Transcripts For CSPAN2 The Working Class Republican 20170702

Great pleasure for me at the Brookings Institution to welcome all of you and our cspan audience to this afternoons event to celebrate the publication of the new book, the working class republican Ronald Reagan and the return of blue collar conservativism. Henry is a senior fellow at the ethics and Public Policy center, a former aei colleague and a member in Good Standing of aeis election watch team. Henry arrived at aei in 2006, and we soon bonded over politics and especially what was then a somewhat obscure demographic, what the pollsters called some college. People with a technical, vocational or Community College education. This group was large, about a third of voters, and had near perfect track record of voting for the winner in president ial elections. This looselydefined group, roughly synonymous with the working class, was and is especially important in our politics. In the book henry shows how reagans preferences matched those of working class americans, transcending left and right, and providing the key to his suck success. Henrys book is divided into two parts, one on understanding the beliefs of the true reagan. Getting reagan right, in henrys words x. The other, a pointed critique of how conservatives in the modern gops have lost their way and what they must do to recover it. We have a distinguished panel to comment on both. Henry is going to speak for about 0 minutes x then 20 minutes, and then weve asked Craig Shirley the author of four bestsellers on reagan including his latest, reagan rising, to comment on henrys understanding of the true reagan. Craig will speak for ten minutes. Then well turn to bill who will moderate the second half of todays discussion on the future of the gop. Were very fortunate to have aei resident fellow and National Review Senior Editor Jonah Goldberg and the senior fellow to comment on the future of the gop. Ruie also has a new book titled the optimistic leftist, and he is a major contributor to the democratic strategists work on the working class. You will be able to purchase books after the discussion. This is an embarrassment of riches. We have a very tight timetable this afternoon, so lets get started. Please join me in welcoming henry olsen. [applause] id like to thank aei and cspan for coming to cover this event. Its my first book. I feel like ive given intellectual birth but without any of the pain of real birth. Tonight id like to start by making Ronald Reagans last words my first. And these are words that you can see on his gravestone as they sit looking over the beautiful valleys of the sunny Southern California that he so deeply loved. I know in my heart that man good, that what is right will eventually triumph can and that there is worth and purpose to each and every human life. My book is little more than an extended essay on the meaning of those words and how important they were to Ronald Reagan and how his incorporation and acting upon those words did little more than change america and change the world. But as was noted, my book is about more than that as well. Its about an argument that the Republican Party and conservative movement have lost its soul. Because rather than following the real reagan, the man who could say those words, and i think those are the words that he wants all of us to remember him by, theyve instead adopted a false reagan. A reagan who instead of being someone who loved mankind was someone who was in love with an abstract of this liberty without no bounds. And the man who instead of being pragmatic to make sure the blessing of america would flow to everyone in the economy focused relentlessly on a businessmans desire for material selfimprovement as the core value of economic advancement. As a result, my argument is that the Republican Party have failed to meet Ronald Reagans vision that he set out in the 1977 speech to the conservative Political Action Committee Convention of a new Republican Party, a Republican Party where the cop, the farmer, working man would have a seat at the Republican Party a table, that would combine conservatives of all stripes social, fiscal and cultural and economic and defense conservatives into one majority party. The Republican Party remains today, despite reagans advances, what its been since Great Depression; or americas second place party, a party that year in and year out has fewer people who will say they belong to or support their ideals than say they will support the Democratic Party even as that gap has narrowed in the years after reagan brought his changes. The Republican Party can fulfill that promise only, i argue, by recovering the real reagan and recovering the love of mankind and the approach of to which that means one should take the government that Ronald Reagan actually exhibited in his life. So let me elaborate on both of those points. The reagan point, im sure, is the one that is most controversial because it flies in the face of what weve been told. Weve been told by what i called in a recent political article the high priest of conservativism, that Ronald Reagans little more than Barry Goldwater with a winning personality, a man dedicated to the overthrow of the new deal as was goldwater and are todays libertarians. In fact, nothing could be further from case. From his earliest days as a conservative, Ronald Reagan exhibited fidelity to the core innovations of the new deal in the sense that government at local and a state level if necessary, but a federal level possible federal level if necessary should insure that americans have a handup in American Life and that everyone has a chance to live a life of their own choosing the even if it requires some government assistance. And then l move on to the second point which is explaining why it is i think republicans have lost their way and how it is that in a very odd sense donald trump has recaptured some not anywhere all, but some of the original reagan insight. And consequently, its no surprise that Ronald Reagan and donald trump are the only two people who were republican nominees in the last 40 years to win dramatically among whites without a College Degree and in the midwest and winning in the states that determine who becomes president and the constituents have determined which party runs the American National government. So why do i say that reagan was not an antinew deal conservative . Well, its because thats what he basically was telling people from the moment he stepped us onto the political sphere. Now, most people who have studied reagan know he began life