Welcome to politics and prose. I am brad graham, corner of the bookstore along with my wife Lissa Muscatine and we are very delighted this seeking to be hosting Nicole Hemmer who is here to talk about her new book, partisans the conservative revolutionaries who remade american politics in the 1990s. Nicole is a political historian and founding director of the new study of thee presidency at vanderbilt university. She is also a cofounder of made by history, the historical Analysis Section in the shWashington Post and she wris regularly for a number of other publications. In a book six years ago messengers of the right, nicole traced the emergence of conservative media institutions in the mid20th century. In her new book she looks at why the Republican Party in the 1990s shifted from the kind of conservatism that Ronald Reagan had represented in the previous decade, conservatism that was optimistic and popular, to a more pessimistic, angrier, even revolutionary conservatism. It was a period nicole writes of intensifying partisan conflict when a new fury took hold on the right. And when republicans grew less tolerant of dissension in the ranks and begin seeing democrats not as opponents but as enemies. What accounted for the shift . Well, nicole cites a number of factors which she would into an event, but understanding why itr happened is important. Because it remains very relevant today. As nicole explains, it set republicans on a course that led eventually to the election of donald trump and to the radicalization of the right. Now were in for a very informative discussion with nicole who will be in conven this evening with one of the most astute political analysis and analyst in washingtonn toda, journalist and author e. J. Dionne. Is also longtime friend of dnp and of mine and my wifes. In addition to writing and always interesting come for the Washington Post e. J. Is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and teaches at georgetown. Hes also the author or coauthor of a number of books about politics. His latest, 100 democracy, which was cowritten with miles rapaport and published last march, makes a very persuasive case for universal voting. So ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Nicole Hemmer and e. J. Dionne. [applause] thank you brad and thanks to our friends at cspan and the audience other. I love doing events at this bookstore. As i do it in this room knows, this bookstore is also a community organization. Its a community builder. I love the people who work here, brett and lisa inherited a tradition. They kept alive and built on it and toe keep a tradition alive you have to build on and they done great things for this bookstore. I am so pleased honor to be with nicole. I love this book. Its probably the highest consummate i can get it, is that you dont realize how much you are learning because the book is so engaging as you race through it. And also like it for a very particular maybe even selfish reason. Because in 1992 i was assigned to cover pat buchanan is a president a campaign by the Washington Post and spent a lot of time on that campaign, and i now learned from nicole how historically important that campaign is. Journalists. Write the draft of history siphon made a couple footnotes i discover in the book. But she makes a very, very compelling case that basically reaganism and its influence in did almost as soon as he left office, which is not something we usually assume. And the case she makes visually powerful, and so, nicole, why dont you just s start their by explaining how you came to that view, how you make the case here . Becausee as you know, people ket making references to reagan at how much they were reaganite, 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 as a writer so all of those kind words mean quite a lot to me. This book in many ways begin with just a puzzle that e. J. Was talking about, that the mythology of reagan grew exponentially in then 1990s and the 2000s, and yet a particular setet of politics tht reagan embraced were under challenge almost immediately after he left office, and this is something i started thinking about as i was finishing my first book that i was writing about reagans election and about in the book of those who preciously that it was both a victory and a valid victory. It was the triumph of this cold war conservative movement but it also felt like a curtain call, like something was coming to an end. What ultimately was coming to an end was the cold war. What i realized as i was working for the argument of this book was Ronald Reagan was fundamentally a cold war president , that the cold war provided a kind of logic, i kind of language for his conservatism. And what that meant wasnt just that he spokey the lineage of democracy and freedom, something that he didnt always was out in reality but that he really appeal to the route, but that that language and that argument about democracy and freedom affected certain parts of p his policies. Hehe truly believed that the fre movement of people and goods was part of democratic capitalism. And so youou reagan on immigratn and he says quite a lot like a democrat sometimes, especially compared to todays Republican Party, and on trade. So these kinds of things that were core to the conservative movement and during the cold war, because reagan were so popular even though he had real critics on the right. I mean there was a subset of conservatives who just punched at reagan every day of hisid presidency. But they found it difficult to land those punches. But as soon as he leaves office, assumes a cold war ends it opens up the space for what was at least in part an antismoke the democratic conservatism that pat buchanan represent. One of the fascinating things is the psychology of reaganism more than anything was quite different from the psychology of the later