Existing distribution of power, wealth and property, conserve tim has been associated with societies where the few dominate the many, and i just think, especially the first part of that, that the conservativism, that the argument gets used to justify Big Government in many ways, that this idea of a resistance to change which, again, i think thats a good instinct. Its in the declaration of independence. Dont change unless you absolutely have to bass it will bring bat beside things but that argument, resistance to change, is corporateist protectionity. People use protectionism to use to tariff us but i use it to refer to stuff like the wall street bailouts. It was pinstripe protectionism. Wall street, people saying we have0 this economy, five big banks and they do good things, and yes, there are good things brought about by having giant investment banks that can create mere efficient flows of capital and can do things maybe 100 small banks cant do. So the pinstripe protectionism is looking at that and saying because there are good things to this arrangement we need to preserve that and it ignores all the bad things, so the wall street bailouts were directed at saving the big banks, at saving the way wall street was working in 06. They said we need to do that because there was good. Its a lack of imagination and a sort of conservative mindset that if things are good, lets keep them that way, even if the invisible hand in Creative Destruction would destroy that. I. Sitting in an of the record conservative meet little where somebody shows up and says, look, theres a new technology on the internet. This is ruining the record labels ability to make a profit. So somebody raises their hand and says why should we worry about the record labelsnh abiy to make a profit in the conservative argument is, this is a legal legitimate institution which makes profits, which pays taxes, which has employed all sorts of people, and so we ought to protect it. And buggy whipmakers were a legal, legitimate institution that employed lots of people but it works to some extent. Ask and one of my favorite things about the book it warned conservatives theyre using conservative arguments to subvert the free market and justify the protection of the status quo. One guy who wrote this most clearly was a liberal, 50 years ago, i think he called himself a socialist, gabriel cocoa, wrote a book called the giant of conservativism. He was just talking about that mindset, the preserve vacation of the status quo, the people in power ought to stay in power. The current structures ought to be preserved and he was one of the most formidable riders in i my thinking and the book channels some of that. Im glad you brought up eminent domain. Thats where i had liberal friends saying its so confusing, i cant root for this little lady in new london to have her house taken but then im rooting for scalia and just it takes moments like that and like the bailout for the right to get your preconceived alliances smashed open. And where you see it today is things like, Small Business, mostly on the local level. Fruit trucks. The restaurants in washington, dc, and in many other cities, are trying to get regulations on food trucks. This is not because the Restaurant Owners are tripping over the long lines on mcpherson square. Its because they dont want competition and you see it with uberwhere the taxi drivers are driving around, decidings that upsetting people, not providing service, and messing up traffic was somehow a good way to win popularte sentiment over towards regulations they that deny consumers choice. You see it on all sorts of other things, people can rent out their houses. Places where technology is allowing for competition with the incumbents is where you get a lot of leftright coalition, and we won on the soft Online Privacy act, where you did have some corporations opposing the corporatist thing, google was against it. Almost all the lobbying was for it. But why did we win that . All these congressmen sponsored the bill and then all withdrew their sponsorship, because you had an active elite, upper middle class, elite, willing to fight against it. Of corporate welfare often arent as visible and arent as prominent as they are when they say, you know, your blogger wanting to give the limo ride on u. Street or whatever. That used to be the neighborhood. Im learning my hip references are now outdated references. I think unstoppable miss the target on a few points and so i offer this criticism in any constructive life. Kind of like we are in a new relationship, things are awkward to get to know each other a little better. Some of the things identified under the word conservative enough book included the American Bar Association and bring clancy and neither of them would probably be identified as conservative. We all look the same to you from far away. Its understandable. I have to defend one of my employers, the American Enterprise institute identified as corporatists of the book could have hired me to fight against corporate welfare and this is maybe a new priority for a lot of groups on the right, but it is becoming one and lots of groups on the right that historically mightve been more corporatists are coming around to again it took a while to realize it. A lot of these conservatives full text you can incorporate as an excess. Aei also has railing against fannie mae and freddie mac. You have her chief economist peter bush for the ethanol subsidies. So in every corner not every corner, there is some organizations bought and paid for by boeing and Lockheed Martin but there are coming you can see some mobilization against corporatism thanks in part to the bailout. I i think fdr doesnt get in the scrutiny entry into. Ft argues the National Recovery act which is a government enforced cartel businesses that crush Small Business. Schechter brothers were the two brothers who want a jewish deli poor abused by the nra. At roscoe phil burton. Mightve heard his