i remember william buckley and i would be curious to get the guest's opinion about what would williamuckley be thinking right now and how would he have approached the trump presidency? guest: thank you for that question. i was a great admirer of bill buckley as well. i do sometimes ask myself that question, but the answer is really unknowable. he was such an independent thinker and he could be very unpredictable. we do know that when he wrote about trump in, i believe it was 2000, he was extremely hostile. he viewed trump as guilt all the way down. but on the other hand he came around to being very hostile to the iraq war and maybe that would have made him more sympathetic to the challenge trump posed to the republican party in 2015 and 2016. it is just impossible to know. host: william buckley -- guest: let me just -- host: was the founder of your magazine. go ahead. guest: of course. one of bill's greatest achievement was to expel conspiracy theorists from the ranks at the cost of himself in the magazine politically. kicking out the john birch society at a time when leadership was s

it was hosted by a man named william f. buckley jr. and in 1989, on that program, william f. buckley jr. hosted a debate about free-market competitiveness the united states. pat schroeder argufavor ofman, government involvement in research and development and againsu.n. ambassador jeane kirkpatrick. i want to show you a clip from that program. take a look. >> we noticed that. [ applause ] ] [ chuckl well, but the government... >> [ chuckles ] >> dr. brla, what is your view of the ideal relationship between a private company and the federal government, when ite to partnership on a covid-19 vaccine? >> i have to say i agree with the lady that spoke. i think the covid-19 -- the success of the two vaccines so far is a great testament to the power of science, but alsoo the power of the private sector and the power of innovation at the hands of the private sector. i think of the speed with which you can move in the private sect, the risks that you can take without having to worryur about pending taxpayers's money, and the ways that performance also is veryocused in the private secto

that is not william buckley the conservative pundit, this is a state official. the public diplomacy is not very successful. quietme by a lot of diplomacy especially with u.s. and nato allies, a critical aspect. things to you,y simon, elizabeth, eddie mary. over to eric for final words. thanks to you as well as those posing questions on the audience. announcer: you are watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. announcer: on the presidency gwendolyn bought shaw provides an overview of the gallery's

that is not william buckley the conservative pundit, this is a state official. not very successful. overcome by quiet -- especially with u.s. and nato allies, a critical aspect. >> thank you. my thanks to you, simon, elizabeth, and mary. over to you for final words. >> my thanks to you as well as those posing questions on the audience. announcer: you are watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. >> next on "the presidency," national portrait gallery senior historian gwendolyn dubois shaw provides an overview of the "every eyew exhibit, is upon me: first ladies of the united states." she discusses how paintings and

that is not william buckley the conservative pundit, this is a state official. the public diplomacy is not very successful. overcome by a lot of quiet diplomacy especially with u.s. and nato allies, a critical aspect. >> thank you, my things to you, simon, elizabeth, eddie mary. over to eric for final words. my thanks to you as well as those posing questions from the audience. >> you're watching american history tv every weekend on c-span3. by america's cable television company. to you byis brought these television companies as a public service. >> tonight on lectures in history, a professor teaches a class about how colonial history is remembered through historic sites and monuments and sometimes contested. here is a preview. she's pictured here in two of the monuments, she has a number of monuments erected to her, most of which put up in the 19th century. woman who is the earliest publicly funded monument of a woman in the united states. see on up of which you the left. choice an interesting that tells us a lot about what americans were trying to commemorate a

that is not william buckley the conservative pundit, this is a state official. the public diplomacy is not very successful. quietme by a lot of diplomacy especially with u.s. and nato allies, a critical aspect. things to you,y simon, elizabeth, eddie mary. over to eric for final words. thanks to you as well as those posing questions on the audience. announcer: you are watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. announcer: on the presidency gwendolyn bought shaw provides an overview of the gallery's exhibit. first ladies of the united states. she discusses how paintings and photographs depicting these into can provide insight their lives and time in the executive mansion. the white house historical society owes to this event and provided the video. >> this evening it is my pleasure to welcome dr. gwendolyn dubois shaw. portraite national gallery senior historian and director of history, research, and scholarly programs. appointed in 2019 she is the first woman and first african-american to hold that position. before joining the national por

