issue one. libertarians unleashed. >> as you can see, for the second year in a row -- [ cheers and applause ] >> kentucky senator rand paul won with 31%. texas senator ted cruz came in second with 11%. ben carson came in third at 9%. governor christie came in at 8%. governor walker came in at 7%. senator santorum, former senator santorum at 7% and

florida senator marco rubio at 6%. >> since kentucky senator rand paul's stellar showing at the political conference six months ago, senator paul has continued to make waves around the nation. as the 2016 presidential race draws closer two years away, senator paul is centering himself at the heart of republican party politics. and get this. he has reframed traditional libertarianism. he's repute yated his isolationist character. for example, he voted in favor of military action against isis. >> if the vote came to you, would you vote yes or no? >> yes, i would vote yes and i would do it in a heart beat because i think that radical islam, isis is a threat to the united states, a threat to our embassies, to our consulates, to our journalists. >> question, is senator rand paul a libertarian and is he

leading libertarians toward the mainstream of politics? >> i think that's a fair assessment. rand paul is not as pure a libertarian as his father ron paul was. rand paul is making accommodations to what's happening. for example, he backed off his total cut in foreign aid. he's much tougher on doing battle with isis than a lot of libertarians are who may say just get out of the region. but he's going to have some problems in the primaries because i think the fundamental core of the republican party at its elite level is still interventionist. it's or defensed to cold war. it's still behind sort of the cheney-bush foreign poll si. also you get into some social and cultural and boarder issues and things like that and a more traditional conservatism is still dominant in the republican party. but he's really -- he's been a very powerful force and effective force over the last two years. >> eleanor, twice as many men as women declare themselves to be libertarian. can you account for that? >> i think men like to think

they can do it on their own and they don't need government. i think women traditionally look to government for a helping hand because they know they can't count on the men. add a footnote to that as for rand paul, i don't think his recent support now for air strikes against isis is redefining libertarianism. it's more putting his finger to the wind and checking where public opinion is. he's definitely got ambition to run for president. he's putting together a team and politico detailed a dozen people who he considers his insiders. i would point out there wasn't a single woman among them. i think he's an interesting figure. i think he is desperately trying to run away from his father's image. denot want to be seen as a -- he does not want to be seen as a pure libertarian. he is trying to redefine the republican party in some positive ways and along the way

maybe he will redefine libertarianism but he doesn't want to be known as a libertarian first and foremost. he wants to be seen as a mainstream republican who is modernizing the republican party. he may be successful. >> there's a poll data. since 1972, the data shows that women are far more likely than men to identify with the major political parties than to call themselves ends or affiliate with minor parties. politically women stick with the major brands, eleanor. does that surprise you? >> no, that doesn't surprise me. again, women are looking for security in a changing world, and i think the take decisional -- traditional brand offer a little more than that than some of the outliers. >> what kind of libertarian are you? >> i suppose i'm a conservative libertarian. i'm not on the rand paul side but i recognize there's incongruity between having, for example, -- we should have guns in homes, or rights for homosexuals, for example, is something that we would find

uncomfortable. i think rand paul's opportunity is that he is very popular with younger americans. he has the ability to bring in people who would never have considered voting for the republican party before. but as pat pointed to, i think he's going to struggle in 2016 to deal with that established conservative line which is more interventionist than foreign policy. >> okay. who are the libertarians? >> the pure research center reports this about libertarians, quote: men were about twice as likely as women to say the term libertarian describes them well and to know the meaning of the term. men 15%, women 7%. unquote. more college graduates, 15%, identify themselves as libertarians whereas those with no more than a high school education, 7%, identify themselves as libertarians. there were also partisan differences. 14% said they were libertarian and 12% of republicans said

they were libertarian and 6% of democrats said they were libertarians. mort, are you libertarian? >> no, i am not libertarian. i would consider myself to be a moderate liberal and a moderate conservative depending on who the candidate is. >> the finger to the wind. >> no, i make a judgment about a can cat in personal terms more than anything else. to me that's the most important part of anybody's potential to serve the country, to work as a leader of the country and frankly-- >> you're called an independent. >> i am an glindz no party affiliation. >> no party affiliation. i've never had a party affiliation although i predominantly supported democrats for national office. >> you vote frequently republican or democrat? >> on national terms i voted much more frequently with the democrats. in state and local terms, i've voted much more frequently for republicans. >> you must know some tea partiers, do you? >> i know them very -- very few

of them. i never get invited to a tea party. >> you think the tea partiers are libertarians? >> i don't think they're libertarians. i just think they have a political philosophy-- >> that's one of the libertarian -- rand paul and all the republicans are basically together is sort of small government. although paul ryan, he's moving to reform the welfare state and change it to a degree. so it's -- you know what it goes back to, john? you have two great figures in the conservative movement, libertarian. mary is a libertarian figure. russell kirk is the traditionalist conservative. >> who did mary -- who did he train?

