to follow. and this is my favorite, was was sent in a spray of the day, usually think, that's exactly what i'm going to do. last max libertarians to have emotional reactions in people infringe on their liberty are somehow manipulate them to go a certain way. the rear up and say no, don't tummy to do that. very, very different from social conservatives. third, how do libertarians relate to others? is a libertarians are more cerebral and less emotional, you might end this will impact the relationship and indeed it does. ayn rand says to say i love you, one must first know how to say hi. she took a rather dim view of the sappy portrayals of romantic passionate love to my list for you, along for you. so we hypothesize libertarians will be more individualistic and must connect you to other people than either liberals or conservatives and that's what we find. the major measure of personality widely used is called the big five. it measures to open to experience. you like the ideas? to come out to your intellectual talks? you're probably high to an experienced the libertarians and liberals are really come up really high. this is how to counter other so often. they like to go to the same sorts of things. conservatives are low. but now, let's look at the three traits that have really associated with sociability. on a black pcb data for extroversion. how much do just that and with a bow? by being of people. liberals and conservatives are identical. the more inch averted, not as oriented towards socializing. the second set is how nice, warm, friendly, how easy is it to get along with you? liberals and conservatives are equal, libertarians are low. conscientiousness. how michiko the pull of obligation because you need to do things for people? something needs to be done your conservatives are the highest, but they're pretty close to liberals. some on this major personality, just as libertarians are really curious, open-minded people, but they're not that focused on other people. they want to learn, but they're not that focused on getting along with others. one lives in a mosh closeout. this is a little surprising to me. questions about how much should one come in tender feelings for your romantic partner on the left, for your family, for your friends are for people in general? and what we find is that conservatives score the highest of the three groups on family. that's not surprising. nation unseemly. liberal score the highest on generic other pre-liberals feel less compassion and love for just general others. actually commit a crime to feel more than for their own family. that's kind of weird. liberals tend to be focused. libertarian fellow on every single one. libertarians to self-report claim to love their parents less than do liberals conservatives. so, in summary, libertarian studies that pretty more than either liberals or conservatives. libertarians rely upon reason more and emotionless and either liberals or conservatives. they're more individualistic and less connected than either liberals or conservatives. the implications, this is my last fight, that libertarians and conservatives are a very couple indeed. in our data actually, libertarians are little more similar to liberals than conservatives. but, they are canadian league with conservatives nowadays in the tea party because they have a common enemy. they are united by a devotion to economic liberty and in particular, in opposition to the welfare state for very different reasons i believe. libertarians hate the welfare state because it is counseling for genome on persons liberty to give positive liberty or hope to another group your conservatives simply take the welfare state because they think it's sad self-reliance, and moral fiber, devotion to god, family, almost in the spirit the reason for having the welfare state is different. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. so that's it. thank you. [applause] >> is hard not to sit here and here that and think all you people out here in this building, that's about you. testify the adequacy. part 2 public renowned individual today is jonathan rauch, who among other things lament national headliner award for magazine columns. he suggests color at the brookings institution and a contributing editor at national journal in the atlantic it is written several, including why it's good for, straights in america, published by times books. i must say i wonder how many beautified the experience is coming across the person you took to be fairly conservative culturally and otherwise say us wanted to make coming you know, i am for gay marriage for the reason john puts out on this book, gay marriage. her people's minds don't often change ever march of this particular book has had a surprising effect on people that i've come across. he's also written other books include another book on the revised version of an earlier book about why washington has software can also inquisitors of the new attacks and for many others, you also know him from his 12 year position as a writer of the column social studies and the national journal, which i look over to nice rating of a clearly in the atlantic among other places and he's written for every major publication you can think of. john was born and raised in phoenix, arizona and graduated in 1982 from yale university. please welcome john rauch. [applause] >> thank you very much, john. i come to these things for the introduction. i thank you all, thanks especially to david for the marvelous presentation. my job is to amplify just a little bit from a slightly different point of view. i have the privilege of being both a journalist and scholar at the brookings institution and studies, wherein the tea party murch, what is heavily debated issues, so what is this phenomenon? are these republicans pretending not to be, or are they something new? a genuinely independent movement. the other axis of that debate. are they hard right conservatives? at a basically sir palin and so forth, or the something something accommodation, each in a grassroots libertarian movement in which isn't something we've seen much of in america. david kirby performs a great service by shattering the myth of the monolithic tea party. if i have to summarize our two presentations for which of course is my job as a channel list, beat david saying party is not monolithic and tea partiers are not lovable. what david finds that i think makes this paper a landmark in breakthrough and well worth downloading and reading is he finally puts pieces together so you can see a lot of it in one place. this problem was that a wise men in element. once that it's