tv Books About American Presidents CSPAN July 3, 2020 1:20pm-2:56pm EDT
drug addiction? i never considered it that he did have all the symptoms. i just thought he's working too hard, not getting enough sleep, all of those things. >> to watch this and other episodes, visit our website, booktv.org. click on the "afterwards" tab near the top of the page. >> now on book tv, programs about u.s. president, first, february, she discussed her biography of george washington and offered her thoughts on why her book is different than other biographies of america's first president. she spoke with jamal in politics and broke bookstore in washington d.c. >> i want presidential history because presidency and the person who established and it was built around everyone pressured into it, it is important that everyone understands him in the presidency but i think the
biography is alienating those the way the visual presentation there, the way they are written so i wanted the reader to feel like they had never read the presidential biography that they had everything they needed at the beginning of the book at the beginning of each section to equip them to feel as though they were the experts so that was part of it, i did think a lot about my reader and the other part, washington has been called by an adams family series editor, presidential editor. they edit the papers. called him that to my face. [laughter] adams which you can't compare, there too much fun. the thing is, you can break him
out of this mode, he can be fun and interesting but you have to have fun with them, it's a whole different thing but a lot of the things you see are the way i organized it in my head when i was trying to make sure that things across and i decided to be vulnerable and share with everyone. i do think there are certain things that help you understand, i can tell you in a sentence at the beginning, we can say he lost more battles than he won so why are we talking about the battles? not fighting on the front lines, he's not out there so why are we wasting time? that was important to me that you understand something that's usually just a sentence but i think you get lost which is it's
been around a long time, it wasn't quick. we had one general and they had many generals. by presenting you at the beginning of that section and all these other guides, you get it. take the knowledge with you and i wanted you to have those and i don't want my reader to, i don't expect you to turn around and give a long talk about this, i want you to be excited about it and turn around and talk about a cocktail party. >> i read like half a book recently, and reading this new book and you know washington loved dogs? one of the things at the beginning and i did not know that and she talked about the dogs.
i really wanted to talk about these facts. >> it's important to know he loves dogs, you have to know he was silly enough to tall girl his dogs sweet. you also need details like you can't just know how many people he owned and he felt certain way, he assaulted his slaves. you can't just here you need an example of it. it's giving you every detail i can squeeze out of it. >> you said earlier, because this book does so much, you place in this context of this relationship, is the model for the presidency, what it almost does in this book, unlike
traditional biographies which feel like they are biographies about roman emperors, this is about a president and the president just does that. i think it's intriguing in the book, you always are sure to emphasize it not just the people around them but washington as someone who has this also the thing i had in my mind is danny and lethal weapons, he just doesn't want to do it anymore. >> the thing is, we think of this as a model is, they are in
agreement at all times and they understood what they were doing. they set up with the details and it's not true. washington was annotating, is doing the bestie could. >> i find it so revealing. getting into his head about he understood himself doing the j job. >> we should give us comfort in the messiness in some ways. >> part of the book deals with washington as a slave owner it's something you can't not feel, it's one of the overriding identities of his entire life. he was cast out his entire life and concerned about what is going to do about the farm and feed and house the people he owned and what they were going to do for him so the thing you talked about towards the end is how washington would say i'm going to free my slaves but never really acted on it.
his indolence, unwillingness to take it because you make no it appears in virginia he did take the extra step. >> i also feel this is something biographers try to pull over on us, they make it sound as if washington had this and this is helpful to them because it's hard to prepare someone, which is a bias. it's hard to do that if you can't see him as having this beautiful realization so washington begins to have not a change of heart for the change of priorities during the revolution and he needs
different people, it's not the argument that sometimes enslaved and free black men fought during the revolution and that's what changed his mind. no, he didn't want that, he was reluctant about that. is always presenting to the narrative as if he's always been there. a representative of everyone other than the exception. what i wanted to do was have that present because it's present in his mind. it is important to him as anything else, he's very concerned about it, he is concerned about his labor force, so to me, needing to understand him and his anxieties and priorities had to be there the whole time as close as i could get it. i wanted to smoosh a bunch of my histories into one because i think it can be that way. but i think washington, it's not
i wish he would have done this, it's understanding why he did what he did. he could have sold his land, we call them planters which is i think misleading, plantation owners which is inflection and they were all cash poor but they have planned and no one had more land than george washington because he gained a ton of really choice land during the french and indian war when he fought for the british which he would probably continue to do and we might be british subjec subjects, had they given him the promotion he wanted. [laughter] he was a reluctant rebel, we're not talking about thomas paine here. so i think it's important to think about the things he's saying are not quite true, i don't have the money, i can't do
this or move out, he could have if he really wanted to. if he wanted to be the person lafayette thought he could have. people like to say that no examples, there were people who did this and had to leave under direct because other slave masters were terrified of this so i think to look at him clearly and when we do that, was talk about how it was a big move. he left her, he passed the buck to her and left her in this vulnerable position and ended up hurrying the inevitable but also the same problem existed that he didn't want to see and be responsible for which was the separating of families forever. >> if you could, how many people were in enslaved that he
throughout? >> it fluctuated. martha was married before, she had two children from her previous marriage and the state had over 130 enslaved people. in washington inherited ten people when he was 11 and that number swelled because he purchased them, his biographers would say they were sold to him. it's not like zero fine. [laughter] but he went wherever with the purpose of buying people. that number swelled to 214 by the time he died. >> the thing for me reading about washington as a slave owner, it reminds most of the people he saw for most of his life were enslaved people.
