>> it's a to privileged to sit down with you for an hour to talk about your book and the first thing i want to ask is how do you approach her role as a writer and a particular political writer? >> the first thing it's not a big part of most people's lives and it shouldn't be a big part of a healthy society.

my hundreds of columns a year in books another score on coulter i'm not doing my job. he's the head of one of our three branches whose job in article ii is to take care of the laws that are executed that makes him second to debate the laws and article i in congresss but we have this presidency that tents to absorb all the energy in the country and a lot of a te space so the first half of a political columnist is to say i'm not really a political columnist. >> a younger person coming up as

a temptation for political writers to score points rather than make points and maybe it's because you focus on the people that don't paych attention to politics where you can take a the broader focus but doou you think people should focus more on being observers or perhaps advocates because there's a purpose to what you are doing when you sit down. >> they have to understand what's going on in the country before they can make judgments about it and often would i try to do in each column i'm verifying that they cultural judicial legislative political occasions we call them well have a principle involved or wouldn't write about it and i tried to point out the negative about the constitutional moral that will remain and to focuscu on that.

>> i was going to this so manyon and you have and they were numberr you called him the most consequential writer of the 20th century. you would remember your column. >> of course he at a purpose with the national review and the things that he was advocating for. why did you call him that? >> there was barry goldwater to capture the republican party and before barry goldwater there was national review and the nomination in 1964 and the national review bullets part in the mind of the bill buckley. bill buckley won the cold war. >> it's a compressed version

that ideas have consequences and bill make conservative ideas accessible and fun with the spirit and the cheerfulness in a political argument. when barry goldwater for whom i cast my first presidential vote in 1964 when he first got into politics i think he was running for the city council of unix in 1948. he said politics ate for life and it might be fun. pretty much turned out to be life for him. writing about it is fun. i am a compulsive writer and i can't stop. i write one other write one other columns a year and i'm alwaysm ng writing books but i happen to like politics. i've spoken with a lot of

politicians. i dislike some of their attributes but we have to have politics and we have to have government and we have to have laws. the whole culture of democracy is a culture of persuasion and argument -- if you don't like arguing you've picked the wrong country. >> there's a difference between making an argument in fighting. a lot of people tend to do that with social media and things like that. how do you stay focused on making the argument in a subtle way because politics you can get very invested in it and the stakes are very high as you well know so how do you stayay detacd enough that it is fun and you can have a happy attitude when you sit down at that computer

everyday? >> and support to keep in mind that what seems earthshaking today is not shaking the earth. there will recently turned 80. you look back and you say what happened in the carter administration that had mehe so excited and something that gerald ford did. >> one of the things that i did meyer and other people do but your writing is you have a happy attitude that you are not upgrade to confront complex problems and i noticed you have written about lynchings in american history and i think there's a complicated debate especially in conservative circles about things like critical race theory which is

not talking about lynchings but that gets muddled and confused that he confronted this and what i remember is where you told the story about a lynching that happened in illinois and that's where president obama announced his campaign. as a conservative growing up in rurale michigan sometimes readg it in your column was the first time i'd heard about it. >> i had just learned about the tulsa riots. there washe unpleasantness in tulsa. conservatives sometimes flinch from disagreeable aspects to american history because the

disagreeable facet are presented by progressives as definitional and typical. it requires a mental equilibrium to confront these things and to put them into context. this is why we are having so much of a fight about "the new york times" egregious 1619 project. america's real founding was not july 1776 it was when the first arrived. what made this reframing is american history so pernicious is the? of the matter was -- the crux of the matter was it was bought because lord dunsmore had said who escaped in the american

revolution will for being --this is historically illiterate. i think he said that in november after lexington and concord after the boston massacre and after george washington was made head of the revolutionary army so it doesn't square. it's so bad it's obviously meretricious. >> you think there's a reason that people want to start the conversation because there's in american history people don't know. maybe we should give it a chance so who's at fault for hiding this part of american historyho from us? why is that?