who am i thinking of? >> they both come up in-- traditionalism, john, take a look at scotland and all these other places. libertarian is one of the fors but comiewn tearianism, nationalism and tribalism are some of the most powerful forces in the world today and both of them are rising. >> libertarian always sounds good on its face. when you realize it means cutting off all the wonderful services you enjoy from government, people back up. >> don't forget the mclaughlin group has its own website and you can watch this program or earlier programs at any time from anywhere in the world at mclaughlin.com. could anything be more simpler or more character building. issue two, democracy or mao to be crazy. since 1990, nearly 35 years, the washington, d.c. base cq roll call has calculated the net worth of every member of the united states congress.

435 representatives and 100 senators. then ranked them. to crack this year's list, of the top 50 richest members of congress, a member has to be worth at least $7.4 million, up from $6.7 million one year ago. the top 50 are also white. 18% of the richest members are women. 30 are republicans. 20 or democrats. first here are the top ten richest members from the house of representatives. number one, representative daryl ice is a, net worth $357 million. representative issa is the richest member of congress, house and senate. number two, mike mccall, texas republican, $118 million. number three, john delaney, maryland democrat, $112

million. number four, colorado democrat, $74 million. number five, scott peters, california democrat, $45 million. number six, susan dell benny, washington democrat, $38 million. number 7, birm buchanan, $37 million. eight, shelly pingre, $34 million. number nine, gary miller, california republican, $33 million. number 10, nancy pelosi, california, democrat, $29 million. question. why does congress attract millionaires, do you think, tom. >> i think the big issue is a lot of people who are millionaires have the financial flexibility to be able to run for office and to be able to take the time out and the investment of time that that takes campaigning. also, i think-- >> and the money. >> and the money. but at the same time, if you look at people's -- people who are wealthy. they tend to be a lot of the time in positions of ceos or positions where they have a lot

of influence so moving into a national level leadership position is perhaps to some degree an extension of that. i think those are the two factors i would point to. >> john, let's take the rockefeller family. they've got enormous wealth. they inherented it. nelson rk feller wants to go -- rockefeller wants to go into service. their son of one of them out there in west virginia, he's in public service. they like to go into these things because they've got all the money in the world and they're not satisfied with that and i think they want to do something for public service. it's not a bad thing at all. >> there are some wonderful expamples of families in -- examples of families in public service. i must say in looking at that list, if you're an average voter out there, you're not distinguishing between the super rich, the mostly rich, the just rich enough to make it to congress. people think members of congress live in a bubble, that they don't really understand their concerns. i just sat in on two focus groups of women voters in little rock, arkansas, and in des moines, iowa.

and they say, oh, members of congress, they have their health care. they don't have to worry about feeding their families, putting gas in the car. the gulf between people in congress is enormous in this country. maybe the wealth is part of that, but i think that's a very -- people -- voters think everybody in office-- >> salary at $200,000 almost and that puts it pretty much out of -- that's four times the median average. >> roll call's richest senators in the u.s. senate. one, jay rockefeller, west virginia democrat, $108 million. two, mark warner, virginia democrat, $95 million. three, richard blumenthal, connecticut democrat, $62 million. four, dianne feinstein, california democrat, $44 million. five, jim rish, idaho republican, $19 million. number six, bob corker, tennessee republican, $19 million. number seven, claire mccaskill,

missouri democrat, $18 million. number eight, john mccain, arizona republican, $15 million. number nine, john hovan, north dakota republican, $15 million. number ten, ron johnson, wisconsin republican, $14 million. question. given the number of millionaires in the senate, did you find it a bit audacios that 48 democrats voted to amend the constitution, to restrict political spending by other rich people. mort zuckerman? >> no. why would that be a surprise coming from the the democratic peampt. let's face it, the republicans have access to many more people of wealth by and large than the democrats too. of course they're going to want to try and limit that source of funding. >> that's a much bigger issue, what went on in the senate a couple of weeks ago. and that's the democracy for a constitutional amendment that would amend the constitution to put some restrictions on money giving. you ask people out there why we can't raise the minimum wage,