when i went up there and they talked about it in those terms, most people jefferson saw most of the time for the people he enslaved and that for me radically changes how you think about these men. and how they must have thought about themselves because it's not, he wasn't there every day with all their buddies. >> like they saw. >> right. it was from sunup to sundown most days, thinking about that during the day when you have to discipline. i don't know if i have a question, it's just an observation. >> i think there's something worthwhile in just thinking about it and talking about it that washington, people talk about he was so impressive thinking all these new schemes and inventions. to maximize profit and labor to make sure he was applying that. that's really important because we think of them as sort of like
doing important work all the time, they were messy, they were drama queens and also cruel and themselves to be better. on a sunday, washington would hang out with his wife and make enslaved people rowboats race across town. that's what he did on a sunday. want to know he went to church but i also want to know he did that. >> over the past 20 years, but tv covered over 300 programs about america's first president. you can watch them anytime visiting our website booktv.org and searching george washington and book. up next and look at year's presence is nancy eisenberg, co-author of a biography of john and john quincy adams. his abortion from the historical
society in may 2019. >> john adams was a disciple of the enlightenment, much of jefferson. at the heart of this movement was the impulse to unmask superstition. like the design and cultivate independent of thought. john adams held a desire for saying could be found in every part. meeting the masses to worship their britches. this is why he identified the danger of the personality. the cult of personality is when the personality of the leader is equated with the nation. the worship idol replaces we the people as the soul of the body politics. adams watched it close and personal first when he was in france. there, franklin seduced educated
elite as america's first rock star. adams understood the desire among human beings to be seen and loved. the force of dictatorship and then there was the opposite, the fear of obscurity of excess significance, long before news that every american wants 15 minutes of fame, adams placed the danger of adulation at the center of his constitutional theory. in the eyes of men and women was often most superficial of dazzling destruction. he explained the riches and beauty, short of power and aristocracies. the societies in dividing people in classes, political parties use the same method in marketing
candidates and attractive appearance, a prominent name, and glimmers reputation. if that wasn't enough, lies, flattery and quackery, is delightful word, would keep supporters mesmerized. john adams understood that politics was a crooked con game as far back as 1790. these impulses emerge in all governments. republics and democracies alike. a society that rewards ambition cannot avert the mad scramble for public recognition but he went further, responsible for the worship of the lustrous view. since the majority of people would never take to the stage, they lived vicariously through their idols. vicarious were his words. what he was saying is that the
people felt a special kind of sympathy for the powerful. it wasn't just corrupt politicians in office and reputation, it was show. we got these things in our book, they were not selectively drawn so as to simply resonate with the current political scene, which a lot of people think and forget that we started researching his book long before the current political scene. americans tell themselves they value independent thinking and enlightenment sense of that phrase. in fact, citizens still swoon over the rich and famous, they join crowds and cheering fans. adams extrapolated from this to say that this mentality is a dangerous force contained within
democracies and it's inflamed by the partisan press. party organizers alexander hamilton forward found a way to exploit the imaginary bond between voters and their leaders. in the first presidential election, in 1788, 89, hamilton made sure seven electors withheld their votes for adams by spreading a rumor that new englanders might steal the election from washington. hamilton's perspective, there could be only one surrogate king, one idolized star. washington's presidency borrowed the trappings of royalty, chief executive was housed in a grand mansion, he rode in an equipped carriage and he held receptions with the capital elite. he made two grand national
boards like the king of england, is a national holiday. washington's image was known for all. a visiting dignitary remarked that americans kept triggered portraits of washington in the homes, much like the russians worship icons of the saints. adams dissected the cold of washington and used the skill to explain the worship of washington. the generals first, and most important trait was that he emphasized his handsome face. next, his tall stature, he was . elite breeding was evident in his elegant form. his graceful movement and large estate. washington was a man of few words. adams joked his virginians adored him because among the
elite, they are all swans. he was more than genius, adams knew this. we know it to be true as well. voters take manufactured qualities as signs of character. adams suffered by comparison to washington. he acquired the nasty nickname of his rotunda t. a label started and was used in the election of 1800. political gamesmanship became circus like by the time the second adams entered a presidential contest. in 1824, when then secretary of state, john quincy adams was seeking the presidency, a cartoon captured the foot brace,
so-called. the pollsters and pendants to this day, a term a presidential horse race. this is relevant because tonight, he's a happy dirty. [laughter] john quincy adams is ahead by a nose, andrew jackson in military uniform is on their tail and coming up fast. all john adams stands at the front of the crowd, cheering on his son. while spectators placed wagers on the outcomes. this is democracy at its worst, a spectacle. the election campaign isn't about philosophy or policies but a gamble. the excitement of race is what matters most. in 1828, when adams lost to
jackson, he found himself not only running against the national hero but against a far better organized probe jackson party machine. the new yorker, martin van buren was jackson's election group, building on the earlier new yorker hamilton's playbook. jackson's inquirers wanted to remove him into the air of the noble washington but the effort failed because jackson was known to be impulsive in fostering and autocratic. the general was promoted with the lavished campaign biography, the first of its kind. his rash arbitrary behavior was recast as a cardinal virtue. that is, he exhibited tearfulness and manly vigor. the incumbent adams was overly cerebral. there is something even darker
at work here. john quincy adams concluded that jackson's followers were really, this is in his words and very important, a champion of executive power. democracy was in fact, a warrior conquest. weston expansion drove politics, slaveholders wanted slavery to expand to the pacific, behind the screen was a union of speculators and slaveholders. john quincy adams was elected to congress in 1830, after his one term presidency ended. it was an unusual move, never to be repeated. remained until he died at his desk in 1948. parties ruled. the art of party drilling, was military. party membership became writers,
sanctimonious called to liberties, allowing southern democrats to purchase auxiliary support slavery from friedman of the north. what could be a greater irony? jackson, head of the democratic party, jefferson supposedly small government party was now a party of unchecked executive power. election hearing, frederick john quincy adams, a man comfortable with rituals of the european court, he served as a diplomat. like his father before him, he was a secret promoter of monarchy. the truth is, they can twist the truth and voters often didn't care. for john quincy adams, a slaveholding oligarchy had taken hold of the presidency, along
with the illusion of what textbooks call jacksonian democracy. >> we've opened up our archives to look at all the programs about u.s. president and former second lady revisits the life of james madison, she was joined by former vice president cheney at the presidential library in 2014. >> he was the architect of the constitution, the architect of the bill of rights, he was crucial to the establishment of the government under the constitution, he was president during the first war under the constitution and he performed, if not magnificently, and all those jobs, at least very well, at the end of his presidency, john adams was kind of a sour figure and not giving
compliments easily, john adams wrote james madison's administration covered itself in more glory than any of his predecessors which is a great complement because his predecessors were washington, jefferson and adams himself. i do think he's been underappreciated and it's been really so much fun. five years of labor doesn't sound like fun but discovering things, being able to put it into a form that i hope would reach an audience, the book is called reconsidering james madison's life. >> which was the most important contribution, if you had to pick
