here. >> thank you so much. [applause]

>> evan thomas sandra day o'connor john kennedy john paul jones teddy roosevelt. what's the thread that connects all of these people? one of the great things about being a journalist, i'm not a scholar and i don't have a specialty. havinge said that there is a connection and i guess i would say it's america after world war ii. this country really coming into it's own as the global supreme power really. that fascinated me and what's it

like to be t a leader in this world? that germany initially to the weisman which i did with walter isaacson and in john paul jones offers a couple of centuries before. i'm fascinated by the burden of leaders because it's hard. harder than we think and i'm fascinated by what it's like to be a man and they are usually mean. ase elvis pflei sandra day o'connor up until her men and human infallibility and human weakness and this enormous pressure and how did they handle it? some very well in some bravely and some not so well but it how human beans respond to the

pressure of global leadership. >> let's go back to that first book that came out in 1986 of walter isaacson. herriman kennon acheson goldmann etc. but it seems looking back now there was a coordination to their process and the coordination to their goal and that shared goal. >> i take your point. if imposing order in chaos out of this era or that era so i take your point. innt this case there was a shard worldview and the worldview was it is america's time. it is america's time. it has been written to the 19th century chaos in the

early 20th century and out of world war ii entire time it's our time to do some good and honorable idealistic decent things to bring democracy to the world. they are seriously idealistic about this. it's all too true they were going to make money doing it. you can't divorce these things. these are people from wall street and they made money. part of the global vision is free trade a global community in which countries trade with the other in america does pretty well then these people individually. america's going to do well by them so you can't divorce the money piece but there's a lot of idealism and they are the third piece of it is power. in order to do all this you have death power. when is it military power power and one is at war and what is a diplomacy and when are they smart enough to not go to war a?

those are huge challenges which these men met well initially. obviously it's a valedictory book celebrating the world they made because by and large with important exceptions it was created decades of global peace. global peace and a system of trading system but also benefited europe which was rebuilt, asia the whole world. there are always new books because global standards of living have gone up. democracy has spread like you are seeing right now but it has spread so good things happen not just in the united states but to the whole world because of the system. an important exception vietnam.

americans can be eucharistic and we make mistakes and do bad things and those are all true if you take the totality. >> from the book the weisman wiseman you write even the most careful scholars in fact particularly the most careful once sometimes seem to forget that in the midst of the moment is the force of the shaping the world a for flesh and blood individuals acting on imperfect information. >> isn't that life? it's certainly my life and it's also the lives of the men who had to make these great decisions. forus instant what does russia really up to? russia was a clo society and the soviet union a closed society. to think of james bond in the united states. we didn't have any spies in moscow but the first american station chief was thrown out and

caught in a trap. kgb picked them right up. we do didn't know what the heck was going on so we are guessing. until we had a spy satellite in the late 1950s until the late 1950s we had spy satellites and we could see through. know what the heck was going on the soviet union. we had no information on her chief adversary in the course you add to that human blunder but we makeer mistakes here we are. we did not get killed then we might have not for the good judgment of dwight eisenhower who i i wrote about and becausee had been a smart soldier he was determined to keep us out of war we are not now radioactive dust which we could have been if he had made the wrongld move.

we survived it but we were in. >> before we get too far from an aside that you made i want to ask you, you mentioned that democracy is receiving today. what i was thinking about was a year or two ago and they have a professor named macaulay think it was. >> michael mcfaul the former ambassador. >> theyac attract democracy and was disturbing. in eastern europe the rise and poland and hungary have seen their democrat judiciary erode. isn't judiciary dependence or taking phonecalls from ortous by the hero justice o'connor called

telephone justice. they have taken orders from the party and measured that way i'm very sorry to say i think democracy is eroding somewhat. i don't think it's necessarily cataclysmic or the end of the world or reverse. i'm not an expertacly on it but their signs after the great spread of democracy. >> before we get into "ike bluff" which is another one of your hook -- books how would you describeue it? >> gets confusing because my generation i grew up in the 1950s the early stereotypical was a. american prosperity take american income roughly doubled. the growth of the middle class. america did a spectacular job in the 1950s of creating and

growing the middle class. washing machines and cars and houses and people just degrade so that'sor the positive view of it. but of course it was also a scary time because we were installing nuclear weapons to kill us maybe and we didn't know how many or what their strength was and we were building our own weapons and that was scary stuff in any time, and at the same time and much of the world colonialism had collapsed and we had the aftermath of colonialism in and asia and the british and the german french or even americans. arthurou growing pains? of course. how can you shift from a system of colonial rule in the system of self rule without agonizing growing pains and being exploited and manipulated by the and beijingmoscow and doma credit was in

washington playing off of each other. >> does the world still exist today? are we still feeling the effects of that generation? >> yes. the world is still essentially a peaceful place with an open trade order. ii know municipal tariffs and al thater into an older person like me it's alarming having grown up under the early order that you can get overwrought about these things. we still have an international trade order and we have tariffs on it but we still have conventions that bind us. it may be dated but they still exist and before we get too upset about this when he to try to step back and see the full picture which is world order

