Transcripts For CSPAN2 The Working Class Republican 20170708

And specially what was then a somewhat obscured demographics, what the pollsters called some college, people with technical, vocational or community college. This group was large by a third of the voters and headed track record. The group synonymous with the working class was and is important. Henry shows how workingclass americans transcending left and right providing key of success. Henrys book is basically divide intoed two parts, one on understanding the beliefs of the true reagan, getting reagan right in henrys words and the other appointed critique of how conservatives and modern gops have lost their way and what they do to recover it. Bios are online so i wont provide introductions. Henry will speak about 20 minutes and then we ask Craig Shirley, author of four best sellers on reagan including reagan rising, decisive years, 1976 to 1980 comment on henrys understanding of the true reagan. Craig will speak for ten minutes. Then we will turn to bill who will moderate the second half of todays discussion on the future of the gop. We are very fortunate to have aei resident fellow, jona goldberg and the center for American Progress to comment on the future of the gop. Ruy has a book and you will be able to purchase copies of craigs and ruys books in addition. 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] i would like to thank aei and cspan to cover this event. Its like real birth but without the pain of real birth. Today i would like to start by making ronald reags last words my first. This is what you can see in gravestone as they sit over beautiful valleys in Southern California that he so deeply loved. I know in my heart that the man is good and theres worth purpose to each and every human life. My book is little more than extended essay on the meaning of those words and how important they were to Ronald Reagan and how incorporation and the conservative movement lots its soul, rather than following the real reagan, the man who can say those real words, words that he wants us to remember him by, they have false reagan. Someone who was in love with an abstract sense of liberty without no bounds and man who instead of being somebody who would be pragmatic to make sure that blessings to america will flow to everyone in the economy as the poor 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 1977 speech to the convention of a new Republican Party. A Republican Party where the cop, the farmer, working man would have a seat at the Republican Party table that would combine conservatives of all stripes, culture, fiscal, defense conservatives into one Majority Party. The Republican Party remains today despite reagans advances what its since great dpecion. Americas second place party. Has fewer people that say they will belong to or support they ideals and say they will support the Democratic Party even as the gap has narrowed in the years after reagan. Approach to which that means one should take to government that Ronald Reagan actually exhibited in his life. The reagan point is the most controversial, the high priest of reaganism that Ronald Reagan is little more than Barry Goldwater and the man dedicated of the overthrow of the new deal as goldwater and are todays libertarians. In fact, nothing can be further from the case. From the earlier days of conservative Ronald Reagan, exhibited fidelity to the core innovations of the new deal in the sense that government at local and state level, if necessary, but in federal level possible that a federal level if necessary should ensure that americans have hand up in American Life and that everyone has a chance to live a life of their own choosing even if it requires government assistance. I will move to the second part, explaining why 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 the states that determine who becomes president and the states and the constituencies that since 1896 have determined which party run it is 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 out on to the political sphere. Now, most people who have studied reagan know that he began life as an ardent democrat. He inherited love and added youthful admiration of Franklin Roosevelt. He was new dealer and rem miezed reagans memorizes roosevelt s fire side chats. He continued to be a democrat. He supported the democrat nominee against Richard Nixon in 1950 and continued to support new deal democratic ideals in private conversation well in 1950s going so far to calling him a fascist sob when he first met goldwater who were friend of his seconds wives parents in phoenix in early 1950s. He moved over to the right as he became aware that the Democratic Party was leaving ideals as he understood them behind. He 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 animating goal rather than providing assistance to people who needed assistance to overcome obstacles or petty tyranny in their private or public lives. Reagan was a very smart man and he was somebody who read and somebody who read when he was a child and on movie sets and read when he was working for General Electric and he developed his own philosophy, which is best expressed as one that said that 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 that 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 in 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 past few decades the government and america had been engaged in great adoption of welfare projects that became and he did not want and thought that no thinking individual would want to repeal them regardless of the cost they represented forward thinking on his part on our part. He doesnt reference the new deal but what else could he have had in mind . He supported eisenhower twice while National Review was withholding endorsement because he was to wedded to the new deal and supported nixon in 1960, National Review withholding their endorsement because nixon was too enthused with the new deal. Even as reagan matured, reagan continue to adhere to this philosophy, he told audience that no one should be denied health care because of lack of funds and he repeated that statement in 1964 when he was giving his television address for Barry Goldwater which made him a national star. He continued as when he ran for governor to express similar sentiments talking about we would try and engage as governor the private initiative and 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 medicaid which was then only a year old as some as he called them ultra conservatives urged him to do. He pushed through a record tax increase to make sure the budget was balanced. He always claimed that he he wanted to do was make sure that aid went through no fault of their own deserved to own and not to people that could get by by government support. The very use of that phrase indicates intellectual hertance. This continued all the way through presidency that reagan continued to tell people, tell americans that he supported what he called a social safety net the great pressing problem of his time. People who genuinely needed assistance which included people on medicare, medicaid, Social Security and a whole social programs would remain exempt from cuts so long they were genuinely and needy and that group was a very large group, indeed. He quoted from fdr in his life. Not only in