>> a lot't of people just don't know in and the way we teach history it's probably cursory and unserious. thecu reason we are arguing abot it is in 1984 orwell said the past controls the future and who controls the present controls the past. when we argue about the past we argue about the trajectory of the nation. >> one of the really interesting point that i had never considered on what we know about american history and what we don't has to do with another legend that you wrote about on america's lynchings in the raise the point that our government did have knowledge about this but they were all classified and you wrote secrecy tells us what we cannot know and there's another role for government in

this and not necessarily making these things public. >> they are the formulation comes from that man who was my best friend pat moynihan that he made the fact governments tend to hoard secrets and become inquisitive about property and secrets make us necessarily more unnecessarily ignorant. the grand jury testimony from 60 or 70 years ago for pete's sake and that what is the point of keeping a secret? >> you ended it with saying it's not part of her national memory. the correct answert is never so you're you are arguing we should not shy away from this and you think conservatives in particular should make more of an interest in this complex

world history we have rather than fighting about sierra t. because this is a more well formulated argument that tells us why we need to know whether then fighting about it. >> conservativeseo should pay attention to the lynchings and other matters because it gives conservatives a chance to make a case of astonishing progress. people say 6019 was everything because it set the course of the country and things haven't really gotten all that better in the aleutian that is better. in a football game mississippi played alabama.

we have come to an established religion in this country. >> it turns into a great deserved affirmation of america to understand how bad things were and how much better they are today. do you think that discussion is further hindered the conversation? you don't think it's something theth president should talk abo? >> i think a lot of the things that presidents talk about they shouldn't talk about. the president becomes more in chief and where is that an article to?

the british have the house of windsor to do those things. we don't and therefore the ceremonial people gather around the office of the presidency and make it all the more omnipresent and swollen. >> why do you think we are so obsessed with the presents a? is it just the easiest thing to talk about? >> it's the easiest thing to talk about in this vivid and modern technology helps. first radio. they say radio was a more fundamentally a more of a change in television because radio was crucial to the party but one of the first things they did was make radios cheap so everyone could have a radio.

radio gave the bully pulpit resonance. when roosevelt president roosevelt sat down to give his first fireside chat he began with two words that do not appear in the text. they were my friends. try to imagine george washington sayingin my friends are calvin coolidge to think of another one of my heroes. roosevelt understood the modern presidency and in fact he pioneered it more than anyone else else but is going to create an intimacy with the country. i don't think we want to be intimate with presidents.. they are the head of one branch of one of our many governments. >> who has been the most ideal president in your view? who did it right or came close to it? because ronald reagan was famous

for communicating with the public. >> they areti is nothing wrong with communicating with the public. it is wrong to say that the president should the front and center all the time communicating all the time. when senator bennett of colorado was entering his brief run for the run for presidency in 2020 he tweeted vote for me and you will get a presidency won't have to think about for weeks at a time. i was for him. >> you mentioned the advent of radio but certainly social media has changed the gameme for all campaigns not just the presidency and how they communicate and how would you witnessed that change because it hasn't only changed how the candidates communicate but how people receive information and react to it and what the expectation is. >> and how they talk to one

another and abuse one another. i have never tweeted. i don't know how to tweet and if i had to find a two-week i wouldn't know how. twice a week member of my staff tweeted out 240 characters from my columns and that's it. i'm told that i have a facebook page and i've never seen it. i'm just not interested. i get the point. i've always thought the quantity of stupidity relative to the size of the committee is constant over time. i'm no longer so sure but it just may be that social media gets such velocity to interpret this invite to gratian. i do think it elicits it. once upon a time eugene volokh

who runs the conspiracy web site, wonderful place, talks about jurisprudential issues and he teaches constitutional law at ucla. he has a fascinating article out called cheapap speech and what it's done to us. it used to be to communicate with a lot of people you had to have a radio or television station or a printing press and to print all that stuff. distribution is can now inexpensive eon measure. it's free. anyone can say anything to anyone. well that's so democratic. >> it seems like this would lead to a net good. >> however there's a downside to everything in quitting this and the downside is this true that much of use mainstream media had

gatekeepers. they had responsibilities and they had vulnerabilities and they had to take newspapers and keep there ever titers and subscribers happy and they hada reputation to uphold and therefore they stood between the public and the stark raving mad lunatics. now they can just get them out there. so there is a cost to everything. >> how do you get into the ongoing debate about cancel culture that's happening? as you know on the right side of the aisle there's a raging debate over the role of social media and moderation and what rights people should expect when they go on these platforms to say whatever they want. how do you balance the abuse and the idea that we all support freedom of speech in a counter bad speech with more speech which i believe then but i believe its waiver just a little

bit when it comes to these issues. >> i'm still a section 230 absolutists. supervision of the law that says facebook or these other social media platforms are not publishers and they cannot be sued. they enable people to be out there but they are not liable. i think i'm forr that. these are private corporations. they are tremendously important to the public square nowadays but they are also not forever. there's such a thing as monopoly fatalism. people say these are big and therefore they are forever and they are unchallengeable. it exhausts all the unchallengeable monopolies. remember the at&t company? in 1935 there were something like 15,000 in the country one

