Call the Show 800-520-1234
LIVE: Mon-Fri, 6-9AM, ET
Hugh Hewitt Book Club
Call 800-520-1234 email Email Hugh
Hugh Hewitt Book Club

E.J. Dionne on Our Divided Political Heart

Email Email Print

HH: As promised, a return visit now from our favorite lefty, E.J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, E.J. has got another provocative, wonderful book out, Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle For The American Idea In An Age of Discontent. And as I said, he’s my favorite lefty. It’s another great read. I urge you, I’ve linked it over at to get a hold of it and to really understand what the center-left believes in this country, you read Our Divided Political Heart. If you want to go meet E.J., by the way, I’ll do this at the beginning of the conversation, on the 14th in Chicago, he’s giving a talk at the public library, that’s Thursday the 14th. The next day, the 15th, he’s in Minneapolis, friends listening on AM 1280 the Patriot, at the Westminster Forum. On the 16th, he’s going to Madison to cheer up the devastated left there at the Barnes & Noble on the 16th. On Sunday the 17th, he’s at Seattle. All my 1680 listeners, go on out to the Seattle Town Hall to see E.J. Dionne. And on the 18th, he’s in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club. All of those dates and many more available at E.J. Dionne’s Facebook page. E.J., welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

EJD: Very nice to have you on there, and I look forward to some of your listeners asking pointed, good questions.

HH: They will. I’m going to model for them how to engage E.J. And it usually begins with reading the book closely, and being aware that it’s a good left wing argument that there are subtle things in. So I’m going to begin, E.J., first of all, my hat’s off to you. I don’t know how you’re this productive, another wonderful book within a couple of years of Souled Out, so you must spend half your days in the basement writing.

EJD: Well, actually, I have a really nice room in my house with a lot of sun in it, but I do write there. But you know, work, time expands to fill work, if you have to, but it’s fun work, so I’m blessed that way.

HH: Okay, enough happy talk. Let’s get to the hammer throwing. I begin on Page 168. I can accept a lot, E.J., but not the hijacking of Alexander Hamilton into a big government lefty. On page 169, you write, “Today, you might say that Hamilton saw the federal government as a partner and a problem solver.” Well, I know Federalist 27 very well. I know Federalist 26 very well. I know what he was writing about, which was the objection to a standing army. I know what his solution was. I’ve read Ron Chernow back to back. Hamilton would not recognize the metastatic government that we have. Do you think Hamilton would have vetoed the Keystone Pipeline, E.J?

EJD: Hamilton might not have vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. I’m not, I am not explicitly, I have to say right at the beginning, I am not claming Hamilton, or for that matter, Henry Clay, whom I write a lot about, as a 21st Century liberal. What I am claiming is that Hamilton and Clay and Lincoln all believed in a more, first, a more energetic role for the federal government than their opponents believe at the time. Secondly, that they saw the federal government as playing a positive role in the economic development of our country. If I can jump to Clay for a second, he called his American system the American system to distinguish it from the British laissez-faire system. In America, he said, free government had a lot to do with creating a productive economy. The third thing I’m saying is that they all thought that an active federal government was Constitutional, and that I think those who are absolutely certain about what the founders would have said on contemporary questions have to take into account the fact that within three years of the Constitution’s ratification, Hamilton and Madison, James Madison, two of the principal interpreters of the document, were at each other’s throats over whether the Bank of the United States was Constitutional. So those are my claims, but I am not turning Alexander Hamilton into a liberal Democrat. Indeed, in the course of the book, as you probably noticed, I’m very careful to say some have liked to claim Hamilton and Clay as 29th-21st Century liberals, and I don’t think that’s right.

HH: Well, I go to Page 169, where you said he would have seen government as a partner and a problem solver. I thought Hamilton…

EJD: But that is true. That’s exactly what he saw government as.

HH: No…

EJD: I mean, he, the report on manufacturers was prophetic in seeing an important role for manufacturing in our future, and he was very explicit that the government was going to have to help both through protective tariffs and with some subsidies, and rather large subsidies to entice entrepreneurs to help create a manufacturing nation.

HH: Do you believe that Alexander Hamilton would ever have given a half billion dollars to Solyndra? Burr would have, if they were his friends. That was crony capitalism. That was Burr. Or would he have cut the Navy to 283 ships, or reduce the Marine Corps by 20,000, or the Army by 100,000? Would he have ordered the Department of Justice not to defend DOMA, or every citizen in the country to buy health insurance? I mean, come on, E.J., you can’t kidnap Hamilton and the framers. They would hate this Obama administration’s excess.