as an ardent democrat. He inherited his fathers love of the Democratic Party as the party of the working man, and he added to that his own youthful admiration of Franklin Roosevelt. He voted for him four time, he was an ardent new dealer, he memorized reagans memorized roosevelts fireside chats according to his coworkers. In fact, he even bore dates by talking about new deal politics when they wanted to be talking about something else. But he continued to be a democrat even after roosevelt died. He supported the democratic nominee against Richard Nixon in 1950, and he continued to support new deal democratic ideals in private conversation well into the 1950s going so far, according to Barry Goldwaters recollection, of calling him a fascist suspect o. B. When s. O. B. When he first met goldwater who were friends of his second wifes parents, loyal davis, in phoenix in the early 1950s. He moved over to the right as he became aware that the Democratic Party was leafing its ideals leaving its ideals as he understood them behind. And he had understood those ideals as using government to help the average person. But you instead began to see the Democratic Party was interested in power for its own sake, a centralizing vision that made government and socialization of america its animating goal rather than providing assistance to people who needed assistance to overcome obstacles or petty tyranny in their private or in their public lives. And reagan was a very smart man. And he was minute who read incessantly somebody who read incessantly. He read when he was a child, he read on movie sets, he read when he was working for General Electric on long train trips since he was aa grade of flying, and aggrade of flying, and he can be afraid of flying, and he developed his own philosophy. He was for government that would help people have a hand up. He was for Social Security. He was for labor unions. In fact, at a time when right to work was a major cause among the american right, he opposed right to work. He opposed right to work in 1958 when it was on the california ballot and when he ran for governor in 1966. He made clear that he opposed efforts to make right to work a law of the california land. He said in 1958 that in the past few decades the government and america had been engaged in a great adoption of welfare projects that came at a great price, and he said that people wouldnt he did not want and thought that no thinking individual would want to repeal them regardless of the costs they represented forward thinking on his part. On our part. He doesnt specifically reference the new deal, but what else could he have had in mind . Because that was exactly the progress of programs that the nascent right in William Buckleys National Review was attacking incessantly. He supported eisenhower twice while National Review was withholding their endorsement because he was too wedded to the new deal. He supported Richard Nixon in 1960s as National Review was once again withholding their endorsement. And reagan told audiences in 1961 that no one should be denied health care in america because of a lack of funds. And he repeated that statement in 194 when he was giving his television address for barry gold water which made him goldwater which made him a national star. He continued when he ran for governor to express similar sentiments, talking about that we would try and engage as governor the private [inaudible] bureaucratic control, but that didnt mean that we were going to do away with the extensive programs and supports that had been adopted in those years. When he became governor rather than make a frontal assault on welfare or medicate which was then only a medicaid which was then only a year old, he instead pushed through a record tax increase to make sure the budget was balanced. He always claimed that what he wanted to do was make sure that aid only went to the those who, through no fault of their own, deserved support. Not to people who could get by without Government Support. In fact, the very use of that phrase indicates his intellectual heritage. Because it was that phrase that Franklin Roosevelt used to describe who deserved Government Support time and time again in his fireside chats. This continued all the way through his presidency, that reagan continued to tell people and tell americans that he supported what he called a social safety net, that if you were truly needy, you would be exempt from the budget cuts even though at the time he considered the Economic Disaster caused by large government to be great pressing problem of his time. People who genuinely needed assistance which included people on medicare, people on medicaid, Social Security and a whole panoply of social programs would remain exempt so long as they were genuinely and truly needy. And that group was a very large group, indeed. He quoted from fdr extensively in his life. He not only in the ways that he acknowledged, but in ways that are not acknowledged. His depth was so, his intellectual his intellectual depth was so great that he would quote roosevelt at the drop of a hat without even acknowledging it. In 1980 he went off script at the Republican Convention to the ask you join me as we begin our crusade together . Can we join together in a moment of silent prayer the . He had just become the first republican nominee to even mention the hated roosevelt in a convention speech, citing approvingly the 1932 speech that roosevelt had accepted his first nomination calling for a new deal. But only the oldest would remember that roosevelt ares speech concluded also with a call for joining together in a crusade to save america and return it to its people. The famous line that he used to close the 1980 debate, are you better off than you were four years ago, was not only adapted, but the next paragraph or more where he asked americans questions. Are you better off, is it easier to find a job . This whole section was lifted from roosevelts fifth fireside chat where he answered his critics. Reagan was indebted to roosevelts vision in a limited sense in the sense that america should not return to the wilderness of liberty that existed prior to roosevelts new deal can. Where he opposed what had happened was what had happened since then that the Democratic Party was, he believed, increasingly interested in power for its own sake. That this was exemplified in why he opposed medicare. Which its true that he opposed medicare. As he said over and over again in his speeches, the reason he opposed medicare is because it wasnt necessary. Only about 10 or 20 of Senior