that shows the importance of your issue from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. among the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20th, 2023. visit the website at student cam.org for competition rules, tips, resources and a step-by-step guide. >> were welcome to politics and prose. i'm co-owner of theof bookstore along with my wife, lisa

muscatine. we are delighted to be hosting and to talk about the book the partisans the conservative revolutionaries who remade american politics. nicole is a historian and director of the new center for the study of the presidency at vanderbiltr university. also a cofounder of made by history the historical analysis section inar the "washington po" and she writes regularly for a number of other publications. in a a book six years ago, messengers of the right, she traced the emergence of the media institutions in the mid 20th century. her new work she examines why the republican party in the 1990s shifted from the kind of conservativism that ronald reagan lead in the previous decade and that was optimistic and popular to a more

pessimistic and even revolutionary conservativism. it was a period with intensified partisan conflict and a new fury took hold on the right. republicans grew less tolerant of the dissension in the ranks and began viewing democrats not as opponents, but as enemies. what accounted for the shift, nicole cites a number of factors which she will go into in a minute. but understanding why it happened is important because it remains very relevant today. as nicole explains, it sent republicans on a course that led eventually to the election of donald trump and to the radicalization of the right. we are in for a very informativeh discussion with nicole who will be in conversation this evening with one of the most political

analysis in washington today journalist and author and also a longtime friend of mine antonella says. in addition to writing and always interesting column for the post, a senior fellow at the brookings institution and teaches at georgetown. alsoso the author or the co-autr of a number of books about politics. his latest, 100% democracy that is cowritten makes a persuasive case for universal voting so please join me in welcoming nicole. [applause] thank you to brad and our friends at c-span. i love doing events at this bookstore as everybody in the room knows it is also a community organization. i love the people that work

here. brad andth melissa inherited a tradition, kept it alive and you've got to build on it. they've done great things with this bookstore and i am so pleased and honored to be here. i love this book. it's the highest compliment i can give is that you don't realize how much you are learning because the book is so engaging as you race through it and i also like in it for a selfish reason because in 1992, i was assigned to cover pat buchanan's presidential campaign byon the "washington post" and spent a lot of time on that campaign and i now learned from nicole how historically important that campaign is. i even made a couple of footnotes i discovered in the book. she makes a compelling case that

basically reagan and its influence ended almost as soonest he left office, which is not something that we usually assume. the case she makes is really powerful. so, why don't you just start there by explaining how you came to that view and how you make the case here because as you note, people kept making references to reagan and how much even as they were moving away and doing so quite quickly. >> first of all, thank you so much for doing this tonight. you are an inspiration so those kind words mean quite a lot to me. so this book in many ways began with of the puzzle that he was talking about that the methodology of reagan grew exponentially in the 1990s and the 2,000's and get a particular

set of politics that reagan and braced for under challenged almost immediately afteref he lt office and this was something i started thinking about as i was finishing my first book. i was writing about the election when i read in the bucket was a victory and it was a valid victory, the triumph of this movement but it also felt like a curtain call, like something was coming to an end. what ultimately was coming to end was the cold war and what i realized when i was working through the argument of the book was fundamentally a cold war president, that it provided a kind of logic and a kind of language for his conservatism. what that meant wasn't just that he spoke the language of democracy and freedom something that you didn't always live out in reality but that he really appealed to throughout but that language and that argument about

democracy and freedom affected certain parts of his policies. he believed that the free movement of people was part of democratic capitalism so you read him on immigration and he felt quite a lot like a democrat sometimes a especially like today's republican parties. so during the cold war and because reagan was so popular even though he had critics on the right, there was a subset of conservatives who just punched out reagan every day of his presidency so they found it difficult. but as soon the cold war ends, it opens up this space for what was at least part of the anti-democratic conservatism that b pat buchanan represents.