just one, what would it be? >> it would have to be constitution. i think he was a genius and the reason is, he was the kind of genius he had, is able to break through conventional thinking. when everybody else was thinking one way, edison didn't necessarily accept it. he would think of other possibilities and he did that in the case of the constitution and establishing a great republic which is what we are. the wisdom was that you wouldn't have a great republic, people voting for representatives for themselves, representative government that it would be to loose over a long and fast extent of land and it would fall apart unless you have power, a king, a monarch at the center. madison thought that was not true. he thought the danger in a republic is that one faction will dominate and oppress everyone else. madison's genius was to see if you had many factions, as there would be in a large republic
that no single one was likely to be able to become that and that was the rationale for the constitution produced in philadelphia. it was his genius to see through what everyone else believed time and again and it transformed the world by doing it. >> you talk about his relationship with the other founders, george washington for example. >> we think sometimes, the founders as sitting around having a polite conversation and all of them having the greater good in mind at all times. most more interesting to realize them as they were which was
people who firmly believed in their view and were willing to fight to see it succeed. in the beginning, madison was washington's chief lieutenant. the first government under the constitution began, this would be familiar to any of you in politics, washington had an aide right and his inaugural address. it was a 72 page disaster. washington wrote to madison and said please come help. so madison did and he wrote washington's inaugural address. he did a very good job of it. after washington's liberty address, madison the leader of the congress wrote the congress' response to madison. [laughter] he wrote the congressman's response to the inaugural address in washington that madison was so good at this kind of thing, he asked him, madison, to write washington's reply back to the congress. [laughter]
it's hard to imagine how his voice was vacuuming after every wall. not sure there's another time in history when one man had been so influential then at the beginning of his administration. >> there were battles over provisions in the constitution. we ended up with article 12 and three and it took a long time, many hours and days of work to put it together but the specific compromise are important provisions they were arguing about. >> it was the thing we learned in history books about big and small states and big states wanted steak to be represented proportionately according to the population. small states wanted to represent states and we all know the compromise, madison was appalled
at that, he thought there should be proportional representation across the board. he had gone in thinking the great threat to the republic was in the evil state because they had been so irresponsible under the articles of confederation. pressing with his freedom. turning out mining, rhode islanders especially. this is what rhode island did, passing laws that made it necessary towards the appreciated money for debt incurred. maybe you're getting paid off a penny on the dollar. the state were taxing one another, oppressing one another actually. they were conducting their own foreign policy so madison
thought the state needed to be controlled and when it turned out the compromise was to help the states represented proportionately in the senate, is very disconsolate, it took him a couple days to get around that. >> what made them think they needed that? [laughter] >> that's kind of an internal question, isn't it? [laughter] it had to do with the electoral college. every elector had to vote, they finally got the electoral college and they couldn't agree on anything else so the ultimate was to let the congress choose the president. imagine how different our president have been if congress was choosing. we wouldn't have ronald ragan and nixon, i don't think we would have nixon either. plenty of speakers at the hospital going on to become president. the electoral college, everybody gets to vote and again, the big
states and small states, small states are worried the big states will always elect the president so they swayed their concern, the deal was made that you could only cast one vote. one of the two was from your own state, the other had to be cast by somebody from another state which would give small states a better chance but then they started worrying and you all play this kind of game, you want that one vote for your own guy, your own state to be important. you throw away the second boat. they invented the vice presidency. the idea was the person with the second-highest vote would become vice president and that seems like a good idea but then they
thought, what was he going to do? [laughter] it's interesting to see how this buildup, they decided he needed a job and they would make him president of the senate. there were two delegates who were so worried about the vice president, a creature of the executive branch being president of the senate, part of the legislation branch about his violating the separation of powers, two delegates no, i'm sorry. george mason, they specifically decided the vice president
wouldn't turn the constitution, they call it the dangers office so there you go. [laughter] >> during the course of his career, in terms of implementing the constitution, alexander hamilton became an important player in all of that, can you talk about what was that led to their major disagreements and confrontation? >> it's important to understand he and hamilton were not ready, they were from the colleagues. the story -- if you don't mind -- >> go ahead. >> the story is so interesting because it was done in such haste. i was explaining to a college audience and he would appreciate
what madison did during one period of time, during 40 days was the equivalent of writing a ten page paper every other day. and you could do that, that doesn't seem impossible but the papers became immortal. surviving philosophy, politics, writing an effort to convince people to support the constitution and that speed, the printer was putting the beginning parts of this before they were finished. so madison and hamilton expected one another until hamilton became secretary of treasury george washington began to make his financial plan clear. madison was troubled from the beginning but eventually, particularly the issue of national bank came up, he was
deeply concerned. he didn't think the bank was a bad idea but at the constitutional convention, he said it was such a good idea that at the convention, he proposed giving the congress the power to grant charters which is what you needed if you wanted to establish a bank. however, the convention turned the opportunity down. congress didn't have that power and that was madison's problem. hamilton was simply running left shot over the powers that congress had been given. there was no power to grant charters and therefore, madison thought you should not establish a bank. he lost the site that he went on to win the war, i guess, he
established the first opposition political party. parties didn't have any better reputation than they do now so it's counterintuitive, against the conventional wisdom that said parties were divisive, they were noisy, we didn't want them in republic. madison said yes, we do. a government without opposition is more than a monarchy so organized the party to change the way hamilton was trying to carry the government, to make it so strong madison thought it was something the constitution hadn't contemplated. he managed to get elected
president in 1800 and jefferson was a small government guy. >> that was former second later, lynn cheney on the life and politics of james madison. up next, another former official in the george w. bush administration, in november 2015, karl rove appeared on our weekly program, "afterwards". to recount the campaign of william mckinney, is joined by historian richard. >> to nominees and their two physicians, how does each man campaign? how does mckinney campaign? >> first of all, he has one problems he needs to deal with, he's got the support of the populist party but they dominated their own running mate. he has a complicated problem of 1 million votes in 1892, you want to take the democrats who voted for cleveland and put them the populace who voted for weaver and james weaver in 1892 and thereby seem to the republican but he's not running a running mate in a populace running mate and he's got the issue of how do i get that populace running mate off the ticket and battleground states where he can't afford the vote?
he decides he's going to storm the country in a fashion never done before. he'll get on a train and campaign, he has three major trips he makes across the country. >> presidential candidate never do that. >> it's the first time they had done that. there are occasions they might go on the road and have a big gathering of some sort but the number of times they spoke on the road to less than a dozen. there's a front porch campaign in 1888, harrison basically had about 80 speeches he gave to delegations in indianapolis over the course of four months. ...