created still exist. it's in the perilous process of evolution and bad things may happen. my crystal ball is but the basic sinews of it. in 1989 the berlin wall falls and did we enter a new chapter in world history? >> without where at the end of history. democracy one, freedom on the rule of law one. thison is great for some people warned other forces were a foot nativism comes the side of tribalism, fearfulness about the other. these things i'm sorry to say never go away because it's the political system we try to exact and many political systems do a great job of trying to help us through these human urges that

these urges are here. people are tribal in their suspicious and they don't like thee other. they are easily steered off-track. i'md. describing myself and i'm describing everyone. that's the way we are so we were hoping we are past all of that in the cold war in and the course we weren't. w some smart scholars who thinks elvis and i'm sure scholars will attack him my point is they were smart people who said hey don't declare victory too soon picked we have some rough stuff and i mean human stuff ahead. i think it's a twilight struggle. we will always struggle with ourselves toto be better. >> what was ike's bluff? >> ike's bluff which only i could have pulled off was to threaten the soviet union with nuclear annihilation to keep

them from eitherer attacking usr being too aggressive. >> how did he pull it off? >> occasionally. he let it be known that we have a lot of nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons in the world willing to use them. this is not a bluff that anybody couldd make. it happened in our case and was made by the supreme allied commanderr of world war ii a five-star general who had conquered europe. if you are that man your bluffs have credibility. not every leader, not even the guy who followed him jack kennedy had that kind of credibility. it's a very eisenhower thing to do and i say all this because the foreign-policy is not applicable to others. it worked for him. i'm not sure how well it would have for travelers. he had credibility and the

coolness about it. he didn't allow himself to get flocked up. he grew up with wonderful values. he was a soldier who had seen a lot of four. actually not every combat himself but he had sent thousands of young men off to die. and he had to live with that. he would lie in his bunk and one man think his order was okay but he has delivered with sending not just to few fellows that whole armies off to die and hopefully to win but that burden had strengthened him. if it doesn't break you.

he had a heart and he took sleeping pills and all that. he paid a high physical cost for the tremendous pressure he was under. handle the pressure i think well. >> you write and "ike bluff" kennedy or johnson could not have done it. >> their speculation in what i call counterfactual so what would eisenhower or kennedy been like? i don't really know but they certainly had conquered europe and they have not had ike's experience. they don't seem to meet to have the same coolness. i don't think so. >> evan thomas e. 40, 45 years in the contemporaneous journalists. how do you make that segue into

the story as well. a one time was that kind of the sideline? >> i worked for the "washington post" company and the owner said journalism is a rough first draft of history. i was in thedy history business somewhat in journalism and in history i'm at a journalistic historian. i'm not a great archivist. i dependep on scholars and wheni get tont subject i'd try to find to the great scholars are who have devoted their lives to it who know a lot more about this than io. do. i'm in historian who goes and finds the deep dive stuff and they use their work and i find them and i talk to them, help me. i'm doing it right now actually so i'm a journalistic historian. as a journalist i was a journalist who tried in time and

"newsweek" to bring historical sensibility but at lease some sense of attachment. we are in a more familiar position to comment after and try to get perspective and say what do we think is goings on here and sometimes we were right about that and sometimes we were pronger half wrong but we were close. i was already doing you could call it an historian's work as a journalist. i'm oversimplifying this. >> before we leave president eisenhower i don't render every knowing you are reporting a memoir he was opposed to. >> he said so. there is a scholarly debate about this.

his son john remember they conversation were ike was in potsdam germany and he said with at the moment -- this bomb and we should use it to the scholars are skeptical of this because i didn't recorded i elsewhere. it seems to me i remember what the scholarly debate was but i remember reading in article cast doubt on this and maybe go, did he really? >> is not the only president you have written about mr. thomas and i don't know if you knew this but in c-span's newest book on president's or chapter on richard nixon is there featured chapter. he is ranked in this survey of historians that we do every couple of years as number 28. >> i guess so.t h it's a hard one because

president nixon did some amazingly big stuff and good stuff on the farm bill and opening up china was an amazing act of citizenship and also hate early in the united states goes to than moscow negotiate the first-ever nuclear arms treaty. how many president have done that and nixon had their worldview that you could pick at it but they were amazingly robust and working with henry kissinger as a national security pfizer very ambitious and was a successful domesticcc politicia. he ran on five national to get elected four times but only franklin roosevelt had done that. >> he won by think the second largest landslide in history. the past a lot of domestic

legislation especially on the environment. he created the epa. he was much more effective on civil rights than people think. i say that because he doomed his own presidency by his unruly emotions to be made decisions because he'd let his emotions carry him away and he wrecked his legacy. he was number 28 and really there's a self-inflicted wound they are not dealing with watergate when he could have. >> you also have a personal to people. >> my grandfather was a socialist candidate for president six times from 1928 to 1948 and that all sounds kind of prescient. he never got more than a million votes but the closest he came i think roosevelt beat him by

22,800,000 or something like s that. he was an unsuccessful politician but he did stand fors something. not things i personally agree with but i loved him and i'd mired him. >> do you remember your father's reaction? your father was a book editor. >> i got my reaction for my father who loves his father. he didn't agree with him but he admired him. >> was your grandfather socialism similar to today's socialistic movement? >> i don't know how to answer that. i mean it's certainly involved more government for sure more medical care. my grandfather's platform in