the ways that are not acknowledged but in way that is are acknowledged. His depth was so 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 ask, can you join me as we begin our crusade together, can we join together in a moment of silent prayer . He had just become the first republican nominee to even mention hated roosevelt citing the speech calling for new deal but only the oldest would remember that Roosevelt Speech concluded also for joining together in a crusade to save america to return it to its people. The famous line to close 1980 debate, are you better off than four years ago, not only adapted but next paragraph or more where he asked americans questions, are you better off, is it easier to find a job, this whole section from roosevelts fifth fire site fire side chat where he answered his critics. Regular rein indebted roosevelts vision in a limited sense that america should not return to wilderness of liberty where he opposed what had happened was had happened that the Democratic Party party believed increasingly interested in party for his own sake, he said over and over again in his speeches, only about 10 or 20 of Senior Citizens genuinely can afford medical care, federal funds to create programs and more must money were needed but since advocates of what became medicare continue today push for one size fits all program regardless of need, he felt that they were interested in something else. They were interested in socialized medicine or socialized Society Since you could legitimate meet human needs through a must lech intrusive and much less command and control system. The Republican Party no longer talks this language. It talks the language of apply side economics, a phrase that reagan refused to adopt for himself. Talk it is language of the entrepreneur, when in fact, when reagan was running for president he never mentioned the phrase entrepreneur, the only time he mentions nit a major address from when he enters the race in 1979 until 1981 in his first inaugural address where he lists the entrepreneurs, one of Many American heros and he lists after the shop the consumer, the farmer, the cop on the beat. Reagan believed in a bottom up economy which everybodys incentives matter and everybodys work was worthy. After Ronald Reagan whether hurry better walker bush or people nominated fail today attract people particularly nonevangelical christians that didnt see supportive or found interesting, they didnt see anybody that found that balance that had individual opportunity and individual security that they ascribed to the new deal and they we wanted to see america. They wanted america that gives them the hand upened not america that treats them with hands off or america that lays hands too heavily in the form of government direction. Donald trump is many things and not all of them good. One thing he did when he entered political life as serious politician in 2015 was operate as a laseralabama focus on needs and wants of those people, he told them that they understood the pain and that heart work mattered and that he had their back and that meant he was going to fight for trade deals that might hurt people on the coast but return jobs, he was for that and that sense he was a part from reagan in theory but remarkably similar to reagan in practice as reagan put trade sanctions on japan time and time again to fight unfair trade practices and one of reagans proudest achievements, whenever you see a Harley Davidson motorcycle driving around is because Ronald Reagan stopped them from being put out of business when they were being unfairly competed with by subsidized japanese import. When he talks about immigration, reagan scientist, he felt that we were losing control of our borders and amnesty was necessary in order to make sure it was necessary not to have too many migrant workers. Economic migrants, we can never take all of them because we never have room for them, america was so rich that it could never accommodate all of the people that would want to live here and take advantage of its bounty. Donald trump was on something and he was on to the missing link that the Republican Party in talk of entrepreneurship and disregard all too often for the realities of the way that government has provided individual security through entitlement programs. He was onto something that the Republican Party has not and consequently he became the first republican to win the five mid western dominated states, state that had are dominated by regan democrats, iowa, ohio, michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. 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 center, is to make the coalition solid and expand by attracting back the republicans whom the negative aspect 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 faiths and backgrounds, one that has an ability to speak to people of all creeds classes and genders and one that gives people hand up in American Life while still continuing the task of reducing tax that is are necessary giving deregulation and added spur and restoring competition to americas public services. Its one that interprets Franklin Roosevelt new deal rather than opposes it. Its one that will legitimately returns america on the path which its been on well over a century, one that allows us to accommodate economic competition and modern life while enduring freedom. Its a hard row to hoe. Its one that would be difficult for republicans to adopt but i believe we can do it and i believe we can do it because in our hearts thats where most of us already are. Its where the voters are, its what they said in the 2016 primary but overwhelming they rejected the reaganism high priest and rejected candidates that were running on the platform that had been adopted in favor of the new look of the old reaganism that donald trump was proposing. I would just like to conclude by asking you a question, do you think that as the Republican Party and conservative Movement Continues to do what its been doing for the last eight to ten years that it continues to do those things for the next ten years that we will be better off . Do you think that taxes will be lower and regulations would be smaller . Do you think that traditional values would be more respected in American Public institutions and do you think that we would be more respected do you think we would have attracted more people to our cause for the First Time Since 1932, more people will tell spol pollsters that they are republicans than they are democrats. Do you think those things will happen . I dont. I think we have been on the wrong course since Ronald Reagan. If we had followed the course, we would have been where he expected us to be. In fact, i think we would fulfill what he told the columbus day audience in 1988 when he was in one of the political speeches, he spoke to a group of italian americans, im going to tell you something ive never said before, he said the ole party of harry truman and fdr isnt dead. The little secret is when the left took over the Democratic Party, we took over the Republican Party. If that isnt true, the old party of Franklin Roosevelt and harry truman, people that wanted security and opportunity had genuinely found a place in the Republican Party, the entire history of america would have lasted 20 years, would have been different. I think this is now our