EJD: Well A) I don’t think they would have hated the Obama administration, but neither of us can know this. On that long list, I think it’s impossible to know where Hamilton would have stood on most of those things. But I do, I could very much see Hamilton supporting subsidies for clean energy, including not only Solyndra, but also the ones that have worked out well. Mitt Romney supported subsidies for clean energy back in Massachusetts, so it’s odd for him to attack Obama on Solyndra, but not acknowledge that he supported exactly this kind of thing in Massachusetts, and he supported it, by the way, and the end of 2008 when he called for a large stimulus program. This is your candidate, Mitt Romney.

HH: A state government…

EJD: So put Hamilton aside for a second.

HH: A state government could support energy production. It would be a bad idea, but it would be a Constitutional one. Hamilton would not have gone for it. But let me go to the conversation I had about a year ago in this studio. Justice Breyer honored me, came to this studio, we talked about his book for a couple of hours here. And I said to him my favorite framer is a very obscure guy – Mr. Smith, who rises up in the Massachusetts ratification convention on January 25th, and he says, “Mr. President, I am a plain man. I get my living by the plow. I’m not used to speaking in public, but I beg your leave to say a few words to my brother plow joggers in this house.” And then he goes on to say that, “When I saw this Constitution, I found it was a cure for disorders abroad. It was just such a thing as was wanted. I got a copy of it and I read it over and over. I had been a member of the convention to form our own state constitution, and learned something of the checks and balances of power, and I found them all there. And I did not go to any lawyer to ask his opinion. We have no lawyers in our town.” E.J., people read the Constitution, the Tea Party reads the Constitution, as did Farmer Smith. And you touch on this a little bit, but I think you almost, you don’t denigrate it, but you pass by who the Tea Party is. They are just ordinary people. They aren’t Birchers. I really didn’t like the hint in your book that there’s anything to do between the John Birch Society and the Tea Party of today. They’re just different.

EJD: Well, there are two things. For one thing, I do not say that the Tea Party are all Birchers. I do say that when you listen to Glenn Beck, who had a substantial following among the Tea Party, and looked at some of the literature he recommended, like Mr. Skousen, these were all Birchers. So there was a Bircher kind of strain within the Tea Party. But I go out of my way at the beginning of the book, as you notice, to thank the Tea Party before I criticize them, and I thank them for their lively interest in the American past, and I take my own progressives to task for not wanting, not embracing the American story enough. I have a fundamental disagreement with the Tea Party over the way they look at our history, and the way they look at who we are. I think they emphasize our individualistic side, which is very much part of us, the individual liberty side, to the exclusion of that side of us which both believes profoundly in community, and sees it as essential to preserving liberty. As you know, as a good Constitutional scholar, the first words of our Constitution is not I, it’s we as in we the people. And the preamble describes the goals of the Constitution, which include, as you know, providing for the general welfare. So I have differences with the Tea Party. I do believe some of them were influenced by Birchite thought. But I want to join them in a big discussion and argument over who we are, what the founders said, and what our history means.

HH: I think you will find them to be far different from what you think they are. I was curious, have you ever been to a Tea Party rally as a speaker?

EJD: I don’t think they would have me, but I would be honored to go.

HH: But have you ever been to one as an observer then?

EJD: No, I met Tea Party folks presumably along the campaign trail. And look, again, as I say in the book, I don’t like ad hominem attacks as a general matter. I say specifically in the book that even though I think that Tea Partiers do not emphasize our communitarian side enough, I’m sure that many of them belong to PTAs and run Little Leagues, and are coaches. Yes, I know they are good Americans, and I tell you, I have a very politically diverse family. So while I don’t have formal Tea Partiers in it, I do have people who very much hold to those views. So I don’t disrespect them. I disagree with them, and at the edges, I do think they’ve been influenced by some rather peculiar lines of thought, particularly Skousen and some of what Glenn Beck had to say.

