nonfiction and i tend to read a lot of books which i really love and enjoy.re >> host: the most recent book is called if then the history of the corporation and we appreciate yours and your families time today on booktv. ..

host: lived i was before we start on his new fascinating book of yours, the trump century, you worked on and on cnn 30 years with a variety of shows, not an orthodox republican obviously not a liberal democrat. so what is the formula that allowed you to exist for three decades did you have a particular relationship with ted turner? enlighten us. >> it was helpful i joined cnn 1980 at the beginning i was one of the founders of cnn one

of the fortunate ones they are president to creation it was a spectacular place to work because it was a thought of before ted turner the global cable news cast and putting that into action but it was truly remarkable. and the change over time as these do and we founded in 1980 and by 1984 he was on the forbes wealthiest list and basically was on the verge of bankruptcy just four years earlier when he founded it. so his position changed so did hours we are in the white house pull and growing and

over tim time, his commitment, ted's commitment to a more liberal approach to the news became far more serious and emphatic and by 1999 it was clear it would be a tough balancing act but at that point i was in so much and advocacy journalist by 2009 when we had the file - - the final falling out not with ted for time warner, it was simply a matter of ideology. as many critical things being said about george w. bush, perhaps more than i ever did about barack obama. the truth is they were committed to a different approach and they decided it would be ideological and room only one and if you instead of the tent with many voices i

was the only conservative on the air. obviously that did not work out and if anything even more to the left rather than independent journalism or to moderation as you know. >> in this three decade evolution of cnn you odd and more specific interest in the economy and politics and economics so you have a certain worldview that is not easy categorized. did you ever think there would ever be a third-party candidate for the presidency

to dovetail with this formula and ideology over 30 years to gravitate? >> obviously i didn't think we would see that in my lifetime. i was hoping that we would and donald trump i've known him for as long as i have known ted turner but we were not friends it was a professional relationship. i watched as this man stepped out 2016 running for president i have to tell you i rejoiced because independent-minded and secular even an agnostic about his politics as he has acknowledged and for me that

was exciting them that he was aligned with the republican party or the democratic and ideology and philosophy. but he was aligned with patriots and this country. i blanch every time i hear white nationalism. is nationalism not white every color and creed. american nationalist means you embrace the constitution which is our great assurance of equality and equal opportunity and respect for all citizens. and he embodies that. he truly does i was very excited to see him run and it brought me back to the republican party i was a dependent and a fierce independent in those respects.

>> you have these issues and to roaming the ability to get tough with the china and favor free trade you did not buy into the idea the industrial midwest was played out to be innovated and you are skeptical as i read the book of these optional military engagement specifically in the cost benefit analysis it is in play out for us in the region at large there were other third-party candidates who picked up on some of this what is it about trump was is the

broader fabric or his personality? why did he succeed when other third-party people had failure at the national level? >> those third-party candidates because unreservedly the independent thinker in their respective of his political preference for republican. the difference for donald trump he was be pulled in to none of the establishment. and with those influences in our society where we are contended with now but fundamentally this was a clash than the establishment that controls both political parties, or did until the arrival of donald trump he

broke through and said i will take on the orthodoxy i will be the descriptor he will represent the forgotten man and woman in this country and pledged to do that and within days was doing that. he is one of those surprises and delights that we rarely have in politics he is a man who said what he went and kept his promises. that drives the left, the establishment mad. he is taking on the multitrillion dollar business roundtable 135 ceos that control a huge part of gdp taking on the chamber of commerce on that ridiculous mantra that free trade is the boon to the american economy.

and then to refinance the rest of the world certainly and then to share in that over 20 years before trump had stagnant weight on - - stagnant wages and less opportunity because it was a financial benefit for the elites but not the middle class which is the foundation of the countr country. host: and in your book we have jobs jobs jobs and in the trump century and it's true with record unemployment for minorities he got down at three.five almost at the percent almost annual gdp but

the point i'm making is there was a two-pronged assault on the left and the right and in the prophetic message. why do you think if he would take inner city youth their labor was bid on employers? why do you think that empathetic message her attitude was never picked up a resonated? so why do you not think of that donald trump is the most empathetic and concerned president about the lower and middle class? >> because he doesn't speak in the same language of the elitist. they have a lexicon all to themselves and is problematic. they are talking about the dependency of the inner-city