for every 9000 m americans and s the first time i had heard of one. in 2007 the cover of "forbes" magazine said can anyone challenge the cell phone giant? nokia five months before that the iphone came out and another unassailable monopoly was about to be saved. i think we can rest assured that nothing is immortal including these giants today. >> i would say twitter and facebook are a huge challenge but you hear from the right where they explicitly say you can come here and say whatever you want and then you have these thingsso that happen where president trump's was kicked ofa of twitter but the taliban can put their messages on it so it seems to me we are in this

vortex where no one wants to attempt any responsibility and then you see this big giants like mark zuckerberg go to congress>> and say just regulate and that solves the problemea fr me. >> the serious argument and i'm not sure i accept it yet but it's quite serious. we should become treated as common carriers but if you open your doors anyone can come through in a few open your doors to the public than then you let the public and entirely and this has lots of wrinkles like the colorado baker who opens his doors and didn't want to serve someap people. basically i'm an absolutist. >> but it's okay to not have your mind made up. >> absolutely. >> i'm going to turn to completely different subject that has a lot of the book -- up

click ability today. another subject that has to do withth how you approach the abortion debate. you have a wonderful way of talking about the heart eat bill and youu called it a provocation and attempting to have that debate about viability versus trimester and i want to explore your thinking about how that was received. >> trimester and viability. did you ever think about the constitutional law of abortion. i think it would have amazed the framers ofme our constitution. what with the constitutional law of abortion be in the joe station of the human infant say 11ff or 13? where did we decide because it's divisible by three there should be different constitutional comparatives for each of the three segments. it makes no sense whatever.

people can say roe vs. wade is an atrocity and rove vs. wade is a triumph. people can say there's this god-awful constitutional law. john eli was pro-choice and he said so. he was a great professor of law i believe that yell. they hade their day to -- doubs about the way they did it constitutionally which is why the argument coming out of the mississippi case that they argued this fall decided by next junene in a mirrored term electn is going to be momentous. >> the lucas is on the texas law which creates this i think the odd private right of action in orderus to explore this and take

it to the court. >> i know there's in patients with making progress against roe vs. wade and not recognizing patience is required of constitutional government and the rule of law. inpatient empowers citizens with a bounty of $10,000. someone has to say to conservatives wait a minute just wait until california says we will give you $10,000 to drag people in. so i'm all for private enterprise but i'm not for outsourcing this kind of law. >> and it's like a court hearing in the mississippi case.e. >> viability has changed and again we have to confront the

fact that this is what makes it an intractable problem. pro-choice people say the woman but they are two individuals involved. >> do you think it's an intractable problem and there couldn't be progress made on the argument of viability with all do wee know about science versus 1973. do you think it's truly intractable? >> with that this intrauterine medicine can do wonders for vulnerable children so i'm not saying you can't split the difference. some people say can't split the difference. from the moment of conception on theirs at distinctly unique creature who by accident of nature's going to become a person and that's true. that's medieval by -- theology

in high school biology but if we hade abortion laws much more le those in europe for example. europe is hardly theocracy these days. if we had a limit on abortion at 20 weeks that would be 95% of abortions would still occur and the temperature would go down. >> you are saying it would be worth it to split the difference? >> basically splitting the difference. >> of course we are excited by the court. hispanic people are terrified that roe vs. wade might be overturned. lawmakers in their heart of hearts say spare me that. most americans think if you are turnrow vs. wade suddenly abortion is illegal it is not true. overturning roe v. wade just

would establish the status quo of roe vs. wade and available by state law. you'd have those differences. you have one abortion regime in indiana and one in new york. >> i know a lot of people all of the above abortion rights if you want to put it that way are looking forward to this because they believe it will energize the 2022 elections and this is another debate and arguments will be made unless the think you'll turn into a fight given how emotional this issue is. >> people are emotional about everything so you can imagine what it's going to be like. june of 2022.