and hoping when he got to the end of the line somebody would pick him up and add a hotel reservation. absolutely, sometimes he's got a private car. he makes a trip through kentucky and tennessee, virginia and up towashington dc in late september and he's got a private railcar but sometimes he's just writing in the middle of the head of the populist campaign . a young senator from north carolina. the chairman of the democratic national committee , senator jones of arkansas, james jones says you've got to get him a private railcar. we took the late train to baltimore because they wanted him to be at this little junction in delaware at 8:00 in the morning . we waited until 2 am to switch trains. got him on that train and
catching the express to dover we caught the train and there were a handful of people there and you're going to kill him if you keep doing this to him. if you have a private car you can be moved onto a side and the train would pick him up in the middle of the night and he could wake up refreshed and have a place to have his close, wash his face and get a meal until october 7 he's traveling by hook and by crook so he's going everywhere >> what does mckinley do? >> he's being pressed to go on the road because once panic sets in its unstoppable and cannot as panicked and by late july and early august is believing we've got a race on our hands and he's pressuring mckinley you've got to go on the road and mckinley says i can't do that . if i go on the road he's going to get on a trapeze and i'm going to have tomimic him. if i go on the road i've been on the road before and i know what it's like . anna sends his friends to go talk to him and he sends charles dawes to talk to him and myron herrick to talk to
him and finally mckinley says i've got to think before i speak so what happens is people are already showing up in groups at camp to see the major so somebody and i think that somebody is mckinley says let's make that my routine only let's get it organized so these people don't show up on my doorstep and say we're here to see you . let's set up so we know who's coming and invite the people we want to have come so it's not just the people that want to volunteer,, let's have them come and if it's a critical group from a critical state let them know we are coming, send us what they want to say in advance so we can edit it, let's go out what i'm going to say and will have a manifestation and take them under an arch sold we will have them form up there, how bands in our kinds of entertainment to keep him occupied and when the moment comes when i finish meeting with the last delegation we know how long it takes to march up market street and then they could come on the lawn and will have an organized program .
i'll say what they want, don't give me a gift and i will think and if they come and we go on to the next group this becomes a campaign on an industrial scale . 750,000 people come to canton ohio. 100,000 people come in groups of varying sizes and it's like a regimented thing. they show up at the station, go to the times square and the men pick up cigars. merchants do well in town. sometimes the community takes special groups and feed them at the tabernacle. they have appropriate drinks for the men and if you're wet it got a beer and a sandwich and if you're dry you get a cup of coffee and a sandwich and they come through and it's industrial in scale is unified, organized and deliberate. he knows what he wants to say and the messages tailored to that audience and repeated back to their hometown neighbors and repeated when they go home . i saw the major and here's what he said .
>> which of these two men you think addressed more people. >> i'm convinced by the numbers that brian sees more people andthe estimate is 2 to 3 million people attended his rally . he would go everywhere and there were people but he attracted spectators and mckinley attracted supporters. people went to see, it was targeted and what he did was he drew, the innocents created an army and his campaign was based around this principle. we want to create an army of people who will serve as our advocate and they organized everybody. they had groups for blacks and germans, women because some women could vote in western states. they organized traveling salesman.the commercial club these were people who traveled widely, spoke well and knew lots of people. there was a big craze sweeping the country, lots of young men were falling into it and it was great excitement so they decided to it .
>> tell us what happenson election day . >> onelection day mckinley wins the northeast . with, there's not a single county in the northeast that goes for ryan, mckinley wins 75 percent of the vote and takes all the critical battleground states, traditional battlegrounds. new york, new jersey, connecticut, ohio and indiana fall his way . he wins most of the critical battleground states in the midwest. he hoped to win nebraska and kansas and fails and he loses the rocky mountains state, loses the south as expected, all the states of the old confederacy fall to the democrats though severalare close and the critical breakthrough is in the border state of delaware, maryland, west virginia and kentucky where mckinley wins , republicans have not won there in decades and he narrowly loses misery where his chances are hurt by an
internal division between the republicans and he takes oregon and narrowly california on the west coast . wins 51 percent of the vote which nobody had onesince the reelection of grant in 1872 and wins a dominant majority in the electoralcollege . >> what are the consequences of that for the two-party system . >> it brings into the republican party a floppy combination of immigrants and new voters, particularly labor which gives the republicans dominance for the next 30 years. >> up to the depression. republicans hold the house for 26 out of 36 years in the white house for 28 and senate for 30 and the only time they lose power is when they divide among themselves as they do in 1912 and they hold more governors and state legislators and we do until today and the mayors of most major cities during this time are routinely republican. boston, new york, philadelphia, cleveland, their republican mayors left and right because mckinley has created this new coalition of industrial workers and small-town farmers who have their own farms and the traditional
small business allies of the republican party as well as union veterans and it becomes an unstoppable coalition for over three decades. >> so you credit mckinley with real political creativity and genuine foresight. who sent his time has been like him? anybody thatconsequential ? >> i think fdr was. fdr was a consummate politician and set the pylons under the republican coalition. blacks began to move into the democratic party under him. jews who had become an element in the republican party after the 1896 campaign , a populist movement and a lot of anger right anti-semitic voices who grimes did not still and as a result a lot of the jewish voters in america became republican . he reached and gotten back area italians who had been republican drifted back into the democrats under roosevelt and began to drift back at the republicans after that
with iowa. >> anyone else besides fdr. >> ronald reagan in his own way but politics has changed but if you're what you're looking at issues a strong principal leader was able to change politics those would be the two that i picked more than anyone else . >> you're watching tv and we're taking a look at other programs about the american presidents. in august 2014 presidential historian rick pearlstein appeared on q&aprogram , to talk about the presidency between 1973 and1976 . this is a period when richard nixon resigned read gerald ford assumed the office and ronald reagan intothe national political stage . >> the story of the shift of american politics in this. , turned out to be that in this dark, dark period which is what we started out talking about, when people are turning on their tvs and watching the watergate hearings and seeing the politicians they trusted sound like mafia dons.
when we lost our first war in vietnam, when we got our first inklings of what they called the energy shortage which was shocking because people didn't even know energy was something there could be a shortage of. something very what i find value terry was starting to happen and that people were beginning to think about america in and how we could solve the problems. how we could call out leaders to account. how we could create a foreign policy wasn't involved in being theworld's policeman and getting to another vietnam . we could conserve energy and that there was a struggle at the same time with a countervailing energy in american life that people really didn't want to do that hard civic work in facing our problems. and that ronald reagan wrote on that wave and began telling people that they didn't need to worry about this, that watergate wasn't really a problem area that the watergate burglars were
not criminalsat heart . that the energy crisis was trumped up. and that by the time the bicentennial which is the ultimate chapter of the book, there is this traditional version of patriotism where is beginning to win out over this stern sort of more grown-up version of patriotism . >> were going to jump so we can get to when ronald reagan ran in 76 but before that, here's something that you never see in this country and that the president testifying before congress and this is gerald ford afterthe party which this would have been october 17 1974 . >> i wondered whether anybody had brought to your attention the fact that the constitution specifically states that even though somebody is impeached, that person shall nonetheless be liable to punishment according to the law.
