Over a decade ago, John W. Dean, a former White House counsel, and the late Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater began a joint inquiry into what was happening to conservatism. At the time, the movement was first becoming increasingly radical, religious, and self-righteous. When Senator Goldwater's health precluded his continued work on their planned book, the project was set aside. But Dean did not stop searching for answers to their questions, particularly the failed effort by conservative Republicans to overturn the 1996 presidential election by impeaching President Clinton. Dean's interest is in understanding why conservative Republicans are doing what they are doing, and he found the striking explanation for the behavior of contemporary conservatives in the empirical studies of social scientists, who have been studying authoritarianism since World War II.
In Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean explains this body of scientific work to general readers and shows its direct relevance to contemporary conservatism. Counsel to President Nixon for a thousand days, John Dean also served a chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee and as an associate deputy attorney general in the US Department of Justice. He writes a bi-weekly column for FindLaw. He is the author of Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, and six other books.
John W. Dean III
John Dean was White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon and became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover-up. Despite his initial involvement, Dean became a key witness for the prosecution and was the first administration official to accuse Nixon of direct involvement with Watergate and the resulting cover-up. His accusations were confirmed when the secret White House tape recordings were made public. Dean's cooperation with the investigation led to a reduction in his prison time.
But for Dean blowing the whistle on Nixon's misdeeds it is highly questionable whether the Watergate scandal would have resulted in Nixon's resignation.
Dean's account of the inspiration for the book, the inception, and possible consequences are very interesting. He traces the transformation of the conservative philosophy from his work experience with the Nixon administration to the present day. Humorously, but still true, he describes his values having not changed yet, his political label has moved from conservative to left of center unbeknown to him. He describes the cut-throat and effective strategies of the conservative party. And his detail of his research on the "authoritarian personality" is intriguing. His threat of a fascist America should not be taken lightly. We have already given up a number of freedoms including privacy issues and certain due process rights. If we continue to allow our rights to be taken away we may wake up one day living in a fascist regime.
The most striking observations Dean makes on the current polarity of the republican and democratic parties, is the difference in personal relationships that people in the House and Senate currently have versus what they used to share. He reflects on a time when everyone knew each other's names and families, when all their kids used to attend the same schools, and when they'd all gather together for Sunday picnics, democrats and republicans alike. Dean credits increasing levels of personal distance responsible for what he calls "demonizing" individuals from the opposing party. When the human elements is subtracted, it makes it more convenient to jab people of opposing ideologies, rather than promote or encourage an effort to work together.
Dean paints a discouraging picture of competitive partisan politics. One gets the feeling that many politicians have gotten too comfortable with the power they have. The goal of a one party system is scary, even if it's uncontious and overstated.
And now its my pleasure to introduce our guest. John Dean has served as White Housecouncil under Richard Nixon in the early 1970's. He was linked to the Watergate cover upand then became the star witness of the Watergate prosecution. He's said to have gonethrough an epiphany as a result of Watergate and the have become one of the most astutecommentators on how "authoritarian republicans", as he calls them, are violating the law.Since working in Nixon's White House, Mr. Dean has worked as an investment bankerand author and lecturer. He's also a contributor to Find Law, a free legal information website offering answers to everyday legal questions. Mr. Dean is the author of seven books.His earlier works include his memoirs "Blind Ambition" and "Lost Honor". His mostrecent books include "Worst than Watergate: the Secret Presidency of George W. Bush"and "Conservatives without Conscious" This evening Mr. Dean will be reading from, or Ithink not reading, but talking about and discussing with us "Conservatives withoutConscious". Please now join me in a warm welcome for John Dean.Thank you. Is Dan Elsberg here? I'm serious? We followed him over and we lost him. Iwas going to say, he's my non-authoritarian friend who I'm sure is here tonight. Anywaylet me tell you what I think might be the best way to begin what I hope will be aninteresting exchange with you all tonight and after I give you a few remarks about thebook, is to open it up to the floor for questions, either about the book or that area ofhistory that I have more expertise than I might wish I had. I really... Dan, come in, I wasworried about