>> the psychology more than anything was quite different from the psychology that you described and i always thought even though he forgot all the ideas, he never really stopped being an optimistic new dealer. he kept the optimism and shelved most of the policies. can you talk about that psychological difference? and he did have support from some of the right including the virtue society and others but he didn't convey that in the way that he came along afterwards. >> that optimism is an important and i think it's an important caveat it was an optimism that was heard by white voters that he as popular as he was, he left office as one of the most popular presidents in history he was never popular with black

voters or hispanic voters, so we areic talking about a particular subset of the voters but to him, the appeal was deeply optimistic. he appealed sometimes to fear and resentment but often times to that kind of morning of america's sentiment and what would come after him was not interested in that. they were not interested in pragmatism oror popularity and certainly not an optimism. it was af much darker version of the united states and conservatism in the right, something that was very present in pat buchanan's convention speech in 1992. >> for the liberals in the audience that essay weren't you being awfully nice to reagan, i was struck by the phrase in your

book. at the top of the page i wrote you referred to the colorblind racism of the reagan era. as it went along when we try to think of trump is among the one hand you make theas case of what was quite different but yet also there was also continuity so i wonder if you can talk about the continuity as well. >> sometimes the differences are differenceser of degree and sometimes differences of kind but that colorblind racism is important the difference between a dog whistle and a bullhorn. you can argue they are the same ideas just packaged or presented in different ways but it doesn't matter if you feel like you have to appeal to universalism and play spin on opportunity. if you have to appeal versus

what's o popular in the 1990s. but it'sen still in the dna of e movement. although they get more dogmatic after reagan is famously cutting taxes and raised them a couple of times and didn't think the kindke of backlash and somebody like george hw bush, but there are some t continuities but in e things that made reaganism distinct from that emotion that you're talking about, and the idea that there are reagan democrats as opposed to the

1990s when you get the republicans in name only, the shrinking boundaries of conservatism, those differences still seem important despite the continuities. >> we have a lot of things to get to and i just want to mention a couple because we might not. you will either be reminded of things he forgot for example did you know that tucker carlson and laura ingram both got there spots on msnbc and there's great stuff on the changes in the media which i do want to get to and there is also something you explore thatwa we've forgotten there was a turn on the right on immigration a long time ago that we could talk about in the national review that had long held the view when it published

the book he wrote there were some great things but i want to go to some immediate things. somethingry confirms you thought, so i'm grateful for your t insight that the conservatives had against reagan they actually held against george w. bush, george hw bush rather and he was sort of such a hero that it was impossible to land those punches and then they all went to hw. can you talk about the transition and then i do want to talk a bit about pat buchanan's campaign. >> it's fascinating because once you realize what is happening, it is impossible not to see.

you have these hard-core conservatives that are constantly complainingco about reagan. they are not able to make headway. this is our punching bag. he didn't have the conservative credentials. he was always pushed back. he was somebody that had been part of the ford administration. he was seen as the moderate alternative and they never trusted his conservatism so that forced him into the corner to make promises like read my lips, no new taxes. he raised taxes for the biggest tax hikes in american history in 1982 and 84 but it's when george

hw bush raises taxes that they not only lose it t but that thee are complaints that gained traction. things happened with the debates over affirmative action when george w. bush doesn't assign what was called or ends up signing what the right noted as a bill in 1991. but george hw bush really takes it on the chin. any pragmatism was part of the appeal,bu pragmatism and hw bush was assigned as heresy and it's those ideas that hw bush handpicked that made it easier toto run in 1992. pat buchanan wanted to run.

he floats the balloon for the campaign in the spring. he realizes very quickly that he's goingne to be the sacrificl lamb for the right and let's pat robinson take that role instead and weights one more year and is running against bush instead of reagan. then the same politics take hold and again much more attraction then they would have in 88. >> parenthetically, another thing that i forgot and maybe cathinking about it particularly today because the speech about the crime for thee restoration i forgot how strong ronald reagan supported the assault weapons ban when it was first passed that he was quite eloquent on the topic. >> this is where you start to see particular policy issues. immigration is one of them. but guns are absolutely another and you could understand one

