see them as more compassionate than in the past and as happy warriors, republicans will win on a walk. if they do not do those things, i think hillary clinton will be the next president of the united states. mr. hohmann: obviously, there are a lot of conservative supporting donald trump. you mentioned, he has the happiness going for him. it feels like he is tapping into

something deeper, something more. one of the things he talks about a lot is protectionism, he is against trade, a lot of other things. what is it that trump is capitalizing on that has one third of republican primary voters supporting it. mr. brooks: it is not a third, it is about 25% of people they have talked to, half of whom have cast a ballot. mr. hohmann: fair enough. mr. brooks: it is millions of people. early on in every primary, there is a lot of protest and experiences in with new kinds of people, new kinds of candidates. you see that in every cycle. it is much greater right now because the level of frustration is so high with what people

perceive as politicians not pay attention to people left behind. the key thing to keep in mind is over the past seven years, since president obama has been in office, the bottom half of the

american economy has gotten hammered. at best, mobility is stagnant. at worst, it is actually falling behind. you can make a strong argument that the bottom 50% of the economic just to be should is at 0% economic growth. even the democratic candidates, up there on stage, debating with one another, the one thing they all agree on is the economy has been lousy for people who need opportunity the most. it is this dramatic indictment of policies. there are easy shortcuts to what we ought to do. when someone comes in, and basically plays on this idea that the republican party is always going to be the a green party -- just like the democratic already will always be that envy party -- i will reject that. i think they both have to be the aspiration party. the easy solutions will always be the same. someone will come and take your jobs, and/or, your jobs will be shipped overseas. how do you get rid of these problems? number one, you look for all of these people who are here illegally, say you will kick them out. whether you can morley, legally, practically, who cares. and, by the way, i'm going to shut the borders -- which is kind of impossible, but it sounds good when you are in this moment of anger in this country. i disagree that that will be able to ask happen, but we have not gotten traction on the counter arguments based on aspiration. mr. roarty: i'm wondering what

your assessment is of bernie sanders. i know his views are antithetical to your own, what would you make of his success in the democratic primary, and the new approach of the democratic party? mr. brooks: bernie sanders views are not antithetical to my own. i guess, what you mean -- you are right, when it comes to the political ideas, but look, bernie sanders is a warrior for people left behind. i hope i am too. that is what my mission is to deploy our policy ideas to the people who need it the most. it is the people who are truly poor. the american experiment is failing them right now. i appreciate that bernie sanders is talking about it. the problem is that all of these policy ideas are unproductive for solving the policy questions at hand. this is the big thing that bernie sanders does, which is a mistake. when you talk about try to help people, if you don't recognize of the problem in america is opportunity inequality, you will gravitate to income redistribution and income inequality. you are surrendering there and saying, poor people are going to be poor, see will have to redistribute to them a lot more, and bring the top down a lot

more, so there is a lot less and be in this country. that is a huge mistake here it in place into the greatest weakness that the progressive movement in america has. when you listen to progressives, especially to get a couple of beers into them, you don't talk about poor people -- they are always talking about liabilities to manage. we love for people, so we going to manage these liabilities with welfare programs, a regulatory structure that redistributes and forces private companies to pay them certain wages, etc. that is actually a big mistake because americans don't like it, and americans don't like it because it does not describe how we view the poor. americans, deep down, understand that the poor -- who are they? they are us. if it is not me today, it is my grandparents, or your

grandparents or great-grandparents too. we are assets to develop, not liabilities to manage. that is what bernie sanders gets wrong. that is what the democrats get wrong. when a democrat is an aspirational figure that says, i believe in you, all of my liberal policies will develop you as american assets, you will see democrats in a whole new light, and they will be scary and politically very dangerous. host: explained, policy wise, what is the aei alternative? mr. brooks: to begin with, aei does not have any corporate policies. this is the thing that makes it very difficult to be president of aei. it is like a university. we have this workforce of geniuses running around, and they all disagree with each other. you should hear the yelling in the lunch room. some of them want a carbon tax, others think it is idiotic. it is interesting, a good place

to be. what our scholars agree on is the free enterprise solutions to lift people up. there are a lot of different manifestations from the individual scholar view. for example, we talk with the minimum wage. why is the minimum wage and problem? all the democrats think it is a good idea. why are they wrong? they are not wrong because it is bad for business. they are wrong because it is a messy policy that largely benefits people who are not poor, and hurts really poor people the most. if we went to $50 per hour, some of our scholars believe that it would destroy 1.5 million jobs. almost all of the poorest people in the country, while 82% of people who would not get a raise, are not poor. you cannot just say, do not do it. we are certainly, at aei, look at what to do with the poor people. an expansion of the earned income tax credit, vouchers so

that people can go to where the jobs are, some think that a negative income tax is a good idea. we can recognize that the minimum wage is not evil, it is just messy and misguided. the idea of trying to help poor people is of the we should be adopting and fighting for vigorously. mr. hohmann: ithe final 15 months of obama's term -- anything that the president supports, there is immediate dislike among conservatives. on trade, which i alluded to earlier, the transpacific partnership, which is the biggest trade deal since nafta, is now being called obama trade. i don't know if there's to be a

debate among your scholars about whether tpp is good or not. is there anything that can be done during the last 15 months of the obama administration? if so, what? mr. brooks: to begin with, let's take the case of trade. it is a really good example. i have had zero debate, i have heard zero debate within aei whether or not the president is right on this. the president is right. free trade is a good thing. free trade is one of the five forces that has pulled 2 billion people out of poverty since i was a child. it is an unalloyed good in the world. if we are a country that is actually so unimaginative, and so stuck in the past that we cannot look at the people who are being hurt by free trade in the united states, see them as assets to be developed -- then, shame on us.