you. (applause) Anyway, to open up after we, I say a few remarks about thebook to open it up for a question and answer session where I can learn what's on yourmind as well as I can share what I can share.But maybe the first question that I can dispose of real quickly, I've often thought this isthe way I should be introduced, I am the man who is still married to Maureen Dean. Ithought about that as I was turning off my cell phone after the announcement, because theother night I was giving a talk and she literally called just as I was finishing andsomebody said, boy that was perfect, how did you plan that way? And she said, I lookedat your schedule and I thought you would be finished with your lecture by then. Andanyway, it, we had a lot of fun with it with the audience because the speaker part came on.The reason I undertook this book, this last book, it really resulted almost over a decadeago when I was having conversations with a longtime friend Senator Barry Goldwater,who I had known since I was about thirteen years of age and his son and I have beenlifetime friends. We were roommates in prep school together and at about thirteen orfourteen, I first got to know the senator and I've known him ever since. I really didn'tknow much about his politics or his thinking until I got into undergraduate school andread his classic "The Conscious of a Conservative". I called him in 1994 because I was ina lawsuit that was not dissimilar from one that he had been in 1965 following the '64campaign. Those of you who might recall that campaign, will remember that a magazinecalled "Fact Magazine" took a poll of psychiatrists throughout the country, a somewhatbiased poll, and asked the psychiatrists what they thought about the senator's mental state.The conclusion that Ginsberg reported was that Goldwater was crazy and should not beever in the White House. The senator did not take real kindly to this conclusion anddecided to file a defamation suit.I've never understood why more public officials do not file defamation suits while I'm agreat believer in the first amendment, I also believe that when you "swift boat"somebody, for example, and you fail to respond to it, you give credence to that kind ofattack. And I to this day don't understand why John Kerry never filed anything againstthose who so viciously attack him during the 2004 campaign. But anyway, I called thesenator because we were in the middle of a lawsuit, my wife and I. A lawsuit thatemanated from a book that called "Silent Coup", which I learned about one Mondaymorning when Mike Wallace from 60 Minutes called me to tell me that Mo and I werethe centerpiece of a new book that alleged that contrary to all known history, all priorinvestigations, all prosecutions, all congressional inquiries, that I had secretly ordered theWatergate break in and the reason I had done this is that my wife Maureen was associatedwith a call girl ring that was servicing the Democratic National Committee. I said toMike, "You gotta be kidding". He said, "No, I'm deadly serious". I said, "How did Imanage to pull this off and keep this secret all these decades?" He said, "Fair question".He said, "Apparently the authors," he said, 'There is some confusion about this book", hesaid "apparently the authors had a source. Do you know a man by the name of PhillipMackin Bailley." I said, "I don't". He said, "Do you remember an incident when you werecouncil of the President where a couple assistant U.S. attorneys came over to your officefrom the D.C. Office of the U.S. attorney to tell you about a potential indictment against aman by the name of Bailey who was extorting women into prostitution?".I said, "I do remember that".And how could I forget it. It was a situation that I was, explained to me is that Bailey wasan attractive, young lawyer who would go around all the bars in the District of Columbia,find young women who were either falling out of relationships or into bad relationships,he was an attractive, humorous, engaging young man. He would get the young ladies tofall in love with him. He would take them to his apartment where he would get them highon wine and dope and then take compromising pictures of them. Next he would, with apassage of little time, and this just wasn't one or two, this was several women, he wasrunning a whole routine. He would next tell these women that he wanted to have sex withhis friends, for which he was receiving money. If they refused, he threatened that hewould expose them to the pictures, the compromising pictures that he had to their parents,their friends, or whom ever.Finally a young co ed at the University of Maryland went to the U.S. attorney and told,and explained what was going on. And they discovered several other women where in thesame situation. Not all of them wanted to be complaining witnesses, but several of themdecided they would and one they particularly hoped would be a complaining witness, theU.S. attorneys believed was a White House attorney, so they came to my office. As itturns out she was not. She was a, somebody who hadn't been detailed from anotherdepartment to the office, what was then called the office of Emergency Preparedness,later FEMA, it does bring a chuckle, doesn't it? And she had been extorted by Bailey andthey wanted her to testify and they were gonna call her and subpoena her and bring herinto the trial if it went to trial. So they thought the White House should know.As I say, as it happened, she wasn't on the White House staff, we had great difficultyfinding her, but we did, and