a snake and so forth. well, it's both. david mayle says by finding that the tea party movement is about social conservatives and libertarians with the energy in this movement, waxing and waning from the libertarian side, but a lot of that coming especially from the libertarian side. his finding squirted my own in 2010, i decided that because i could actually investigated protecting the tea parties and looking on a lot of data out so well a lot of human spirit somewhere to amplify by showing what i found someone which is awfully relevant. instead of talking about ideology, and like to talk brand and style because i think that is where the distinctive features lie. this is a dimension that is not than captured. there is a sense for the tea party movement is distinctive from ordinary libertarians and distinctive from ordinary conservatives, which makes it stand out in politics and estimated in some ways the distinctive and potent for spirit to show you what that is, about to begin with a couple of slideshow anywhere i believe the tea party movement originates. this is pew data, a very basic chart that shows the american electorate by possession. there is a libertarian category, but here their destiny to be. sec categories are pretty stable over the years, but in 2007 in 2008 if you're looking carefully, something interesting starts to happen, which continues in 2009 becomes quite pronounced, a drift of conservatives out of the republican camp and into the independent camp. this is a phenomenon i think a is branding. people who are conservatives, but by rejecting conservative label and they are thinking of themselves increasingly as independent. another way to look at this brenda kline, which perhaps come out even more clearly as if you simply look at party affiliation for americans as a whole. again, you see, the republicans in a gradual period of decline in george w. bush second term and republican lands really gaining market share very rapidly by the standards that you see happening to test may come in 2009 in 2010 is a very large increases. the public domain independents who don't say they're republicans, building republicans in terms of adding behaviors, political preferences and so on. so for some reason, you see this big batch of people no longer say they're republican. they're embracing independent label. well, maybe you say so what, this is just labeling. what are these people lakeway here's a few questions. there's a lot far this came from, but i'll give you a couple. this is interesting and it will surprise you if you can listen to david kirby. they move both republicans and republican miners, the group by causing deep branded republicans shift very sharply to the right between 1997 on economic issues. look at those two red lines. the bright red is republican, the later read as independent. government is a major threat to our personal rights and freedoms. you see this huge rightward shift. democratics leaner shift a little bit to the liberal side. clearly the giant movement over this. it's a very sharp rightward movement among republicans and republican leaders. in terms of the rate of change can come independent lands are swinging harder than republicans. iraq's attorney write faster and in many cases, government is a threat to our freedom. they are winding up to the right. but these are not coincidently libertarian questions. government programs should be cut back his same pattern, hard rayburn swing. independently nurse come republican miners cannot out to the right. if i show you comparable sizes social issues, the pattern that very different. you don't see republican miners to the right of republicans. what is emerging here is a group of political people who are conservative on economic issues if anything to the right to have shifted very far to the right and who do not bring themselves as republicans feared i would assert that if you were a good little analysts and you are locked in a room and you can read headlines for the last two years, a cookbook at for polling data, you would see this and you would say, there must be something out there happening or if not something like it for what's going on at political base. are they just more of the same, republicans intractable shoe. consider libertarian republicans interact through project but are otherwise the same thing. they still make it. they basically republicans that turn out to not be necessarily. i disagree with them, but to find out why you have to look at style as well as substance and actually to jonathan haidt circum- personality. how you believe is important if not even more important. let me give you three important dimensions on which i think tea partiers are collectively different. first, compromise. this is a good basic question on attitudes towards compromise. you admire leaders to stick to their position on a compromise at the actual question is little more complicated than not, but that is basically it. 2010 data hasn't changed very much, though i haven't been able to find a replication of this question unfortunately. democrats favor compromise by a quite substantial margin. independents are more in the sense. i don't show them here, but tend to favor compromise. republicans very different. they do not like compromise, but now look at tea parties. this is remarkable. that's as bad as strong as you can get to something that looks like a firm consensus. they do not like compromise and they are quite distinct in republicans in the extent to which that is true. and indeed, we know they will punish the politicians, which brings us to dimension number two. they will publish republicans to compromise. again, pew data, these are all data on attitudes towards republican leaders, towards incumbents, how much you have new faces in government. they'll affect willingness to vote for politicians out of loyalty, whether to the party or because the politician has been there for a while and to vote on the other hand i'm wanting the incumbent ousted. this data is quite striking to me. in terms of disapproval of republican leaders, republican miners, the energy driver, the motor behind the tea party look more like democrats and a few republicans. that's remarkable. they are simply not loyal republicans. do they want their incumbent ousted? less party loyalty among this group by fire than any other category. they are rebels and they do not like incumbents. do they want new faces and governments? same story. this gives these people a very different flavor in my opinion from partisan republicans. the definition as this is someone who will vote for you even when they think you're