>> mrs. altman i was fully cognizant of the fact that the president on resignation was accountable for any criminal charges. but i would like to say that the reason i gave the part was as not to mister nixon himself. i repeat and irepeat with emphasis : the purpose of the party was to try and get the united states, congress, the president and american people focused on the serious problems we have both at home and abroad . >> that's riveting stuff. that's so symbolic of the period i'm writing about. it's symbolic of this poor guy gerald ford who has terrible luck. this is the guy who is the best athlete of any president we've had yet he is depicted on the by chevy chase as this
physical bumbler because of a couple slips he makes. gerald ford was dan defeated and damned if he didn't. he so desperate to be seen as transparent and open and transcendent with darkness and closed nature of the white house under richard nixon and he accepts the subpoena to testify about this pardon and yet he looks so squarely. he looks like one of the bad guys we've seen in the watergate hearings instead of being celebrated for his openness no one trusts him. everyone assumes because everyone's rotten area andthe public has no fitness , no faith in institutions that this kind of genial midwestern guy. >> what's the, you said some strong things about gerald ford, what did you thinkabout him . >> i think he was an honorable man doing the best he could in animpossible situation . i think that he promised something that he couldn't deliver. what he promised was an end
to division. when he gave that famous speech, our long national nightmare is over and there was this imperiled by the pundits as just almost utopian. almost a utopian terms, watergate is over area that we can turnthe corner . but so faced with the burdens ofgovernance , he basically looked justice just as squarely and sneaky at the last guy and then in the bicentennial, 76, right. these kind of ending his first term and entering the general election against jimmy carter. he wrote in his diary after this wonderful celebration that people were very skeptical of whether america should even have could have a joyousbirthday party after all the problems we've been facing . he says gary, i think we healed america. this kind of blend believe that we can somehow heal
america and write our divisions and our problems off, it's always a promise that politicians have to live with. it's a promise there is no red or blue america, that barack obama made and wasn't able to deliver. it's a big theme of my book. >> i want to go to the last chapter. chapter 32, the end? . what happens at the end. >> the new york times says ronald reagan is too old to run for president after he loses the nomination in 1976 and they bid i do. basically imply you're not going to have ronald reaganto kick around anymore . >> listed the same thing. >> she said something more complicated. in the galleys i struck elizabeth drew's quote cousin as she pointed outquite generously , she actually said that a couple weeks before that the and then she changed her mindafter gave a speech .
>> but i'm going to do is i want you to describe it but we're going to show you some several pieces of video here but the first one, is when general ford is calling ronald reagan to the podium. this is kansas city. 1976. at this stage, but ? >> ronald reagan has made this underdog challenge to gerald ford and this was the last convention with the outcome was not predetermined. no one knew was going to win this convention area as possible ronald reagan could have ran away with an upset and became the nominee in 1976 and then you probably would have lost to jimmy carter and history would have turned out differently. but basically, he, his people have done a good enough job of coming close. but they win certain concessions. there is a very conservative platform . bob dole one of the many liberal republicans and after gerald ford gives his
acceptance speech, he beckons to the rafters. poor ronald reagan is way up in nosebleed seats because of course for people control the convention and they didn't want him in a salubrious place with the cameras. and he tells them ronnie i think, ron. he says why don't you come give a speech. >> this wasn't accidental. >> the myth as it met nancy reagan among others has propagated this this speech was completely spontaneous and he didn't want to give it. there was a wonderful book that kind of told behind the scenes story of a 1976 campaign guidance elected in washington, victorgold . a real character i understand. it's called prand the president . used to work for spiro agnew,
used to work for barry goldwater and he's just this curmudgeon it seems like. he just ripped the curtain off from behind how the campaigns in 1976 were run and he has detailed reporting of all the negotiations that went intotaking it look like ronald reagan was giving a spontaneous speech . but actually , giving this speech that was choreographed right down to the pretend that we don't want to give a speech . >> what's look at the first part of this where gerald ford is calling ronald reagan to thestage and then i'll get your reaction . >> ronald reagan is asked to come down and join us area their gesturing to him. so signing autographs. and the box might not even be able to see the president . he's shouting into the microphone.
would you come down and bring nancy, says the president. come on down. they just deliveredthe alabama standard . >> that's john chancellor and also david brinkley to john souza on the screen. what's going on right here in mark. >> this is the part where they ronald reagan's kind of seems reluctant and he finally kind of wins thecrowd . accolades and the crowd with his supporters were soloud , he goes okay, i'm going to do it. and supposedly he said what theysay i don't even know what i'm going to say . and then he gets into the bad spot. and then hits one of the great grand slams in american rhetorical speech. >> bob dole's line.
>> bob dole had a terrible time because the two sides were so angry at each other at one point bedlam broke out after nelson rockefeller ripped one of the reagan campaign signs in half and one of the reagan people without the phones from the new york delegation. it was an unbelievably chaotic convention. >> so he's waiting to any everybody. there's a lot of gerald ford sons. next up inthis we will go to joe for introducing and then ronald reagan beginning to speak at the convention . >> we are all part of this great republican family that will give the leadership to the american people to win on november 2. i would like, i would be honored on your behalf to ask my good friend governor reagan to say a few words.
>> he obviously doesn't have ateleprompter again . >> ronald reagan was an amazing speaker. he had amazing gifts and during the goldwater campaign people were amazed at how he could give a half-hour commercial and stop exactly 30 seconds with this internal clock in his head and he had this ability to see him and deliver what would create the greatest emotional energy . >>. >> are distinguished against your ladies and gentlemen. i'm going to say fellow republicans here but if those who are watching from a distance, all those millions of democrats and independents i know are looking for a cost around which to rally and which i believe we can give them . [applause] >> this confidence in the face of a party that seems on
the ropes, this is around the time when 18 percent of americans are identifying themselves as republicans this political genius as we can bring in democrats. >> what's the reaction on the part of the republicans in versus jerry ford at that point. >> if you continue to watch this, basically the people in the audience look like there a religious reliable. people are crying, people are holding hands. they're swaying, gerald ford gave a good three but ronald reagan gave agreat speech and in fact , one of the people at my speaking agency when he said he finished the book and read this account of the speech and how people were crying and swaying , this is a guy who is not conservative, he said he cried. >> disability of ronald reagan to elicit emotion from people who don't see it coming is one of his most astonishing political gifts. >> here's to more ofronald reagan . >> there are cynics who say that a party platform is something nobody bothers to read anddoesn't often amount
to much . whether it is different this time and it has ever been before, i believe the republican party as a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with nomail pastel shades . we have just heard a call to arms. based on that platform area and a call to us to really be successful in communicating and revealed to the american people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and every issue and a running of a late late show of the thingwe've been hearing from them for the past 40 years . >> what are you hearing?