1932 look like the standard democratic platform now. the social well for 1932 is new if you look at the socialist platform in 1932 would look a lot like the far left of the party to the general notion of getting the government involved in helpingel people yes this isa different age and different politicalol situation. >> evan thomas your book "being nixon" came out in 2019 and to be fair it was sympathetic. >> my aim was to be. why did i write yet? i think it's the 13th nixon biography. i was going to sound guy

represent the east coast establishment press. my own politics are moderate. i'm not sure i have any politics but i went to harvard. i'm the type that nixon. nixon people like me, not personally. it would be interesting to reverse engineer this. and in the sympathetic way how did he see me and how did s he e the establishment of the "washington post" company which i worked and how did the world look at him and what was it likl being him and that's why the book is called "being nixon." i made the best effort i could to switch the lens so instead of me looking at him away was him looking at me. it was much more than that but that was the impetus of the book and the best part of the book really is sympathetic about

diplomacy where the east coast establishment where they treat him and you begin to understand whater he was resentful and he left the stuff get out of control. he really did. i am sympathetic because he was treated badly by my kind. he really was. >> why? snobbery tribalism. there's a scene in the 60s election and they are awesome garden party in georgetown and theyp are all up to john kenned. the smugness and the premise and aren't we better looking and are we better dressed, just better than nixon in the course of nixon would feel put down.

there was an arrogance to it that nixon was right but also it played off of some of our politics today. it's the descendent of richard nixon like k you can get votes by running against these people and this establishment. this can work for you. populism not all the way but he discovered this at whittier college and the story is a revealing to me. nixon is not very popular and is not delightful or an easy guy. dixon runs on the pro dancing take it. nixon himself can dance at all. he runs on it because the rich

kids can go dancing. they can go to clubs in l.a. country clubs in l.a.. it's a poor kid who can't. they are a lot more poor kids and rich kids at whittier college in 1934. nixon won by a landslide. it's the rich against poor thing. it's the needier kids running against the rich kids the fraternity colleges. it was the little man's party for paul halfback might be in it. go do the math smart politics. richard nixon coined the word, richard nixon coined the word the silent majority and the next election he ran and he won with more votes than any president in

history and the percentage of votes other than lbj was a hair better. so it worked. >> from your book "being nixon" nixon refused to cash in as an ex-president by sitting on corporate boards. >> it's interesting. it's been disputed up at and someone said that wasn't 100% true but i think it's generally true. nixon and his own way had principals. you know the i'm a crook, he didn't see himself as that way is all. he saw himself as somebody who didn't and their endless debates about this. i don't want to get too far on whether or not nixon was or was not a crook nixon was really offended by this. and to your point when he

retired he wanted to make his money honestly by writing books about great subjects. >> a little bit more of from "being nixon" before we break from this topic. nixon's relationship to break and successor was problematic. nixon told his family he thought bushna was quote the perfect vie president. bush had his own doubts about nixon expressed in a perceptive letter in july of 1974 quote george h.w. bush writing to his son about nixon, he is enormous and complicated. he's capable of great kindness. i'm not that close to him as a warm personal friend turning old people off some i've been around him enough to feel some kindness and it goes on to say deep in his heart richard nixon knew that george h.w. bush feels he was soft and not tough enough and not willing to do with the

instincts taught him. say a very astute letter. that's a pretty accurate portrayal of him. spend the hardball nixon never quite went away threatened bush and clinton going public against them if they did not follow his advice. >> oh man. nixon was nixon. >> but you want to say that bill clinton left him on hold for an hour and wouldn't take his calls when he first came in the office to after pat nixon's funeral. was there ever a result of that relationship? >> yeah, yeah clinton ended up liking him. it was very apropos. initially clinton was kind of a and dismissive of him. by the end of his presidency

clinton was praising nixon's advice. nixon trusted president clinton trusted nixon's advice. nixon was smart about the populist forces going to the soviet union. he read it while called the yeltsin and clinton listened and i don't know if they bonded. clinton has amazing ability to bond with anybody. i'm not sure bond a was the rigt word. >> evan thomas how many u.s. prisons have you met? >> let me see if i can count them. i met nixon the course. reagan i interviewed him and george h.w. bush pretty much all of them through obama.

>> evan thomas is our guest on booktv. he's the author of several books. we will show those to you right now and get your sense of what we have been talking about. the wiseman, the very best men in the early years of the cia came out in 96 robert kennedy, his wife, came out in 2000 john paul jones in 2004, cf. thunder, for naval commanders in the sea were came out in 2007 the war lovers roosevelt and the empire in 1998 came out nine years ago. "ike's bluff " came out in 2012 "being nixon" in 2015 and his most recent which we haven't touched on yet just came outut this year "first" about sandra day o'connor and will talk about

that in just a minute plus i want to mention evan thomas is the historian that c-span is chosen for it's chapter on richard nixon. the new book is called president eisenhower's secret battle to save the world noted historians rate their chief executive. we have a different historian forever present. evan thomas's information about richard nixon is our chapter in that book. 202 sierra code if you'd like to produce thinner conversation this afternoon 748-8200 and the eastern centralnd timezones. 748-8201 for those of you in the mountain of pacific timezones. will begin taking those calls in just few minutes and i want to mention you can contact us by social media. we will scroll through those addresses on the screen and the only thing after a member for twitter facebook instagram as @booktv.

