and beyond that they start talking about the soviet union . and schultz away from the kind of hardliners and the typical national security council meetings begins to realizesomething about ronald reagan . which is that this man who never had a conversation with a big-time communistleader , that he is dying to have one and that he is really thought about this a lot. he's very confident in his own abilities at the as a negotiator but then schultz realizes something else which is that this dinner invitation was not a social invitation. that really nancy reagan had wanted to get him alone with the president so that he could begin to understand something about her husband. something that have the potential to change history . and he also realizes something else in that moment which is that he, george schultz has found an incredibly valuable ally in this first lady. is the only person in the world to ronald reagan is truly close. and who understands her husband like nobody else does. and it seemed to me sort of a perfect opening into a book about. v

how did you go about it and why did you start the book with the soviet union? >> first of all, thank you so much for having me. i look forward to when we can be sitting out there on that beautiful patio at the reagan library where i spend w so many wonderful hours mostly defrosting from the fragility of the research room at the library. i started actually this book wasn't my idea, it was simon & schuster, my publishers and specificallynd it was my editorn the book who is one of my dearest friends, was my editor at the "time" magazine and so, she came to me in the late summer, early fall of 2016 just a few months after missus reaga6 died and said we would love to have a big biography of her and i remember the date of her funeral i was driving around toning errands and listening it on c-span radio thinking there are so many layers to this complex woman. there was just something about the project that struck me especially since i came to washington in the 1980s and my knowledge of nancy reagan was pretty much everybody else's. it tended to run between one of two c

union. >> first of all, thank you so much for having me and i to look forward to when we can be sitting out there on the beautiful patio at the reagan library where i spent so many wonderful hours, mostly defrosting from the frigidity of the research at the library. i started, this book was not my idea, it was simon & schuster my publishers and specifically my editor on the book who is one of my dearest friends in my editor at "time" magazine, she came to me in late summer early fall of 2016, a few months after mrs. reagan died and said we would love to have a big biography of her and there was just something about this idea, i remember the day of her funeral i was driving around doing errands and listening to it on c-span radio while i was driving and thinking there are so many layers to this complex woman and there was just something about the project that really struck me as interesting and especially since they came to washington in the 1980s and my knowledge of nancy reagan pretty much everybody else's intended to run between one of two character chores, either she was acquitted so

and the willingness to destroy science and soviet union. all of this stuff, there is precedent for it. but just because as president doesn't mean when people feel the ring of power, they decide where those around for a while and see how it does. >> it's way too much fun to talk to you, congratulations on the authoritarian moment, let me ask you to questions you five seconds for each one first question with the capital north dakota. >> bismarck. >> correct. >> will you appear on my program very soon. >> congratulations on the authoritarian moment and all that you're doing. we will catch up to you again soon. thank you very much. >> "after words" is available as a podcast to listen go to c-span.org/podcast or search c-span "after words" on your podcast app and watch this and all previous "after words" interviews at booktv.org click the "after words" button near the top of the page. >> weakens on cspan2 our intellectual, every saturday events and people that explore our nation's past un-american history tv, on sunday booktv brings you the late

and why did you start the book with the soviet union? >> well, first of all, kathy, such for having me, and i too look forward to when we can be sitting out there on that beautiful patio at the reagan library, where i spent so many, so many wonderful hours, mostly defrosting from the frigidity of the research room at the library. i started -- it was actually -- this book was not my idea. it was simon & schuster, my publisher's and specifically it was my editor on the book, who is one of my dearest friends, was my editor at time magazine, and so she came to me in late summer, early fall of 2016, just a few months after mrs. reagan died and said, you know, we're really -- we'd love to have a big biography of her, and there was just something about this idea. i remember the day of her funeral, i was driving around doing errands and listening to it on c-span radio, while i was driving and thinking, there are so many layers to this very complex woman, and so there was just something about the project that really struck me as interesting, and

the willingness to destroy science in soviet union leads to a downfall. there's precedent for it but just because there's precedent does anyone people feel the ring of power instead of casting it in the mountain dew, i wear this around and see how it does. >> it's way too much fun to talk to. congratulations on the book "the authoritarian moment" but let me ask you to my question figure five seconds. first question what's the capital of north dakota? >> bismarck, right? >> correct. second question, when you enter with me on my tv radio program very soon? >> i would be happy to do that. >> that was so easy. ben shapiro congratulations on "the authoritarian moment" and on-call that you are doing. i'll do catch up with you again soon. >> thanks so much. >> "after words" is available as a podcast here to listen visit c-span.org/podcasts or search c-span "after words" on your app and watches all previous "after words" interviews at booktv.org. lick the "after words" button near the top of the page. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturd

union. because are so many social scientists a lean to the left there's a market attempt to avoid defining authoritarianism probably enough to laugh and the possibility of the left. after several decades of this is a political scientist who defined it. he gave it three basic components. one months the idea of anti- conventional is in. everyone who's not of a standard is inferior and lesser. it's obvious on the left the idea if you do not believe like many members of the left you are to get, a homophobe, jerk, this means your perspective somehow less and you don't belong or not fit company for anybody else. then there's a second element that's top-down censorship with the idea from the left you ought to be censored because of this printer going to use the mechanisms of power to shut you up in order to protect the everyone else. we definitely to shut you. third there is revolutionary aggression that is connected to a left-wing authoritarianism. this being the institutions are responsible for a

beyond that they start talking about the soviet a union. and away from the hardliners and the typical national security council meetings, begins to realize something about ronald reagan. which is that this man has never had a conversation with theh big time communist leader. he is dying to have one. he hasll really thought about this lot. he is very confident in his own abilities as a negotiator. but then scholz realizes something else. this dinner invitation was not an invitation for it really nancy reagan had wanted to get him alone with the president so that he could begin to understand something about her husband. that really had the potential to change history. he also realizes something else in that moment. found incredibly valuable ally in this first lady who is the only person in this world that seem to me sort of a perfect opening into a book about her role her very unique role as first lady. she was somebody who did not set foot in the west wing all that often. but everybody there knew when she was displeased about something. peop

secretary of state new that a lot of business to do with gorbachev in his present of the soviet union at the time and his foreign minister. very restrained to the point who's criticized brownlee for not showing more emotion at the falling of the wall after always been in the cold war situation for over 40 years. the war had ended, we had one, why were we celebrating? we weren't celebrating because we did not want to stick it in there i since we had a lot more things we needed to get done. and i think that would be one good example. >> so after you walked in your counterpart shoes, and empathized and before you get to the table, you get to the table. it's time to start the actual horse trading as we call it. in order to be able to strike a deal you talked about not viewing it as a zero-sum game. talk about yourself many times expand upon how you kept pragmatism in front of your mind in your negotiatis. >> the times and i w was up there it's easy to politically demon ties pragmatism because pragmatism of necessity means compromise. compromise is not and should never have been a dirty wo

union. we made efforts to bring russia into the west, into the organization of the west and so forth and they evidently didn't work and so here we are now not only russia but in pretty much of the cold war environment with china. china, i fought like hell to get china into the wto because we thought they would become a more responsible international player once they were admitted to the important international organization. they made a lot of promises but they didn't keep those promises. and that is not good so here we are today, there is room today are doing the kinds of things we did during the reagan and george h w bush administration because we are back in the same environment. >> with his audience and the theme of this conference in your spectacular career as a lawyer became before you came a success in washington dc and i interviewed peter and susan and asked what was it about your training as a lawyer and your years of practicing law the translated into your service in washington when

union. we made efforts to bring russia into the west into the organizations of the west and so forth. and they have they evidently didn't work. and so here we are now and and not only the russia. we're here we are now in and it pretty much of a war environment with china. china of course i was one who fought like hell to get china into the wto because we thought that would that they would become a more responsible international player. once they were admitted to these important international organization. so to get into the wto that made a lot of promise. but they didn't keep those problems. and that's not that's not good. so here we are today. i think there's room today for doing the kinds of things that we did during the reagan and george h.w. bush administration because we're right back into the same environment. now of course with this audience and the theme of this conference and with your spectacular career as a lawyer before you became such a success in washington, dc. and when i inte

union. we made efforts to bring russia into the west into the organizations of the west and so forth. and they have they evidently didn't work. and so here we are now and and not only the russia. we're we are now in and it pretty much of a war environment with china. china of course i was one who fought like hell to get china into the wto because we thought that would that they would become a more responsible international player. once they were admitted to these important international organization. so to get into the wto that made a lot of promise. but they didn't keep those prompts. and that's not that's not good. so here we are today. i think there's room today for doing the kinds of things that we did during the reagan and george h.w. bush administration because we're right back into the same environment. now of course with this audience and the theme of this conference and with your spectacular career as a lawyer before you became such a success in washington, dc. and when i interviewe