wrong. that's your base, the classic definition. these guys are saying, at least that's what they were saying in 2010. and that makes for a very different political dynamic since they're not live republicans and since they don't like compromise. if you're republican and county are scared of these people. you cannot make a deal and taxes are done without warranty skies are going to punish you and they will. that brings us to the third dimension on which they different from a shakeout at h.r., but which david has illustrated admirably, which is they've made a collective strategic decision to prioritize spending. they may disagree on other things, but they don't disagree on spending and they've made, and i would argue a strategic decision. when i talked to tea party leaders, is that this is a strategy. republican leaders especially have these social issues like abortion and gay marriage is a distraction. and while they make government bigger. and guess what? were not falling for that anymore. in my opinion, the analysis of a republicans were doing was largely right and in fact they are not following any more. not falling for it anymore. so in jonathan haidt's terms, what we have here is not a movement made of people who agree with one another or who have only one flavor ideologically, but who have come together in a one flavor movement, who are very independent in their coding and not meant, not particularly partisan and quite hostile to the establishment. this gives them a whole lot of cogency in the political process and they will continue in my opinion to have quite a good deal of potency as long as they can their focus, narrowness, determination and independence. those things are all very, very hard to sustain. it's hard to see the focus of your membership is as divided as tea partiers fundamentally i went there are lots of babies being murdered in america appeared is hard to maintain the discipline and the republicans are working as hard as they possibly can to bring in the spokes and turn into loyal members of the republican base. very hard to stay outside the republican machine forever because republicans have a lot of money, a lot of political power, a lot of institutional clout in things like primary voting rolls a lot of ways that make tea partiers that difficult in a lot of ways quite attractive to become a member of the group i'm especially if they win the elections. i would say the tea party movement is a 22 to five year movement terms of its maximum potency releases such as many do. i don't remember having seen anything quite like this before. occupy wall street, move on.org. they have similarities, but i've never seen anything with quite this combination of independence and ideologically disciplines. the tea partiers will be around. i will say however that it is not a conventional group for the movement. [applause] >> are for a speech or speaker today will be emily mcclintock ekins for the foundation where she leads a group a and public research project. endless research focuses primarily on american politics from including public opinion from the survey methodology and political economy. individuals at their own economic future shape their political behavior and attitudes towards government. the fox news, fox business, cnbc and research has appeared in a number of leading national publications and i'm also proud to say she's a part-time college at the cato institute. emily. [applause] >> thank you, john for that gracious introduction. so today i would like to make two points. we've made lots of different points today and there's two issues that i've found have been overlooked by academics, journalists and political opponents alike and i think this is a great time to set the record straight. as part of my dissertation research, i got in my car, drove around the country and interviewed local level tea party leaders and local diners and restaurants we sat down. i went to virginia, pennsylvania, kentucky, utah, california and do a surprising how similar the worldviews of these tea partiers were and yet so distinct from my academic colleagues at ucla where i've been getting a phd. for the first one i'd like to make, one thing that sets the tea party apart from many others if they have a very traditional review. so essentially, they have this view america's land of opportunity and that all people regardless of backgrounds can succeed. now this is not to say, but they have this even more so and this is how the answer poll questions and how they help explain a lot of there there policy positions that other people have a hard time understanding. the scope of this. so these are some signs i took at a washington d.c. tea party protest here by the capital. you often see signs like this. don't spread my wealth. spread my work ethic. stop punishing and rewarding failure. this is all part of a common thing. and for this to make sense, i think we should go for some polling data. i'm going to show you some polling numbers that i've conducted with the recent rupaul that i directed the foundation. why actually had an opportunity to ask americans in general, but also tea partiers about how they perceive the fairness about opportunities in america. you actually see they are distinct who do not identify with the tea party. receive 70% of tea party supporters think that all americans to succeed, compared to a majority, but significantly less. 65% of non-supporters. income inequality in the system as part of the economic system. is this an acceptable part from or is this a problem? 68% of tea partiers say that it's an acceptable part compared to a little less than half of everybody else. we asked about given this income inequality that does exist is that the responsibility of government to income differences are not. here we see a very huge difference in the 80% tea partiers. it is not the role of government. now this makes sense that there are other assumptions that if this is the land of equal opportunities for all people regardless of background. the reasons why they might also say that it's not the responsibility of government to redistribute wealth. this is the most striking difference. we asked about those in this country who are poor. how good of a chance today have for facing poverty? this is a striking difference. 67% of tea partiers think that these individuals have a very good chance compared to 42% of non-tea party supporters. in fact, 60% of them think they have very little chance. i wanted to tell them a little deeper into the data and look at different groups. tea partiers are not republicans. tea party supporters, to see that almost everyone,