that is not an argument against trade. it is an argument that we have a lousy education system that leaves too many people behind in the united states. free trade is good, and the president is right, and we should support his policy. conservatives need to come together around thinking about ways that the president is doing good things, and supporting it. a lot of what the president does is bad. as a political conservative, i think a lot of what he does is misguided. his general motors are good -- his motives are generally very good about trying to help people. we should look at the cases where he is right, and say, let's get behind that. that is where we can make some progress. i cannot speak for the whole conservative movement. mr. hohmann: is criminal justice reform one of those things? mr. brooks: in may, we did a

panel at georgetown university on poverty with the president. the president and i did a panel, and robert putnam was there as well. it was a fascinating discussion, and particularly for me, because i was sitting on the stage. what i saw is we do come together on approaches for helping the working poor, for example. if it were just me and president obama making policy, which of course would not be america, but if it were, we would pass an expansion of the earned income tax credit for single men. today, we could get that done. criminal justice reform is another area. probably, we could find that some of our scholars will be different than the president's, but we all agree that we need some criminal justice reform. some of it is philosophical.

incarcerated men, mostly, some women, but mostly incarcerated men are never treated as any sort of asset for the country. that is a problem. it is a moral problem. what are we actually doing so that people can be enter into society? what are we doing so we are not lucky people of so much for nonviolent crimes. at the same time, how are we looking at people that are incarcerated, need to be incarcerated, and looking at the origins of this particular behavior, instead of having a left wing, let them out, it is all about racism, or right wing, lock them up and throw it the key. i think there is go for coming together on all kinds of interesting new policies. host: two more questions. mr. roarty: a lot has been made about hillary clinton's problems -- mr. brooks: what problems? [laughter] mr. roarty: i'm curious, do you

still consider her a formidable opponent to whoever would be the republican nominee? mr. brooks: oh yeah. totally formidable. she has all the money in the world, a lot of endorsements. they're basically three things that will predict who will be the candidate. one is polls, the other is money, and the third is endorsements at the state and local level. when you see someone running away with two of those, you have to say, this is a really strong candidate. any republican but does not take hillary clinton seriously will have a rough road ahead. i think she is a strong candidate, smart, she has her mind around policies, incredibly experience. i think she is beatable, but i don't she will be easy to beat. mr. hohmann: finally, back to actual legislative policymaking, one of the other things you hear

from the right these days is more outcry about corporate welfare. we are having this debate now on the export-import bank, which has temporarily expired here. is it a good direction to have that debate in the party, or is it too negative as far as putting forward solutions? mr. brooks: the way you make a corporate welfare debate really negative is fighting against something. the way you make a positive is fighting for someone. in particular, someone who has been left behind. this should be part of the bigger debate about corporate cronyism. the biggest problem we have is not the bank, per se. aei scholars come to blows on this. we have economists sitting next to each other that disagree with each other. no one at aei is down with corporate cronyism -- old school

backroom dealing. that is just wrong. it comes down to a big question, what kind of country we are. either you are a country that believes in competition, or believes that getting rid of competition. you cannot be both. by the way, each one of us has to decide which one we are too. either you believe and cub -- in competition, and want to win it, or you want to stamp it out because you do not believe the competition. increasingly, we have this cognitive dissonance where the most powerful players in any corporate sector are able to get special favors. the way they are able to do it is working the system. let stand against them. let's agree that we have to stand against that. we, conservatives, have to be the biggest militants against it, and the same way that we have to be the biggest militants against any waste, fraud, or abuse. host: we are all out of time. arthur brooks, author of "conservative heart," thank you

for the lively conversation. mr. brooks: thank you. appreciate it. host: we started out talking about the race for a speaker at the house. where does it stand out? what is the timeline for the vote? how many candidates are waiting for paul ryan to run? mr. hohmann: it really does come down to paul ryan, if he runs. we are in this funny phase. technically, you don't do you member of the house of representatives to be speaker. it has been funny because everyone is waiting around for paul ryan, who is doing this hamlet act. newt gingrich said, if he is called upon, he would do it. jc watts was, a congressman from oklahoma, no longer in the

house, said he is interested in it. it is funny because we say no when is interested in the job, it is a terrible job, but then we are seeing all the people who probably would not be very good at it, floating themselves. it has been kind of hilarious to watch it. host: are republicans going to heed the advice that we hear from arthur brooks, come together? mr. roarty: a lot of strategists would love to see the presidential candidate do it, especially on an issue like immigration. there are a lot of pressures here. bc and the republican primary. donald trump is number one in the polls for a reason. he has come out strongly against

immigration reform, and wants to build a giant wall on the border with mexico. the problem is maybe some of these candidates would like to take these positions, but they would also like to win the primary too. it is hard to reverse yourself once you get into the general election. it puts you in a tough. a tough spot. mr. hohmann: aspirational versus angry. are a lot of people who are really angry, and frustrated about the last few years. i think they do but effectively hate anything that is president obama, or conservative, or not. i'll jump is not really a movement conservative. i think it is really hard for a lot of these insider conservatives, establishment conservatives, which aei would be, to grapple with what is going on in the country. everything the party is doing right now is alienating voters and make it harder to win next november. i think someone like arthur sees it happening, and they are torn.

he is not an elected official. he is more accountable to the mainstream conservative donors and scholars in new york mdc, and not the angry base of the party in places like iowa and south carolina. mr. roarty: as good as his ideas sound, brooks would have a difficult time winning up republican primary, and i think he would be the first to admit it. really, the three candidates of the moment right now are donald trump, because in, and carly fiorina, none of whom have held public office. host: the people they are talking to are not really the people that will vote -- in other words, the establishment is saying, it is early. mr. hohmann: they are. they have been saying that for five months now. it is hard to ultimately see na