the e-mail is booktv @c-span.org. who was edward bennett williams and then shouldn't we know? with the consequential in the long run? certainly consequential among lawyers. he was a unique washington figure in the name of the book was -- because in washington if you are i in trouble he could gt you off. jimmy half of the thames -- team through later and adam clayton powell the himself and treven john, the governor of texas a lot of people.eo he also he was a unique figure because he was a unique figure because he representative mafia figures, real and advised president of the united states. an unusual combination he's not well-known today but maybe he

should be because he was incredibly good lawyer. it's funny he would take his young lawyers out and say they want to be like you and he would say you can't but what he was saying is they don't have lawyers like that anymore. you can't be the kind of player who can represent a mafia don and the president of the united states and everybody in between. that general practice of law is all gone. >> would robert kennedy have been elected in 1968? >> i would like to say yes because it's romantic to say so. i'm influenced by hiss chief adviser. fred dutton told me know because we forget the democratic party was still the party of -- bosses

union bosses and machine bosses and those people were pledged to hubert humphrey so was going to take quite an earthquake to dislodgege hubert humphrey. now maybe he would have done it. he won california right before he was shot. maybe there would have been, the mythology has been that mayor daley of chicago have pledged to him his support. i guess like a lot of history i don't believe that one. my realistic political hat says no he would not have won the nomination. if he had won the nomination nixon might have beaten him because this is intuitive bobby kennedy was hot and tv is a cool

medium. nixon might have been cooler. we think of nixon as being of nixon has been on tv. i'm not so sure in thist case. you watch old clips of bobby kennedy and he was a little outt there. he would or he would go off but he wasn't that good on tv. jack kennedy was unbelievably good. bobby kennedy less so. >> bobby kennedy was the godfather for one of joe mccarthy's children. >> bobby was a young senate staffer on the committee. they had a working relationship that more than a joe mccarthy

senator joe went out with one oe bobby sisters bbu this. mccarthy she said really hard. we remember that detail but i think it was unison i can't rememberce that joe would show p at the kennedy place in hyannis port on the weekend. he didn't like the sony didn't fit in but there he was and there was a kind of loyalty irish catholic bond there. old joe kennedy liked joe mccarthy's anti-communism that was familiar in and the kennedy family supported so there was some linkage there. say gavin thomas lets take calls to see with their viewers have on their minds. this is jim in california. good morning, jim. >> it thank you very much for taking my call. it's really been fascinating listening to mr. thomas.

my question is a common question. you talk about eisenhower and "ike's bluff " and the person it would have been present if the would have been eisenhower would have been stevenson who i totally agree would not have been able tobe pull off "ike's bluff " at all. stevenson as president and he was a brilliant guy,ly absolutey brilliant and capable looking back at it i just don't think and i grew up during that. met. i was seven when eisenhower was elected president. you also talk about the thing about ike's bluff what about reagan? didn't reagan do something similar to that with gorbachev during the end of the cold war. not a right before it? >> jim, thank you for the here from mr. thomas.

>> i share most of what the viewer said. i agree with him i don't think stevenson was suited for the era of ike was. stevenson had many qualities. he was truly intelligent person and he may have done good things and may have been quicker on so the rights and those sorts of things. and to be fair these counterfactual djohar. samet -- hard to imagine what might have happened. maybe he would have been better about using the united nations n and diplomacy to bring the world to a safer place. maybe he would have been. i doubt it but maybe. and what was this other point? reagan. >> yale reagan. you can overstate this that reagan won the cold where there's the cold war.

and the soviet union collapsing from within but it's definitely true that reagan building up our military that was intimidating to the soviets. they didn't have the technology that we did that image of the kremlin with all those telephones because they could even have one telephone and they were sending military spending into ruin and they can keep up. you could make an argument i've read the argument that reagan kind of did i'll bless the soviet union. i've also heard that argument criticized and people say they there are many other factors. this is not something i'm well-versed in and i have completely outrun my supply lines here. >> evan thomas given your 40, 50 years of being a washingtonian what's that one quality every president seems to have?

>> the quality they need his judgment.bu judgment is a broad spectrum of things. they all have ambition and they'll have a for power. they couldn't get there without that so it's a necessary thing and i'm not critical of that for power. it's a crucial median for becoming with the present. it's not enough. once you get there yet to govern and a sense of power can help you. if your judgment is poor in your emotional judgment is poor and get yourself into trouble with the whole country which will be in trouble withyo you. lyndon johnson was a great president in many ways was emotionally not suited for it. he just kind of melted down. >> the next call for evan thomas

comes from jonathan milwaukee. hi jonathan. >> hello. thank you for taking my call. i've seen evan thomas on shows like this and it's honor to speak with you sir. i want to ask about justice o'connor. jan crawford's book in about the supreme court from a dozen years ago she reported that justice brennan h tended to rub justice o'connor the runway and it got more conservative during the 80s but inth the 90s justice thomas did not get along very well with justice o'connor and justice o'connor had issues with him and that helped influence her to vote more for the quote unquote liberal side in the 90s and it was the early 2000. i wonder if in your research you found any evidence to

