people like russell kerr, richard weaver and the william f. buckley's sewed really rich intellectual tradition that in recent years we have gotten away from as we have dumbed down conservatism. >> host: tell me if you agree i think there are still contemporary intellectuals within the movement, people like mark stein or i would offer thomas sowell but they seem to be getting marginalized. they are not getting as much attention as some other folks. why do you think that is? >> guest: part of it is a product of our culture. you have the entertainment wing of the republicans party really kind of dominating and so you know you can write something really fabulous but as rush limbaugh said something about sandrof luke -- sandra fluke on cable news what's going to get the most attention and so really in the book "too dumb to fail" the title hearkens to the too big to fail mentality where where the case is too big to fail you obviously have financial institutions who had her first incentives to take risks that we the taxpayers would bail them out and i i think

ideological task and by the end of the 1950s he became very conservative and was tapped by william f. buckley to be one of the founding editors of national review. he would have a fair amount of influence on the right in terms of cold war thinking and cold work desk for policies for the rest of his life primarily writing a lot of books. ronald reagan would have most of us know and i would hope all of us know and who i certainly knew that i didn't know until i started researching this book and mike somebody said you should look into reagan. i had no idea he had been anything other than a conservative. he would actually solid new deal democrat for the first half of his life. his father was a die hard democrat and enormous fan of franken rosabell. reagan himself during the depression connected to roosevelt and emotionally sort of paternalistic charismatic father figure who was keeping the nation afloat during this time of crisis and would really start to move to the right until the end of the 1940s and early 1950s particularly some in all and is turn to the right was one of the pope war and incr

that's why william f. buckley- >> that holds true for both sides. >> if she's going to talk, i get to talk. kayleigh said some things in the last segment that i think are very, very unfortunate, especially given her very good intentions. she dismissed and diminished the ku klux klan. >> i never did that. >> yes, you did. >> you got a cans to talk in your segment. i'm going to talk now. you said it's a marginal group and it's not worth anything other than just saying i disavow. sometimes facts should matter. what's actually happening, fact, hate groups are actually growing in the united states. they're not shrinking. that's according to the fbi. the hate groups are multiplying. more terrorists who are white, right wing and white suv -- supremacists have killed people. the hate groups are multiplying and statistics show there's more racial animus right now than there has been. so this whole idea that if someone says this is scary to me, if someone says this is a big deal and i want a national leader like trump to sp

also the william f buckley and rich tradition that in recent years we've gotten away from it as we've dumbed down conservatism to win votes. >> if you agree there are still contemporary in the movement. thomas stole and others. they seem to be marginalized and they're not getting as much attention as some other folks. why do you think that is. >> i think part of it is the product of our culture. you have the inner attainment wing of the republican party who is really dominating right now. you can then write something really fabulous but a rush limbaugh says something about the flu or and coulter so something on cable news, what will get the most attention? really, the book, too dumb to fail, the fail, the title harkens to the too big to fail mentality where in the case of too big to fail you obviously had financial institutions who had incentives to take risks that we, the taxpayers, would bail them out. i think there's a similar movement in government. if you have a perverse incentive to say something controversial or provocative even if the conservative movement cumulatively is harm

who i think would fit as one of your moderate republicans and what does it mean when you have william f buckley, author of a best selling book for modern conservatism and take on welch? >> right, i talk about that book that was written by his brother-in-law. yes the buckley's were right there at the beginning. national review was founded in 1955. the first words of its first editorial spoke of its war history yelling stop. what they wanted to stop was the flow of liberalism in america that started with franklin roosevelt and continued through harry truman. many conservatives, including buckley by the way did not like eisenhower because they saw him as a republican enabler as the liberal tradition. i argue that ike is the alternative model for a different kind of conservatism. we get back to that. ike, both buckley and welch represented two sides of this rising movement. buckley was obviously more intellectual. he wanted it to play in the same arena so that national review was started as an alternative to the great liberal journalists and back then the reporter. he wanted to take liberals on str

then then what does it mean when you have william f buckley, author of conscious of conservative, best-selling book and definitely one of the key text, take on welch. >> guest: goldwater's book was written by buckley's brother-in-law. it's the buckley's were right there at the beginning. national review was founded in 1955, the first words of its first editorial spoke of it standing of force history yelling stop. what they wanted to stop was the flow of liberalism in america that started with franklin roosevelt and continued through harry truman. many conservatives including buckley by the way did not like dwight eisenhower because they saw him as a republican enabler of the liberal tradition. in the book i argue that ike is the alternative model for a different kind of conservativism. we we need to get back to that. both buckley and welch represented two sides of this rising conservative movement. buckley was more intellectual, he really wanted conservativism to play in the same arena that liberals did so that national review was started as an alternative to the great liberal and also back th

for a while is super ideological cast them by the 50s had become very conservative and would william f. buckley to be one of the founding members of the national review and would have a fair amount of influence on the right the terms of cold war thinking in cold war policy as an intellectual for the remainder of his life primarily writing for national review and writing a lot of books. ronald reagan as most of us know and ask their help all of us know when to insert a new plate didn't know until i started researching this book and someone said you should look into reagan. they actually had no idea he had been anything other than a conservative but he was actually a kind of salted new deal democrat and for the first time is like. his father was a die-hard democrat. reagan himself during the depression connected to roosevelt link connected to them emotionally as this paternalistic charismatic father figure who is keeping the nation afloat during this time of crisis and would really start to move to the right until the end of the 1940s and early 1950s and particularly and his turn to the right was