Citizens genuinely couldnt afford medical care, and we should help him. And he supported a bill which gave federal funds to states to create those programs. And he told a friend in a letter that if more money were needed, he would put that up. But since advocates of what became medicare continued to push for a onesizefitsall program regardless of need, he felt they were interested in something else. They were interested in socialized medicine or socialized [inaudible] since you could legitimately meet human needs through a much less intrusive and much less command and control system. The Republican Party no longer talks this language. It talks the language of supply side economics, a phrase that reagan in both private letters and in his autobiography refused to adopt for himself. It talks the language of the entrepreneur when, in fact, when reagan was running for president , he never mentioned the phrase. The only time he mentions it is in his first inaugural address where he lists the entrepreneurs one of Many American heroes and he lists them after the shopkeeper, the consumer, the farmer, the cop on the beat. Reagan believed in a bottomup economy in which everybodys incentives mattered, and everybodys work was worthy. And a Republican Party that gets back to that is a Republican Party that can talk to reagan democrats. After Ronald Reagan, his successors whether George Herbert walker bush or the people nominated for office after that failed to attract the support of these people, particularly the nonevangelical christians who dominate the midwestern states. Because they just didnt see anything that supported, that they found interesting. They didnt see somebody who had that balance between individual opportunity and individual security that they ascribe to the new deal and that they wanted to see america. Hay wanted america they want an america that gives them a hand up, not an america that treats them with hands off or lays its hands too heavily on. Donald trump is many things, and not all of them good. But one thing he did do from the moment he entered into political life as a serious politician in 2015 was operate as a laser beam focus on the needs and wants of these people. He told them that he understood their pain, that they had been abandoned by a government that no longer had their values at heart, that hard work mattered and that he had their back. And if that meant that he was going to fight for trade deals that might hurt some people on the coast but return their jobs, he was for that. He was apart from reagan in theory but remarkably similar to reagan in practice. As reagan, in fact, put trade sanctions on japan time and time again to fight unfair trade practices. And one of reagans proudest achievements was with when he put sanctions on japanese motorcycle imports to save Harley Davidson. Whenever you see a Harley Davidson motorcycle running around, that was because Ronald Reagan stopped them from being put out of business when they felt that they were being unfairly competed with by subsidized japanese imports. When he talks about immigration, he does it in a language Ronald Reagan would never use, but he signed the compromise in 1986 because he felt we were losing control of our borders and that the compromise with amnesty was necessary in order to make sure that we didnt have too many migrants that would drown american workers. As he wrote in one private letter, we cant economic my grants, we can never take all of them because we never have room for them. America was so rich that it could never accommodate all the people who would want to live here and take advantage of its bounty. Donald trump was on to something. And he was on to the missing link that the Republican Party in its talk of entrepreneurship and its disregard all too often for the realities of the way that government has provided individual security through its entitlement programs. He was on to something that the Republican Party has missed, and consequently he became the first republican to win the five midwestern withdominated states. States that are dominated by reagan democrats; iowa, ohio, michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. He was the first person since Ronald Reagan in 1984 to take all five of those states. The only way forward for the Republican Party if it wants to remain a centerright party is to make that coalition solid. And to expand upon it by attracting back the republicans whom the negative aspects of donald trump pushed away from that party. That party is Ronald Reagans new Republican Party. That party is a combination of republicans and conservatives of all faith ands backgrounds faiths and backgrounds, one that has an ability to speak to people of all creeds, classes and genders. One which gives people a hand up in American Life while still continuing the task of reducing taxes where necessary, giving deregulation an added spur and restoring competition to americas sclerotic public services. Its one that interprets Franklin Roosevelts new deal rather than opposes it. Its one that legitimately returns america on the path which its been on for well over a century, one that allows us to accommodate the vicissitudes of economic competition in modern life while enduring, maintaining the enduring truths of american freedom. Its a very hard row to hoe. Its one that will be difficult for republicans to to adopt. But i believe that we can do it. I believe we can do it because in our hearts thats where most of us already are. Its where the voters are. Its certainly what thaw said in the 19 in the 2016 primary when overwhelmingly they rejected the reaganisms high priest and rejected the candidates who were running on platform that had been adopted in favor of the new look of the old reaganism that donald trump was proposing. Id just like to conclude by asking you a question. Do you think that if the Republican Party and the conservative Movement Continues to do what its been doing for the last 810 years, that if it continues to do those things for the next 10 years that well be better off . Do you think that taxes will be lower and that regulations will be smaller . Do you think that traditional values will be more respected in American Public institutions . Do you think that we will be more respected abroad . Do you think that we will have attracted more people to our cause, the First Time Since 1932 . More people will tell pollsters on election day and in preelection polls that they are republicans than democrats . Do you think those things will happen . I donti dont. I think weve been on the