that are low income and that is the basis it is a condescension of government with the idea without dependency is the government now we have a huge bureaucracy that requires dependency on a good number of our people. may have gotten used to it since 1965 with the war on poverty begins spending $22 trillion we have everything but the metrics bureau to success nobody wants to follow up on black youth in the inner-city and what happens to them when they go to the public schools run by unions rather than their

communities. it's a strange world we have created and one that both parties have been perfectly content until now to continue the status quo and patootie. host: with the trump jobs program and implement we have not seen in 50 years is china prepared to trump everybody felt along the bipartisan the more concessions we gave the more they word me pay and to become wealthy and democratize's and we will manage decline then you come along and say stop that in a general idea to

suggest that china was that strong and determined to rule the world but it had intrinsic weaknesses that wait and see you want to see but i never got from your book that it was a steamroller that was inevitable contradictions that you are trying to warn people about. >> we have known for a quarter century it had front companies in this nation operating for only one purpose to steeler technology and military secrets and especially our technological advances and they would save themselves a lot of money on education with

research and development and that's what they have done. we built china in some respects literally important $600 billion per year from us in intellectual property stealing it running deficits with this country from the beginning of the relationship we have been in deficit to them in trade and shared our technology as well as permanently permitting their death and those that relationship between the wealthy power and the emerging one. at no time was it required of us to be the global chomp that we did under clinton and bush

and obama and with the trifecta of worst presidents to string together and then national security it is devastating to what we have squandered and we did so with the knowledge of just to one - - joseph stiglitz the prize-winning economist and warned test with the wars of the middle east would amount to he just given - - did not give us a significant warning he said it would be 3 trillion and ended up paying $6 trillion and counting in addition to the lives we lost we have gone through. of madness that is remarkable and it took donald trump to step forward the trump derangement syndrome he is the

only one that wasn't arranged in the entire city of washington. it's really quite something. >> and then we see that with a 5 billion-dollar make a. but it changes the ideology that is more critical of the misdemeanors in the united states and ignore the felonies of human rights racism hong kong and china the same recently with hollywood and that it was a reaction to directors who were under order or perceived orders that china wanted lighter skinned actors. so in your book how with this

insidious presence with media and politics they seem so much more adept. guest: i and further affirm your question and that you are suggesting we cannot change because we are so inextricably intertwined with china insidiously as you suggest to the mesh itself in our economy, society and even culture and as you say hollywood right now is editing their films and shooting their movies in many cases with a can't to beijing because they

want the international market to be excited it's no longer a us audience are us product we went along. it was always an american product with an international audience. now the product coming out of hollywood is an international and chinese product in the united states market tags along behind it. it is a major change in our society and culture and business. miscues the inordinate influence of the values and many times in many cases the traditional american values in the world knows mac it and

accepting it. host: you talk about the china ally and we can talk about the virus that originated in wuhan china dollars. those that did not emerge when it emerged in the first accidentally other wet market now we know that narrative has been discredited. and however that narrative goes well was the attitude when we have direct flights in the old days you cannot go from wuhan or anywhere else but then forget about the origins of it was accidental

or intentional, but what was the mindset in the industry the western economy that we never that would be possible. guest: as you say this virus was unique we can't say scientifically with empirical evidence or judgment what it wa was. is a natural? man-made? that we do know for fact whether accidental or engineered the communist chinese government know where once it was transmissible and then a very early on it was deadly. they had those terms from their own people of course and

very importantly had the truth from the rest of the world. the who and cdc and the institutions and colleagues and doctors in china but that we also took a part of the research will also help them to design the version of the cdc and a certain cockiness and in overconfidence the american doctors would be forthcoming as a professional and medical relationship with individuals that they thought

with any communist institution with beijing or on. then said that to me above from january on they were very very certain that they would know best about what would be going on in on - - wuhan even as it was unleashed for the chinese communist party on the unsuspecting world and did not acknowledge it. i declared on my show that it was a viral epidemic and then saying they had way to the who moved to that the cdl would not because the who had not the madness of this moment again like so much of this is any and we have so much to

catch up with. host: you suggest we are in the election year 2020 and engaged in a veritable trade war with china and with the force multipliers and that divisiveness back home inadvertently by design and is acrimony hysteria all played in a certain way we in the western world could not focus in a unified manner what we were doing or saying and what the who was but it was considered told right in this trade will we spend so much time eloquently defining and then you say there was a virus in the middle of it historically it is very odd. guest: it is very odd because the counter events that are