that he supported after leaving office was the brady bill named after somebody who was shot in the assassination attempt but even after that and when it came to the assault weapons ban, he was strongly opposed and comes out with other former presidents, other presidents as yes we should have this assault weapons ban and runs against the opposition i think have to buchanan could sue him for plagiarism. you go to the 1992 campaign and do something forgotten that at the end of the campaign, pat buchanan went to the border with mexico and called for building a wall that was back in 1992 talk about the campaign where it really was this mixture of a

certain kind of populism on economics because there were these right-wing positions on the raising denigration that was almost a perfect template. it's hard to figure out where it was different from pat buchanan's. >> which is why he makes the cover. >> so, pat buchanan changes quite dramatically in a short amount of time. in 1984 when he was talking about immigration, he was talking about undocumented immigrants and how they paid the sales taxes and they were good taxpaying citizens that were not on the welfare role and they are better thanth black people thate was saying things that were very reagan and today sounded like a democrat when he was talking

about immigration that was not the case just a few years later when he latches onto this idea that the issues of culture and race were the ones that he failed to exploit and that is whatat you got to tap into so he starts to talk about the border wall. he starts to tie what he now calls illegal aliens to crime, accusations from him and attorney general bill barr that it was illegal aliens who made upun most of the people or a god chunke of the people responsibe forr the rights in los angeles n 1992 and this criminalization and this outrage and emotion around the border is something that took work. in california in 1991 and 92, two p or 3% of the voters put immigration at the top of their list of concerns. 1994ry that looks very different

with proposition 187 and it took a political movement to turn immigration into a culture and race issue that could be exploited. >> in the discussion it is good and centrall to this. there's a couple other characters that play a big role in b the book. one is rush limbaugh. let'sse stick with russia for a second because you talk about two interrelated developments that are so important. one is the rise of conservative talk radio. ththere's an interesting synergy between the two of them but then the spread of right-wing radio as music migrated then you talk

about cable leading to fox news and it's a great discussion because it talked about the rise of fox news and by the way in important piece of history, roger ailes tried to turn rush limbaugh into a tv show. he didn't give up he just did a whole network instead. but you talk about how other kinds of cable not just fox helped change the nature of the dialogue. >> dialogue is an interesting word because it is a newly interactive mediawh landscape. that ability that made it so important wasn't just that he was a conservative entertainer but the show was reactive. they would call and talk to him. it's also the era they would call,fe he had a call or abortis which was offensive early where

he would abort colors he didn't agree with but like larry king live i don't recall any that were part of this new cable television where ross perot watches his campaign 1 in 1992 d that activity is so important and so many of the experiments and cable news in the 1990s were aboutio trying to essentiay take talk radio and put it on television so you have a network that msnbc called america's talking and you had the national empowerment television that is a precursor to fox news in many ways. ..ng

indicated earlier, was not necessarily just happening onsh something like rush limbaugh show or fox news appeared much more intensively happening and pat buchanan comes up on cnnpbas crossfire. as you mentioned, ann coulter and tuckeron carlson and laura ingraham all get their start on msnbc. and on entertainment shows like politically incorrect. which debuts in 1993 it spends a few years on comedy central, defines that channel in the years before the daily show. and then moves to abc. that is where people like kellyanne fitzpatrick who would later on become kelly in conway. in an coulter and more familiar household names. also experimenting aan with pols as outreach and entertainment. the perfecting that style not on news but on politically incorrect in msnbc.

but the other person a lot of people in the book you need be mentioned but newt gingrich he was a complicated figure in all of this period began as the lack of republican way back when.yo you have a really interesting treatment of gingrich and this one. why don't you talk about him. >> gingrich was so interesting. he is kind of on both sides of the story. he is someone who is deeply interested in language. you might have seen a memo which was his political action committee and the republican party political action committee that really focused on language as a weapon. trying to find the most delightful words to attach ines the most disgusting words to attach to your enemies. very interested in rhetoric. and entraining up a more conservative set of republicans. he brings in american revolution

in 1994. but he also very quickly finds himself outflanked by far more radical conservatives and he is. there's a group called the true believers who come into office and that 94 election who seek gingrich as somebody who is too willing to compromise.nt to willing to work with bill clinton. severance during the government shutdown which again innovation andhu congressional brinksmanshp at the time it was the longest government shutdown in u.s. history. and when gingrich says okay or not winning this and got to reopen the government, the true believers come forward and like no, why would you reopen theun government? we shut it down. he is constantly under attack. counseling trying to unseat gingrich as speaker of the house and a preview to what would happen constantly with john weiner in the obama years. all of that is playing out in much the same way just that would be even further to the right.