wrong course since Ronald Reagan. I think if we had followed that course, we would have been where he expected we would be. And, in fact, i think we would fulfill what he told the columbus day audience in 1988 when he was in one of his last political speeches. He spoke to a group of italianamericans and said im going to tell you something ive never said before. He said the old party of harry truman and fdr isnt dead. The little secret is that when the left took over the Democratic Party, we took over the Republican Party. If that isnt true, if the old party of Franklin Roosevelt and harry truman the people who wanted security and opportunity had genuinely found a place in the Republican Party, the entire historically of america over the last history of america over the last 20 years would have been different. Think this is now our last, best hope to make Ronald Reagans dream come true and finally put america on the path where conservativism is the default governing philosophy of america and consequently make america the shining city on a hill that reagan always dreamed that we could be. Thanks. [applause] when henry and i first poke about this event several spoke about this event several months ago, i asked him who he would like to pond to his three us into tonight to 40 to his to respond to his thesis, and he said merle people asked him what does Craig Shirley speak. Craig, in ten minutes, can you tell us what henry did henry get reagan right . Yes and no. [laughter] thank you, aei. You know, being here, i enjoy book writing, but i also enjoy meeting people and, you know, it reminds me of mae west once said too much of a good thing is wonderful. Over the course of my four books six books, ive interviewed many, many people from jimmy carter to Walter Mondale and jim baker and nancy reagan and other people like that. There were only three people i couldnt interview, is and one of them was alice cooper. And you say, well, why would you want to interview alice cooper . Well, it turns out alice was a reagan supporter in 1980. So i contacted his office out in arizona. Reagan had alice had contributed to reagan. Alice had voted for reagan. No, alice didnt want to do a debate or do an interview. And i said, why . And his aide says rather sheepishly, well, alice was drunk. [laughter] and i said, what do you mean alice was drunk . And she said alice was drunk from 19761983. [laughter] and i said do you mean all the time . She said, yeah, pretty much. [laughter] so i think henry may have discovered theres a lot of joy in book writing as well. Ive certainly enjoyed it. Someone once asked me whats the most profitable form of writing, is it opeds, letters, speeches, book writing, and i thought for a moment and said the most profitable form of writing is ransom notes. [laughter] history is written backwards but lived forward, and i think henry has written that in his book. What im going to do is talk about what first surprised henry is what i like about his book. First of all, he opens up a new discussion about Ronald Reagan, one that has not been thoroughly and completely examined as well as it should have been. We dont fully know, or at least its been underreported about reagans intellectual maturation. How does he go from he wasnt a bleeding heart liberal, he was a hemophiliac liberal. How does he go from a riproaring supporter of the new deal to a libertarian conservative . And, by the way, he was a libertarian. Thats where youre wrong. [laughter] but it is an important discussion which is why were here today, which is why his book was written. Because, you know, as was once said, knowledge is good. Nobody saw animal house, i guess. I did. [laughter] okay. Its that how does reagan go by this journey . What are the effects on him . What does he read . Who does he talk to . What are the effects of hollywood, what are the effects of Eureka College where hes an economics major where he first learned that smoot holly was an integral cause of the Great Depression and he started down the path of becoming a free trader from his economics professor . Where he developed reading the Vienna School of economics. Its a worthy and important discussion. I think also is that he, henry writes in his book that reagans mind and writing and thinking and intellect has been underappreciated, and i think thats also true. Marty anderson, who was one of reagans closest aides for many, many years, very dear friend of mine, told me he thought reagans iq was 150 or higher. He thought he was at a genius level the way he approached things, thought about things, the way he rejected, you know, the evenny meanie evenny meanie of problems that were put to him. He liked to find other solutions, third ways as in combating the soviet union where it was not just on our knees or mutuallyassured destruction but to work with indigenous third Party Freedom fighters in afghanistan and czechoslovakia and nicaragua to win the hearts and minds of the people rather than the old way with vietnam and other u. S. Responses to soviet incursions. If you read, and i think henry has. Im not sure. If you read his clips, if you read his radio addresses, if you read his speeches, you come away realizing this is a very thoughtful man and a man who thinks very, very deeply about things. And you can see over the years is that hes becoming more mature, more reflect i, more reflective, more subtle in his thinking. And it ultimately centers on the rights and dignity and freedom of the individual. And he mentions he uses the word individual many, many times in his radio addresses and later in his speeches, including as president of the united states. So i think thats also to commend henry. I have three broad areas of disagreement. One is libertarian. Henry rejects the idea that reagan was a libertarian. Reagan was a libertarian, but he wasnt libertine. He was traditional on issues like drug use and other, the other excesses of the 1960s flower child generation. But he was, as one of reagans very underappreciated historians who was a good friend of mine, John Patrick Diggins wrote a very important book could faith, freedom and the making of this history. And in the first paragraph of the first page, he says reagan drew his libertarian iption separation from thomas paine. And as a matter of fact, he quoted paine often. His two favorite philosophers were [inaudible] and paine. He cited them often. Now, i dont want to get too much in the weeds here, but in the 1980 campaign, he uses curious phrase. We all say man and god. Reagan says man with god. And this is a very interesting