then realized, you know, that this could well be beembarrassing to her, but it did not embarrass the presidency in any way. But I thankedthem and I said I certainly hope you prosecute this man to the hilt and they did. They did,they filed a very multi count, I think it was a seventeen count indictment against him,including racketeering charges. He would plead guilty to I think two of the counts andwould be sent to Danbury Prison where he would meet G. Gordon Liddy.After Bailley was released from prison, and I'm telling you more than Mike Wallace toldme because I don't understand how the publisher thought he was going to release thisstory without our suing because we would sue, but as I was, to give you a little bit of aback story, Bailley came back to D.C. after serving his time and claimed that he had thetrue story of Watergate, one that nobody had ever known about, that he was running, hewas the manager and sort of the guiding force behind a call girl ring that was in anapartment building near the Watergate complex and that it just so happened that everyattractive woman in Washington in the 1972, '73 or actually '71, '72 period that had everbeen in the news, from Dianne Sawyer to my wife, were all working for this PhillipBailley. It was quite remarkable. This would become the centerpiece of this book "Silent Coup".The book would be promoted by another St. Martins author, the actual people that putthis book together are a retired liquor salesman from Tampa who had never writtenanything before in his life, who had hooked up with a, a sometimes journalist who hadworked at a, worked for Jack Anderson, I don't know if you know who Jack Anderson is,he's a, one of Washington's legendary muck rakers, uh, they had put this story together.They were unable, actually, to write it. The first part of the book dealt with BobWoodward who claimed that he was actually a CIA agent unbeknownst to the world. AndI talked to Woodward at the time and he said, "you know, they talked to my father, theytalked to my ex wife they dropped, they said rather unkind, nasty things, not the sources,but when interviewing them, they were dropping all kinds of things looking for dirt". AndWoodward said, "You know I came as close as I've ever come to bringing a defamationsuit against what these guys did." But he decided not to.Particularly when he found out that Mo and I had.The middle part of the book, the center piece of the book was this story about the call girlring and my ordering the Watergate break in and then tricking my superiors into coveringthis all up, somehow that was never really terribly, fully explained. And then the thirdpart of the book dealt with the title of the book, the so called "Silent Coup", which waspulled off by Al Haig who reportedly was working hand in glove with the military toremove the president from office. They took a, there was not relationship to theWoodward story, my story, but Haig was just operating as a freelance person himself whofelt that he might be embarrassed if these investigations got too far, so he simply pushedthe president out of office.There were some problems with the story. The biggest problem we quickly discoveredand focused principally on the center piece, was this source Phillip Mackin Bailley. Weimmediately got, hired an investigator to find out who he was. We found out he was aman who'd been in and out of mental institutions his entire adult life. He actually claimedhe was from, he was an abandoned space captain from Alpha Centauri and he was waitingwaiting for the, his mother planet to come pick him up. When St. Martins decided tomarket this book, they turned to one of their other authors, G. Gordon Liddy. And Liddy,I have no trouble understanding how Liddy would be able to talk to Phillip Mackin Bailleyand say, this is a hell of a good source. And of course it totally, it not only madeLiddy look like a greater idiot than he might be, uh, it, what was most surprising aboutLiddy is picking this story up and running with it and promoting it all over the countryand getting it up to, at one point number seven on the New York Times Bestseller list anddoing so by attacking mostly my wife, who really did not handle it well. It was nothingshe ever expected to have to encounter in her life. Uh, very unpleasant experience.I recount a little bit of this in the preface because it explains why I wrote the book I didbecause I started looking at who was buying this book and they were hard, rightconservatives. They were looking for a bogus story, people who should have knownbetter to explain somehow Watergate that pointed the finger at everybody except theconservatives who were very deeply involved in Watergate. This is the reason I calledSenator Goldwater, because I was curious to understand why in the world in otherwiseseemingly intelligent people would buy into this totally bogus hoax that was being perpetrated.Uh, the senator immediately put it in a larger context for me. He said, "John, listen, this isvery typical of conservative behavior. I had gotten, as I had become active in business, Ihad really stopped dealing with Washington. Yes I had friends there, but I became sort ofapolitical and anything but partisan. Registering as an independent and deciding, youknow, I've been there, done that, I'm really gonna pursue business and enjoy that, thatparticular life and enjoyed reducing my visibility and being active in business. But I saidto the Senator, I said, you know but it just doesn't make sense. He said, "Well, it makes alot of sense. Its