i remember william buckley and i would be curious to get the guest's opinion about what would william be thinking right now and how would he have approached the trump presidency? guest: thank you for that question. i was a great admirer of bill buckley as well. i do sometimes ask myself that question, but the answer is really unknowable. he was such an independent thinker and he could be very unpredictable. we do know that when he wrote about trump in, i believe it was 2000, he was extremely hostile. he viewed trump as guilt all the way down. but on the other hand he came around to being very hostile to the iraq war and maybe that would have made him more sympathetic to the challenge trump posed to the republican party in 2015 and 2016. it is just impossible to know. host: william buckley -- guest: let me just -- host: was the founder of your magazine. go ahead. guest: of course. one of bill's greatest achievement was to expel conspiracy theorists from the ranks at the cost of himself in the magazine politically. kicking out the john birch society at a time when leadership was saying

heroes that you might get in the traditionalist views like ronald reagan and winston churchill and william buckley, people like that. so the modernist worldview a traditional would have a lot more belief and sort of truth and reveals through revelations whereas the modernist is much more scientific. it's more the enlightenment of progress through science and reason and capitalism. 30% of the population in the united states is traditional and that is where they are anchored and about 50% is anchored in modernism so some would be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, john f. kennedy, milton friedman in some ways archetype. and guys like bill gates that are other strong modernists. each of these comes out and as it evolves they reject the worldview that came before them. modernism rejected base and religion so many believed in reason and science. they don't believe in scripture or revelation. part of it there's a rejection that comes before. there's this alignment between traditionalist ethics and the modern science that drove america for many decades and so the progressivism came along then it talks about

. >> the traditional is world would be like ronald reagan and winston churchill and william buckley phyllis scheffler and people like that for the modernist worldview, and so are traditional worldview would have a lot more belief in revelation and through faith where is the modernist is much more scientific. it's more the enlightenment of progress, through science, through reason and capitalism and if you think about we would estimate 30% of the population of the united states is traditional and that is where they are anchored and 50% is anchored in the modern view. an example of the modernist would be thomas jefferson, benjamin franklin in madison, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, and guys like will gates another strong modernist. now progressives which make up about 20% of the population right now we estimate, so each of these comes out as the world evolves they partly reject the worldview that came before them. modernism rejected faith. it rejected religion largely. many modernists are atheist. they believe in -- they don't believe in scripture or revelation are things like that. there

the heroes you might get in traditional would be like ronald reagan and weston churchill and william buckley, people like that. so the modernist worldview, a traditional worldview would have a lot more belief in truth through revelation through faith, the modernist is much more scientific, the enlightenment of progress through science, through reason, through capitalism and if you think about we estimate about 30% of the population of the united states is traditional and that's their anchor and 50% is anchored in modernism, some examples are not under modernist, thomas jefferson, ben franklin in madison, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, and freedman is a type of modernist. and guys like bill gaetz is another strong modernist, the progressives which make up 20% of the population that we estimate, each of these comes out and as the world evolves, they partly reject the worldview that became before them, modernism rejected faith, a rejected religion largely to many atheists they believe in science, they do not believe in scripture or the revelation or things like that, part of them there is a

heroes you might get in traditional world, would be like ronald reagan and winston churchill, and william buckley. phyllis schlafly. so the modernest world view -- traditional world view would have a lot more belief in sort of truth being revealed through revelations, through faith. the modernist is much more scientific, more of the enlightenment of progress, through science, through reason, through capitalism, and it's -- if you think about -- we estimate that 30% of the population of the united states is traditional and that's where their anchored, and about 50% is anchored in modernism. so some of the examples of modernist would be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, madison, john f. kennedy, einstein,ed disson, i milton freedman, in some ways. and guys like bill gates. a strong federalist. the progressives which make up 20% of the population, we estimate, that is -- each of thesecomes out and as the world view evolves they partly reject the world view that they -- that came before them. so modernism rejected faith. it rejected religion largely. so many modernists or athiests and believe in reason

heroes you might get in traditional world would be like ronald reagan and winston churchill, william buckley, people like that. and so the modernist worldview, and so a traditional worldview would have a lot more belief in sort of truth being revealed through revelation, through faith. modernist is much more scientific. it's more of the enlightenment of progress through science, through reason, through capitalism and if you think about 30% of the population in the united states is traditional that is where they are anchored. and about 50% is anchored in modernism. so some examples of modernists would be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, madison, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, milton freedman in some way and guys like bill gates is a strong modernists. now they make up about 20% of the population right now, each of these comes out as a worldview evolves, they partly reject the worldview that came before them. so modernism rejected faith. it rejected religion largely. to so many modernists or atheists believe in reason, they believe in science. they don't believe in scripture or the revelati