intellectualization of how he is able to, as i said, a third way. The synthesis of paine, whos the very flower of the enlightenment which teaches man is at the center of the universe, and solts notice sin who gives a speech at harvard who tears it aparts, hates the whole concept. How can these two philosophers both be favorites of Ronald Reagan . I think its because reagan synthesizes the two, and he believes that man is a spiritual being. Therefore, if man is at the center of the universe, its because god wants him there and as a spiritual individual because god is in that man. So theres no contradiction in reagans mind by being a devotee of both. But he also believed in the individuals over the state managed economy. You also write as a republican new dealer but the republican new deal introduced into the lexicon and as he matured he pretty much rejected the policies of the new deal as day perceive to be intruding on the rights of the individual but if it was the diaries dismissing to oneill in 1975 where he rejects the new deal to be a panacea to solve everything by the 60s he has rejected the politics and policies that he thought it was up a mechanism to bring the country together so that the bird is the new deal itself and he did compare in the columns and in the speeches so of the New York Times 1981 was the same thing so you have to look negative reagans relationship morceli more than he was for it or against a. And then for the american in spirit to be snuffed out. You have one minute left. Not to get rid it of Social Security or those programs but there was a Democratic Congress with Social Security and other social programs were still popular. And that we really appreciate that panel but in some ways to underestimate Ronald Reagan but George Shultz said you have to realize that was fun with that central core of conservatism. [laughter] but speaking of fun in the 60s of part of the vietnam war and he is confronted by a dirty hit the media was bill clinton. [laughter] he carried a sign that said make love not war and regular debt this line and said from the looks of him i dont think he could do either. [laughter] [applause] i have a million things to say about this book and you will be relieved to hear i will not say any of them. [laughter] moderators job is to be moderate and say self restraint so i will turn directly first to jonah and then i will give henry a chance to respond to what he has heard then there will be an exchange of views among the of four of you. Five then we will go to the audience and then i will give a one minute in sight that i have seen for the first time and perhaps the last. I dont have a lot of time that i will not keep you long. But up front i will say i really enjoyed the book but fdr is not the person that it was when one i will not argue about the numbers when he is very good that i do not consider i consider mouth witchcraft. [laughter] but to make three basic arguments with the debate it will generate because of those conservatives but then the second is they can shed the colts of the false reagan to fix their problems to become the majority party. That donald trump in some ways proved that. So i will tell you a front so with a question if a new deal republican and Ronald Reagan for a week was not how Nelson Rockefeller thought of him but talking about the future of the g. O. P. If there is much that i agree with in the book but they make thats a mistake that they criticize so many on the right to say there is day true reagan and if we could just uncover him to reveal his true nature he will limit the path for word for republicans or alltime purpose is the argument you hear from the high priest but his version he was a new deal republican and i am not entirely convinced i fake one of the things that people dont understand about Ronald Reagan here is what i agree with. I think with those last election cycles it has been crippled if you go back to watch those debates the last couple of election cycles in iowa and New Hampshire it is like the dirtiest reenactment of spartacus i Ronald Reagan. No i of Ronald Reagan. [laughter] first of all, if he was alive today he would be 106 first of all, he does not have the best grasp of what Politics Today requires so one of the problems is now to become obsessed with purity and principles dont get me wrong i have dedicated my life to those principles. But once you get into a contest you lose sight of what politics is supposed to be about which is persuasion. Go back to aristotle i can explain what you are better reflected in that is politics. Instead if i am onstage by definition you are excluding people and the Republican Party has lost its way prior to trump to the art of persuasion. And this gets me to the key point of Ronald Reagan. Yes his success had to do with his ideology but also he was a really good politician. One of the things he did that almost no politician does, including donald trump is he tells stories. George shultz tells the story how he brought his speech to Ronald Reagan he said this is great but not how i would write it he said this is what i would do. Story. Story a and reagan understood the human mind is wired to understand stories. Every important lesson in your life has the story but the black letter is is this say but the story is it there understood how to reach out to people who disagree if you disagree seven out of 10 if you agree seven out of 10 you are by allied not my enemy. That is what the g. O. P. Has lost and that has made me if incredibly frustrated the last few cycles in particular with the election of donald trump that that very same high priest has basically beaten back anybody who wants to look at policy. We did cut the top marginal tax rates 70 percent down at 30 percent doublea2 cut them more but politicos as a matter of logic if you cut down from 70 down at 30 maybe we should look at a warrant payroll taxes and with talkradio types who would say that is not a reaganism it with the populist campaign now all the sudden the people who were denounced as too soft on conservatism now were all of a sudden period under the bus for not throwing all reagan entirely. And maybe, just maybe to talk about those reagan night principles to contemporary problems rather than using the 82 playbook over and over bbv would have made the lives better and for a the black working class is the working class may be if we have been allowed to those contemporary problems and now not to grow so frustrated with that enterprise that has no serious connection. And i will close with the last point that one of the things that