>> the clinton impeachment gets important treatment in your book. partly as a new method of this post- reagan. i did not know for example the george conway played the index of this is very valuable for people to go through. where are theyy now? talk about how and gingrich was very reluctant initially to go for the clinton impeachment even though got associated with it later. >> gingrich did not want to be part of the impeachment at first he was make a lot of headway with bill clinton. they are starting off after the 96 election they are sitting down to start to think about how they can rollback social security. and then when clinton comes under fire, when the investigation heats up in clinton have to shore up his support among democrats those talks goaw away.

gingrich sees real opportunity in working with clinton that is foreclosed by the impeachment. you have a lot of republicans or conservatives including laura ingraham who is like everyone is talk about impeachment which is not a great idea. in part because what clinton was going to be impeached over was not that big of a deal. and so there is this battle over whether impeachment is going to happen. gingrich is reluctant to get into he's alsoca probably reluctant because his own marital record was not as clear as it could be. anyway he gets trapped into it. then when he decides to do it he does it. so it really does tap into his desire for a political site and he goes all in when impeachment finally gets underway. cooks don't open it up to the audience. just want to jump ahead. by the way on your immediate

treatment i think i see a veteran of the mclaughlin group in the audience. at its peak it had 4.4 million viewers. >> it was so much bigger than just about anyone else. >> anyway it's interesting treatment of that. let's go from clinton to w whom you see as the last reaganites in a way. there is a lot of sunning us there. he was willing -- mickeysste trd to sell compassionate conservative for a while before the war came along. and by the end he was as hated on the white by many parts of the white as it is not the entire white but significant part of the right as he was by the leftovers immigration reform failed which i have always taken as the first sign of what was coming. and if i could i would like to

link go from there to the tea party to trump and then we'll open it up it. >> all right, all right. so george w. bush even at the time was being compared to reagan part everyone was talking about how he was the heir to raggett which is a real blow to george h.w. bush, so mean. it was because he had that idea of compassionate to have conservatism he wanted immigration reform after 911 is talking a lot about democracy in foreign policy pretty passes the 4911 think the at the time the largest tax cut in american history. so he is doing stuff that feels very reaganites in his presidency. and one by one he disproves every part of the philosophy. you have financial deregulation and the tax cut to ultimately have the collapse of the global economy. you take that idea the nine worst words in the english language are i am from the government and i'm here to help. you superimpose that over the hurricane katrina

response. obviously the debacles in iraq and afghanistan. and so by the end of hisre presidency so much of what looks reaganesque is policy platform in his approach not looking so great in terms ofso outcomes. so there is the sentence that in some ways final nail in empowers him to paleo libertarian right to surge. obviously the opposition to immigration reform free continues to solidify the aftermath of hisis presidency. there are a number of different ways he helps along the partisans through his failures. fill out the tea party. the tea party was seen as some is mainly libertarian.

it actually wasn't for this antigovernment element but not against social security or medicare think a lot of people in the tea party were over 65. withbe a very strong anti-immigration sentiment. again the tea party is almost a bridge between the buchanan campaign in thead trump campaign is how i read the book. >> i think that's exactly right. there was a sign during the tea party that was mocked mercilessly said keep your government hands off my medicare. and that is funny. but at the same time there's kind of a right wing populism. i most like george wallace populism that is contained in ironic contradictory claim. the government should be helping me, a white person. it does other programs that folks should oppose. i think that was missed in a lot of ways it was red as a libertarian movement.