corroborate that? >> jonathan thank you. >> there's some truth to both of those things that the important qualification and brennan's case it's true justice o'connor didn't totally trust friend who she thought had a liberal agenda and he was so if an -- insert things into the opinion and justice o'connor looked into the low things is up to so he she had a somewhat adversarial relationship with brennan. at the same time he liked brandon. he was a warm guy she liked him so you can overstate that. the same thing on the thomas site. yes justice thomas was like justice scalia a pretty doctrinaire conservative and originalist and justice o'connor

was pragmatic although a different kind of jurisprudence. on the other hand justice thomas told me a story about how was justice o'connor who got justice thomas to come to lunch after his confirmation hearing. it was really tough justice thomas told me i was feeling hammered and she was the one who made me come to lunch and he said that change everything. my life on the court got much better and so there were some closeness there when justice thomas brought hisug famous rv comedy travel around the country in an rv he went to phoenix to buy that and the o'connor family went out and bought it with him so they were personally close. justice thomas told me sandra day o'connor was the glue, the

one who made the play civil and made the court civil and the supreme court wasn't so civil before she got there i gather not so civil right now certainly in the 90s come to 1990 she made a more civil. >> i get from your book first that she was not a -- and she still alive at this point. sick she is. alzheimer's. she has dementia and probably alzheimer's. >> i get the idea from your book that she has not been a warm and fuzzy person. >> that's a complicated question. she can be very intimidating and she can be scary. when i matter is a a journalist she was pretty scary. she can be a little severe this is a very important but, there is a loving site to her that those who get to know her for law clerks.

we interviewed 94 of them so we got to know her world and those law clerks loved her. they found her austere and a little scary especially when they first started w over time they realized how much she cared about them. not every justice did in fact most of them don't or not that much. she did and that meant the world to them. she also could be very political and i've watched her work. in fact i saw her when she had alzheimer's. you'd never know she had alzheimer's and she could look in the eyeye and all that so ths ideaea for severity is overstat. i smoked -- like most people she's complicated and just different that show and different times in different ways. >> utila couple of stories number one her time in the arizona legislature was a good

path to the supreme court. >> it was in two senses. he was the first ever majority leader that was bmo. the first ever female state leader in history and at the time when there weren't women generally in law. when our number came up when president reagan was looking for a woman supreme court justice and he let it be known that he was serious there weren't that many.y. out of the 600 federal judges i think they were only eight women judges and they were almost all liberal democrats. she was pretty much it but she wasn't even a federal judge she was a state court of appeals judge at the time. her profile helped her get on the radar screen but more than that and more importantly being in the legislature helped her learn how to deal with obnoxious

people. >> she was not intimidated. >> she was not intimidated. you can imagine any state legislaturesh there aren't noxis men who were hard to deal with and she learned how to deal with them.rn usually by humoring them sometimes by walking away but she was very good about not getting into the ego thing. every once in while there was one story at the till. there was a house appropriations committee chairman at the time he was a. by 10:00 a.m. and she caught him -- called someone is drinking and he said he remanded in june than those and she looked back at him as she said if you are a man you couldn't. couch. she picked her shots. she didn't get into fights.

without the feeding in the dignity and she could retreat without losing any dignity. >> geddert to the court talking about her coming down the hall and one of her clerks hiding something inin the drawer. >> she believed, she was a very athletic woman herself. 14 handicap golfer. she wanted her clerks to be in good shape. so the women had to take an aerobics class with her on the supreme court. the supreme court's basketball court at 8:00 a.m. every day these poor women had to do aerobics with the justice and the men were not required to do that however one of the mail clerks she comes around the corner he puts it inut a drawero she won't see it. >> how did you get access to her husband collects

>> the diaries were in the paper. we got access to her papers the bookhis was written with the families cooperation. her papers are in the library of congress in their closed and they open the papers for us and we got them. thank you say we. >> my wife and i my wife rosie was a lawyer. i matter to civil procedure class at law school and she wanted it a career law. i never practiced law but she's a real lawyer and i'm not. but more than that she went on my interviews with me and she vetted all my books for years but but this was different. i had never what written about a woman before. she's from the west, southern californiake stanford and she helped mece understand justice o'connor better pedestal for evan thomas punch in care and

to. karen thanks for holding. please go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. i'm really enjoying the conversation about justice o'connor but i wanted to go back for a moment to a richard nixon and i wonder if evan thomas in his research of nixon and being a journalist was aware that nixon pay -- paved the path for the platte -- first black-ownedd and operated station which he glad -- granted a broadcast license away and the banks that open the path for dr. banks to start here in detroit the first black-owned and operated independent tv station in the united states. to make karen what station was sadder is that? >> the station went on the air 1975. debby gpr tv 62 per the station went on the air and made national headlines because it was the pioneer broadcasting but today there's there is a museum

in the original studio devoted to that history and william banks was invited to the white house at the time and nixon told him that he would work to help establish and get him a broadcast license which ultimately did happen. so mr. thomas was a journalist and i thought he might be interested. in: a footnote in detroit histy the city was widely known as the auto capitol motown but but this important piece of history. and i was just curious if he was aware of that. i >> karen pardon me karen you seem to have a pretty intimate knowledge. are you part of the bank's family did you work there? >> it was my first job out of college. i did work at the station as an intern as a news director. i knew william banks at i the