very consistent." But he says, "I don't, I can't tell you I understand whythis incivility has crept into conservatism and is what it is today. I don't understand, forexample, why they're doing the same thing to Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. And hetold me about getting someone sending him a copy of the Jerry Falwell's tapes thataccused Clinton of everything from murder to running drugs and he said, "You know, Imight not agree with everything Bill Clinton wants to do, but I do think that we have onepresident at a time and if people are going to start attacking presidents in this fallaciousand false way, its only gonna damage politics. And he said I have no tolerance for it." Hesaid, "I also don't understand how the religious right has slowly but surely become sodominant in Republican politics." And as the more we talked he said, "Why don't we findsome answers to these questions", because he was both mystified and mythed by what hewas seeing in the party and the movement that he had been so responsible for starting.I told him, I said, you know, you obviously have contacts, I have contacts, I think its agood idea" and we decided we would co-author a book and he said, "You know, John, Ithink conservatism has lost its conscious" and as we played with that we came up withthe title you now know I've written about called "Conservatives without a Conscious".The senator worked with me for awhile on it. He told me about the papers he had that hethought would be valuable, that he's now, that he had deposited with the Arizonahistorical foundation. He told me some of his thoughts and I started on it, but I realizedhis health was not very good and this could quickly become a burden on him and I didn'twant that, so I said, "Listen, why don't we put this on the shelf until you're feeling a littlebit better and then pursue it." He said, "Thats good with me. Lets do that, but I don't want to drop it."And unfortunately he didn't feel better and he would pass away in early "98. I however,decided that I would not abandon the project and slowly but surely as the lawsuitproceeded, I was learning more and more about the way conservatives were using thisbook in surprising ways to me that seemed anything but conservative. Uh, I was surprisedas the proceedings went on, what else I would learn. At one point, after litigating thisabout eight years and trying to employ a scorched-earth policy that I'd learned aboutvery quickly being that they, that the general council of St. Martins had gone to an ABA,American Bar Association function, and the world is very small, and started boastingabout how he had been, they'd been sued by the Deans and that they were going to makethis lawsuit the most painfully expensive thing the Deans had ever encountered in theirlife and wish they'd never brought the lawsuit.Well, just so happened, a friend of mine was there when this person was boasting abouttheir strategy. So we planned accordingly. We husband our funds, we worked out a goodcontingency arrangement. I dropped my business, my investment banking business, rolledup the sleeves, knew how to use the law books and worked out an arrangement with thelaw firm that I would draft the first draft of everything and then they would actually file itfor themselves. It ended up that I of course would, my first draft often ended up being theonly draft, but uh, that worked and I have probably filed every motion under the federalrules of civil procedure because they were trying to see how expensive they could makethis lawsuit. At one point, myself and one other lawyer, the senior partner at this boutiquelaw firm which is very good trial firm, we had seventeen lawyers on the other sidedancing full time. But when they got to the point where they, we in an essence, made itmore expensive for them, by what we did, rather than their being able to make it moreexpensive for us. Not that it was cheap, because it wasn't, it cost, just the process ofhaving to pay the out of pocket was very hefty, but I was in a position where I could dothat and I was hell bent to not let anybody attack my wife the way these people had done so.So after they spent 15 million dollars fighting us, about eight years into the lawsuit, theyrealized that their strategy wasn't going to work. That we had obviously somehow figuredout what they were going to do and we had got the jump on them and we were controllingthe law suit. We were also collecting information that really showed what a hoax thebook was. For example, when we deposed Phillip Bailley, their central source for thisstory, their lawyer had brought in a psychiatrist because they were worried that this manwould purger himself. And so the psychiatrist testified that he had studied Bailley'srecords, medical records, which we, by that time had already studied, and he was a manwho based on this professionals consultation with others who had worked with Bailley inmental institutions over a long period of time, was somebody who could not distinguishfact from fiction. Now this is not exactly the best source to rely on to revise history. AndSt. Martins realized they were in deep trouble,that they were going to be terribly embarrassed by all this.So as I say, they wanted to settle and it was about, this was about early '98. Its about thetime Senator Goldwater passed away and its about the same time that the Lewinskymatter surfaces. I've maintained a very low profile the whole time I'm in private businessand by design, because I just felt it was better not to be carrying that