made reagan incredibly successful as the president this staff knew what the old man believed in bad is incredibly in powering to the bureaucracy. If you know where the old man is coming down for something you basically get to carry the ball forward. More than anything else thats on any given day like a patient from the old age home you never know where he will go into feel empowered to follow through on a policy about anything in the people on willing to enter the administration because they dont feel he will have their back when they need it. That is an enormous problem and that is a sign that Ronald Reagan was a much smarter politician who could keep it together in a way that donald trump has no intuitive grasp. In the embassy him as much of a comparative figure. [applause] you did that in nine minutes. Congratulations. Really did like his book at an overhaul bill feels but to be enamored of Ronald Reagan but i found henris interpretation to be compelling and reasonable and i thought i learned a lot from it but it has a lot to tell us about the future of the republicans so one thing that henrys book makes clear if we understood and the political success and the more recent success from the Republican Party including the a session to the presidency the Republican Party is part of that white workingclass. In some things worth thinking about looking at the success of the republicans and continuing to build their success. And in 1980 when reagan was first elected to the presidency 70 percent of eligible voters could be classified as the working class the by the time donald trump was elected it was only 45 percent so they manage to surf that wave in the effective way but by 2014 the estimates for the center of American Progress to feel that eligible voters care at 35 so this is the group that will climb rapidly with those eligible voters so that is something to keep in mind when you think of the coalition of reagan and reginism to talk about reaganism one of the central points of henrys book that is under dispute is the difference of reagan and reganism of reagan approach what you think of as of loyal opposition of the welfare state is according to henry dont despair reject but to improve it and above all dont take stuff away from people so that is where reagan was coming from now to head germanize the g. O. P. And not talk about goldwaterism so on top of that the general philosophy seems to be getting close to the night watchman as possible that was a bad idea and if that involves taking stuff away from people then so be it you cannot make an omelet without breaking a eggs and i think those looking and reaganism such as paul ryan and his friends say the fed has got to be done its got to be done. So this has beaten reagan with that philosophy that it was a bad thing so can the g. O. P. Change . Sova henrys argument there are different ways in the process so they have to to attain longterm political success but the current success as every argues it is not unreasonable but it does not represent something success as something bad is more episodic i was somewhat sympathetic to that argument that we have to be realistic and to get the way the party tends to look at things they say looks pretty golden to me and we control the majority of governors if it aint broke the dont fix it so that is possibly the biggest obstacle henry has to dig into the argument to take that seriously. The conservative policy intellectuals what the party should do is make that a serious issue. As a politician this is good. Then coming to though longterm problem into from the sacred text for the long term problem republican conservatives need to face the facts the Minority Party over 84 years never really taken hold of government for more than a couple of years at a time so government remains big and the only debates are about cost so unless we change the very nature of the political debate we will forever be little more than san and tax collectors on our own welfare state. And what can amount from david brooks that argued how the g. O. P. Is rejecting conservatism they tend to except the fact the society is coming apart to assist a the working class. Politicians showed no awareness and those that have the vision in the 21st century they have a vision of how they want American Government in the 21st century republican politicians believe we should tax people less to eliminate the 3. 8 in the republican politicians believe the Senate Health care plan according to the cbo is there a vision of society . Not really most Political Parties to find their vision around the country they like to create the term Republican Party has rules of the government so in a sense they have reginism but not a reagan so food deals with that crisis of capitalism . Said to paraphrase Martin Luther king but that is the theory of a book but that is my view of what can prove me wrong. Could look. [applause] you have five minutes to respond and i will experiment with the moderation of abstention i will set didnt only when it sounds like the Mclaughlin Group i appreciate your boldly and persistent experimentation so to share the favorite reagan stories if he looks like tarzan walks like jeanne and smells like a cheetah. [laughter] the 3. Seven like to get to is i get into this in great detail in the book 200 or more pages but what you mean by the word libertarian . Reagan used the term but it is quite clear not in the same way so what role should government have . He disagrees with interlocutor and for reagan you can see somebody that is inspired the liberty of the individual choice flourish but not from social protection should government be providing Higher Education . That gets to the finder libertarian points it believes in the public fire department. If you use the word libertarian that is a liberty inspired americanism not you apparently used the word libertarian and that gets into the second question what does the new deal been . They are intended to have that idea between the new deal that the government is getting larger and the arbiter of how society should develop and the polar opposite from the early conservative movement. But again i get into this extensively but what we find Ronald Reagan is somebody not the new deal from government expansion but he was for that in 1948 to some extent but force if risley opposed to that but was not antia new deal or interpreting what roosevelt did but so far to become so far removed that before the new deal it was legal to fire people after it was sought before the new deal no such thing as comprehensive Unemployment Insurance