>> you have a lot of faith in the court system. >> i have a lot of faith because i think they are behaving well and i have minimal faith than the other two branches of government. my view is that if we want limited government it depends on the supervision of democracy by the judiciary. congress will not limit itself and it will not stop the non-delegation doctrine which says john locke said legislatures can make laws and they cannot make other legislators so they ought to stop delegating essentially legislative powers to executive agencies such as taking two examples the power to have an eviction moratorium from the centers of disease control or the power of osha the division

of health and safety and safety and health administration to impose mandates on private sector employees. >> obviously you reference the supreme court overturned the b. mask band that what are the most important decisions that have impacted modern life in the modern time? i find it hard to have a lot of faith in that world be a counter to many o things. they are good judges they came out of the trump administration. brettse kavanaugh. >> brown v. education gave the

court and enormous prestige infusion because it went against public opinion and everyone knew it did not just public opinion in the south. how many remember brown v. board of education was against the board of education of topeka kansas and north are segregationist committee and the fact is courts exist in majorities. can i give you my. >> a? >> please. as a michigander i love it. >> lincoln country. champ lane county court house typical midwestern city a big square courthouse. lincoln a prosperous lawyer within the champlain county courthouse and douglas the illinois center succeeded to pass through the senate the kansas nebraska act. the kansas nebraska said we are

going to solve the problem of should be extended into the territories and they said it's a moral and difference whether it's voted up or voted down. america is aboutt majority rule. lincoln's greatness began with his recoil against the document but he said no america is not about majority rule it's about the conditionwe of liberty. courts exist to say majority rule is all very well and majority rule should have a broad sweep but not a limited sleep and there are certain thingse for example congress should make no law through congress should make so no law even if everyone wants it, can't do it sorry. some see it as a dilemma and

there's no dilemma an epic as we have a constitution. >> how much time do you spend reading history? >> a lot. counting recorded books -- >> i'm listening to an audible book and i shave and have breakfast and i commute to work and walked to lunch and go home 2.5 to three hours a day of otherwise wasted time i'm listening to books most often on history. >> you can tell of course how many facts are shoved into every sentence. how much time do you spend reading as opposed to writing? >> it's a good question. ig say emirel reader and when im done reading i write.

henry kissinger once said when you come to washington you start running down your intellectual capital because you don't have time to reap punish it. my friend moynahan who once rather rudely said he wrote more books in the senate for most of his colleagues read proved to be so. pat was writing and producing serious books but the trick of life in washington really everywhere butgo particularly is to keep your intellectual capital restocked. >> since this is booktv what books have impacted you the most? >> oh gosh. >> there are probably some that pop up in recent memory. >> i just read about john c. calhoun a very bright man. a very bad man.

he was this anyway minded tanker for a terrible cause of white supremacy. >> speaking ofca bad causes this column that you wrote in 2018 about the holocaust museum here in washington another place we can go to learn and it's hard to go there and learn about it obviously. the column is called into eternity and you tell the story. >> you'll have to refresh me. >> i can'tut read from it becaue i will probably try because it's about a woman who's taken to the camps. >> the holocaust museum she was in to it by someone who discovered it far away. there were photographs about a woman who -- was sent to a death

camp not just the concentration camp at a death camp and i've written a lot about the holocaust and the holocaust museum. as an italian survivor said it happened once and it can happen again. nothing is unthinkable, nothing. >> was also striking about it is he don't write about it to be sadder to scare people. you include this incredibly moving letter. amusing present human natures violent manifestations. yit's received 43 million visitors 90% who are non-jewish. so the statistic that you found

with the story that makes you think is as this was you were learning about this and then you dug up the good of it which this is man's noblest virtue. >> when they first decided to build the holocaust museum next to the mall in washington -- >> which was a bit controversial. >> there were people criticizing this but people said what's this got to do with american history and i wrote a column and i said it's clean geography and monuments to jefferson and lincoln. it's a tribute to the bright light of american life and the american experience. it is therefore all thery more important that this american nation and the enlightenment and the confidence of the late the 19th century had its important

that we hail of sun on which despair and that's the holocaust museum. becausee of that that they went with a delegation to poland to auschwitz to the death camps to get artifacts. it was sobering. i got off the helicopter and i took my 12-year-old son. we got off the polish helicopter that took us to tribute to. >> did you reflect about taking your 12-year-old son? >> no. he said that there is a bomb answer is jeff. they said just don't let your imagine -- imagination run away with you. it was a finger or a child's rib.

the sandy soil keeps sifting up remains.h- >> do you talk about it with your son afterwards and children take a six grade field trip to the holocaust ecm. it's something they need to know about and a lot of people have trouble talking about this because it is soth difficult. >> we went to the holocaust museum in new york and in a glass case was a red shoe. a woman put it on when she was taken to the train and i began to think where did she think she was going? trying to capture the reality of what these people endured is a test. >> the people who lived in the

past didn't realize they would live in the past that something we should think about. words like authoritarianism and fascism are coming up a lot when it comes to our modern political culture. how do you feel about that? do they have an understanding of those words and are they cheapen and are they necessary and should they be? >> they really are. fascism had in intellectual pedigree. fascism hadnh a doctrine and a worldview. it had several biological theories of the world that strife is inherent and racist.