baggage around anddoing the kind of work I was doing. But after the lawsuit and what I was learning, Iwanted to learn more, I wanted, I had lost some touch with Washington. While I still hadfriends there in high places, people who had worked both in the Reagan and Bushadministration and even some within the Clinton administration, I wanted to learn moreabout what was going on particularly with conservatism which was striking me assomething very foreign. And I still consider myself to this day, to be on many issues, aGoldwater conservative. And that puts me somewhere left of center today. I've not reallychanged my views in the last forty years, but the party I was once apart of and themovement, conservatism, is so far to the right that as I saw,I'm a liberal for all practical purposes.And I recently saw a screening of a documentary that Senator Goldwater's granddaughterprepared. She got a hold of some wonderful family footage that the Senator had and Inoticed at one point that she captured a wonderful scene where the Senator at the end ofthe '64 campaign, who incidentally he did not want to run that campaign, he did not wantto run against Lyndon Johnson. And I've often thought how different life might have beenhad the race that he had contemplated ever taken place. He wanted to run against JackKennedy who was a dear friend of his in the Senate and they literally had talked aboutwhat they would do if, if Goldwater had decided to run and got the nomination. Theywould together, lease an airplane and they would fly around the country to majorlocations, and like the old Lincoln-Douglas debates, they would come out of the airplane,they would have a debate, then they would get together on the airplane and go back andfly to the next place. And just think how that would have changed the level of civility inpresidential politics has that standard ever been set.When Kennedy was assassinated, Goldwater was crushed because his party had pushedhim so far and because so many had committed, he felt he couldn't turn around and say noat that point, but as I said, he did not want to make that race. Uh, he made the best of it,he didn't think it'd be a winner, but he never expected it to sink to the level it did. In fact,he told me, he said, "I don't even recognize the man that Lyndon Johnson in his campaignis portraying me as. I wouldn't vote for the Goldwater that they're pursuing". A lot ofpeople think Goldwater was a racist. I know to the contrary because I know he's the manthat long before the military was formally integrated, he as a head of the Arizona NationalGuard, integrated the Arizona National Guard. He's somebody who has spent his lifetimefrom his youth to his death working with Indian tribes trying the make their life better.They loved him. Indians, as you know, don't like to have their picture taken because theyfeel it takes part of their spirit. He was a photographic genius and has some of the bestpictures of American Indians that have ever been collected because they so trusted him.Uh, he was a man, I once asked him, "You know Senator, equality is one of the big issuesthat separates democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals, what do you thinkabout that?" And he said, "Well, I think equality is something that the conservativeintellectuals like to talk about, conservatives not honoring, but I can tell you one thingJohn, they don't get elected to office if that's their position andI'm one who happens to believe, strongly in equality."Unfortunately, thats not as true today as when he ran. He was a man who never loweredhimself and this is apart of his conservative thinking. He never lowered himself to thelevel of those who ran against him, from his first race to his last race. When LyndonJohnson, for example, was attacking him, remember the wonderful and vicious flowerpicking commercial that has become a classic, with the little girl pulling the petals off thedaisy and the countdown and then the atomic bomb exploding behind and really, verylittle commentary other than an implication that this is what Goldwater would do if hewas ever president. Well, rather than lowering himself to that level, and he and anopportunity, one of the things that happened during the '64 campaign is Lyndon Johnson'stop aid, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in the YMCA a block from the White House inhomosexual activity. The White House quickly hushed it up, they put him in a hospital,but Goldwater's campaign staff learned about it and they went to the senator and said thisis a golden opportunity, this is what they've been doing to us, lets nail em. The Senatorsaid no way, no way. Would not have anything to do with it.So, the conservatism I know from a Goldwater, is really not only in what he believed, butin the way he acted, which he thought in his definition was very simple, that conservatismdraws the best from the past not the worst and tries to apply it to today's standards. Whenit comes to government where you have a need for government to provide security, andyou have a need also for government to provide freedom, the balance always weighs infavor of freedom. So its rather simple, but a very fascinating man and as I say, he had aninfluence on me and my thinking and I think what he said then and the clip I started to tellyou about, that CeCe found was that the Senator was asked a question as to how peoplewould look back on his conservatism. And he said, its very simple. I think people, yearsfrom now, will call me a liberal. And I think that's