time. his granddaughter had written a book about him and i'm executive director of the william b. bank's broadcast museum which as i said is in detroit and tells the story of nixon, really of the station's history. there's another republican president who has a footprint at the museum gerald ford did a broadcast and send a message that was aired on theon station video of the museum congratulation in the station for being the first black-owned in the united states. >> karen thanks for: that evan thomas. >> i'm fascinated to hear that. i didn't know about that but i knew that nixon had a much better civil rights record than people think. politically nixon is known for his southern strategy in stirring up a vote in the south

and unattractive ways. that's true but at the same time he was such a contradictory figure that your eyes have a look at the buts. nixon was a guy who actually made integration happened in the south and even though the supreme court ordered it in 1950 ford still hadn't happened by 1968. nixon madede it happen and you could say he did that because the courts ordered him. other presence didn't do it that nixon did. and to the point of our viewers here in the 50s nixon reached out to the black community. republicans in the 90s were the party of lincoln and had ties to the black community that the democrats didn't have. the democratic party were the southern. it was the south and nixon for political reasons or if made a

play for votes and not just for political reasons. for instant when nixon was in college nixon nature that his fraternity took in a black athlete and i think maybe to. there is a record of nixon being progressivesi on race as a young person all overlooked because nixon's later politics meet people and rightly made people uncomfortable but i can't say enough of what a complicated guy he was. i know this last point nixon understood that it was important for african-americans in this country to have economic benefit. not to put too fine a point on it they c had canals. theyey didn't have a chance to accumulate wealth and nixon

understood this and cared about, he was an early affirmative action guy. he cared about making sure the wealth was spread around so have money did not. nixon was recognized. >> evan thomas your point about the elections in whittier versus the majority. gerald ford also had that early connection didn't he? >> i know less about ford than i do about nixon but the republican party got branded. the democrats began the party of african-americans and that not the way it was inn 1950s. in 1960 elections the kennedys were much better about openly playing to martin luther king

but as usual history is murkier and more complicated than we think it is or it least and this is cliché but that's true and that's true with nixon. >> speaking of murky you've written about dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. what was their relationship and what's your take on that? >> murky because look nixon ended up nixon's daughter ended up marrying eisenhower's son. >> still married. >> eisenhower and endorsed nixon but when nixon was eisenhower's vice president talk about cool people. be cold and he was pretty cold to nixon. he didn't know nixon.

he tried to nixon a couple of times from t the picket. eisenhower's idea was for nixon to be secretary of defense in the second term and it made sense to eisenhower but to nixon it looked like he wass getting dumped and it was very hurtful. so and i'm not sure eisenhower nixon.like i'm thinking of john eisenhower, eisenhower's son who told me this. my father told me that he gave himself in order to like nixon. he may have been exaggerating nixon was not always the most likeablee guy so there was some coolness there. ..

>> my question is, what was the relationship between nixon and johnson? more backgrounds they were not that different how they govern for a quick thank you paul. it was surprisingly good. they were both tough politicians. and i think in 1968 you could say lbj was more for nixon then he was for humphrey, for his own vice president. humphrey is being seduced by the piece part of the peace awake and the democratic party to try

to end the vietnam war by retreating. johnson won stay the course a little more thought nixon n woud be a smarter, tougher, prosecutor of his policies in vietnam than humphrey. so right there the democratic president is in some ways more sympathetic to the republican challenger than his own vice president.pr you have to stop and think of the pieces fit together but that's true whether it's historical evidence. i don't my friend at texas a&m believe that. so there is that. there was an affinity of tough smart politician the club a very practical hardball politicians. lbj and nixon had a bond of love to the hard thing politics let's not be soft.

they overdid that but i think there's some mutual respect there.ev >> evan thomas could you recall being nixon but being johnson? the same type of approach as the book? works there is some of that. certainly johnson's resentment i can see harvard as he calls them it's a love/hate ration relationship i wondered to be surrounded by them but wanted to own them read the crudest example georgia bundy the former dean at harvard met in the bathroom willl he was going in the bathroom to patrol him, shame him, gross amount. it's a very crude image so i apologize for even mentioning it. but it is a stark one that shows a johnson is a weird almost weird relationship to the east coast establishment. resenting them, fearing man but

also when to control the menus that are of the same time. pete complicated, people are complicated. >> and might, san diego please go to their question or comments. >> hi. you mentioned a minute ago about being the medium i'm wondering if that's true anymore trump is anything but cool on tv sports secondary for him to rally social media as his media strategy. >> has a pretty good point. pretty good point. >> what is your take? were you put him in history? >> it is way too early. >> i know. when he appears on tv? so do you compare him to? >> it is hard to compare them to anybody he does not fit neatly into the notions of presidency. i was fascinated when this all

began people keep writing president trump needs to become presidential. iti need to become presidential peak oxygen overwrite those words? >> no because i did not think that's what he is bringing to the table i did not write that. and may have wished it in some way i did not write it he is currently selling something else which was not presidential it was trump using different adjectives but not presidential. he has changed the game for that alone is going to be remembered he's an extremely effective communicator your viewer is right that is confounding he is a pretty effective communicator that is kind of the point he has broken the norms. we can get all hot and bothered how he broke the norms but the fact is he's broken the norms. and that is just an example of it. >> evan thomas you have two semi contemporaneouss histories of te presidency i want to make sure we mentioned.