>> he's declaring victory. >> when he talked aboutthe platform this is the platform's people were able to control . lots of great guerrilla fighting , in fact when he said this is truly a platform of no pastels, gendered language which i don't think would be acceptable to us today, he's referring back to a speech he gave at the 1975 conservative political action conference when he see said we need a party that isn't an imitation of the democrats but one that strikes its colors in exactly the language he just used so it's him saying to his supporters, you think ford one but we've really won the future so he says were going to win the war even if ford has won the battle. the other thing we hear is him reaching out to democrats and of course we were familiar with the phrase reagan democrat and this idea that sort of the white
working-class voters who were alienated by things like the civil rights movement and the feminist movement to the folding into therepublican tent was another one of his geniuses . and the fact that he kind of sees this moment in which he could strike a new vision of the republican party for the future really kind of shows the american political movement becoming ronald reagan's. >> was presidential historian rick pearlstein was written extensively on president nixon and reagan. he appeared on tv 14 times and you can watch his programs at any time by visiting our website, booktv.org and searching his name. as we continue our look at other programs about us presidents, mark and former director of the linden baines johnson presidential library.
in 2017 he spoke about his biography of president george hw and george w. bush. >> we've only had one other father-son president in the history of the united states. john adams and john quincy adams and there was 24 years, nearly a quarter of a century to the presidencies of those two men area john adams was in his last 15 months of life when john quincy adams was in office. he was in quincymassachusetts . three days stagecoach ride, a six days stagecoach ride away from washington so he really wasn't able to be in washington to be an economy of influence on his son's presidency but george hw bush was a spry 76 years old when his son took the office.he had just been there eight years before and he was in a position to be a real influence around on his son's life so this is a story that needed to be told . and 41 agreed to do it if 43 which george w. bush agreed to do the book, i wasn't sure
whether he would say yes, sir no republic of the dallas and i knew george w. bush alittle bit . the meeting and i was shocked that it would the beginning of the meeting he said i've decided this story needs to be told thatyou're the guy can do it . iwas so unprepared i didn't have a tape recording device . and he sat there and he put his feet up on the desk and he had a cigar and he started talking about his dad and i realized there was so much to him that was a mystery about his father. particularly hisfather's story early years . when he went to war as an 18-year-old, signed up for the navy to get in world war ii at 18 and was in the pacific theater and shot down when he was 19 and his life was spared but the lives of his crewmates were not and he realized it was some purpose that he had on earth that he was spared and his friends were not. he went to forgo, a family pass to the riches of wall
street and goes to the fields of odessa to make his way in the oil business. it became a husband 21. became a father, soon thereafter. but lost his daughter, his second child before he was 30 years old. these are amazing years ushered him early in two manhood and george w. bush had talked to him a lot about it. no it was a wonderful privilege to get this story out of both of them in the intimate way that they were willing to tell it. and just the process of hitting people to unpack as these are for 2 figures who have this historic throw away, they are not particularly given to reflection orpsychological rumination . they really reject it, they seem to be very in the moment and it's not planned out. they've always rejected the idea of a dynasty. how did you get them and what
are your favorite stories about getting the interviews you did get them to reveal because they are remarkably candid, unfiltered comments read some language we can use in front of a family proud. but it's, you got them to really be reflective and candid and what were some of your favorite interviewing stories? >> what i like again, the intimacy. they realized the story needed to be told and in some ways they were revealing things about each other at the others didn't know. and that was the amazing thing. i would tell 43 somethinghis dad said anything that's interesting, i didn't know that . they are as you said john, their famously circumspect. george w. bush sometimes when he was getting introspective would say this is sort of psychobabble but and then he would tell me something that was particularly revealing area i remember one conversation with george hw bush in his very small office
at kennebunkport and he was sort of getting heart of hearing, it was just the two of us in the office he was in his wheelchair and our legs were touching behind the desk in his office and he was talking about what he would have done with iraq if he were president when his son was president. this is pretty heavy stuff for a historian and of course that's the subject that weall speculate about . what 41 would have done, what 43 would have done and he said in the final analysis, i think i probably would have done that. it's hard to tell but i think so. and he's sort of lay: at this stage in his life but i wondered is that the answer from a former commander in chief or the answer of a father who wants to protect his son? i'm not sure he really would have done what his son did but i think he was being protective at that moment
when he was thinking abouthis son's actions with the war in iraq. i think he was being protective . >> the extraordinary loyalty and this isn't kind of a family contrivance. this isn't kennedy's don't cry. there is a love really is a word they use a lot and loyalty and the family values , not in the political expedient way of deploying the term the real family values they embody . w talking about unconditional love from his father. the character and service and humility really matter. ability matters area that the idea of responsibility that comes with power. all that flows from the father, prescott bush . how do you codify that tradition in the family and then contrasted with some of the values we've seen in our politics today because to me
it is stark. >> it's dramatically different. the bushes, there is a family ethos and it's palpable when you're around the bushes. i think prescott bush as you mentioned john, he stands for civility and decency and putting service above self. and that was something that was passed through the bush family. george h the bush talks often about the lessons they learned though at his mother's knee. his father was a great influence in his life and i'm sure he ever felt like he measured up to his dad in many ways which is remarkable for the 41st president of the united states to say that he talks frequently about his mother and she would often say george, don't be braggadocio. talk about the team george, i don't know how many homeruns you have, how did the team do ? did you win because if you don't win at some point. so that humility that is really the hallmark of the
bushes in so many respects is clearly lackingin today and not just from our commander-in-chief . is lacking in our public discourse to a large extent so in the age of social media, it's inherently self-aggrandizing. but we talk about the father-son, talk about that relationship. there's this great story that the elder bush told me about with his son in midland when his son was about three years old, when george w was three years old and apparently he arrested in a september about something. and as they're walking along the streets. george hw and bush and george w starts flailing away. almost cartoon style like a windmill. his arms are just going at 360 degrees. and he's trying to hit his dad and his dad is keeping it at bay. by just putting his palm on his lust for head until he figures himself out. and then he just stops and they walked along again. and in a way it's a metaphor.
of the reckless, the young and reckless days of george w. bush because in some ways he tried to land a blow with his dad. never did and ultimately they just sort of walked on. his father always had faith he would do the right thing ultimately and wouldn't bring up that ill tempered moment. but there's also, on the fathering end of theparenting because there's wonderful details in the book . moments where you could see hw leading by example. one example is w walked off a summer job. a couple of days early and you tell the story because apparently made a big impression on w in terms of a parenting style and again, it's the future president parenting anotherfuture president . is both relatable and inherently historic.