you might get in traditional swap zero it would be like ronald reagan and winston churchill and william buckley, people like that, so the modernist worldview and so traditional worldview would have a lot more belief in sort of true things revealed through revelation through faith whereas modernist is much more scientific, more of the enlightenment of progress through science, three reason, through capitalism and if you think about-- we estimate about 30% of the population united states is traditional and that's where they are anchored and about 50% is anchored in modernism so some examples of modernist would be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, friedman is some ways. guys like bill gates is another strong modernist of the progressives which make up about 20% of the population right now we estimate, so each of these comes out and as the worldview evolves a partly rejects the worldview that became before them, so modernism rejected faith it's rejected religion, largely. many modernists are atheists. they believe in reason, science. they don't believe in scripture

the kind of heroes you might get in traditional might be like ronald reagan, winston churchill, william buckley, people like that. so traditional worldview would have a lot more leaf and sort of truth being revealed through revelation through faith. the modernist is much more scientific. it's more of the enlightenment of progress through science through reason through capitalism. if you think about, we would estimate about 30% of the population of the united states is traditional. that is where they are anchored. in about 50% is anchored in modernism. so some of the examples of modernist to be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, madison, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, milton freedman in some way. and guys like bill gates is another strong modernist. now the progressives which make up about 20% of the population right now -- mexico each of these comes out is the worldview of all they partly reject the worldview that came before them. modernism rejected faith. it rejected religion largely. they believe in reason, they believe in science, they don't believe in scripture were revelations and things

heroes you might get in the traditionalist world is like ronald reagan and winston churchill and william buckley, people like that. the modernist worldview is -- and so of traditional worldview would have more belief in sort of reveal through revelation through faith where as the modernist is much more scientific and more the enlightenment of progress through science and through reason and through capitalism and it is, if you think about we estimate that about 30% of the population in the united states is traditional in there or that's word they are anchored in about 50% is incurred in modernism so some of the examples of modernist would be thomas jefferson, ben franklin, madison, john f. kennedy, einstein, edison, milton freedman in some ways is an archetype of a modernist butt and guys like bill gates is another strong modernist. the progressives which make up about 20% of the populace right now and that is so each of these comes out as the worldview evolves they partly reject the worldview that became before them. modernism rejected faith. a rejected religion largely so many modernists are at

i'm going take us back to william f. buckley. he welcomed sleszinger to the program. they talked about executive power. take a look at this clip. >> in a recent period they swing away from executive power. in the 1970s people talking about the presidency as an impossible job. >> about the empirical presidency and all kinds of things. >> post watergate, the people wrote books about the illusion of presidential power. gerald ford gave a thing said, fear is not the empirical presidency but the imperilled presidency. one thing i give president reagan credit for is restoring faith in the presidency as a workable office. and in so doing, one of the ironies i think historians will find in the reagan period is this man who came to the white house in order to dismantle government, who said in nice inaugural address, government is not the solution, it's the problem. as one of his ironic legacies, renewed the faith in the presidency and in government. >> this argument about the imperial presidency and the increasing power of the executive branch, especially at the expense of the

. >> well, this was a debatthat took place in 1965 between william f. buckleye founder of the "national review," and james baldwin, the author and dssayist and playwright civil rights activist, among many other things. or not the american dream comesr atthe expense of black people in amica. and this was a debate that i was kind of slightly obsessed withr e better part of seven years, i'd say. book about it.ublished a his name is nicholas bucola. he's a professor of political science. the book is called "the fire is upon us." >> it just seemed to me just suca amatic moment and ch an important one. so, these two movements that did so mtoucefine 20th century political history, to have these two finigures clawas just - just irresistible. >> what was really utscinating at was just seeing the way that the same issues that se urround race that weeing play out now were the same issues playing out 55 years ago. and when you tch that debate, ou can see that even though times have changed, policies know, we approach race and equity in this country hasn't really changed th