right you describe. Even though he forgot all the ideas come he never really stop being aner optimistic new deale. He kept roosevelt optimism and shall most of the policies. Can you talk about that psychological difference . He did have support from some of that same in his rise including the purchase aside and others but he didnt convey that in the way the right came afterward did. Right. That optimism,he that emotion of part of reaganism is really important anything is important caveat. It was an optimism that was heard by white voters. He was not popular as he was. He left office is one of the most popular president in modern u. S. History. He was never popular with black voters with hispanic voters so were talking about ase particulr subset of voters here but to them his appeals were deeply optimistic. He appealed sometimes to fear and resentment but oftentimes to that kind of mourning in america sentiment. And the right that would come after him was not interested in that. There were not interested in pragmatism or popularity. They certainly were not interested in optimism. They were focusedh on a much darker version of the United States and a much darker version of conservatism in the right come something for those who remember the 1992 campaign was very present in pat Buchanan Convention speech in 1992. So the liberals in the audience would say werent you being awfully nice to reagan in this account . And i was really struck by a phrase in your book. If you look youll see i read this very carefully, its full of notes and at the top of this page i wroteid provocative of ts sentence. You referred to the colorblind racism of the reagan era. One thing i will think about as it went along is when we try to think of the roots, on one hand a persuasive case of what was quite different get the also some continuity. I went if you could talk about the continuities as well. Was absolutely. Sometimes the continuities of the differences are differences of degree and sometimes differences of kind. That colorblind racism idea is really important. Its thehi difference between te dog whistle and the bullhorn. You can argue theyre the same ideas that are just packaged are present in different ways but it does matter if you feel like you have too appeal to universalism, if you have to put an optimistic spin on opportunity. If you have to repeal to equality versus st. Francis that iq is genetically determined and it depends onea your race, and i give it becomes veryy popular in the mid1990s. But a it think its also impot to emphasize that reagan is due in the dna of the conservative movement, and ideas particularly like deep tax cuts certainly remain, although they get more dogmatic after reagan. Reagan of course famously cut taxes and then raised in a couple of times and didnt face the same kind of backlash of some elect george h. W. Bush did. So there are some continuities but in the things that made reaganism, reaganism, what made it distinct from cold war conservative as movement that emotion youre talking about that willingness to compromise, that idea of the big tent, the idea that there are reagan democrats as opposed to the 1990s when you get rinos, republicans inna name only. Re are a lot of things to get to, and i just want to mention a couple because we might not. But you should read the book. Youll learn things. Youll either be reminded of things you forgot and you will learn things you never ever, did you know the Tucker Carlson and i laura ingrm got her start time in the hundred and is nbc, and on the changes in the media which i do want to get to, and there is also i think something you explore that we have forgotten, that it was a real turn on the light on immigration, and on time ago which we can talk aboua National Review which is longheld the rank and view when published, in the very likely controversial, that is nice thing to say about about that he wrote. Theres some great things about it but i want to go to immediately to immediate political w things, and confirm something that you thought and so i am grateful for your insight that what the conservatives had against reckoning, they actually against George W Bush and George Hw Bush rather and later in some ways george w. Bush as you describe it is the last reagan and a lot of the knox on George Hw Bush dewere really of reagan but he was, sort of such a hero that it was impossible to land those punches and they all went to h w and can you talk about that transition and then i do to talk a bit about the campaign. Is a fascinating because once you realize what is happening, is impossible not to see and so you have these hardcore conservatives her across hallie complaining about reckoning complaining about his presidency. Not able to make headway. And when George Hw Bush comes into office, they are like, this is our guy because this is her punching bag because he did not have a conservative credentials and it was always a punch back and he was somebody who had before the ford administering they dont like the Ford Administration and somebody was seen as the modern alternative to regular 1980, and they never trusted is conservative days and so they forced him into the corner to have to make promises like no new taxes and in earlier, reagan access to the biggest tax hikes in american buhistory in 1982 and in 1984 bt it is when george h w bush, raises the taxes that they not eionly lose it but the complains gained traction and things that happen with over affirmative action and when george w. Bush, was called, whether right built in 1991. And something Ronald Reagan had reluctantly is affirmative action policies during his presidency but is george h wbu bush who really takes on the ten for advancing those policies are compromising any pragmatism for reagan was part of the appeal which the signs of heresy and it is those ideas that age w