last best hope to make Ronald Reagans dream come true and finally put america on the path where conservatism is the full 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 spoke about this event several months ago, i asked him who he would like to respond to his thesis and he said that many people, he spoke to asked him what does Craig Shirley think, so we are very pleased to have craig with us today and craig in ten minutes can you tell what you say henry did henry get reagan right . Yes and no. Thank you, thank you aei, being here, i enjoy book writing but i also enjoy meeting people and, you know, reminds me of may west too much of a good thing is wonderful. Over the course of my six books, ive interviewed many people, jimmy carter, jim baker and nancy reagan and other people like that but the only three people that i couldnt interview, one of them was alice cooper, well, it turns out alice was a reagan supporter in 1980 so i contacted his office, i was in arizona, reagan had alice contributed to reagan and no alice didnt want to do interview and said, alice, was drunk. What do you mean alice was drunk. Alice was drunk from 1976 to 1983. I said, you mean all of the time . She said, yeah, pretty much. [laughter] henry might have discovered a lot of joy in book writing as well. Someone once asked me, whats the most profitable form of writing, is it opeds, letters, speeches, book writing and i thought for a moment, i 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 thats not been thoroughly and completely examined as well it should have been. We dont fully know or underreported on reagans intellectual maturation. How does he go to supporter of the new deal to libertarian conservative and by the way he was a libertarian, thats where youre wrong. [laughter] but it is an important discussion which is why we are here today and its why his book was written. Knowledge is good. Nobody saw animal house, i guess. [laughter] i did. Okay. [laughter] how does reagan go by this journey, who are the effects on him, who does he talk to, what are the affects of hollywood, what are the affects of college where hes an economic major and first learned that cause of Great Depression and starts down the path of becoming a free trader for economic professor where he developed reading of the viena school of economics. So worthy discussion. Its important discussion. I think also is is that he henry writes in his book that reagans mind and writing and thinking and intellect has been underappreciated and i think that thats also true. Marty anderson who was one of reagans closest aides for many years, very dear friend of mine, he thought reagans iq was 150 or higher, he thought he was at genius level the way he approached things and the way he rejected, you know, problems that were put to him. He liked to have other solutions, third ways as in combating the soviet union which was not on our knees or mutually selfdestruction but to work with ingij enous thirdparty Freedom Fighters in afghanistan and hungary and nicaragua and other countries to win hearts and minds of the people rather than the old way with vietnam, with other u. S. Responses to soviet incuirgses. If you read, i think henry has, if you read reagans columns, if you read regular addresses, if you read his speeches, you come away realizing this is a very thoughtful man. And you can see over the years that hes becoming more mature, more subtle in thinking and reflects on right and dignity and freedom of individual. He uses individual many, many times in regular addresses and later in his speeches including as president of the United States. So i think thats all to commend henry. Henry rejects that reagan was a libertarian. Regan was a libertarian but wasnt liberteen, he was traditional on issues like drug uses and other excesses of 1960s, flower child generation, as one of reagans underappreciated historians, john patrick diggins, in the first paragraph of the first page he says, reagan drew inspiration as libertarian inspiration from thomas payne and as a matter of fact he quoted payne often. He cited them often. In 1980 campaign he uses curious phrase. We all say man and god. Reagan says man with god. And this is a very different intellectualization, third way, synthesis of pain, the enlightenment teaches that man is at the center of the universe hate it is whole concept. They say, well, how can reagan, how can the two philosophers be favorites because reagan sin synthesizes. God is in that man. Theres no contradiction in reagans mind by being devotee. In 1975 just weeks before he was going to take on gerald ford in the republican primaries for president of the United States, he gives an interview to cbs. This you missed in your book, gives interview to mike wallace who is a good friend of nancy reagan. They grew together in chicago. They used to go dancing lessons together. Its up at a ranch and broadcast in november of 75. Reagan goes into great length to explain his libertarian philosophy. He gives a tutorial which is quite excellent on the rights and the dignity and how he arrived that the philosophy and is very, very impressive. For many, many years, during the 1970s reagan used to publicly refer to himself as a libertarian conservative and i know you cited reason and he said reagan libertarianism was fundamental basis for american conservative and i believe he believed that, believed nit the abstract and believed it in practical sense, practical terms. But he was he referred to himself for many years in the 70s as a libertarian conservative. At some point one of the bunch said, governor, knock it off, nobody knows what youre talking about anyway, he stopped doing it. He did believe in it, is that with regard to the new deal, he says that, yes, its right, he believed in human beings over cash but also he believed in individuals over state sponsored as you write in your book. You also write curiously that he was a republican newdealer, now, we just got rid of the phrase Big Government republican and i would hate to see republican new dealer introduced into the lexicon because i dont think he was. When he was a newdealer, he was a liberal democrat as he matured in 62 he pretty much rejected at least the policies of the new deal because they didnt work or perceived that they were intruding on the rights and dignity of the individual, there were things that he knew he could do and things that he knew he couldnt do but, you know, whether in his dairies where he dismisses tip oneil as old new dealer, in 1975, you know, rejects the new deal as being, you know, just a pass that will solve anything. By the 1960s, hes pretty much rejected the politics and policies of the new deal. I agree that the spiritualty of the new deal that it was a mechanism to bring the country together at a time that it needed to come together. The third, second, is the new deal itself and he did compare in columns and in writings and speeches the new deal to fascism. New york times in 1981 was the same thing. The dairy entry, as i mentioned the book marathon. You have to look at reagans relationship with the new deal for southerly than just than he was for or against it. When he was selected president in 1980 the country was in deep recession and we were losing the cold war and those are the things that he concentrated on. Those are the three