that includes a long time coming baracked obama and back from the dead about bill clinton. what are those? >> every year -- make every election year presidential election year newsweek much to its credit and shows you how much time has passed with a witd dedicate an enormous team of reporters to just doing a single article. one article that would appear on election day. it would be a chronicle of the campaign. we would have four or five reports and i was the rewrite guy. my role on that was be the person that takes their reporting and puts it into 50000 would be the entire issue basically. it was 50000 word article. i met a couple of times to turn into books. the reason my name is on those, it was just a magazine article printed as a book. think we add a tiny bit but essentially it was a magazine

article printed as a book. my name is on it but i am the rewrite guy i'm taking other people's reporting. i'm very proud of those things. we spent at least $8 million in each one of them. great journalistic commitment that story. >> tweet for you from marshall mr. thomas, please speak about your writing process and do you have any advice marshall is in houston, texas. >> my writings? process has not changed over the years also i will add that to his quote. i'm not going to be very helpful on this. many because believe me. i don't have trouble writing. i wrote so much for

newsmagazines. i wrote thousands, thousands of words in his magazine on deadline. whatever's writer block i had went away because i did it so often. and so much. not something they're not any good my wife has to fix them. i don't have any problem so i'm not that helpful in getting people advice because it's just something i do naturally. it's one of the few things. i am not good at golf but i am good at writing. >> you take a notepad? do it on the computer, a typewriter? >> books i spent a lot on putting together the chronology on a computer. but they are chronological. there in chronology year-by-year but where to findd stuff. when you are writing a book you amass tons of books, notes, interviews where is all that the study? if i remember where did i find

it? it is to help me when i go back to write to know where did i find this so i can go back and look at it. in a right into the chronology i chronology iwrite narratives in. that is the one device i would lose all recommend i think it's good to write in chronology. if you doin it is much easier to organizeyo material. >> how do you avoid with your finger if you'd type it on the computer because i not sure what you mean your boxer thinking and typing at the same time sometimes if i'm writing something i have to sit and think about it at first. before i start to type it i wish sometimes i type before i think that it's a mistake because her rights and pretty stupid things. i try to slow down. and think, that's a good idea to think before you're right. that is a good idea.

when i get ready to write something difficult and op-ed or a beginning chapter i will walk around i will walk around i will play a lonely bed golf or from somewhere near a beach i walk on a beach or just walk around the neighborhood. i just marinate. it's a confusing cloud in my head it always is. after a while it will settle lc in order or a pattern. it might not always be a correct order or just important as the walking around is the rewrite. i will writeas stuff than my wie gets involved or other editors get involved in a rewrite. i'm 74 years old thinking about what might come next.

after listening to evan thomas, david mccullough and many others i have decided i want to come back is michael hill. please tell us more about mr. hill. he's the most wonderful human being ever, he just is. the reason why he has come up here he is the researcher primarily for he's a genius at finding step particularly joke play brings a love book so much they don't anyone to read them. he is such a decent person. at befriending and he is a smart guy. he can find stuff and get to know the archivist and finds treasures.

primarily david mccullough i've used a lot over the years and i hope to use them in the future. because it's a wonderful wonderful resource. he is a gem it. >> next call from evan thomas comes from highland, new jersey. >> good afternoon. my question is about nixon. you mentioned next to him was brought down by woodward and bernstein. don't we know that it was a mark in the fbi who fed them the information that was probably a cabal in the fbi. feeding the steady stream of information and they were simply

duped of the fbi. like what the fbi has tried to do to trump. quicksort karl, thank you precooked is certainly true mark was dubbed deep throat by mike woodward was an important source for bob woodward. he's not the only source. woodward and bernstein went around for the talk to a lot of people but yes, talk to sandy smith at "time" magazine and maybe some others. woodward and bernstein were knocking on a lot of doors. the prosecutors, that multiple multiple sources. this was not by any means and fbi thing. the best book on this is called leak by max holland. he wrote a book about, basically about, about, he really got into

the questions. i would recommend if you want to know what really happened i found that to be the most useful book on how the watergate. >> there are many others involved as well picnics are pretty certain nick is looking to see a book tv covered the books we will let you know. and then you can watch on our website at booktv.org. talk about that being the best book in your view on that topic. some of your favorite books include who just passed 101 years old robert penn warren all the kings men. for.meacham is a friend of yours >> is a friend of mine, a close friend of mine. i love that book because he inhabited george w. bush.

all biographers wish to do this and get into the head of her subjects it is hard to do. weo do our best but we fall short. meacham in the case of george w. bush actually succeeded because that's a rare book may be singular book the author inhabited the person he was writing about not uncritically but the heart and soul and mind of george h.w. bush to know what it was? read the book. >> just to go back to your latest book first you write in their george hw bush wife barbara bush and sandra day o'connor were good friends for. >> and played tennis together once a week on the vice president's tennis courts. they both had a strong personality which they would use on occasion. i think maybe sandra o'connor was maybe more politic than barbara bush was.