not necessarily in conflict as far as the chinese are concerned you can all see the depth of chinese intelligence on all of this. it is not a reach at all to consider the possibility to be this engineered and purposeful in the chinese interest. because they have managed inadvertently or otherwise to take down the economy of europ europe, the united states, all chief competitors in the global marketplace. they have killed hundreds of thousands of people across the world and infected others the long-term effects we don't know. but we do know the chinese have been in that beneficiary

and they are the only ones responsible for this infection and pandemic that has claimed so many lives and second so many millions and trillions of dollars in lost gdp for the world not just the united states. i'm very suspicious and the convenience of just to benefited because we also know the chinese consciously shut down travel outside of wuhan but effectively encouraged international travel to europe and the united states and guess what by march the virus was coming back into this country from europe as well as china and asia.

one is not suspicious one is not paying attention and personally i don't get lost if they engineered the virus the reality is they made the unconscionable decision not to warn the world of what they did have a deadly virus they had released upon it that is a moral responsibility. >> in one thing that characterizes the chapters on domestic policy and the trump achievement policy on --dash it is a theme you keep going back to globalism versus nationalism and with those

questions on foreign policy and look at the world and you see the united states withdraw from the paris climate accord with the iran deal or day job over nato gets people angry to up their contributions now suddenly we move the embassy unilaterally to jerusalem and golan heights is not going back to syria and now we see a new nexus between the goal states and israel. what is your assessment not just on the ideology but efficacy? what did he do when he decided to pursue no better friend no worse enemy of god rather than this with the brotherhood of man? >> they saw the absurdities of the decisions being taken.

but as the hard and reasoning and that is what is transpiring internationally. the first act by the way by this congress after the founding was the tariff act. and he exploded the idea a tariff would destroy the economy. is interesting to think of the things we don't hear spoken about it anymore as a result of this president you don't hear people saying that nonsense anymore you don't hear the expression free trade because now the country knows the chamber of commerce and wall street were lying through their teeth when they said it was hardly a zero-sum

game, childre game, children. this makes us rich and wealthy and powerful will we up a huge external trade to australians of dollars of economic growth as a result of those deficits particularly with china. . . . y

successful with the media will not credit him. whether it's nato or the middle east this is a man who gets nominated for two nobel peace prize is, to separate advancements in the interest of police and he can't get the media to acknowledge what has having been made. he's fighting against more evil seditious forces against him, whether it's the media, the body politic for his own party, for crying out loud and he has to fight them through every day and when. >> host: this reflects the subtitle of the book how the president changed the course of history forever. if i follow you you say as much as he was opposed, he hit on a reality of truth that is going to convince even his enemies and

so after trump, whether it's a republican or democrat, don't pressure nato, let them pay what they want or let's get back into the climate accord or the iran deal we've got to get it right back or let's watch out for those gold states and nexus within israel. it convinces his enemies almost as if he says who the emperor has no clothes and now the dialect has been changed. >> guest: without question. what he i he's demonstrated is e assumptions of the liberal foreign policy establishment because in some cases he did the

opposite of what they would recommend or insist upon. how dare you suggest the united states won't pay the bill, but we have great jobs and benefits that result from our deficit spending to support our wealthy european friends were in the case of the middle east all of the palestinian dreams and desires and wishes for begin to deal with organizing and aligning the interest of the states in the region. he did the ladder and the result is bahrain the united arab emirates and as we know from his statements, five others are waiting to join in a new relationship with israel working together to ensure peace in the region and yes, confounding iran

which has been not only the largest state sponsor of terrorism, but it's responsible for killing a third of our troops in iraq and never being held to account. >> host: you are saying if joe biden were to be president and trump were all wrong we would have to put them back in the center of all of the discussions. we have to reopen the deal and it would be very skeptical. that would have no residents now because they would change the entire conversation by the success was such a degree that it would be hard to put humpty dumpty back together again. >> guest: i believe that. like so many variables in this political year one of them is the left-wing media. they are not performing as

watchdogs. they are working and his political actioispolitical actih the democratic party, and simultaneously, the corporations that own them, at&t, cnn, comcast, nbc. with all of the cute little mickey mouse pictures it puts a nasty reporter into the white house briefing room every day who doesn't look nearly as cute and they have an agenda. when they told him about fake news, he's not talking about in my opinion adequately a structure that the american people need to understand. we have such a powerful consolidation of media power in the hands of a powerful consolidation of economic power,