– – – –

HH: E.J., I’ll pay you the highest compliment. I believe you’ve coined a term which will enter the political vocabulary of political scientists and historians, and probably the popular culture in the long consensus. A lot of people looked for terms to describe that period of time that really begins with Wilson and ends with Reagan. And I believe the long consensus does a fine job of capturing that. Now my quarrel with you is I believe that President Obama is significantly outside of that long consensus. That long consensus believed in a deficit cap of about 4% of GDP, spending ratio of about 50%, maybe 60% of GDP to total government spending. It did not believe in creating commerce in order to regulate commerce. It did not believe, especially it did not believe in intruding upon the religious institutions of the United States and mandating that they violate conscience. I’ve got to get to this. I mean, the long consensus of Jack Kennedy and Al Smith would have shuddered at the prospect of mandating that Catholic social institutions, hospitals and schools require, be required to provide morning after pills and sterilization. And when I think about the quite communitarians of Thomas Aquinas College, or of Notre Dame, both of which have sued, or said they would sue, the federal government, I thought of you while reading this book that the long consensus has been shattered by the Alinkyites.

EJD: Wow. Now there’s a lot there. First, thank you for those kind words. I’d love to have a long argument with you about what the long consensus was and wasn’t, and so I don’t know where to start on that list. You know, just on the contraception mandate, just as you know, I was critical of the administration the first time around, where it gave absolutely no exemption or accommodation to the Churches, and in particular, obviously, the Catholic Church who’s been at the center of this at all. I think that they’re, they went back, and because of the criticism, and I actually do believe that it is, the fact that so many liberal Catholics, I was obviously not alone in this, felt that they needed to give more leeway to the Church, that they did do the accommodation. Now I think the second accommodation is something you can work with, and that that’s where I disagree with the Bishops now is in what I see as a rather ferocious attack on the administration, where as I believe they are moving toward further accommodation of the Church’s concerns. I’ve heard recently that they may even rewrite the underlying rule which is at the heart of the argument. We’ll see if that happens. But on those other things, the notion that a federal share of the GDP being part of the long consensus, I think that the reason the federal share of the GDP, the single two main drivers of that, have been the aging of the population and rising health care costs. We would not have the GDP, government share rising so much if we didn’t have the aging of the Baby Boom. I devoutly wish we could repeal that since I am in the Baby Boom, but we can’t. And I’d love to see if we could get more control over health costs. But the notion of providing universal health care was Harry Truman’s idea. That was very much…and it was also Teddy Roosevelt’s idea. That was a very common theme in the long consensus from the very beginning, which I start with Teddy Roosevelt. And so I don’t think that Obama has on the whole broken with the long consensus. I think he represents it. And at the moment, I think it’s what I call, and you will disagree, kind of radicalized conservatism that wants to break with it. I don’t think, by the way, George W. Bush broke with the long consensus, either.

HH: Well, I agree with that. In fact, I don’t think you are part of the radical left that I inveigh about so much. I think you are a classic Kennedy liberal, and that as a classic Kennedy liberal, you are conflicted by the Alinskyite wing of your party, which is so much in evidence at places like Occupy…

EJD: Well, I probably think more of Saul Alinsky than you do.

HH: Yes, you do. I’m sure you do. But when I got to the part of the book where you wrote that Mike Gerson, whom I greatly admire, was the “last torchbearer” for compassionate conservatism, and I put down my pen and I said Archbishop Chaput is not a compassionate conservative? The thousands of St. Vincent de Paul Societies, Arthur Brooks, for goodness sakes, whose book, The Road To Freedom, is all about the morality of earned success, and how people genuinely get happy? Bill Bennett is not? Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, my colleagues on the Salem Radio Network are not compassionate conservatives? E.J., you’ve got to get out more. We’re all out here. We’re not radical individualists. We’re Hamiltonians. It’s just that your team has broken the boundaries of the federal government. They’ve swamped the country in red ink. They are running roughshod over freedom. The radicals are on your team. You need to go to work to bring them back.