dark money: the hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right" where william f. buckley describes the movement the cocks -- koch's were part of. totalitarian, they were what the conservatives were trying to courage because they thought they were the lunatic fringe. what interested me by the time i wrote this book is they gained so much power they in some ways have become the center of gravity in the republican party. there is a new study from harvard, another professor describe the koch affect, it it is a magnetic pull on the republican party that pulled the whole party with them. i was interested how did they get from way out there to the center of republican politics? in many ways the center of american politics? >> host: is the koch political networking your view stronger than the republican national committee? >> guest: yes. they are in competition in some ways but also in some ways the koch network has subsumed the republican party. the positions republican candidates take are often positions the kochs take. they have the money and often -- campaign funding and othe

and it goes back to william f. buckley many, many years ago saw there was a danger of the right being cast as a fringe, racist, sort of dark movement. and he wanted to protect that to preserve the ideas of free markets, protecting the right to life, all of the stuff that mainstream conservatives believe in. so buckley policed the right and wrote out fringe element and i fear there's a danger now of redefining conservativism to be something that many of us have for a long time fought against. >> yeah. so matt, let me ask you this. so why is it that when something like this happens, when a candidate is not that -- well, he's not being endorsed by the kkk. that's not the point. it's not whether he's being endorsed by the kkk. it's his response to a question about the kkk that was nebulous at best. what is going on here? >> look, i agree. that's a home run. that's a question you want to be asked because it's so easy to dismiss. but i would disagree with you a little bit. i think it is telling that he was endorsed by the kkk. t

to, isn't it also true that going back to the founding of the american conservative union by william f. buckley jr. has been wisking and nodding at racial prejudice and that, too, is coming back to haunt your party? >> i don't accept the premise of the question. let me go back to what you said a few moments ago. the republican party is not for what you said a few moments ago in terms of lower taxes for the rich it's lower taxes for all americans out there. when you look at the policies of ronald reagan and george w. bush and george h.w. bush it's a fiscal conservatism for all americans. >> isn't that bushism that whole panoply of ideas that is being soundly rejected by at least 40% of the voters in your party. >> i don't deny that. and what's also very interesting is that when you take a look at conservatism the supreme court has always j the ultimate litmus test and we had the death of justice scalia and you would think that a lot of conservatives would say, hmm, we probably want a true and trusted conservative that's going to be elected to the presidency that's going to nominate someone in th

most impressed because i grew up in a household that worshiped william f lockley who believe in the liberalization of drugs -- william f buckleyho believed in the liberalization of drugs. i think this is worth noting and looking into. it's a brave and innovative strategy for dealing with rampant heroin addiction. at least you get people under one roof when you can monitor and track people and maybe cut down on crime and the excess law enforcement. i was a history major at fordham, in my mind, that her when addiction is part of a of when nixon went to china, we should have immediately started working on postindustrial policy. needed to recalibrate the public school to focus on traits and help people prepare for the global economy. so much of this heroin addiction is rooted in unemployment, hopelessness, and it affects a lot of white, middle-aged and also younger -- when you look at heroine, you look at a lot of communities where the industrial days was once strong. the evaporation of strong middle class jobs. a big scene here. our presence in afghanistan, though, you don't have to be in it it to know. my father was in the milit

in this example and don't take my word for it, there's a quote where william f. buckley describes the movement at the koch brothers are part of it as a narco totalitarian. they were part of the far right that the conservatives were trying to purge because they thought they were the lunatic fringe. and so, what interested me by the time i wrote this book was they came with so much power that they had some wife had become the center of gravity of the republican party. there is a new study out from harvard and another professor there who described the koch effect. they say it is a magmatic poll on the republican party to pull the whole party with them. so how did they get from way out there to the center of republican politics and in many ways the center of american politics. >> host: is the political network interview stronger than the republican national? >> guest: yeah. they are in competition in some ways, but in some ways what has happened is the network has subsumed the republican party to the position of the republican candidate take are often positioned that the koc

i've always quoted william f. buckley who said "never debate an amateur, the amateur always wins."hat you just said because i said it last night to mark halperin while we were watching the returns. i said you watch, they don't want this. because he will bring women from the past up on stage with him. he will make it a horrific war of attrition for the clintons. >> and there are some of those women who've shown a willingness to participate and become more active on twitter and spoken out against bill clinton so it could be an ugly general fight. >> bob costa, there was a tweet last night "make no mistake, democrats would much rather run against ted cruz than donald trump because ted cruz is a known commodity. you know what state he is wins, you know what states he doesn't win. you can go back and look at history and predict it out. donald trump? nobody knows are what will happen from michigan to ohio to pennsylvania to a lot of those industrial swing states that sometimes swing elections. >> and last night was an important moment for trump. i rewatched that press conference this mor

don't take my example for it, there is a close in the beginning where william f. buckley describes the movement as a narco authoritarian. they thought they were kind of the lunatic fringe and so what interested me by the time i wrote this book is that they have gained so much power that in some ways they have become the center of gravity in the republican party. i mean, there is a new study out from harvard who described the effect and they say it is a magnetic pulling on the republican party that has sort of pulled up a whole party with them so i was interested how did they get from way out there to the center of the republican politics and republican politics and in many ways the center of american politics. >> host: is the political network in your view stronger than the republican national committee. in some ways what's happened is the network has subsumed the parties of the positions that the candidates take are often the positions that they have the money and offer to campaign funding and other support from all the different groups they have to the candidates who wi