name during the Obamacare Mandate debate because what they did it so youre not allowed to grow corn for yourself. You have to be putting it into the economy because the article trueness treated like people doing that. Ralph, you do a good job of pointing out a left and right are people who are principled and people who basically are either corporatists were partisan. But sometimes you miss how the liberal games are really tied up in the liberal entities are tied up at the corporatism. Minimum wage fight is not an easy issue. Part of the reason there is so much Popular Support or it and then some conservative opposition is because, in income and this is obviously a selfserving answer for someone who imposes a headache but tricky economic issue in that we think it will cost issues. But walmart at cosco both support a hike in the minimum wage. What i look at that, they think is that because well crush mom and pop were more likely to pay lower wages . Every regulation as to overhead cost that will far more disproportionately on momandpop. For probably the skepticism of regulation, huber airline regulation, all these things not to teach us every regulation makes it harder for the small guy. Sometimes its justified, but typically they make it harder for multiunit put the ball mcwhorter. Every time i bring something into the arena government, it is big as this. Thats not against all regulations. Its just a warning. I would say a final note and then i will go on to where i think the fed can. In your argument discussion with phil crane and Grover Norquist, the question is sort of who started this, who is to blame . Is corporatism a question of government taking control of the answer is that a question of business taking control of government. The answer is both and a lot of people on the left including dont see the culpability. A lot of it is the institution. Average of the definition of corporatism and critique it. Corporate status and is Grover Norquist calls it is a doctrine of supremacy. Whatever status over the constitutionally from sovereignty of the people comprises of widening allencompassing corporatist agenda. That leaves out the corporate culpability government. He downplayed the fact corporatism is an alliance between government and business and that needs to be more strongly seen. Conservatives need to be much more wary of corporations. Liberals need to be made much more wary of politicians and government. With that said, theres a couple fights that can win. The easiest way to do it when getting something passed is really hard. You might think thats good if youre a libertarian especially. By killing things a little easier, especially the way a lot of things work in washington is writes that could eat the real fight of a left right coalition against corporate welfare. The current price has to do with experts that city. At the end of the fiscal year, the Export Import Bank expire. Typically almost unanimous. In fact, theres been unanimous consent a voice vote to renew it. This year there is a real fight because you have just had serling has somehow became chair of the House Financial Services committee despite not doing everything the bank asking to any of the opposing reauthorizing it. Youre eric cantor as majority leader who is a champion and something happens rare cancer a month ago where two new replacement Kevin Mccarthy flip up and said no, were not going to authorize the bank. So if no bill passes in the Export Import Bank is dead. If no bill passes, the private Corporation Investment instead. Its not an easy fight to chamber of commerce, manufacturers are lining up a time server in the fight. Thats winnable because you dont have to have a majority of either fans chamber. You just need one for the majority leader stopping it. Before last month, nobody heard of Export Import Bank. He said xm, the teacher talking about the satellite company. You say opec, they think youre talking about the herb oil companies. But these are the people cared about and knew about, they would say its a bad idea for u. S. Taxpayers to be forced to subsidize boeing sales to the chinese government. At the knowledge another one. It has to get renewed. The ethanol tax credit died in vietnam and a half to get renewed. This took place for some people used to think he was good for the environment. Its not. Its supposed to be good for farmers to help score farmers at the expense of. It is simply there for a few companies to profit. Now heres where it gets murky. In a comfortable, especially for liberals and for me is the way to kill ethanol is probably to rope in big oil and mcdonalds who pays more for their corn. Although that said, if theres anything youve done over the years that make you uncomfortable alliances work and the other one i would put up there after export subsidies and ethanol this one source of the sugar program. Part of the farm bill. Its unconscionable. We keep out foreign sugar and loan money to Sugar Growers and if the prices are high enough, they forfeit to the government, just repay it. We pay 20 cents a pound for raw sugar, and then we sell it to the ethanol makers for 1 cent a pound. Its wonderful. Sugar export subsidies come ethanol or three fights that are winnable because they all involve killing a piece of legislation. I think there is broad left right agreement on the senate would be amazing to see that they concentrated industries about the strategy bringing together businesses that lose from them and trying to get people to care about it and the groundswell. Going forward we could have some exciting time. We could change the way business is done in washington if he can get enough people, enough libertarians, not conservatives to concentrate on this idea. You got to get to know each other better, figure out where we agree about are nothing to bring bring up like the relationship. Maybe minimum wage really beside her publicsector unions and just focus on the government should not be taking money