we have got the microphone here speaking in the mic would be good for the tv audience. thank you. this is always a crowd that has good questions. rexin can you talk about the fa, getting back to reagan, can you talk about the fact he was actually a practice professional actor? he played an optimistic president? i was a staff attorney and the epa and the reagan administration. in my late husband was at the eoc. in all of that optimism, reagan is the one who said government is not the solution to a problem. government is the problem. the american public has turned against government. in the new deal government was representative of the people going after the corporations that had corruption. and the financial stuff.

that is a contradiction i think all of thatt was nonsense. you should have seen what was going on behind the scenes for. >> i do write about some ofhe tt happening. some that moves happening within the administration. and how reagan distances himself from those moves when they areue reasons you're talking about. he went to shore up that publicd image for the fact he's an actor is very important. do make the distinction between right and the actor was part of the old media system -- make the studio system in the hollywood and the network television system of the 1950s versus this new audit more interactive media that would come later. reagan also laundered his past as an actor through his time as

governor of california. he comes in with some political that people like pat roberson pat buchanan later spoke to run for president said running for anything else, bring to the table. but those similarities are very important and they did discrediting government is absolutely a through line. something that was not just part of reagan's politics but had been where the big goals of the whole conservative movement. >> thank you for the question, in defense of your argument youi are not denying thursday also a particular break and those two things can be true at the same time. >> there is a rupture on some of the contemporary commentary about politics places that rupture in 2016 i think it starts a little earlier than that. >> great book, loved it. first a quick thanks in question read the thanks for putting

richard in there. very important. interview what are 16 years old bird we talked about abortion and i'll never forget that. my question is about religion. i'd forgotten pat roberts came in second placege in iowa coxesn front of george w. bush. >> behind joel and above bush. amazing. i completely forgotten that you're covering i'm sure. my question is, was religion or write evangelical christianity more of a tool that was used on the politician of the time? or wasth it more to they use for instance ronald reagan singer he can b endorse me but i endorse u or was it both? where they hammered bite it or pick it up and use it? >> is one of those questions it's really important. you do have these incredibly significant religious figures and religious politics. if angelica politics pat roberts, ralph reed and lee in

the christian coalition the 1990s and a lot of compromising interesting ways 1990s around those politics it's a tool. use it to attract certain voters. and you get rid of it when it is longer useful for you. you pledge to get rid of a portion of the time you look like you're just pledging it and not actually doing it. looks little different in the wake of dobbs. i think that's too easy of an answer to that religion is a tool being used by politicians. but with fueling the conservative movement in the 70s, 80s into the '90s. 1992 i think white evangelical christian coalition member of made up a majority of delegates to the convention for these to the foot soldiers of the right. something bigger he saw the new

right saw they were really trying to harness this movement. somebody that he write about in the book, helen the representative from idaho who was a pretty figure in the 1990s focus on the family in idaho she is supported not just by malicious and libertarians and idaho she is also supported by the mormons and evangelicals again are the foot soldiers of the campaign. it's a work comp get an we talk about religion politics solely in ake utilitarian way that's manipulating everyone. sometimes people want to be manipulated they have thesemo views they're helping to circulate bessemer complicated answer. our club big fan of your work cannot wait to read your work. a question you're right about

the democrats are moving to the right as well. starting with the work confirmation one if you could talk a little bit how the democrats movement impacted but the republicans did. and moderately democrat. the liberals distrusted clinton as much as a far right distrusted reagan. talk about that. >> that is so interesting and90 what confounds one argument some people maken. about the 1990s. it was an era of polarization but you look at it but the democrats room to the right they were not moving to the left. how was it a decade of d polarization? polarization is not a political process been described in the 1990s at the political tool like newt gingrich to look like

the democrats are enemies are existenial threats. at the same time he's having backroom negotiations with bill clinton. and if you wanted to apply a causal explanation i could say the democrats are meant to the rights republicans have even further right to heighten the contradictions between the two. of the process. especially see this aroundio immigration. proposition 187 was not just about republicans, democrats opposed it but p they supported pretty much everything up to proposition 187. banning a border in san diego at the time. dianne feinstein sang some really nasty things about immigrants at the time. there is this shift in politics more broadly. but what you see on the right is