we don't have that in this country. we have totalitarian temptations and s pretensions and fascism we have not had. >> i notice in your writings you make that argument. you come back to this belief in the authoritarian impulses in and america will be tempered bye the courts and what makes you so confident about that? >> because they behave on the past and even when they missed made mistakes they corrected them. the american people are too squeamish to face their difficult past. i spent three weeks across puget from seattle and i'm driving down the road and all of a sudden i see japanese exclusion memorial. it turns out after roosevelt president franklin roosevelt signed the order to allow the

military to upload japanese two-thirds of them american citizens and move them away from the west coast the first ones to leavehe were from the island. they said we are going to talk about it. the supreme court in the decision in 1944 affirmed that use of executive power by franklin roosevelt and in 1983 the supreme court repudiated the decision and in 1988 congress votedd reparations. .. protecting the constitutional equilibrium, that madison gave us between the branches of government but if the courts don't do it, no one will. >> host: i would like you in

this scale history in order to give us perspective people have been so worried about what happens particularly on january 6 when you saw a violent mob deliberately seek out to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, official proceeding a peaceful transfer of power. there are court cases winding through for those individuals. but i am not sure that is something the court will solve will solve is a political problem for. >> the court should not solve the problems the court should supply the law and hold the up to the constitution. a very short walk from where we are sitting, they've now put up fences again. they put up fences for. >> you don't think that is necessary? >> i think that is it up saturday. it makes united states look like a banana republic worried about a tank regiment at the end of town it is a nonsense. the police can surely control

a crowd if not, get better policing. the idea we have to take the united states capitol, the greatest secular building inai thee world, the very symbol at the epicenter of american democracy and protect it from home? from a rebel? no. >> what do you make of the lafayette square incident that happened in january 2020 when the president the square to walk through. it's different types of problems but especially in d.c. post 911 to put up the walls put up the barriers in every possible opportunity when these things come to front. >> the president uses lafayette square as a prop with the bible which he held upside down, outside st. john's church the so-called church of presidents right across from the white

house. he brought along chairman of the joint chief of staff who understandably felt ill used and should not have let himself be put in that position. again, do not get me back on president. it isn an example of the vast aspect of our policies that's degrading politics. the senate t is almost an entirely performative outfit. making gestures. courts are different. courts have to decide, they have to give reasons they have to give opinions and can distance which it's really where redo political philosophy in this country. don't -- mckay was a we do

because the federal paper ranks of them be, we do constitutional lawyers and constitutional argument is constantly political troubles freedom as opposed too as an attention with the quality we do it all of the time. >> the same thing in the campus of the supreme court? >> i am not so sure. we have seen recently do not bring out the best in congressional committees. i do think the justices would behavior. >> might if they could leave that radio transcript available in a more timely fashion. exactly. >> you mentioned you went abroad with your son. i imagine her writing has taken you many places. what are the most memorable? >> a trip to israel was quite good t. everyone ought to go and see how small it was. >> i've never been.

>> says you can drive across in 30 minutes. i think that is probably the most memorable. i remember going to the soviet union and what struck me is interesting something weird about this place absence of advertising i think wilde whente he saw times square city to be beautiful if you can't read. there is no advertising because there is no private appetites. you're not supposed to be consumers. you're supposed to be persuading people i liketi advertising, give me a coke sign and bud light and all that stuff. >> here in the business of persuading people in some respects. what do you think persuades people the most? what do you see he may beat change minds in ways that

surprised you? >> one that didn't i am approaching 6000 columns which may stir more people it is my jeremiah against denham. this will give me a chance to illustrate how i think we can illustrate large things from small things. i just got tired. you get on an airport concourse there's a father in his late 30s and his 10-year-old son and they arees dressed exactly alike. running shoes, blue jeans, t-shirt. mom is there she is wearing i ngblue jeans. there was a time when different address signal different stages of life that we grew up. now, what does this have to do with larger things?