very close to whats going to happen.He's becoming closer and closer to a liberal.His libertarianism was the hallmark of his conservatism.Anyway, as we talked about settlement of the lawsuit, one of the things I was offered wasan opportunity to go to Washington and to work as an anchor body for MSNBC duringthe Clinton impeachment proceeding. I had refused earlier comments on things likeWhite Water and Travel Gate and Vince Fosters suicide and all those things that the rightwing was immediately saying, "Uh, these are all worse than Watergate.". Well, this cameup again during the Lewinsky matter and so when the media called me I started sayingwell, this isn't worse than Watergate, let me remind you of some of the things that fallunder that litany of activity and these are quite different to animals.And so one night I was on a show called the big show, with Keith Oberman. I do, I'veknown Keith for years, I liked to do his show because he's so bright and I never knowwhat he'll ask me, so its always fun to go in there and he's always very perceptive inwhat's he's interested in and driving out and they're good questions so its always fun to doit. But I, on this particular night he asked me, "What would happen if this went toimpeachment?" He said you surely know a little bit about that being connected with theNixon impeachment effort. I said I do and I said his, this happens that some years ago as apure avocational undertaking, I read the entire congressional record of the AndrewJohnson impeachment from the House right through the Senate triall, so they kind ofpressed a button and I was able to give them an awful lot of information that they hadn'thear about impeachment.As I was leaving the studio, the producer for Keith's show was on the air and he wasactually one of the producers for the entirety of MSNBC and said if this goes forward,would you be willing to go to Washington to work as an anchor buddy. I said what? HEsaid, as an anchor buddy? And I said, sure, whatever that is it interests me because Iwould be delighted to get back to Washington and get a little feel for what's happening inthat city that I don't quite have the touch on anymore. Well, anyway what an anchorbuddy, I accepted and what an anchor buddy is is somebody who sits on the set, almost allday long. The anchors change. One time it would be Brokaw, then it would be JohnSeigenthaler, than it would be Bryan Williams and they would rotate. But the anchorbuddies kinda stay solid.I was the anchor buddy who was generally placed in the middle. On my right was BarbaraOlsen, who as you may recall was tragically killed in the 9/11 plane that went into thePentagon. I liked Barbara. She was fun, she was savvy, she was outspoken and she hatedthe Clintons, no question, she didn't mince any words. And on my other side was LannyDavis who had been working for the Clinton White House and was a defender and I waskind of the middle and just kind of tried to call it right down straight the middle as I sawit. But I spent a lot of time talking to Barbara and she would often have her cell phone outand I discovered something that I thought was quite interesting. She finally explainedwho she was talking to. And I could pick up the gist of it somewhat from the cell phonebeing right beside me, but she would call, they had a central monitoring operation andhad, we have spokes people on every channel, every station, every time we can putsomebody out with talking points and we learn what talking points aren't being covered.So this was all very well organized. I said, Barbara do you really think that you canoverturn the 1970's , '96 election and remove this man from office.She said, its a done deal in the house.The other thing that happened is that people would come through the green room. Anyoneand everybody who was involved in the impeachment sooner or later came through thatMSNBC greenroom which is on Capitol Hill literally just blocks from the Capitolbuilding itself. And it was a chance to have a really long conversations as people werewaiting to go on the sets or programs and what have you, because we were always thereon call to be prepared to go on if something broke and to be there with the anchor. It wasso fascinating that I kept a journal of what was going on. I'd go back to the hotel and writeup what I'd learn because I was learning a whole new world existed in Washington. Itsnothing I'd ever quote because these were off the record, just informal chats, but it was areally eyeopener. Such things as somebody who had started his political career in the house of representatives.I understood the House pretty well. I was once the chief minority council of the housejudiciary committee, I knew how the place worked. But that was under democrats. Noquestion the democrats had gotten lazy after forty years of running the place, they hadgotten arrogant, they had gotten, they had assumed too many things and there was a timeand a need for reform and that was the basis that they got tossed out largely and therepublicans got control. But the republicans in turn would push it further and further andfurther than anybody really understands because this issue has been so ignored, and I liketo talk about things and write about things that are generally ignored.I focus on this in the book because this is the first place that I really saw what I wouldlater learn is authoritarianism. And I saw it first in the Gingrich office, the way he workedthrough his office through Tom Delay and the various lieutenants. He decided he wouldappoint all o