bush made it easy for pat buchanan to run in 1992, and then in 1988, pat buchanan wanted to run any ran for a campaign in the spring of 1987, while he was still part of the Reagan Administration and he realizes very quickly that he was be thet sacrificial lamb and Pat Robertson to carol instead an iced for four more years once he was running against bush, then the very same politics take hold and gain much more traction than they would have been 88. Another thing that i had forgotten him maybe particular today because joe biden did his speech about a crime and the assault with a weapon fan and i forgot help strong reagan supported this. When he first passed and he was quite elegant on this was a. This where you start to see the policy issues immigration is one of them, and garner absolutely another and in part of that you can understand one of those that he supported, reagan after leaving bob an elvis was brady bill named after summit he was shot in an assassination attempt againsten Ronald Reagan but even after that, he came to the assault weapon band, reagan was strongly opposed to it and supportive ofd hees said yes we should have this assault weapons ban and he rose up agait the opposition. I believe that pat buchanan could sue donald trump for plagiarism and go to the 1992, campaign and something ive been that campaign and i had forgotten that at the end of the campaign, pat buchanan went to the border of mexico and he called for building a wall, that was back in 1992 in talk about the buchanan campaign where emily was this mixture of a certain kind of economics because with these very very right wing positions in a culture race and immigration, that was almost a perfect template and its hard to figure out where Donald Trump Campaign was actually different from pat buchanan. I think that is exactly right which is why he makes the cover. And you so that pat you can changes on immigration in a very short amount of time in 1984, and entered as he was talking about immigration, he was talking about undocumented immigrants and how they paid payroll taxes and they paid sales taxes and is good taxpaying citizens and were not of the welfare o rolls basicall then by people but he was saying things that were very reaganesque and also today, it sounds like a democrat when he was talking about immigration. It was not the case a few years later when he latches on to the idea that those issues of the culture race blue anza Ronald Reagan had failed to exploit that was the main thing you want to tap into and so he starts to talklk about the border wall. And he starts to tie woody no calls, illegal aliens to crime accusations from him and the attorney general that it was illegal aliens who may not most of the people really talk who were responsible for the riots in los angeles in 1992, and the criminalization and this trying the average and emotion run the border, it took work in california, in 1991, and 92, almost two or three or percent of the voters was immigration was at the top of the concern and it was until 1994 from that looks very different from proposition 27 and took a Political Movement to turn immigration into a culture and race issue that could be exploited. In your discussion of prop 87 is good and it is r really centl to this endless looking a couple of other characters who play a big role in your vote, how about Rush Limbaugh and i looked would like to stay with rush little bit because you talk about interrelated developments that areim sort so important when the rise in the conservative talk radio which limbaugh was a pioneer of. And he supported pat buchanan so theres really interesting synergy between the two of them and 92. And then the spread of right wing radio across the am dial and migrated to fm. Then you also talk about the rise leading to news makes a great discussion because some just about the rise of this fox news but by the way an important piece of history, they try to turn Rush Limbaugh into a tv show it limited just to hold network instead but you talk about the kinds with fox really helped change the nature of the political dialogue. Absolutely. So dialogue is an interesting word because this is made were notably Interactive Media landscaping that ability of what Rush Limbaugh was so important was not just that he was a conservative entertainer, but that if you call him also europe where you have. [inaudible]. God help me if you disagree. And is portions incredibly offensive things that you did earlier in his career that where he would abortrt the callings he disagreed with, but whole quality could be part of this news Cable Television ross perot in his campaign was launched in 1992 pretty and that interactivity is so important and so many of the experiments and cable is in the 90s were about trying to take essentially talk radio and put it on television. You have a network for the pure and pre curses market talking and something called National Empowerment television with his precursors fox news in many ways. In summary was talk about any he was, yes, i thought so. And you so you have these really experiments and cable, in talk radio, and again, is diversified whatai is availablen television butut also creating this new conservative country that is indicated earlier, was not necessarily just happening is Something LikeRush Limbaugh sure work fox news, much more things happening in pat buchanan come up on cnn crossfire and another group and you mentioned culture and Carlson Ingram and though started on msnbc. The entertainment shows like politically incorrect which in 1993, Comedy Central and in the years before the daily show and then it moves to abc, and people Killian Fitzpatrick we would be later conway and allen coultersh and others in the start to become more familiar household names because it also experimenting with his idea politics as outrage and entertai