things that we have another minute. One minute, okay. Those are the things that he concentrated on and those are the things that were in his mind not getting rid of Social Security, not getting rid of the newdeal programs or anything like that. He was also a political realist, it was a democratic congress, many of them were still newdeal democrats and Social Security and other social programs were still popular and he focused on those things that he could do. Let me just conclude here by saying, i really appreciate this panel but in some ways we have almost done from underestimating Ronald Reagan to overintellectualizing him. You have to realize, this is a guy who was a lot of fun and he was a lot of fun and thats part of conservatism, the fun is at the central core of conservatism. [laughter] well, i guess you learn things every day. Speaking of fun, you know, back in the 60s, the hype of the vietnam war and reagan was out walking with an aide and governor and he was confronted hippy, maybe it was bill clinton, i dont know. The hippy was carrying sign make love and not war. From the looks of him, i dont think he could do either. [laughter] thank you, craig, now we are going to turn to bill olsen. [laughter] well, i have a million things to say about this book but youll be relieved to hear that i am not going to say any of them. The moderaters job is to be moderate and selfrestrained and im going to turn directly first to johan and then to ruy and then im going to give henry a chance which i think he will be chanting at the bit to seize to respond to what hes heard and then a Frank Exchange among the four of you. We will then turn to the audience for about 15 minutes of q a and i would ask only to reserve one minute at the end to share with you a unique insight into Ronald Reagans political philosophy that henrys book has help node see for the first time and perhaps the last. [laughter] jonah. I dont have a lot of time here so im going to skip some of the pleasantries as henry the eighth said to each of his wives, im not going to keep you long. Let me say that i really enjoyed the book, i think the book makes important points about, not just that reag isnt quite the person that we understood him to be but that fdr wasnt quite the person that he is now either and the history is more subtle. Henry im not going to do any arguing with henry about numbers, you know, hes somebody who studied the elections. I will leave that to ruy. I consider math witchcraft and im not even going to touch it. [laughter] henry makes three basic arguments, at least the three basic arguments, the debate about this book is going to generate. The first is that reagan was less of a reaganite than conservatives, high priests as he called them, i used a phrase on a bunch on people on the right as well like the claim. The second is that the gop needs to shed this cult of reagan of this false reagan if its going to fix its problems and become a Majority Party and do serious important things and the third is that donald trump in some ways proves some of that. I think the first two ones are important points. I will say up front, i am not im more in the Craig Shirley camp in the question that Ronald Reagan was a newdeal republican. Ronald reagan was not from a progressive wing of the Republican Party. Not what Nelson Rockefeller and those guys thought of him but im supposed to be talking about the future of the gop and so here i think my fundamental disagreement, i know theres much i agree from the book and i will get to that. Sometimes im in violent agreement with henry and the panel is supposed to be entertaining or at least interesting to people want conflict. It seems to me that henry is making in some ways the same mistake that hes criticizing so many on the right of, mainly that he thinks theres this true reagan, conservatism and we can uncover him and reveal his true nature he will like a lamp illuminate the path forward for republicans for all time and this is the argument you hear from the high priests about true reagan and henry heard true reagan is a newdeal republican and im just not entirely convinced that is right. I think that one of the things people dont really understand about Ronald Reagan that i have always thought of, here is what i absolutely agree with henry, i think the gop for the last few election cycles, last couple of decades has been crippled by the cult of reagan. You go back and watch the primary debates on cspan of the last couple election cycles, they you know n iowa or New Hampshire you get gop candidates and its like the nerdiest enactment of sparticus. If Ronald Reagan would be alive today he would be 106. First of all, maybe he doesnt have the best grasp of what Politics Today require, but i think to one of the problems that the gop has gotten caught up is become obsessed with purity and principles. Dont get me wrong, i like the principles, thats what i do for a living, promote, sorry, conservative principles but the thing is that once you get into a contest of who is the purest, you lose sight of what policy is supposed to be about. Politics is supposed to be about persuasion. Go back, the idea that i use reason and logic, i can explain to you why youre better reflected in my coalition than the other guys coalition and thats politics. And instead im the purest guy on the stage, you by definition are excluding people rather than enticing people and bringing them in. The Republican Party has had lost his way prior to trump to the art of persuasion. And this gets me to sort of key point about Ronald Reagan. Ronald reagans success wasnt had to do a lot with ideology, however we want to define it. The big part was he was a very good politician and one of the things he did that almost no politicians do including donald trump, i have to say, is he told stories. He was really good at telling stories. George shultz tells a story, reagan looked at it and said, this is a great speech but not the way i would write it, what do you mean, here is what i would do, i would go, bullet, point, point, story and writes in story, point, point, story. And what reagan understood is that human mind is wired to understand things through human story. Every important lesson in your lives has a Story Associated with it. The bible is many things but the black better of it is a book of stories and he understood how to reach out to people who disagreed with him. If you disagree with seven out of ten things, youre not my enemy, youre my ally and thats something that the gop has lost and one of the things that has caused me to be incredibly frustrated with the gop in the last few cycles is in particularly with the election of donald trump is the way in which the very same high priests that henry is talking have basically beaten back anybody who wanted to be a policy innovator and say, no, no, this isnt like reagan in 82. We have to cut top marginal tax rates. Well, we cut top marginal down to 30 , i would like to cut them more, what that is two thumbs up and likes tax cuts, the sky. A matter of logic that if you cut marginal tax rates down from 70 to 30, youve gotten a lot of benefit from it. Maybe we should look at payroll taxes or look at other things that might help the whiteworking class. Whenever people like aei or policy center where henry is, National Review would make points, there would