EJD: Well, I must say that I am not alone in thinking that compassionate conservatism is now isolated. Mike Gerson, as I quote in the book, quoting some of his columns, feels that his kind of conservatism, and particularly compassionate conservatism, has been largely sidelined within the party. Now he’s very much in the conservative mainstream in that. I don’t want to implicate Mike in my views at all. But I think that the very term compassionate conservatism has gone very much out of fashion, and that there are a lot of conservative spokespeople, I happen to quote Michelle Malkin in there who talks about how compassionate conservatism is utterly incompatible with physical responsibility. There are a lot of conservatives who have rejected that idea right now. I am glad to know that you are a compassionate conservative. And as for Archbishop Chaput and some of those other people, I don’t think they put themselves in this category. I’m talking about a strain within political conservatism and the Republican Party that I think is pretty beleaguered now. Another person I think who sees it that way is Chris Caldwell, who wrote a very powerful, another conservative, who is critical of compassionate conservatism, and wrote a very powerful column on why it’s isolated in the Financial Times. So I don’t think that is an eccentric, liberal view of mine, but I’m glad to know you’re a compassionate conservative.

HH: E.J, I think it isn’t eccentric, but I think it misses the point. The point is that the radical individualists are not the problem in our society today. They certainly exist. They are the Ron Paul people. They have got a toehold in the Republican Party, and they have a significant contribution to make. But the vast consensus, the Romney consensus is very much the social policy of George W. Bush trimmed back where we cannot afford it. I think, however, when you wrote and you referred to William F. Buckley’s attack on the Birchers, which is a great and rightly justified celebratory moment in conservatism, today, someone on your side, and it might be you, has to do to your left wing, the Occupy people, the SEIU and the rest of the radicals what Buckley did to the Birchers. You must throw them out, or your party will die, E.J. It is infected with a radical disease, but you spend Out Divided Political Heart shooting at the nonexistent problem on my side.

EJD: Right, and this probably goes to the heart of our disagreement. I truly do not believe that the left has moved left in the way that the right has moved toward this individualistic right. If you look at that recent Pew study on all of the economic issues, Democrats are about where they were, and on a couple of these questions, they are actually a click or two more conservative. But among Republicans, there has been a sharp move away. One number that comes to mind is on the question of do you believe that government has a role, let me see if I can find this question, yes, it’s agree or disagree, that government should take are of people who can’t take care of themselves – 62% of Republicans believed that in 1987. That’s down to 40%. Among Democrats, it’s gone from 79%-75%. So you see no movement, or a slight movement to the right among Democrats and liberals, whereas you’ve seen a substantial movement to the right among Republicans. So that’s why I do think this polarization is asemaphoric, and I guess we also just have a different view of the trade union movement. But that, we could argue about that all day.

– – – –

HH: E.J., let’s conclude, I want to quarrel with you about the Supreme Court. Now I’ve been teaching Con Law for 15 years, and so I may just shudder as a Con Law professor when you write about Bush V. Gore and Citizens United. But your proposition are these are the two defining decisions of the last decade, and they certainly are important. I don’t agree with your characterization of either, and I especially thought you gave short shrift to the Chief Justice’s concurrence in Citizens United on when precedents have to be overruled, and suggesting that they were overruling precedents to 1907 when in fact they were overruling Austin, which is a 1990 case. And in fact, I don’t think Citizens United represents anything radical at all. It represents the protection of what you and I are doing right now – talking and debating political topics.

EJD: Right, we do fundamentally disagree on that. By the way, can I just say I love your taste in late 60s, early 70s music at the breaks you have?

HH: Of course.

EJD: The Spencer Davis Group and then Dave Mason. This is very good. I admire that.

HH: Very impressive gets, E.J. I am impressed. Good, good, good.

EJD: No, they’re…look, let’s put aside Bush V. Gore, which we, I have been arguing about for, since December of 2000.

HH: Amen.

EJD: Let’s talk about Citizens United. When I talked about overturning, when I talk about 1907, what I am saying, as you know, is the passage of the Tillman Act. And the Tillman Act was the law that was upheld all of that time that prohibited contributions by corporations. So the law of the land on this goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. Secondly, I do think that this was activist even in the way the Court took the decision, because, and I think Justice Stevens in his dissent noted this, that the Court had to change the case because they wanted to change the law. The issues that Citizens United decided were not even presented in the original case. And the conservative majority had to order a re-argument of the case so they could open up these issues that they wanted to raise, so that they could strike down this longstanding precedent. And we have believed as a country that you can have free speech while limiting the ability of people to spend unlimited sums in an election campaign. We also agreed that corporations did not have the same rights as people. And I go back to that case that made, you know, created that sentence. But corporations are created by the state. We can regulate the way they behave in the public sphere. So I do believe this was an extraordinary act of judicial activism, and I think that it sure looks, in retrospect, like a partisan act, but I can’t prove that. But let’s put it another way. So to be fairer about it, it clearly, I think, tilts the scale towards one side of the political argument, not necessarily by the way toward a political party. It tilts the side towards those with a lot of resources.