. >> everywhere i go i bump into people from cuba or from the former soviet union, they see what we are talking about with crystal clarity. the only reason i think i see it may be more clearly than my friends is because my mother grew up in east germany. my father grew up in greece when the communists try to take over after the second war. they raised me without trying very hard to know how particularly wicked and cruel communism is and, therefore, even without thinking, to love a consumptive because freedom is the antithesis of that. but i am kind of amazed at what you say, that americans somehow are so myopic, so blessed, that they think this is normal. they think what we've always had here is normal, rather than a wild i give almost shouldn't logically have succeeded but did and so we should be grateful and we should keep the republic. do you have hope that because of where we are now people are waking up to this? >> i think they are. the other day i was speaking to somebody who widely disagrees with me, is a professor at a major university campus and kim at acip i i disagree with ev

union in the middle of this, they stop and talk about cancer. just gives you a sense of how strange the nazi party rule deal at this critical moment, there focused on otto warburg and cancer science. any explain it in this book. it is truly bizarre. patty: yes, i thought so too great was absolutely fascinating. almost hard to put somewhere in your head up in any way that is what happened. and now, let's continue on. might be getting my timelines well, he left the lab and he moved the u.s. for a while and drove this foresight is absolutely crazy was a very kind soul that was just didn't know what to deal with otto warburg. tell us what happened and why it happened. and that would happen after. sam: swept the cement i just told you about, otto warburg is totally focuses on cancer he will be protected. say makes it to the end of the work and amazingly, not only to be survived, but in 1942, bombs start to fall, i'm sorry 1943, near his institute that essentially moved to new institute which is sort of refurbish mentioned. famous place in the german

the democratic party consistently has embraced weakness on russia and the soviet union. i'm old enough to remember president barack obama in a debate with republican nominee mitt rom knee when mitt romney said we need to stand up to russia and president obama said mitt, the 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back because the democratic party position was weakness to russia. i'm old enough to remember president obama leading over to medvedev caught on a hot mic saying tell vladimir -- that would be putin -- i'll have more flexibility after the election. it was only when donald trump was elected that the democratic party suddenly discovered russia is a menace. i welcome that. i welcome that sudden discovery. i think russia was a menace before and after. but for too many senate democrats, it's purely political. russia, russia, russia was a stick to beat up on donald trump, and the substance of it didn't matter. and so the senator from connecticut said, well, gosh, donald trump, he thinks, was terrible on russia. here is a simple fact -- under president trump,

union might do with the stage but today there are huge uncertainties in the world looks dangerous and frightening place but statistically international mobilizations are coming up with statistics showing more people die by violence in each year but i do think these are very dangerous times. and stability is very elusive in the world in which we now exist. i think we have to tread extremely carefully. but i forgot the first question. host: world war ii? >> yes. i think most historians agree you have to look at world war ii as an extension of world war i because it was a long german war. on the other hand i said one of my books we would understand world war ii better if we call the world wars to because everybody got into world war ii for different reasons the japanese were there for different reasons for the germans we came in for different reasons of the british and the french. in a way we muddled the issue by calling at world war ii there were several different strands butn fundamentally yes in the end this was germany's to attempts to secure domination of europe. the second one afte

union might do and china was not a serious part. today there's uncertainties and i think the world looks dangerous and frightening place. they are absolutely right. statistically, fewer people die by violence each year and not what the headlines suggest at all. do i think these are very dangerous times and i think stability is -- is very elusive in the way which we now exist. i think we have to thread extremely carefully. i forgot what first question was. yeah, yeah. i think most historians agree that one has to look on world war ii as an extension because really it was the long german war and on the other hand, i also, i've said it in one of my books that i think we would understand what will be better if we called world wars 2 because everybody got into world war ii for different reasons. the japanese were there for quite different reasons up from the germans and the americans came in for different reasons from those that the british and the french went in and in a way we sort of almost -- calling it world war ii. it was certainly

you could predict what the soviet union might do. there were huge uncertainties and i do think it's a very frightening place and statistically international organizations are also coming up with statistics showing fewer people died by violence each year which not what the headlines suggest at all but i do think these are dangerous times and i think stability is very elusive in the time in which it exists. i have forgot my first question was. >> host: is about world war ii. >> guest: i think most historians agree that one has to look on world war ii as an extension because really it was a long german war but on the other hand i also i've said it written in one of my books that i think we would understand world war ii better if we called it world wars to because everybody got into world war ii for different reasons. the japanese were there for different reasons than the germans and they call that world war ii. the fundamental you have to say in and this was germany's attempt to secure domination of europe and the second one after the f