a much broader swing. and a different kind of riot that he had seen in an earlier era. >> thank you. when you talk women on the right? read this i felt this is your next book. women play a very important role in your accounts. you focus correctly i think is a fascinating figure in it. you talk a lot about laura ingraham pretty i was toli talk about this element of this right. >> you think about is kind of a second wave antifeminist. somebody who is opposed to the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s who is appealing to us wife conservatism what your role as a housewife of political

activists. you chose to present herself as a housewife and opposed the equal rights the member the feminist movement. that is kind of anti- feminism of the 1960s, 70s, 80s. by the 1990s to see this third wave that has consolidated the gain of the feminist movement paper bike laura ingraham and ann coulter are lawyers women of the independent women's forum all in high-powered professions many are not married. many don't have children. that's fine we are professional women for they don't talk about things like abortion they talk about guns instead. they were miniskirts instead of the shirt dresses, like phyllis shah fleetwood where they really leaned into provocation within the political provocation sense and the sexual sense.

until they are casting this new edgier, sexier, more provocative more interesting more anti- feminism becomes powerful but later women activists sarah palin and michelle bachmann. i met kellen there is a lineage there between her and somebody like marjorie tim agreed. >> hold one second period also in the light of violence were talking about now you work on the malicious is really important. lockable don't forget. in the 1990s oklahoma city event was enormous debts were kind of chilling. but i wonder again what is the

parallel of the movement just some of the violence they see it? by the way in your defense this is not a present just book. i just happen so much of this history leaves to the present. >> the rise of the militia movement in 1990s is really important for itt has origins te 70s and 80s high-powered groups that gave him the go to work federal government. >> all the way back which i didn't realize. >> cap and botox both in wonderful book bring work home rfor background audit, after the events of waco and ruby ridge does become martyrdom moments for this new militia movement. it bring so many more people into the militia movement. as the militia movement becomes bigger and more active politicians like helen who is a representative from idaho, ruby ridge is in her district begin

to see these members and their politics as part of their base. and so she is out there talking about black helicopters and conspiracy theories about the un. resold in the militia of montana hill's book next to bomb making manuals. there is a real interplay between her politics and s militia movement. she sees them as part of who she is appealing to. particularly a couple other members from texas and from the west to brady start get a real thinning of the line between the violence of the militias and that mainstream of republicans officeholders. this really comes withbi the oakwood semi bombing. doesn't offend the bombing but she does say people are mad for a reason. if you don't deal with the

reasons why things like this are going to happen. there is eight sensitiveness around militias their unwillingness to cut ties withrs militia members but it'ss really important and probably resident for people today but. >> thank you for your patience. >> i once read into newtgh gingrich at the easter service at the national shrine told him i thought who get better when he became a catholic and he had nothing to say about that. ttmy question is there so little foreign policy content on the right thesese days. he was a conservative who's forgotten he's anti-communist can you talk about that at all? why think it happened? what's because the cold war was such a central organizing factor a conservative movement during the cold war it's very easy to know your foreign policy was going to be. o it took while the 1940s and 50s these vicious battles on

the right of her with her foreign policy should be. should be more isolationist question it should be more set on the second one the end of the cold war all bets are off for this new conversation happening around foreign policy. i agree it wasn't a very clear foreign policy content there are still some pretty vicious battles. foreign-policy guilt play a central role in habit politics. it's just there isn't a clear ideology around foreign policy right now on the right that just means there's a lot of header the right when it comes a foreign-policy pig. >> i think you see some the split you are describing in the book republican party over the ukraine which is a perfect measure of that old argument. i thinkre we have a more personn line to my correct?