be a lot of people, talkradio types, no, no, thats not reaganism and then along comes donald trump with populist campaign and wins whiteworking class and all of a sudden, the people who were being denounced as soft as too soft on conservatism, all of a sudden being thrown under the bus for not throwing out reagan entirely and giving into this populist tie, applying reaganite principles to contemporary problem rather than running the 182 1982 play book. Maybe if we are allowed to do innovations to contemporary problems, we would have won over some of those people at the Republican Party and not let them grow so frustrated that they ruined this vast populist enterprise that has no serious connection to anything like mainstream intellectual conservatism and i will just close with this last point. One of the things that made reagan an incredibly successful president was that the staff knew what the old man believed and that is incredibly empowering to the bureaucracy, political appointees, if you know where the old man is coming down on something, you dont have to get permission, you carry the ball forward. That more than anything else is one of the biggest problems with the Trump Presidency so far is on any given day, hes hes like an old like a patient from old age home wandering off into the snow. You dont know where hes going to go, no one feels empowered to actually follow through on a policy about anything and makes a lot of serious people unwilling to enter the administration because they dont feel like hell get his get their back when they need it and thats enormous problem and it is a sign that Ronald Reagan was a much smarter administrator an politician who manage today keep the tribe together in a way that donald trump simply has no intuitive grasp for and thats one reason that historians will look back and see donald trump as much a comparative paying your than Ronald Reagan. Thank you. [applause] you did it in nine minutes, congratulations. Ruy. See if you can do even better . Ly do my best. Yeah, thanks for having me here and, you know, im a longtime admirer of henrys work and im probably the person on this panel, i dont know how bill feels but probably least e enamored of Ronald Reagan. I thoughtia learned a lot from it and i do think it has a lot to tell us about the future of the republicans which sort of subject of this part of the panel. One thing henrys book makes clear if we are going to understand success and most recent success of the Republican Party including trumps the republican has become dependent on the whiteworking class, not the black or hispanicworking class, the whiteworking class and there are some things that are worthying about in terms of that dependence which kind of, i guess, in some ways one must admire the success of the republicans and continuing to build their success of this group. In 1980 when Ronald Reagan, you know, god bless his memory, i suppose, 70 of eligible voters in the United States could be classified as whiteworking class. By the time donald trump got elected at 2016 it was down 45 . They managed to sur that have receding way in a pretty effective way. Down 30 , by the time 2060, 28 . This is a group thats going to continue to decline fairly rapidly as a share of eligible voters and voters in the United States. Thats something to keep in mind when you think about the coalition that reagan and reaganism has built and lets talk a little bit about reagan and reaganism because one thing that one to have central points of henrys book and i know its under dispute in the panel, its a difference between reagan and what is thought of as reaganism. According to henry, the reagan approach, you can think of a sort loyal opposition to the welfare state. His view was that according to henry, dont take away the new deal, dont disparage it, improve it and above all, whatever you do, dont take stuff away from people because they dont like it and its not right. That was according to him where reagan was coming from. The reaganism approach in today gop and henry would argue is not really reaganism its neolibertarian goldwater. On top of that, the general philosophy seems lets get close to the government should tax as little and expend as little as possible. The new deal is basically a bad idea, theres nothing more important than cutting spending and tacks and if that involves taking stuff away from people, sobeit. You cant make an omelet without breaking eggs. Paul ryan and his friends in the congress seemed to believe that what the heck, if its got to be done, its got to be done. I think henrys argument is that in a sense reaganism, ie, this kind of disguise goldwaterrism has beaten reagan and this is a bad thing. Can the gop change, by henrys argument it says that in any different way in the process of his book and listening to his talk, they have to to obtain longterm political success. The current success as henry argues and its not unreasonable argument isnt a fools gold, doesnt represent something that you can build longterm success on but rather something thats more episodic. I think we have to be realistic here. They may look at the gold and say it looks pretty gold to me, looks like we control the majority of governors, we control the senate and we control the house and the presidency, hey, if it aint broke, dont fix it and i think thats positively the biggest obstacle henry has to really getting people to dig into his argument to take it seriously while, you know the conservative policy intellectuals and the analysts may have different ideas about what the party should do and what really needs to do to obtain longterm success and in fact, take that as a serious issue, i think for most politicians thats not where theyre coming from. They look at whats happening and they say, this is good. Thats heprys book about the longterm project. Republicans and conservatives need to face some facts. We won elections in that time but never have we really taken hold of government for more than a couple years time. The only debates without cost. Unless we change this and change the nature to have political debate we will be tax collectors for the liberal welfare state. Let me also quote from something that came out today from david brooks, brooks argued today in his piece about how the gop is in a sense rejecting and conservative policy intellectuals, thats people like you in this audience, i guess, tend to accept the fact that American Society is coming apart and that measures need to be taken to assist the working class. Republican politicians show no awareness of this fact and also conservative writers and intellectuals have a vision for how they want American Vision to be in 21st century and republicans have a vision of how they want government would be in 21st century. Senate bill who ch was put on hold for the elimination of obamacare, would eliminate 3. 