after there is not before there are land grant colleges of public universities or Community Colleges is treated by the state level with no federal transportation the suppose said new deal republican Dwight Eisenhower created the interstate highway all the things we take for granted with state and federal politics comes into being because of the innovation brought about with roosevelt and reagan does not reject this. He explicitly affirms that from the moment he give speeches and talking on behalf of Barry Goldwater and cutting back the excesses the bureaucrats rather than the american should be at the center of life but not turning back the clock not going back to the new deal world and was the only authentic because people who were republicans were really being democrats with that solution but instead reagan perhaps a third way with a social democracy and gives it a called conservatism. So talk about principle and ideology reagan is somebody who is a man of principle but not the ideologue. So the Republican Party speech of what a party should look like is a fact behind a the principles like the limbs extending into understand the reference so Ronald Reagan was a man of conservative principles the principles for ideology and innovation historically there is a sense the right way to think about paying this the way in which conscience of a conservative is written and that always came first and you will see reagan finds ready is put in power with the disagreement of those who say he is not a person who they think he is. But is actually a matter of principle it decides it is more important to accommodate and the principle of liberty and decides she has changed his mind but those that were aghast that that. They oppose him 1980 and 1984 the talk about lowering taxes but never does it. And then to say as they sought to route the presidency with the ideologues to oppose Ronald Reagan to oppose jack kemp or new to the rich Newt Gingrich to go against the house floor. And to raise taxes. Reagan and his diaries refer to people as ultras he was a principled man he was not libertarian and i invite you to read my book. One other thing of a bike a road to peace and politico so reagans First National security adviser said i have a fantastic peas this is bob on so at least one person who was there in the beginning. [applause] so you have 12 minutes. Sometimes i am confused by his arguments and then Big Government dictated to the individual people and it 1981 that tip oneill just thought the 50 states would be dictated to by the federal government and he opposed that. But one thing that is interesting is. He did right back the ban also said he was not trying to undo the new deal. But in 1977 those that were sick and tired of the cliches of those liberals in washington. When i talk about. Desiree state of affairs leading to the democrats. He is denouncing the new deal. What he is denouncing is as he said the one time of his fiancee to take a turn for the worse. Her name was mugged. Know that. But what i said a number of times that there was said debate with of liberal wing of the new deal to openly called for statecontrolled with the Democratic Party that rejected that. 1948. My point is that as things developed that reagan rejected the planning but did not reject the basic four tenets of that basic understanding that included Social Security with Unemployment Insurance or extensive mass Public Education and that is not be in tight new deal innovation so what reagan did was distinguish between the parts of the new deal in their rejection of the American Life and the parts that were legitimately adapted. That is the mistake they were making. Great. I am right. [laughter] you get 30 seconds. But the mistake that you make the world this static instead of dynamic the new deal was the world there was no argument for freedom or conservatism to return the power or authority to the states so how intrusive to make that . And then to overlook those other things is the impact of world war ii we defeated japan and nazi germany. We build the interstate highway system to be part of the culture is not to offer a compelling argument. Because everybody believes government is could so those things that you overlook. So now i have to stop you part of the problem is and if you are right the postmaster general was a really important job and as the Campaign Aide was thats the idea of the new deal and said there is a theme to say the collection of a deflated basketball, old shoes to be put there by your interior designer. And then to do those things up against the wall of lots of that was awful it to make a perfectly fine point Ronald Reagan as a politician would get the stuff that was successful to say that is part of the new deal i will stick with but the blue eagle i cannot do that so there was a second new deal proposal i will tell my story the American Enterprise institute was to fight the new deal so there was some work being done. So as a policy research nerd a scholar gave a talk about neo conservatives. So what was Ronald Reagan . Was to be a Foreign Policy president and tried to get them on board and then to get it completely wrong. But then the managing to fold into his campaign in then Michael Novak so everybody knew that that fundamental essence of social conservatism prolife rand christian to make that to attract Foreign Policy tax with the economic conservatives so as like an episode of seinfeld and then putting that is very difficult and was not a philosopher in the conventional sense as best he could but the idea so coming from a the high priest or that olsons youll owe a revisionist. I guess i dont really have of course,. I will let you fight that out with if he think about it now referring to those reagan democrats in then represented in to get rid of the excesses to get the bureaucracy often not take anything away from you. That is the Ronald Reagan they voted for what they did not vote for with the reagan philosophy of the Republican Party of the goldwater of libertarianism so to extend as little as possible to take stuff away from people adjusting that is what they voted for 1980 and 1984. Now i have to request first of all, we until of record for reaches you and identify yourself before you ask every question no speeches or statements. Good evening i steady International Education here in washington d. C. I just left the embassy of sweden today and we discussed that 10 percent Approval Rating across the Baltic States and we discussed the impression of the european nations are producing do to that Political Climate so what