this, some where in the last 20 earth 30 years. [inaudible] and parenting is important. this encourages the police believe in parental professionalism. it's like it's like calculus i want to go back. >> when i was ten years old my mother would open the back door and go back may be come back for lunch probably for dinner and it's not call free range parenting. it's called being a kid back in those days. you are free to fail and cope with your failures that was called growing up. today it's helicopter parents hovering over their children

they are bubblewrap children protected from injury, nottl just to their shins, knees, elbows injury to their psyches. that wind up being a risk taverse and guess what happens when they go to college, they say direct me to the safe space. i want freedom from speech and i want the response team to run around c and capture the micro aggressors. the firm parented not them go out and skin their knees. >> epic interest in academia why should we care so much what happens? >> what happens on campus does not stay on campus it leaks out into the larger culture

because of what's happening to campuses matters very much. it took 800 years of passage through ecclesiastical andvo political thickets to involve the great universities that are the greatest ornaments of western civilization. you can kick that away in a generation or two. we are doing that now. in the name of diversity, we are seeing enforce conformity. >> how so? how do you see that? >> we have young people who attest they are reluctant to speak their minds on college campuses. we have speech codes that are being struck down in many cases but they still liberate. we have speech zones, james mattis turned the united states, turn the consonant into a free speech. i do not want to pick on texas

a check but one point texas check had a gazebo or 20000 students in the gazebo is the free speech zone. you cannot make this stuff up. trigger warnings on trigger warnings. because the trays of frager warning makes people unhappy, sad and nervous and triggers you know it they make people think of. >> so what should be done? i talked to college students that if i do have some kind of idea or it right the wrong thing and i posted on facebook or something it could come back and bite me i can lose a scholarship i could do this, there is this kind of speak anyway find some friends write a check to fire the foundation for individual rights in

education scrappy group of people they rank green light for good amber light for problematic pre- >> which rankings delight customers there so many rankings it's a wonderful innovation that supports students on both the right for free speech. >> who is doing it right? which colleges universities? number of universities have adopted as usual purdueal university under mitch daniels the president we should have had. >> in a different world. >> of purdue university has made this obsolete clear free speech madison lives and west lafayette or wherever it is. >> i imagine gives you the opportunity to have so many

conversations and people asking you to write things i might've been on one side of that on the crews office once upon a time. how do you choose when you have this incoming information? the history is a wonderful resource. picking the most thing to write every day there are so many choices. >> that is unusual most people stay tuned sheet how do you come up with things to write about? that is the most commonly asked questions of a columnist. when i began as a columnist i asked my friend bill buckley how do you come up with things to write about he said the world irritates me three times a week. [laughter] outside the world irritates me amuses me, piques my curiosity the world is littered with things to write about. he could not look at a landscape without seeing a battlefield. if you are a columnist you wicannot look at the world without seeing column

dummies. they just come at you. >> what is thee>> difference between writing about politics and speaking about because people recognize you obviously all the time they are completely different things. they are so closely related. writing is an demanding writing columns is particularly so i adhere fairly strict of seven or 50 words a minute which means you have to be concise and you have to be elliptical and you have to intimate certain things you have to assume certain things. most americans do not read newspapers. that majority of the minority do not read columns. that is a good thing if you are a columnist that means you have a self-selected audience that is definitionally upscale.

the people come to the utterlydi optional column because they are interested and they are interested because they've got to stock of knowledge. it's a great audience you do not have to talk down to them he should not talk down to them they came to knowing what they are going to get. >> i know the listeners are still interested i've asked about the history what the other columnist what else is going into the mind on a daily basis? >> mostly it's reading chuck blaine wonderful colonists colleagues at the washington post home in jenkins and baker others in the wall street journal. so off a lot of talented

writing out there read the aggregators tremendous amount of good writing today. >> thank you this is been a pleasure and i hope everyone gets the book at the bookstores. it's a variable everywhere thank you so much for. >> thank you so much. >> after words is available as a podcast. listen seat -- band.org/podcast or search c-span after words a booktv.org. just click the after words button near the top of the page. >> with the senate out of session join us all this week for book tv. tonight a look at some of our

recent after words programs. we start the conversation with congressman adam schiff about his new release titled midnight in washington. the author talks about his book woke inc. later it's lizzie johnson and her latest paradise. it starts tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2. also watch our programs online and booktv.org or follow on c-span now our new video app. ♪ ♪ >> weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday to find events and people that explore our nations passed on american history tv. book tv brings you the latest books and authors. it is television for serious readers, learn, discover, we can on c-span2.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ next on book tvs author interview program, after words, former democratic ben nelson of nebraska discusses the decline of bipartisanship in the senate and offers recommendations on how to restore it. his injury by republican senator ben sasse of nebraska. after words is a weekly interview program with guest host interbank top authors about their latest work.