>> it goes back to the story that i just mentioned, it's a metaphor. george w. bush look as work as a maker in west texas and he made a considerableamount of money. he had agreed to work for say weeks , walked off the job. and in his seventh week because he wanted to spend time with his girlfriend and he goes to see his dad and his dad said you didn't honor the commitment that you may really i'm ashamed of you. i'm disappointed you and georges w bush walked out of his dad's office. he's disappointed in his father, that was his father's greatest weapon to talk about how disappointed he was at any given point. he wasn't emotional at any point, he never yelled at his kids or his kids, there was no corporal punishment in the bush home but that expression of disappointment was the best thing he could do to sell send a message that said not fly right. so that happens, he leaves his father's office and he gets a call from his dad later on that afternoon and
he said can you and kathy, his girlfriend come to the astros game tonight. i have a couple oftickets . so he expresses disappointment is also welcomed him rightback into the pool . and that faith he had in his son to ultimately do the right thing never weighed. and i love that that is the story that he carries with him there's another fascinating one where they have a family intervention because he boston for smoking at 17 area and hw ways in riyadh. >> he weighs in and it's barbara bush, vacating up the dinner. he's at that .16 years old. and it's up in kennebunkport and he says this is a big deal, this never happens. the parents never take me to dinner. and as john said it was an intervention riyadh barbara bush said you smoke. you smoke. what are youdoing smoking ? and george hw says well, you
smoke too. and then the subject justkind of died . but i love that sort of, you can't lecture someonefor doing something you do yourself . there is a bit of yankee common sense which is lovely. there's this amazing interview you did with, the interview is the interview hartford area in the book but where w rejects and pointed like the idea that he was ever a prodigal son. and that was, there are a lot of misconceptions about george w. bush and about the relationship he has with his father but one is his expedient narrative that he was the prodigal son, the one who was never expected to amount to anything and certainly wouldn't be the political heir apparent . that is dead wrong in many respects. are aspects of it that are true but actually, he was quite auspicious in many
respects. one of thethings he said to me was and i'm going to clean up the language a little bit . he said i face chase a lot of tail and i drank a lot of whiskey area but i was never theprodigal because i never left my family . and he never did really always embraced his family and so talk about that, but the fact that he made it on his own. one of the things you're almost expected to as a bush. is make it on your own area to achieve some success on your own. to leave the nest, often strike out intodifferent places . george hw and barbara bush did area to make your mark and then once you can provide for your family, to go into public life and to put something above yourself. and ultimately george w bush does that. but his family never leaves, he always loves and respects and admires them and i don't think he was as rebellious as
some people think he was. >> are also programs about us presidents include historians kenneth ackerman and david stewart and contributors to c-span's recent book that asks numerous historians to rank the president. they offer their thoughts on the rankings of april 2019at the museum in washington dc . >> why you think the survey of the president has presented in this book is valuable ? >> to me, preparing to be here today i thought it was strikingwhen it tells you about the country and our history . the pattern that jumped out at me when i thought about it was the waythe modern presidents are treated . 12 presidents who served since world war ii, 12 out of 43 so that's barely one in four. those are represented heavily
at the top tier. five out of the top 10 are modern presidents. seven out of the top 15are modern presidents . with that our country we are so lucky that we have such strange people in the last few years but there they were area and when i first saw that i kind of wonder whether there was just a bias built-in that we tend to overestimate, exaggerate the good and the bad about people from our lifetimes or when we get snowed by seeing them every on tv every day but thinking about it represented something more. it represented how the presidency has changed. that modern presidents are in fact much more consequential than early presidents in this sense. none of the 32 presidents who served before the post-world war ii era ever had to deal with thermonuclear war and
the prospect of millions of people being killed by a nuclear exchange in a couple of hours. none of them have to deal with the united states as a global power and having to deal with international relations on the level we do now. yet there have always been newspaper and publicity and often negative publicity going back to the time of john adams with a modern presidents have had to deal with the television age which had aerospace in their household every day and has resulted in the public knowing them in a different way and as a result, they really are moreconsequential . how someone like james garfield or teddy roosevelt or rutherford hayes would stack up if they were challenged the way the modern presidents are. it issomething we don't know and it's a very interesting thing to think about. but they were .