8 tax in Investment Income for those making a quarter million, republican politicians believed openended entitlement should be cut, the Senate Health care plan throws 50 Million People off of medicaid according to cbo, Program Covers 40 of americas children. Brooks goes onto say, is there a vision of society underlying these choices . Not really, most Political Parties define vision of role of government of sort of country they like to create. The current Republican Party has ironed rules but no vision for america and in a sense they have reaganism but not reagan. So who in the end is going to solve the rolling crisis of capitalism . [laughter] to paraphrase Martin Luther king , but that is the theory of my book. So good luck, henry. [applause] thank you, everyone. Okay, henry, you have five minutes to respond and then im going to experiment with a new kind of moderation, moderation of extinction and i will step in only when it starts too much like the group. [laughter] i favor to stan on the principle of liberty and a man should dispose of his property according to how he sees fit and has changed miss mind on them in open housing law. All taz, as he called them, were aghast. Libertarians were aghast at Ronald Reagan, opposed him in 1980 and 1984. In 1980 he says he talks about lowering taxes but does never does it. He said Ronald Reagan was the attar of the candidates and saw this out there the presidency, where idealogues, opposed reagan from the tort. Jack kemp and Newt Gingrich opposed the Social Security plan. Again, it raised taxes as part of a compromise. Reagan and his diaries dericesively refers to people as ultras throughout his career. Reagan was a principled man, not libertarian, the way we understand the word, not an idealogue and i invite you to read my book to read the full argument. One other thing, this is i got an email i wrote a piece in politico and raid out the reaganism versus the reagan the sunday, and richard allen, the First National security adviser, wrote in i book today i read a fantastic piece that is spot on and id like to tell him so. So at least one person who was there at the beginning thinks ive got something to talk about. All right. [applause] okay, panel. You have 12 minutes to go at it. 12 minutes. But you dont get all 12. All right. Ill put my guard up. Sometimes im confusioned by henrys arguments because he says the reagan is a new dealer and then goes into how reagan eschewed government and managed economy and managed Big Government dictating to the individual people, and as a matter of fact he said, i remember, in 1981, he wrote his diary that tip oneill was a new dealer and said the 50 states were to be dictated to by the federal government and he opposed that. I think one thing is interesting is that while he did write that and also wrote that he wasnt trying to undo the new deal but trying to undo the in 1977 we have to find tough bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the mind, numbing idocy of the liberals in washington. Reagan, talk about the new deal. What i talk about is there was a different there injury sorry state of affairs let to democratic control of congress for more than 40 years. Right. He is denouncing the new deal. The failures of the new deal. What he is denouncing the failures of the new deal. What he is denounce, as he said in one letter to hills the father of his onetime fiancee, who broke off with him, after college, that they took he thought that things had taken a turn for the worst back in the 1930s. His name is mugs. Im sorry . Her name is mugs. Thats her nickname, not her actual name. Thats right. Actually did some research, craig. But again, what i said a number of times is that let take a look at what the new deal actually did. There was a debate about the future of the new neil 1948. The liberal wing of thank you new deal broke off from the Democratic Party to form the Progressive Party and called for state controlled and directed economy. Part of the progressive part platform. The democratic part rejected that. Ronald reagan stood with the bulk of the Democratic Party. In 1948. My point is that as things developed, it was increasingly part of the national Democratic Party and reagan rejected planning, he rejected centralization, he did not reject the basic core ten nets of the popular toward offering in the new deal which included Social Security, support for people in old age, unemployment insurance, the pork are labor unions, mass public education. Always supported those things. He did not reject to the this and those things are not antinew deal innovations. They were often oppose bid anne new deconservatives at the time, and what reagan did was distinguish between the parts of the new deal that were in fact rejections of American Life and the parts of the new deal that legitimately tainted to them and he was always for those later things. I think thats the mistake you are making. This is my 12 minutes, not yours. The point youre making spoused to be between us. In other words this was a debate. Time out. Moderator. Break. Im right. You get 30 seconds to prove it, then its jonas turn. The mistake you make is you look at the world static include instead of dynamically. The new deal was the world in the 1930s and 1940s. There was no argue. Really against it. No intellectual arrangement for freedom or conservatism or privacy or returning power and authority to the states. It was the only argument going so the only question was how big to grow it or how intrusive to make it. The only argument on the National Stage in the 1930s. Think youre overlooming a lot of things, is that the impact of world war ii had on reagan and had on this country, because we defeated the empire of japan, nazi germany and to American People it looked like government was working. We built the interstate highway system. So reagan was part of the culture. Conservatives doesnt offer a compelling are argument because theres no need for conservatism because everybody believes that government is good and more government is better for you. Three other thing outside overlook. Craig, craig, have to stop you now so that jonah then rory can get a break. So, my point going here. One is it seems that part of the problem is i think youre right. New deal was a lot of different things. Ray molly, the postmaster general in one of back then postmaster general was a really important job and was a Campaign Aide to fdr. He was asked what the idea of the new deal was, and he said, saying that theres a theme to the new deal is like saying the collection of old stuff, snakes, deflate basketball, some old shoes, and a guitar, in your garage, were put there by an interior designer. The whole idea of the new deal, which he references, bold persistent experimentation and things up against the wall to see if it stuck. Some did with the American People, some did for the economy. A lot of it was awful and abandoned, and i think that you make a perfectly fine putt. That reagans as a politician, looked city stuff that stuck and was successful and said that part of the new deal im willing to stick with but the Hugh Johnsons nra and the blue eagle, i cant stand that and all the other things that were truly aboveboard and outrageous the second new deal, a lot of different new deals, and i think this gets to my ai story. And i will say the Enterprise Institute was founded in 1938 to be the hotbed of these ideas to fight the new deal. So there was some work being done. So, over 25 years ago, when im a little policy research nerd creature here at the american Enterprise Institute, josh, a scholar at ai, gave a friday talk about neoconservatism. And i remember being very proud of myself because i asked him a question saying, well, what was Ronald Reagan . And he answered, oh, well, Ronald Reagan was elected be a