HH: Now E.J., I want to ask one follow up before I go to a very important subset of this, and that is you work for the Washington Post company. It is a corporation.

EJD: Correct.

HH: It is protected by the 1st Amendment. Why ought your corporation to have more rights in the political square, so that your editors can blast away at Republicans, and go left and center-left, and the New York Times go way left, why should they have a preferred position over an ordinary citizen who wishes to buy, or a corporation? Why should any other corporation not be as favored as the Washington Post corporation or the New York Times corporation?

EJD: Because we have rules about, we have always had rules about the impact of money in buying influence through political campaigns. You have the State of Montana fighting for its campaign finance law. Why? Because when campaign finance was wide open in Montana, the railroads basically controlled the state legislature. And this is a, I agree that there are a lot of balancing tests here, but every country in the world, and we, until Citizens United, had a very free and open system while placing some restrictions on the writ of money in the political sphere. And I do not see, I mean, I think it’s a very conservative view to say that there was absolutely no reason to revolutionize our political system with Citizens United. We were doing just fine and had plenty of free speech, including on your radio show before the Court issues Citizens United.

HH: But E.J., the FCC sat out there looming over my radio show. And when you agree with me that the Graham family and the Sulzberger family, and the people who run Time-Warner, that they ought to be regulated by the same rules as any other corporation in America, then you’ll get my attention. But I don’t want an uneven playing field where the liberals who own newspapers and television networks are much more advantaged. Nowadays, the left says well, Murdoch owns Fox News. And my response is yeah, and he shouldn’t have any special privileges, either. No one should have special privileges. We are all citizens, including corporate citizens. Let me ask you, though…

EJD: By the way, you’re doing just fine in terms of ownership of newspapers and certainly radio networks. I wouldn’t…

HH: Oh, yes.

EJD: I’m not worried for your side’s influence, with or without Citizens United.

HH: I want to close our conversation, though, by talking about the Court, because here, I don’t expect you to know the specifics, but maybe you know about EPA versus Sackett, and maybe you know about Hosanna-Tabor, which are two cases that just came down this term. One concerns the EPA and its abuse, its absolute devastating abuse of a couple of small landowners in Idaho who wanted to build a house, and the EEOC case, Hosanna-Tabor, concerns a Lutheran school who wanted to fire a teacher who wasn’t living up to their view of what Lutherans ought to do. These were 9-0 decisions, E.J. 9-0 decisions. Every member of the Court slapped down the Obama administration in the EPA, and the Obama administration in the EEOC, for their overwhelming assault on longstanding understandings of freedom. In the one case, procedural due process freedoms, and the other, religious freedom. And as I read your very interesting, and for a non-lawyer, very sophisticated analysis of some Supreme Court precedents, I thought to myself, I wonder if he knows that all the action, all the 9-0 opinions, are directed at rebuking President Obama and his administration for running roughshod over the liberties of people, and maybe that’s what the Tea Party gets that E.J. doesn’t get?

EJD: I don’t, you know, I am not, first of all, we’re not talking about all of the 9-0 opinions. We are talking about a couple of 9-0 opinions. I am not familiar with the EPA case, but I’m going to go back and look it up. I am familiar with Hosanna-Tabor, and I agreed with the Court. I think the administration’s brief, I would not have filed the brief they filed in this case. I think that there is a religious liberty right here that should be protected, so I wasn’t shocked, actually, that the liberals on the Court went the way they did, because I was inclined, broadly speaking, in that direction myself.

HH: All right, last question, then, you write that there is certainly nothing remotely radical about Obama’s own proposals. And I put my pen down at that point, I make extensive notes, and I said gosh, we’re just not living in the same country. I think the President is radical. It doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy. I think he’s a wonderful dad, he’s a tremendous husband, he’s admirable in many respects. But he is a radical, E.J.