whether it be these vast media companies and technology companies and then silicon valley, which would have the power, the economic power to block so much of any other president's agenda it just wouldn't happen. it's the reason it has not happened until this man had the courage and the vision to stand up and say this is not right. that's why the calls against antitrust actions against the group of technology companies and against silicon valley and insisting that there be the relationship between these monster media companies that control fake news. the american people are awakening to it and i think that the polls show they are somehow going to buy into the idea of the ticket i think that is

fantasyland. >> host: the argument is as you said i don't want to use the word twice, they have an insidious way whether it is a google search or platfor for plo the twitter account and the bias seems to be predictably one-way. with $4 trillion in market capitalization on facebook and google and apple they all can find a place. you talk about regulating or stopping that monopoly and it is almost as if that hasn't happened because they say this money is at your disposal and they say to the conservatives you are a libertarian free-market laissez-faire so it's against your philosophy to even regulate and then they find the soft spot between the two parties. you say something has to be done

before this octopus strangles all of us. it's a daily utility that we depend on. what do you think we can do about it? >> guest: first we have to identify how vast and powerful it really is because the interest not only of hollywood and the media companies which extends all the way to the reporters in the white house briefing room in closer alignment in many cases financially with china and beijing and the communist party of china then they do with the united states and the interest of the nation. it's amazing to imagine. it's almost inconceivable to imagine that a government is a minor influence on corporate

america to the degree that it is. the only countervailing influence on such power and that is regulation and the ability for the markets and actors within it which hasn't been done for a very long time. microsoft was a failed antitrust action but nonetheless the last one that was ever even attempted.

the nation absolutely depends on it. maybe you can clarify some of the confusion i have that when i started farming on the farm house my great-grandmother built i thought we were getting pretty good credit rates at 14%. anytime i would buy a bag it would be two dollars and i would go in and see six or seven prices had been crossed out. 210, 220, 230. so that is how. but now essentially people are purchasing homes at three, 3.25,

3.50. middle-class citizen that isn't familiar if you count into the calculus, they are getting a zero on their accounts getting up to $27 trillion is financed and it's manageable because we have the rate but you still seem to be worried they want to raise interest rates to high at particular times when it is not warranted. >> guest: i have a simple view on the interest rates as it pertains to the federa federal e and monetary policy. no economist ever envisioned the federal reserve would raise

rates for any reason other than motivation for price stability and onset of inflation. under jerome powell they raised interest rates four times after it was put in place by donald trump. then the left-wing media started because president trump said wait a minute. you are trying to kill this economy because it will benefit me and my reelection bid. that is what he was saying and it will shut down 3% of gdp growth. it will alter the job opportunities in the country horribly and he was right with the media would not acknowledge it. they've raised the rates four times trying to do what, i have no idea. milton friedman didn't teach me that one.

my professors didn't teach me why you would raise the rates in anticipation of a market that you couldn't accurately predict over anything beyond six months. that's what they kept trying to do. and jerome powell wasn't an economist. we have economists in the federal reserve, but economists are not renowned because they are particular in their forecasting. jerome powell was doing none of that so i applaud the president again my telly because he was right to stop this nonsense. the president was right, he calmed down and it ended.

then he announced a new policy at the federal reserve which i would point out also resembled precisely what donald trump had been saying since the point of their little disagreement over interest rates. without the presence of inflation, what in the hell are you doing, and that by the way put a trum trump in a majority t what, the president of the united states on wall street and all of whom were looking to make money on a little extra volatility that would be introduced by further interest rate increases. it was the historians who said my gosh, presidents cannot in

the great pristine of the federal reserve by criticizing it. that's over, that's done. you will see them even more energetic in the future as they should be. >> host: george w. bush as you pointed out doubled the debt. it's sort of controversial. we know barack obama didn't double that when we went into the bush administration and then we went to 17 trillion and now donald trump had a four to 5 trillion-dollar deficit this year. at what point do the interest rates have to be de facto near zero and are you worried about

that magnitude of the debt while trump got more revenue from the tax cut, he wasn't successful pruning the government so where do we end up if we don't do something? >> guest: i wish i could give you the exact answer we are in a place we have never been before but not because of the fiscal policy choices we have been to make in pursuit of a brilliant strategy. this was all reactionary to a virus that for the economy up. we watched as the president would say the most beautiful economy that we have ever seen born under by a virus.