Foreign Policy president , and we he was smart enough to get the social conservatives and the economic conservatives onboard. And an economist here got furious and said, you have it completely wrong. Reagan was an economic conservative and he managed to fold into his campaign the social conservatives and the Foreign Policy hawks, and then michael novak, one of my dear friends says i cannot believe what im hearing. Everyone knew that as a fundamental essence of Ronald Reagans campaign was social conservative and be a pro life and christian and managed to make that into a global fill so isty on ward blah blah blah, and the it was like this episode of seinfeld where jerry gets the entire pizza restaurant to fight about abortion. I was very proud i set it off and it went like this for 20 minutes. My point is i think its very difficult to pick any one of this threads from Ronald Reagan who was very smart but not been intellectual or a philosopher. He was a politician who tacked around as best he could i like your spinnings between principles and ideology but this idea that there is a true reagan that sound solves owl of the questions is is not right whether it comes from the high priests or whether it comes from the olsen school of revisionism. Roy, you get the last comment before we turn to q a. Well, dont really have a horse, i guess not really in the fight about what reagan really meant and what he really said and how many reagans you can put on the head of a pin. If were going think about what made Ronald Reagan attractive as a politician, what his discuss is based on, the white voters who are reagan democrats. They liked reagan because he represented what henry says reagan stood for, this, lets get rid of the compelses, but get red of the excesses but keep the new deal program and well get new bureaucracy off your nerving but not take anything away from you. What they did not vote for it what seems to be the reigning philosophy of the Republican Party, this neogoldwater libertarianism and the taxes as little as possible and spend as little as possible and take things a. From people bait theyty right thing to do. Thats not what they voted for in 1980 and 1984. Okay, audience you get the next 14 minutes, and i have two requests. First of all, wait until the roving microphone reaches you, and secondly, identify yourself before you ask a brief question. No speeches or statements, please. Okay, this gentleman in the front. Good evening, gentlemen. Thank you all for coming, very exel rating exhilarating. I study in washington, dc. I would like to know i just left the embassy of sweden today and the speaker of the parliament for latvia and for would there and was stead approval that President Trump and he Republican Party has and discussed the impression that european nations were having on the College Students that were producing due to our political climate. What do yall think we can do to improve the perception of globally due to recent developments here in the United States to increase the Approval Rating and what these nations think of what were producing on an intellectual and collegiate level right now. Thank you very much. Who wants to take a crack at it. Just you brought up a related subject which is very important, and hasnt even been addressed here and that is the cold war, which that prevailing issue of the 1980s. In 1980 we are losing the cold war to the soviets. The soviets hat again into southeast asia, that nicaragua had fallen, they were in afghanistan had falling, in africa and angola. By every measurable standard we are losing the cold war to the soviets. Eight year later were winning the cold war, and in the course from 1917 to 1980, we gave up territory every president gave up territory to the soviets until reagan and then reagan was elected and then in eight years they dont give up i think, too, is that part of reagans i said before, one of the big goals was to defeat soviet communism, and ive always believed that simpson in 1986 which is an example that reagan is somehow a liberal was really more about gorbachev and about the cold war and him not handing the soviets a p. R. Bonanza by forcibly evicts 300,000, 400,000 illegals in the United States. And at a time were preaching freedom ask telling him to tear down the wall, is that dont forget the refugees were from communist cuba and nick wag a who had come into the United States seeking political asylum. Dont know what the answer is to your question but i do know that the cold war is not been addressed here enough and i think it is that it would be really terrific if we all kind of addressed ourselves to that as well. Next the woman in the front row and then ill shift over to a different part of the room altogether. Sonya graham, im a consultant. Mr. Duor made the statement that the gm has no vision for america. Whats what david brooks said and ill agree. Ill ask you to comment on that if you would, please. And the reason im asking you to comment is that the extension of the statement was that they have a vision for government but no vision for the country as a whole. Would you comment. I thought i dodged that bullet. Well, i think david has a pretty good point. I think that one of the i get asked a lot why i understand there are all sorts of issues but why are democrats so much better at politics than republicans are, and for reasons that i think were put out, that doesnt seem obvious to democrats who dont control any government but there is this sense that democrats live and breathe politics in a way that the get help from the media and they get to define and frame issues in a way that republicans never can. And i think part of it i dont mean this to be as nearly as pejorative as it soundings is that republican politicians tend to be more normal people. What i mean by that is not that like the president . [laughter] it n debate i would call that a direct hit. [laughter] but one of the liberating thing about politically homeless is only have to defend who i want to defend. But what i mean by that is you have remember when ron johnson asked Hillary Clinton that question about benghazi and she said at this point what difference does it make . And won this round. 30 years earlier ron johnson was trying to figure out how to get a loan to get a truck to move pallets of plastic from oshkosh to st. Paul, and Hillary Clinton was doing her working at crazy left wing law firm where she was doing her thesis. There is a citizen in which the will be recalls who go into politics take and it live it much more seriously and the standard republican is this usually a guy who comes from a midwestern town, a little successful in business, a leader in his community and church and says i want to give back. Right . And so they come from this very sort of i dont want to say myonic but narrow frame of American Culture that does not speak well to bill swath of American Culture. Democrats have a similar problem but just sort of the reverse image, and so a lot of republicans think, im going to go to washington and bring my business skills and get make shower that the accounts payable depth runs well. Some liberals have a vision of what society should look like, republicans have a vision that says just get government out of peoples way. I come from a place with a lot of social capital, a place with sort of strong institutions