from regular people and giving it to big business. That is something we can rayon and that is the fight that i think we can actually win. Thank you. [applause] row are did you want to or commenters have said before we open out the yeah, listening to the interaction reminds me one of the purposes is to go right down to the neighborhood in the living room the people were left right can have this discussion are and move the firm back home all the way to wall street washington later. Recently on this book tour and in the audience, they actually form an ad hoc group right in the audience and said they were going to meet and discuss a number of these issues and then try to move them operationally. So its in the peoples hands. No one can stop people from doing this. The whole point of this discussion is to show what the potential is for people now that they are watching on c. Are watching on c. Span, people all over the country can or russian. Theres no one more fearful of a left right alliance, not them then the plutocrats of the oligarchs. In the congress, whenever there is a rash of emails or letters, the senator says, where are they coming from quiet to usually know they are coming from the lefties or righties. When they say they are coming from both, the center pales. That is why i call it unstoppable. When the fcc put the rollout in 2003 to allow more concentration of big media over local tv radio and newspapers, there was such a huge uproar coming from the nra types, common cause types on congress that for the first time in congressional history, the house of representatives challenge big media and voted to overrule the fcc rule i4 hundred to 21 and was about to go in to the unnamed. There it getting a left right arise from the public in the senate machinery slowed it down until the stamina of the big media prevailed and blocked it. You see that is why when you get the left right, there is this idea of gridlock, this idea of paralysis, severely destabilized in terms of reflecting the will of the people. All right. Lets open up for questions now. I will call on you if you can give your name and make give your name and make it a crush rather than a comment. Rehear. Citizens united was greeted with as much enthusiasm in this building of the return of the hidden imam greeted in some shiite circles. Is there any hope of ending the wedding of government and big business without overturning Citizens United . Is that for which one . I dont think that corporations should have differing Constitutional Rights of human beings because i think there tension for concentrating power in receiving immunity and impunity make sure that there will be supreme over ordinary people. So when it comes to Citizens United, i think that was a bad decision not only because it enhances secret money and influence over our election procedurally bad decision, but it basically allows corporations to independently spend as much money as they want at the local, state and national. Theres no contest with individuals on that. The entire president ial and Congressional Campaign in 2012 was late the under 8 billion, right . That is a quarters profit for exxonmobil a few years ago. So i would be against it. I found left right are worried about big money and politics cant agree because they havent spent enough time with each other and how to get it done. I think there are ways to get it done. First of all, look at the Republican Party of what happens in Citizens United. One of the indirect effects has been a second power center against k street. The business lobbies to be the only way for republicans to get money can buy you have groups like the club for growth, heritage action, outside groups funded by basically which conservatives, which is different than big events and they go ahead and win one of these contests on primaries. We have come you know, just in a mosh is getting attacked by the business lobby, but other groups are able to back him. Thad cochran almost got driven out of part because theyre outside groups. The same groups opposing Export Import Bank and not sort of thing. The second thing is regulation in general puts the ball in the court when you get government involved in his life to participate in political debate and how much come you are going to skew things. We see the individual campaign where you can only get 2500 to a politician. First of all, why you get 2500 is beyond me. We are supposed to be libertarians here. To each his own. That means politicians a month started getting a big check have to go around to get safety checks from a bunch of people. Who do you know that could go out his friends at a politician friends at the politician in the safety of their business then click empowers lobbyists because a lot of times its the unintended consequences. Looking at the revolving door be a good place to look for my regular politicians more of what they can do for regulating outside players in political debate. Theres an argument for it but im incredibly wary of it. You zeroed in on one of the issues that could completely blowup the left right romance that awkward getting to know you phase. Right here. Hello, i am interning here in the summer in washington d. C. At a Venture Capital private equity startup fun. My question is certainly so my question is certainly a really good point came from both sides about how we could eliminate the corporate state, but wouldnt it be a challenge especially to convince the republicans to say a corporate state is not the best given the chamber of commerce or wall street donors have been flooding into the Republican Party in many has been taken by people who do support by these business lobbies in the wall street many contracting firms in particular. How hard would it be to convince the Republican Party to challenge the corporate state . Well, would simply reiterate tim has just said. What weve seen over the last five or six years has been the rise of a counterforce up in the Republican Party