>> think it's great to see a. >> i am bruce bartlett i was intimately involved in almost all of the history of the book i didn't any footnotes like you and them and talk about lately is the 88 campaign the fact that jack kemper running. now jack was clearly the heir to reaganism. and he was defeated but more importantly he retired from congress which v opened up a hue vacuum that was filled by newt gingrich. you would have been speaker of the house in 1995. there is no doubt about that. i'm time to think too much about things that did happen rather than things that didn't happen.

andfe also there was an importat article bob woodward wrote a few years ago about how gingrich was actively engaged in the defeat of george h.w. bush in 1992. i think he saw the way the wind was blowing. he may have had some knowledge he could see all these southern democrats were on the brink this would create republican majority. somehow i seese these events as being interrelated. it was sorta bright right in the middle of that was working the reagan white house and the notes at the dip department with raising taxes and that sort. i was one of the very few reagan people who survived the bush

transition. i mean he fired everybody just as if he was a democrat. and a lot of people did not forget that and it came back to haunt him and 92. all i had to say. >> this is great this little counterfactual part that jack kemp was a policy entrepreneur and gingrich to with the policy entrepreneur. the sick out the few too many ideas so he feels that vacuum. also met with jack kemp comes against proposition 187. it is not the direction the republican party should go. there is that moment in 1996 people; poker become the republicand nominee. what if apo party it would be if colin powell had won the republican nomination 19 a six

with no answers to any of those things interesting thing to think about tracks the idea of a historian who focuses on the things that didn't happen now but hips and proper historian. we have one more? well to mention the tea party message on george wallace. that got me wondering the extreme right of earlier decade george wallace under people and groups who are on the fringes but still important. but there any kind of connection between then and later conservative partisan from the '90s? and could i piggyback on youran question because that is a good question. one figure you treat very serious thing interesting way is also ross perot. it is an odd relationship of

perot to this movement. he was not an ideological conservative. a if a wallace and perrault's key figures in this book is worthag closing on. i'm going to read the last paragraph. it really tells us where this all ends up. xo wallace is a figure in the book because richard the new right figure is looking at wallace and saying how do we get that wallace vote? we want that wallace vote we know we need to lean into the politics of resentment to me too lean into issues of culture and race. that's how were going to winin e wallace vote and the wallacea voters who 1968 represented a pretty big threat to the republican party's potential future or a really big opportunity. the same in a different way because so much of the politics of 1993 and 1994 both democrats and republicans being like how do we get perrault voters? perrault is all over the place how do we attack his voters what are they actuallyy attracted to?

even 20% of the vote in 1992 he was a political bomb going off in the middle of a two-party system. you would not think hyper partisanship would grow out of that. but you symbiotic newt gingrich who developed the contract with america not to appeal the right to appeal to perrault voters. that's of the document isor abot part doesn't mention democrats and republicans are bill clinton. he attaches to the wallace clusters david duke. in 19981991 is duke is becoming more known figure it's not richard but pat buchanan is looking over and sang why are ronald reagan and george h.w. bush denouncing the sky? we need to figure out why so appealing, and when his voters

were part apart because campaign the dukeou of vote just as previous went after wallace vote. >> the book does not focused on donald trump. however he makes an appearance at thet' end. it is a wonderful passage it really pulls the book together. there is a debate and every candidate on the stage would basically appeal to the reagan legacy except for donald trump. and then she right trump understood something either candace did not the age of reagan was over. i'd have been over for a long time but you conclude the book the following two paragraphs on "onn this.

then he shut the whole book to read over that came before. few people in the reagan library in the fall of 2015 includingbe donald trump and beat president two years that yes it risen quickly to the top of the polls and stayed there. this in the rise and fall rights involve candidates. it relays that ordered the shifted admin shifting per quarter-century. they're only now beginning tohe catch up. the trick to see me ballot was just the final stop on a long goodbye. or a book lot of mysteries in this book. i thank you so much and i thank you for the questions. next weekend on c-span2 are an

intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes from these television companies and more. including comcast. are you thinking this is just a community center? no it's way more than that. comcast is part of 1000 committee centers to wi-fi listserv soap students from low-income families and get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast, along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. ♪ middle and high school students it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate cspan2 student cam documentary. in light of the upcoming midterm election picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this year's competitors are your top priorities and why? make a