and government is the problem there. Well, its not the problem there necessarily for the inner cities or the problem on the coast, not the way people see things outside of red states. And conservatives need to do a lot more work figuring out a vision about what this country supposed to look like for people who dont already agree with them. This is the signature problem of the conservative movement today. You make a really good living only talking to audiences that already agree with you. And that leaves you completely blind to what other people think and how to address them and persuade them about things. Think its a real problem for conservatism and i think if donald trump is not helping in his regard. I dont really care what young people in latvia think about america. I do care in terms of what the conservative movement does and its help in terms of how what young people in america think about it and whatever you think about Donald Trumps base, he is making conservatism and the Republican Party fairly toxic to well educated, millenials, a lot of people that should be the future of the Republican Party, and that is something we have to deal with. Im now going to turn to this side of the room. This gentleman right here. Mark. Love this panel discussion. We have been talking about trump and reagan, media is something that comes up quite a bit. While media didnt like Ronald Reagan id like your comment how wrong give donald trump your tips how he could handle the media like Ronald Reagan did. Reagan didnt shut them out. Reagan was one of the most successful president s of the modern era. The media was not kind to Ronald Reagan. The night of the Iowa Caucuses in 1980 when he lost to george bush, a huge upset, tom pettite of nbc went on National News and said, we have just witnessed the political funeral of Ronald Reagan. Of course, six weeks later he wins a huge victory in New Hampshire primary. The national immediate a, the post, routinely savaged Ronald Reagan. Even the week of his funeral they were writing articles whether or not he had had affairs, articles about the state of his and mrs. Reagans major. The Washington Post was horrendous to reagan for pretty often all eight years and his death. New york times was not much better. The fact of the matter is that but he never really shut them out. He never criticized them. He never went after them. There was a time where he wrote a letter to cal thomas, the Los Angeles Times criticized him and he said, well, the Los Angeles Times is not my corner. Oops. And that was the extent of it. He was this is a guy he made 55 movies and some of those movies were really bad. But he developed a thick skin through all of this much of his career. The radio career, where you would get criticism from the local talent so certainly the movie career is that his last movie, the killers was widely panned. But the time he is in politics, he has learned to take criticism and not take it too personally. He would let go in his diaries is that with people he didnt like or reporters he didnt like, once wrote in his diaries about senator lowell white in connecticut that he was a pomp muss no pompous he had his ways of handling those but he did it in private. Might vent to mrs. Reagan, certainly would vent in his diaries. But by the time he is president he has developed a thick skin and can turn away criticism unlike trump who cant turn away any criticism whatsoever. Yes. The woman in the second row and then if theres time ill take one more question. About six years ago, several countries and Central Eastern europe inaugurated reagan statues and i think that spoke to the aspirational and inspirational aspect of reagan, and most importantly the anticommunist aspiration of reagan, and histories recall hatred of communism. I wonder if that as aspect of reagan which was so defining around the world to millions of people, does that stand closer to henry olsens version of reagan or more Craig Shirleys version of reagan . I think its both. I dont think we would duty that. Reagan was an enracing principal leader. One of the four most successful and important president s inform he history of the country, alongside washington, lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. When reagan was a new dealer was opposed to tyranny in the form of fascism and he spoke about it in nearly the identical wordings when communism was a more clear enemy; he always opposed selfappointed elites who felt they should have the able to rule over the many and in the name of the few, whether that was fascists, communists or thats right. He was just as ardent linned nazi, antifasts circumstance antijapanese imperial limp may have been more anticommunist and that is because of the temperature separation the real threat to the freedom of the world. We beat the nazis and Imperial Japan and then he had to deal with communist ill infiltration in hollywood movie unions first hand. He was trying to fight for at that time new deal liberalism against communist infiltration. Allege agent called his home he was licensed to carry a gun for six months. The sds had a bullet with reagans name etched on it in the 1960s. We have time for a quick question and a quick expanse then i have to take us out. So, gentleman in the front. Im martin wooster. So reagan had no differences with rockefeller or modern republicanism . He had a lot of differences with them. But in many ways, reagan did not dispute the some of the innovations they supported. He did not have problem with the expansion of state colleges, which is one of the advocate things that rockefeller advocated. He was proud when he was governor and brought californias model treatment for mental health. What reagan always opposed what the state are centered view of the world that the government was the arbiter of all things and only collective action was the appropriate response. So to that extent he was very much opposed to that wing of the Republican Party. But it was nuanced difference. He was supported eisenhower when eisenhower was opposed. He was enthusiastic about nixon when nix won was called into question in 1960. He was somebody who i dont think fit neatly into the old categories of left and right because he transcended those categories. Rockefeller is a difficult one because they were personal friends. And mrs. Reagan really like Nelson Rockefeller. They actually worked together in 1968 in miami beach to stop Richmond Nixon from getting the nomination. They were that concerned about Richard Nixon being president of the United States. I was going to heres the reagan discovery that i im so excited about that i wanted to share with the rest of the world. Thank you cspan. On page 218, we read reagan believed that you deserved a certain minimum minimal standard of living so long as you contributed to your ability. On page 267 of henrys book, we read that reagan believed the benefits should go to people who need them. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Where have we heard that before . I have to bring this to a close. Want to thank bill and then id like to thank all of our panelists, and finally, indication to congratulations to henry olsen for this new book and please buy books theyre for sale and theyll all by their autograph their books. Thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible discussion]