it was a different era and that really jumped out at me when i took a look.>> i think in a lot of ways, his survey are a mirror of our times as much as they are a reflection of what went before area so you see a lot of sensitivity towards issues of race and inclusion.and andrew johnson was a girl as racist. he started out at arthur schlesinger senior get this first survey in 1948. johnson was 19 out of 33, he was doing okay. since people have become much more conscious of his racist policies, the way he really abandoned the freed slaves after the civil war, these dropped like a rock and i think appropriately. andrew jackson who was a terrifically significant president has taken a lot of heat for both his actions as a slaveholder and a slave trader but also his actions towards the indian tribes where he was really quite
ferocious as a military figure and then sending them off to the west. and taking their lands. so it's tells us a lot about who we are or who we think we areor want to be . and i think it runs the risk. can has created a nice story for why we have so many modern presidents. i'm not so sure it's right. i think it also reflects that we are a pretty self obsessed and that presidents like andrew jackson who are incredibly important really change the country or james capel who was acquired 40 percent of our landmass. our being forgotten and are going away. and i think that's a problem we have that our memories are not as good as they should be. and it's a reminder to those of us write history that we need to sort of preach the sermon a little and help keep
these stories alive. >> brian, you conducted all the interviews thatappear in this book . i'm wondering seeing them altogether, did anything surprising or stand out as you read as one book? >> yes, i would say the most important thing that i learned putting together is how much i've forgotten in the time since theinterview . and the beauty of this is that you can go back and read what they have to say area some of what they had to say and as students at our archive allows you to go on and listen to the interviews area i listened to both of the interviews that i've done with these gentlemen in preparation for this and they were fantastic not because of me but because of them. some people will look at this book as a book of presidents, i look at it as a book of presidents but just as importantly a fabulous historian that we don't get
enough credit to read because they spend weeks and years going over all the little details and if we didn't have historians we wouldn't have this kind of information. so i would frankly sitting here talking, you're driving me crazy right now. to these guys because theygot stories . >> sensor chapter is on garfield i'm struck by the book notes interview that you did. you said that his assassination was one of the more misunderstood events in american history. tell us why. >> a couple of things area first, what charles to tell is the man who shot james garfield. arguably he was killed by the doctor. because he would sit by two bullets, one embraces are and the other it him in the back . there were a lot of people particularly in that era after the civil war, a lot of
people had gunshot wounds garfield in fact died of infection. and blood poisoning caused by his doctors examining his wood without washing their hands and without the proper instruments. the theory existed but it was still a new idea. it hadn't been totally adopted. but most doctors on the western frontier from the civil war doctors who dealt with gunshot wounds, new that you don't examine the wound with your unwashed hands. there was direct testimony of that area at the time even by the standards of thetime , it should not havehappened . the other thing that i'lljust mention briefly , the garfield assassination was different from others. in the purpose of the assassination . john wilkes booth shot abraham lincoln in orderto
kill abraham lincoln . the harvey oswald shot john kennedy in order to kill john kennedy . leon shot william mckinley in order to kill william mckinley. what charles patel was trying to do, he had nothing personal against james garfield. he had met the man or his wife. what he was trying to do was to reverse the election of 1880. he was not so much trying to get garfield out of office as to put someone else in office . he was trying to make chester alan arthur and his circle of friends the president and ruling circle in the united states. it was a regime change area that's a very scary thought when you think about it. and he was successful indoing it . >> and getting back and johnson i'm going to steal a question that susan asked earlier not vernon earlier this week . abraham lincoln of course is running the number one president.
james buchanan who unseated him and andrew johnson who came after him are right last two, how do you explain. >> lincoln is sort of historical kryptonite. you don't want to be close to him. he had the greatest challenges of any president i think and did such a wonderful job. it's hard to look good next to that area but both buchanan and johnson were cosmically unsuccessful buchanan slid into war and almost did nothing to stop it . it was tragic . and johnson relayed the nation after the war and historical reputation is a fascinating thing in the first half of the 20th century was celebrated for having brought the south successfully back into the union and taking the wounds of war back together. healing thecountry . and then finally around 1950s
people started saying well, actually there was a part of the country hedidn't heal very well . and that has, that awareness has grown and has caused him to decline. but it is worth noting and i think it's not the sort of thing, this sort of survey can correct for it was a really hard set ofproblems these guys had to deal with . war is stop. we had 700,000 americans killed during the war. and comparable casualties today would be 7 million area people hated, andrew johnson had a hard job. and he did poorly but it was a really hard job. >> as susan explained there are 10 leadership qualities the survey is based on. i wonder as we sit here if
there was a category of relations with the press, who would rank near the top and near the bottom. >> ryan, if we could get your thoughts area i know you introduced historians. >> i'll be quick, there are stories about each president and how they related to the media and one of my favorites is calvin coolidge. it was during his time that radio came into being and he did 22 speeches into the radio microphone and before people remembered his image it wouldn't have beenterrific for television but it was okay for radio . and it was during the time that he was on radio the audience built and grew just like c-span started out with 3 million homes and went up to100 million . he started with a few radio stations and went up to several hundred more and
these stories exist with each president. >> any thoughts on press relations of presidents that you know of ? >> i think kennedy charmed everybody but he charmed the press to and i do think of franklin roosevelt because he would have the whole white house press corpsinto his office once a week .and just sit at his desk andfield questions and don't questions . he knew not to answer but when you spend that much face time with the president, it's very effective ingetting them to pull their punches . >> this is one where i will be curious to see how our current president fares when the next standings infall comes around . i agree kennedy and fdr stuck out on the positive side of theoccasion . nixon was on the negative side of the equation but the current president has made it
his signature issue so it's interesting to see how that works out historian david stewart and kenneth ackerman contributors to c-span's book the president. that wraps up our look at all the programs on uspresidents . if you missed any of these programs or you'd like to watch them in their entirety you can visit our website, booktv.org . access our archives by using the search box at the top of the page and search residents and book . >> book tv has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, coming out this july 4 weekend. saturday at 11 pm eastern iowa republican senator jody urged about her journey from growing up in iowa to being the first female combat veteran in the u.s. senate in her memoir, daughter of the heartland. then sunday noon on in-depth,
alive to our conversation with retired admiral james doritos author of several books including command at sea. the accidental admiral, destroyer captain and his most recent book, sailing through north. join the conversation with your phone calls, comments, emails and tweets at 8:30 p.m. eastern and in her memoir dare to fly arizona republican senator martha miceli flex on her military career as the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat and at 9 pm eastern on "after words", pulitzer prize washington post reporter mary jordan on the life and influence of first lady melanie a trump from herbal the arthur for deal. interviewed by usa today washington bureau chief isn't page . watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend.
>> former chicago mayor and chief of staff to president obama rahm emanuel recently discussed his new book the nation city which argues that innovation is taking place in cities across the country area . >> here's a portion of the program. >> the center of gravity of our politics moving out of washington, out of brussels to local. >> because of dysfunction. >> part of the function is the dysfunctionand all the weaknesses you see . since, dysfunction , disinterest area matchup against all thestrength you see locally . intimate, immediate and impactful. and now we have been here before.what is interesting about this moment is not only is kings returning locally, but then local governments now are seeking more and more the real estate only for the federal. >>real estate are slack ? >> for them, local governments are leading the charge on climate change, local governments are leading
thecharge on immigration . >> last the rest of this talk visit our website, booktv.org. use the search box to look for rahm emanuelfor the title of his book ,the nation city . >> the new book is by author kate anderson brower. "team of five: the presidents club in the age of trump". he's joining us from her home in bethesda maryland via skype, you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> i want to about the book but for this moment in our president trump is dealing with a pandemic. and now the violence, five days and five nights of protests across the country as a result of the death of george floyd. >> i think it's not all that different from the way we've seen him view the presidency over the past three and half years. he is making it very partisan. he came out a few hours ago talking about the democratic mayor