that was the better america. we didn't go looking for this virus, but it found us. i can't even imagine what other choice we had other than to add trillions to the federal reserve balance sheet and to ensure liquidity i believe we are coming up and i don't think we should be putting another $3 trillion into a stimulus bill as nancy pelosi wants. and it's horrible to think we are talking about the difference between 3,000,000,000,001 jewelr3,000,000,000,001,000,0000 0. >> host: one of the things i noticed when i was reading your book this week is almost every other page you point out the

role of the courts whether it was a travel ban or donald trump was about the wall he was challenged on the courts. after 2017 or during 2017, some opponents had lost control of both houses of congress in one of the ways to check the executive power would be to turn to the courts and they did so as you point out successfully. there is no other other than the constitution that the senate advises and consents that it either confirms or doesn't.

democrats lost in 14, 16, 18. the senate filibuster and ruth bader ginsburg was very confident that either hillary clinton would win or donald trump wouldn't win reelection it was much more vigorous in 81 or 82 when obama headed the democratic senate and could have replaced the jurist at 81 that didn't happen so now we have a unique situation where the president is the senate and a little jurist passed away with a desire to be replaced by a liberal jurist from a conservative president. how do you put all of this together and what do you think

should happen in this very delicate situation and also with the politics of it. they have become almost a legislative branch that has more power than the executive branch. >> guest: we have to somehow restore those constitutional balances. it insists on checks and balances. our founders envisioned the checks being in place among the equal branches with the executive leading the government. this has been one of the great revelations to which it has been politically corrupted. john roberts the chief justice

said there is no partisanship on the part of the judges and justices. we know right now the american people are not fools. we look at who appointed a judge and we look at the decisions. right now it's general michael flynn. the justice department has dropped charges against him and the courts in the dc appellate court and the dc district court refused to dismiss the charges. forget anything about the rest of the case. there is no prosecutor except the court itself now.

this is not envisioned in the constitution. it is not envisioned in the law. they are just doing what they want because it is politically in their interest and that is stunning. where we end up with the court is going to depend greatly on whether or not we reelect donald trump. it is essential that we do. and that we restore our journalism to tharegionalism toe interpretation by the judges of the constitution and the law. >> host: one of the things you talk about not just close the president without military, political experience or nationalist populist agenda, but they seek structural changes. they want to change the dialect or the landscape itself.

do you see that if trump were to lose in 2020 and he were to lose the senate that we would see things such as the voter compact effort to end the electoral college? or perhaps statehood to dc. i as asked that because the thee of your book how the president changed the course of history forever it assumes within the present system the achievements will be recognized by both sides because they hit on reality but if the system is changed or the structures are modified or we have 52 states or we have a 15% supreme court, all of this beginning in 2021, do you see the structural changes will change the foundation which we

are talking today? >> guest: there is another presumption that he wins because if he does, it ensures the country's destiny. without donald trump in that white house all bets are off. there's no way anyone should dismiss what is happening the party of hate as simply rhetoric and a political squabble. this is a battle for the soul of the nation. it's a battle for the direction of the nation and for whom we will be as a people.

i don't mean that to be melodramatic in any way. it's just the fact. you talk about puerto rico and southern dc as states that changes who we are and what we are because that means then the democratic party has sufficient power to pack the court and to insist upon. might as well simply go to straight to totalitarian because that is what the left wants. they don't want to be bothered by things like the law or the constitution or the history or heritage or consistent constant virtuous values. the idea that a political party can threaten death and destruction on the streets of america and still be regarded as a political party to me is

nauseating to see what it has become. my colleagues in the media for the most part don't care to talk that directly about it, but i do because i think that is exactly what we are staring at and it's a very ugly face in deed in neen american politics right now. the choices are really tough that we are going to have to make over the next several years. this president is tough, strong, smart. they never want to acknowledge how smart he is. they always say he has great instincts. i love that idea, great judgment, he's smart, he cares about this country and i tell you i am praying he wins because

that is my way of praying for the country. >> host: it's been a fascinating discussion. the book is "the trump century" how the president changed the course of history forever. these and other topics we discussed today and a lot more in the book. it's an argument not just of the achievements that have been underappreciated, but with the achievementtheachievements thate history will see as a bipartisan consensus and of the story of the conventional wisdom in a way that even his enemies will have to concede. with that, thank you for coming on to c-span and it's been an honor to interview you. >> the honor is mine. thank you so much. >> this program is available as a podcast. all "after words" programs can be viewed on the website at

booktv.org.