why we can't stop companies from taking -- from going ashore and denying the taxes they should be paying to the treasury, why we can't get a lot of things done in washington, it's because of special interest money lobbying and influencing lawmakers. so because of the supreme court decision, there is now some effort around trying to pass the constitutional amendment. it will take a long time, but the influence of big money, a lot of it called dark money, people don't have to disclose who they are is poisoning our democracy. >> speaking of dark money, you have any of that, mort? >> let me put it this way. to the best of my knowledge, i do not. i would have to confess if i were in the senate, you maybe would have me on the list. maybe the number one person on the list. >> number one, you have more money than rockefeller? >> this rockefeller, yes. but this is the end of my

commentary. >> mort does good things with his money. there's a new book coming out. it's called "billionaires" and assessing their political influence. mort is in the book. i approve everything he does with his money. he supports a lot of health issues. >> do you think the rich can really understand the plight of the lower classes? >> yes, i think some of them can and some of them will not because obviously they're living a different lifestyle, to put it mildly. they also have a perspective on a lot of other issues. one of the things being, for example, the fiscal health of the country. that's something a lot of wealthy people have a real concern for and something they're going to talk about. they also understand if i may say so what philanthropy means and how the community has to support a lot of-- >> you have a new zuckerman building going up. is that completed yet?

>> almost. >> one thing-- >> i commend ow that. issue three -- hold on. spirning a web. -- spinning a web. >> i decided it was time to come back in and rejoin the debate. we're in a fran decisional period in the country -- transitional period in the country. we need to have strong debate inside the democratic party and between the two parties on where the country needs to go. >> former u.s. senator jim webb ignited speculation about a run for the 2016 democratic presidential nomination. during a late august trip to iowa. senator webb stumped 800 miles of the state, ostensibly on behalf of democrats up for reelection in november. senator webb was noncommittal whether asked by a radio iowa interviewer whether he would run in 2016. jim webb is a decorated war hero receiving the navy cross for extraordinary heroism. he is opposed to interventionism and foreign policy. he has been selectively critical of former secretary of state hillary clinton. jim webb is not lacking in

national security credentials and he's also the author of nine books. in addition to his six years in the u.s. senate, webb was secretary of the navy under president ronald reagan. after graduating from the naval academy at annapolis, webb went as a marine in the vietnam war where he earned two bronze stars and two purple hearts. his latest book "i heard my country calling" is a memoir of his life growing up in an air force family and his subsequent military career. question, can jim webb give hillary clinton a run for her money if he gets in the race? eleanor clift, be brief, please. >> i think jim webb is a fascinating individual. he considers himself an intellectual. if he gets in the race, there will be some very high minded conversations but he left the senate after one term because he can't stand theed forker of politics. i -- the fodder of politics. i think he could offer a lot. >> he's a terrific job. he's a war hero.

he served the country well. doesn't suffer fools gladly. i think it would be tremendously interesting to have him in there. i think he's a good, different voice inside the democratic party. he's a patriotic guy but not a big interventionist in wars because he's seen an awful lot of it. >> he's been a republican and a democrat and probably an independent. he's not a down the line democrat by any means. >> i would say as a conservative, i would probably not be voting for the democratic candidate but i would think it would be a great thing for the country to have jim webb in there with hillary clinton. i would much rather he was on that primary campaign trail than elizabeth warren because i think he brings a unique perspective to the democratic party and everyone in the country could benefit from those exchanges. >> here's an interesting factoid. wealthy politicians are they more likely to favor the economic status quo? do you care to address that? >> no, i would say they aren't more likely. >> they are not? >> not with the people i know

or have dealt w. they understand that we have to make a lot of changes in our current -- particularly our fiscal policy and our tax policy in order to get the economy of this country moving again and to do it in a sustainable way. >> it says here the body of political science data that shows that ownership in a society makes one more to the status quo, whether that ownership stake is middle class, homeownership or a millionaire's wealth. >> i don't think it applies to guys that go into politics. i think it applies to people with wealth. people that go into politics with a lot of money want to change things, dramatic figures. >> let's push this out a little bit. there are no billionaires in either house or the senate. correct? do you think you could correct that? >> the silk stocking district must be-- >> i remember there have been efforts to run for mayor in new york. >> thinking about mayor of new york, the only billionaire

politician that i'm aware of active on the scene today, still active is mike bloomberg. >> he was a terrific mayor. >> he has about $22 billion. >> $18 billion i think. >> that's this weekend. >> i first met him on a board of something. he was phenomenal. >> he does a lot of work in bermuda. >> he does a lot of work everywhere he goes. he was a terrific mayor. he was there for 12 years as a mayor and he rebuilt the sense of the city. he's about 73, 74. >> why doesn't he run? >> run for what? >> for president. he tried before. >> he's an independent now. >> a scale of zero to 100, zero meaning no likelihood whatsoever and 10 meaning --