william f. buckley jr. with barry goldwater in 1989. take a look. >> we republicans used to say about the democrats, they spend and spend and elect and elect. >> and tax and tax. >> now the republicans borrow and borrow and elect and elect. >> is a perspective, an economic perspective there that teaches us that we were overfrightened by it back then. >> no, but there is a philosophy that you are hearing more and more of from, unfortunately, some highly respected people in the economic business that we haven't gotten into any trouble with this deficit. so why worry? and some day, somebody is going to say, where's all this money at you owe us? >> all right, senator, i will grant you that those who call themselves conservatives these days have completely lost their moral authority to preach about federal deficits and debt. my question to you is, what is the point at which you begin to consider, after we're out of the pandemic, after we're out of an economic emergency, the consequences of trillions and trillions of dollars of spend i ing? >

americans for freedom is because he would see this is an organization that goes back to 1960, william f buckleyeople who realize they need to enshrine values of liberty and the constitution and make sure those were heard by each rising generation and that is what we've been doing for the past 60 years and this is something we don't endorse political candidates, we believe principles are more important than politics or politicians we have chapters all over the country who every day go into battle with professors like this to make sure conservative ideas are given a platform and hearing on college campuses and credit to john, the student who is not just sitting down and taking this and hopefully this will bring more conservatives to his side and hopefully create a free and open exchange of ideas that universities should be about. >> do you see the pendulum swinging back at some point or do you think for now conservatives are not going to be the most popular people on campus? >> this is nothing new but we see whenever there is increased intolerance toward conservative students that does serve as a

william f. buckley jr.y at the launch of the conservative movement in the mid 1950s made a very good point of kicking out conspiracy theorists, the kooks, anti-semites, kkk. you need leaders within a party to be able to stand up to the ideas that are going to cause its demise. we don't have that right now at least in the republican house of representatives. >> anybody who does speak up, it seems like are quickly put in their place, john. i asked one of the republicans who voted to impeach trump to join us this weekend. and i was told this person didn't want pile-on right now. >> yeah. and the thing is they have to have the courage of their convictions. in the long run one person with courage can make a majority. but to confront this you need to call a lie a lie and a cult a cult. that is what we're dealing with right now. there is a problem in this country and the republican party in particular because for too long they played ftse with fanatics and believe you can't win without the crazies in your constitu

intercontinental ballistic missile treaty, with the soviets national review, you know with william f. buckleyhey run an addition, called reagan's suicide pack. which they criticize reagan and the imf treaty. it's featured criticism from jack camp, henry kissinger and richard nixon. and one the treaty was not very viable, and they left the soviets with a significant advantage. and the question whether or not the treaty was actually motivated by domestic political concerns. does anybody know what i'm talking about? you know president reagan was making this deal not because he believed didn't, but because he was so unpopular in that moment, that his poll numbers were so far down that he was making this political. so nixon and kissinger for their part, and i believe to my knowledge that this is the first time that nixon and kissinger have released a joint statement since watergate. they thought it was that important that they come out together and criticize president reagan, for his naive foreign policy. so nixon and kissinger said, that anyone who indulges with the soviets disingenuous fantasies

things like witness and william of buckley's first and the conservative mind. they're continuing this is great. when i first saw that senator hawley's book was canceled by simon and schuster. i wasn't surprised. second, it's a lucky author. that book will sell very well if someone is smart enough to pick it up. when you say something is banned by a u.s. senator that's when it sells. >> bill: what do you think of his future? >> i think his future will be all right. senator hawley is being attacked a lot right now. giving a speech condemning the election results or not condemning the results but calling for an investigation should be allowed. it is not the same as insurrection. he put himself in hot water. he was there at the wrong time saying these things before it broke into a riot which hadn't been predicted. maybe they underestimated these things. it appears they did. i think he will survive. it will be a tough time for him. i don't expect him to rise up and put his head up too soon. >> bill: chris bedford, thank you. a couple minutes left here to wrap this u

flake network, but the movement that was once defined by edmund burke, by russell kirk, by william f. buckleymargaret thatcher. >> by ronald reagan. who do they turn to now? mr. pillow. we'll be right back. llow we'll be right back. try hypnosis... or... quit cold turkey. kidding me?! instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. wow! what'd you get, ryan? it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual! what does it do bud? it customizes our home insurance so we only pay for what we need! and what did you get, mike? i got a bike. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ 2020's done a new era has begun so keep pushing forward... because this is twenty twenty won make a different future start different at godaddy.com your grooming business is booming. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on ind