EJD: You see, I don’t see how you can possibly see that. If you look at his health care plan, it is basically a health care plan like the one that John Chaffee or Bob Dole put forward. If you look at his stimulus plan, my critique of it is that it wasn’t big enough, and a third of it was made up of tax cuts. If you look at Wall Street regulation, it probably didn’t go far enough, not that it went too far. I find it very hard to see how someone can make the case that Barack Obama is a radical. And he tried over and over again to work with Republicans in Congress. And I know you don’t believe that, and I know Republicans insist that’s not true. But we might have passed the health care law a lot quicker if he hadn’t waited around and waited around to pick up some Republican votes for a series of ideas, for goodness sake, as you know, the individual mandate was first put forward by Stuart Butler, a very smart and decent conservative at the Heritage Foundation. Now Stuart himself has had to take and pull back some from what Obama did. Mitt Romney was for the individual mandate. So we are not talking about radical ideas. We’re talking about ideas that conservatives and Republicans once embraced.

HH: Now a radical idea done at the federal level is what would be an ordinary experiment at the state level. And so what Romney did…

EJD: But Heritage was for it at the national level.

HH: And there, they would be wrong.

EJD: So this was an idea…

HH: There, they would be wrong.

EJD: …that you shouldn’t have free riders in the health system, which sounds to me like a pretty conservative idea.

HH: But that, they would be wrong if they said the federal government could create commerce to regulate it. But I want to conclude on this, though, E.J., because I’ve got a book coming out in a couple of weeks. I’ll send you a copy.

EJD: Oh, I can’t wait to see it.

HH: It is an extensive argument about why he is outside of the mainstream, the President, why he is a radical, and why the people he has around him is radical. But what’s interesting to me is we, I think we will agree on this, we are at a time for choosing. I mean, we can’t keep this up. We have to either go back to what I will call the long consensus as Hugh understands it, an appropriate Hamiltonian center that is vibrant and constrained, or forward to the new long consensus that E.J. wants, which is I guess a federal government that spends, what, 50% of GDP, or I mean a federal, state and local government that consumes and spends half of our national wealth or 60%? But whatever it is, we have to choose, don’t we?

EJD: Well, I do think we’re at a time of choosing, which it’s worth, as some of your listeners will remember, that that’s the name of Ronald Reagan’s famous speech in 1964. And we are at a moment like that in this election. But I totally disagree with your characterization. We are separated by a few percent of GDP in terms of share of the economy, because I would not cut Medicare and Social Security over the long run as much as you would, and that’s where most of the difference lies. But I think that, you know, we will argue about the long consensus, too, because I think Obama and I, and lots of people who are in that broad category of people are in the sort of Roosevelt-Wilson, Roosevelt-Kennedy consensus, and that I think that your side is the side that wants to take us out of it, and bring us back more to the politics we had from 1865-1900, which we call the guilded age, but you could see that as a cheap shot. But that’s where I think the difference is, and so we disagree on the substance, and we define the terms differently, but that’s what, disagreement is one of the joys of freedom.

HH: And now this is not a question. It’s an opportunity. This part, these last few minutes of our conversation, are available only to my subscribers, the few thousands of people, you know, about four thousand people who pay a lot of money to watch this show on Hughnivision, and to have all of it available. I’d love for each and every one of the Tribbles, that’s what their nickname is, to buy Our Divided Political Heart. E.J., talk to them specifically. Why ought they to read a book by a man of the left defending the left, and defending the President? And I mean, you’ve got four thousand book buyers here. Why…but they’re my people…why should…they’re not my people. They’re people who largely agree with me. They’re Duane’s people. Why should they buy Our Divided Political Heart and read it?

EJD: Well, I like what you said about me. I’d like to hope that that’s true, that I do think it is, I hope, a very coherent argument for a particular view of the world which you may disagree with, but I don’t think you would find strange. Secondly, I think your people, I will call them your people, might at least be reassured at how much somebody who thinks of himself as a person of the left or the center-left loves the American tradition, and loves American history, and that I think it is useful for us to have arguments about what Hamilton thought, and what that means for now, what Clay thought, what Lincoln thought, and what that means for now. And so while they might disagree with my interpretation of the story, I think they might enjoy traveling along with me from 1787 to now, and looking at that part of our story. And then occasionally, they might just enjoy getting mad at me, and that would be very satisfying to them.

HH: E.J. Dionne, I want to thank you for your time. Good luck on your tour, and I hope all the Tribbles go to E.J. Dionne’s Facebook.

End of interview.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Book Hugh Hewitt as a speaker for your meeting

Follow Hugh Hewitt

The Hugh Hewitt Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Friends and Allies of Rome