[indiscernible] -- what is the likely he will run for president? >> i'll pu it one in three. >> i'd put it at four. >> i'd put it at five. >> well, i really want to continue the trend. i'll put it at six. >> i'll put it at eight or nine. i saw that piece that he did with those two women out in -- i think it was idaho or iowa. and he was right on the money. issue four, beyond the rebound. >> first, beginning with the number one thing that most americans care about, the economy. this morning we found out that our economy actually grew at a stronger clip in the second quarter than we originally thought. companies are investing. consumers are spending. over the past four and a half years, our businesses have now created nearly ten million new jobs so there are reasons to feel good about the direction we're headed. >> we are now five years into the economic rebound from the recession of 2007 to 2009 but

jubilation is premature. so says a new report from harvard university's u.s. competitiveness project titled "an economy doing half its job." the report's authors are expempts in business strategy and economic competitiveness. according to the study which surveys the views of almost 2000 harvard business school alumni in a range of occupations, u.s. corporations are now well positioned to compete internationally. wages and incomes are stagnant depressing the vital consumer spending, the economy needs to thrive. the median household income is still 4.6% lower than it was in 2007 when the recession began. if the harvard study is correct, things are going to get worse. four out of ten surveyed said

wages and benefits for u.s. workers will drop even more over the next three years. almost half said more businesses will outsource work to contractors instead of hiring new employees. the short-term result will be a two-tiered committee in which corporations and shareholders prosper while the middle class continues to decline. and that say the study's coauthors is unsustainable in the long run. quote, businesses should be taking the stagnation of living standards of the average american as the canary in their coal mine. companies will not survive for the long run if their communities are stagnant, unquote. question, who is right, president obama who says we should feel good about the economy or professors porter and ripkin who say the economy is only doing half its job?

mort? >> i certainly agree with the professors on this matter because in fact, it's even worse than some of the things they're suggesting because a lot of the employment we're talking about today is part- time employment. and part-time employment is treated by all the national statistics as if they were full- time employment. it is one of the weakest recoveries, maybe the weakest recovery we've had since the end of world war ii and despite a huge stimulus, both in monetary and fiscal policy, we have barely eked out growth. you're looking at 2.1% growth in gdp which is well below what it should have been under the circumstances of this kind of stimulus. so we're nowhere near out of this downturn of the economy. it has not created the jobs we need at the wages we need. >> when will we be at the downturn point? >> as soon as you see a major increase in gdp that extends for at least three years that will run 3 and a half percent or better. >> this isn't exactly news. we've been reading about the wealth gap, income gap, skills

gap. this was a survey of well placed harvard graduates, business school graduates, and they pinpoint education is a problem. transportation infrastructure, job skills and political dysfunction. i think they should step up a little and start lobbying some people on capitol hill because government are not working. >> i read a book called the great betrayal. american corporations have gone out into the global economy and are doing great competing but they do well by getting rid of all these high paid american workers action getting these factories out of the united states, getting away from the regulations, and they're dumping behind america and they're going into the global economy. globalization is what is killing the working folks of the western world. >> speaking about the global economy, can you shed light on that? >> i think globalization does a lot of good around the world. you want to bring income levels up. it produces new opportunities in the united states. but at the same time what mort is talking about and the fact that we have companies refusing

to bring people on, whether it's because of obama care reck rations or other taxes -- regulations or other taxes, we see businesses moving abroad. the american economy is struggling because of structural issues that we are ignoring. >> well stated. out of time. predicks, pat? >> rand paul will be one of three finalists for the republican nomination. >> eleanor? >> constitutional amendment to regulate campaign spending, campaign donations will gain strength after the 2016 candidates each have to raise a billion dollars. >> the next president of the united states will be a republican. >> mort zuckerman? >> the next election year will still see the economy and jobs as the principle issue because those are the weaknesses in both of those candidates will continue till then. >> with one month to go before the mid term elections i predict the hispanic turnout will fail to reach the level of 2010. this year the turnout rate will not rise above 30% due to

disillusionment with president obama over his repeated postponement of immigration reform. bye-bye.

this week on "moyers & company" -- >> people need to start voting against the excessive power of the great moneyed interests. but more than that, we need a powerful grassroots movement that will fight for the interests of ordinary men and women and for this new generation of americans that's coming along right now. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- anne gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement and the advancement of international peace and security at carnegie.org. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose missioo