do you think we can do to approve that perception globally to increase the Approval Rating and with these nations states at the intellectual and collegiate level . Who wants to take a crack . Bringing up the related subject that has not been addressed here which is the cold war which was the prevailing issue of of 80s we were losing the cold war to the soviets coming into Southeast Asia and in nicaragua but by every measurable standard were losing the cold war to the soviets eight years later so the course every president gave up territory then reagin is elected so as i said before one of the goals was the defeat of soviet communism. Said hughes said example the reagan was a liberal was more about gorbachev in him not handing bad p. R. Bonanza at a time when we are preaching freedom to teardown the wall so a lot of these refugees were from communist cuba seeking political asylum i dont know what the answer is to your question but i do know that the cold war has not been addressed here. It would be terrific if we addressed ourselves to that as well. Next, the woman in the front row, and that i will shift. You made the statement of the g. O. P. . Can you comment on that . Because they have a vision for government and the country as a whole. I thought id died that a bullet. [laughter] i think david has a pretty good point negative understand there are all sorts of issues but that does not seem obvious to those democrats but there is a sense that they lived and breathed politics that they can define and frame the issues. I dont mean this to be pejorative but republican politicians can model. Like the president . [laughter] with the debate i would call that a direct hit. [laughter] but now really have to defend to why want to defend but remember when ron johnson talked about benghazi . What difference does it make . So 30 years earlier trying to figure out to get a load a loan from oshkosh in Hillary Clinton was working at the leftwing law firm doing her thesis there was a sense the liberals take that much more seriously in that standard republican, is from the midwestern town as a leader is in his community that i want to give back with a narrow frame of American Culture but democrats have a similar problem so a lot of republicans the guy will bring the business skills and liberals have a vision of what that should look like just get out of peoples way to come from a place of strong mediating institutions and government is a problem there isnt the way people see things the conservatives need to do a lot more work to figure out of vision of what this is supposed to look like. This is a signature problem of the conservative movement talking to the audience that already agrees with you. So how to address and persuade them is a real problem and donald trump is not helping in this regard i dont care what people and lot pfc but i do in with the conservative movement but whenever you think to make that fairly toxic to those that should be the future to the Republican Party. Now i will turn to this side of the room. I love this panel discussion. Media is something that comes up quite a bit i like your guises comment. Reagan did not shut them out he was one of the most successful president s of the modern era the night of the Iowa Caucuses nbc said we just witnessed the political upheaval of Ronald Reagan but then the post routinely savage Ronald Reagan to write articles whether or not the states death his in mrs. Reagans that was read this for all eight years but the New York Times was not much better. But the fact of the matter is he never really shut them out or criticize them and since the said not in my quarter and that was the extent of it. He made 55 movies some of them were really bad but he developed a thick skin through much of his career we would get criticism maybe but his last movie was bad but by the time he is in politics he learns to take criticism and not take it too personally and with that go with the diaries of the people he did not like he once wrote in his diaries that he was appalled this and no good fatheaded that he later wrote something nasty. He had his ways to handle those things but he did not do a publicly and in my since he has developed a thick skin id like trump who cannot turn away any criticism whatsoever. The nobleman in the second row . About six years ago several countries inaugurated the reagan statues. In those anticommunist aspiration is an aspect that is so defining to millions of people does that stand closer to the henry olson version or the Craig Shirley version . I think it is both. He was an inspirational leader. But when reagan was a hemophiliac in the form of fascism spoke of it identical words with of clear enemy to have that ability to rule that was a fascist or communist. Just as ardently antia nazi or fascist the that was because of the adoration. But then to deal with the communist and saw hollywood movie unions first tee and. And at that time trying to fight for the new deal liberalism. And into kerry again over six months to protect themselves. We have time for a . Question and a . Answer that we have to go. Reagan had no differences with rockefeller . He had a lot of differences with them but in many ways reagan did not dispute those innovations that they supported to have problem with the expansions for what rockefeller advocated and with the treatment from Mental Health to have that states centered view of of world that the government is the arbiter and that is the collective action as the appropriate response to be very much opposed to the Republican Party but when eisenhower opposed the when nixon was called into question in 1860 i dont think fit the the id to those old categories of left and right. Rockefeller is difficult because they were personal friends and they actually Work Together in 1968 to stop nixon from getting the nomination. Here is the reagan discovery that i am so excited about and wanted to share with the rest of of world. Thanks to cspan. On page 218 it reads reagan believed to deserve a certain minimal standard of living so long as you contributed according to your ability but on page 267 we read, reagan believed the benefits should go to people who need them. Each according to his ability and his needs where have we heard that before . [laughter] i have to bring this to a close. It is always a pleasure and then to thank says to the of panelist. Good evening, thank you for coming. My name is aiden clark, the manager of Public Programs at the new york public lie area and its my pleasure to welcome you in for the conversation between holgeroo