barbara bush was more outspoken. although sandra could be outspoken at times. anyway they were good friends there smart, tough, able, strong women. >> mr. thomas. after an appointment and a confirmation of supreme court justice, do they ever see their patron again? socially and anyway after words. and for all the justice. >> a littlee bit. answer them on new year's eve at the hamburg estate the first year as she went to the white house a couple of times did she get to know him well? no. they were talking about ranching and there is a natural affinity there. but no. and the obvious reason this is something that's wonderful about our country let's stop and think about this. just justices do not spend time

hanging around the president, why? they have to keep their distance. they are a third branch of government they have to make rulings that affect the person in the white house. until they keep their distance a little bit they can be friendly enough. i remember had a telephone connected him to lbj to the white house. that was a mistake that was wrong that's exception proves the rule. >> peter in richmond virginia. thank you for taking my call. i read your book about edward bennett williams a man to see when it first came out. i remember being so impressed with the wide variety of cases that he handled after about 25 years ina finally get to ask yo, aree there any publicly availabe

transcripts of those trials if someone wanted to read them and see how we handle them and that sort ofso thing? >> yes, i'm sure there, are. it's a little bit of a comp located question because i had access toqu his papers so i hado from that law firm i could look at you are asking where would you find them today? you know, there are court transcripts for sure. i'm doing this off the top of my head here. if you google the case i bet you could find transcripts to the internet. in my case ending at pre-internet 1988. so i am working from files of william's own files and papers those are not available to you. but i would bet to the internet you could find a lot of transcripts.s. certainly federal courts just by googling. >> just to go back max holland

if you go to c-span.org booktv.org you will be able to watch type up in the search function max holland. the video it will come up you will be able to watch it at your leisure online for free. next call for mr. thomas is norm and washington. you are on book tv. >> yes. i get it wrong every time. you are obviously an expert on the legal system i have heard twoou things. i would like to get your feedback on them if you feel. the legal system is a spiderweb of the lawyer who knows the

judge do you think there's any accuracy at all to the sayings? >> i think that of course there is accuracy because all old things have a kernel of truth. but the important thing is how they are wrong. those statements are actually in a large sense wrong. more than any system in the history of mankind our legal system is fair it does catch te big flies but not all of them some have good lawyers and they get away with stuff that is true. it is certainly true after the 2008 financial crisis. none of the big investment bankers i can give you a lot of examples of people escaping justice. but if you step away back and look at ourou legal system it is remarkably effective it has worked in ways that no other systemem has. the history of mankind is power.

it's people who have power and use their power and use the power to reward their friends and punish their enemies. and our sister more than any other has been able to mitigate that power by a rule of law we are a government of laws and not men. know that sounds like a cliché andaw has millions of exceptions to buy in large more than any system ever in history we have a system where it is the law that matters. not always but more often the rule of law i think is the greatest creation of a liberal democracy. >> alright, do you come after do it you're broke first on sandra day o'connor do you have any opinion on lifetime appointments for supreme court justices and judges in general? >> i can see the drawbacks of course there all the stories of people, justice douglas you need to carry him out of there.

once they get there they do not want to leave. it has a lot of power in you get looked after and all of that stuff.f. they give me pause of aging justices and we live in an age where medical science can keep you going forever. that does give me some pause. on the other hand i want to depoliticize the court is much as possible. i kind of like it's remoteness. i like the idea of tenure and keeping these people -- i am not for expanding the court. i know that is when the current ideas. my goal is how we get there. my goal g is to preserve the independence of the judiciary so that it can form this great function i was talking about earlier. preserving the rule of law. however we do that, that is the goal here. after retiring the justices earlier abort if not retiring them. that's the question we have to

ask however going to preserve the rule of law question 202's area l code 748-8200 feel in the eastern and central time zones. have a question for storing journalist evan thomas. 202-74-8201 for those of you in that mountain and pacific timeur zonene if you cannot get through on the phone lines we have about 40 minutes left in our show today. if you cannot get there on the phone lines get through the via social media. we've had great e-mails and tweets coming in the social media. thus the second avenue for you. this isth going to fit right ino our conversation last 10 minutes or so this is from gary he e-mails i then, in general are u a proponent of the great man theory or the times make the leader?eo >> is wendy's great maternal questions as to historians have. as a biographer i tend to be just to take a step back great

men and they were men make history. and of course ever since then scholars have rightly said wait a second period i thought great men it is disease it is revolution, it is a million little things. it's the enslaved americans rising up it's everything but great men who make history. there has been a flip and the ie academy certainly among academic people they'd long since discarded the great man theory of history. obvious to friends like me would go to great man theory of history in this sense. there are lots of times in history where personality and the character of a man or a woman will make a difference. as much about bread prices and the weather social forces.

or rising seas and is the personality personality does make a difference character does make a difference. sometimes it is the person sometimes it is some broad social force. >> many people have come to com, congress, presidency is it trainable? >> no, of course not. i do not mean to be flip about this.. >> you are a washingtonian. >> i am all for reform and reformists their great years in american history were drain the swamp notion blows up it was

really important. let's make the 1880s 1890s was too easy for big money to buy congress. or to buy a senator. i tried to drain the swamp. teddy roosevelt the antitrust action for the progressive era they did a lot to try to make government cleaner. did they succeed? partly. then things that backslide and you've got to do it again. that is american history cycles of history you commit and try to clean things up partial success never total success. motivations never go away. you have partial success and that is important because you've got to try. if we just gave up and said forget it, washington is

corrupt, people are evil, let it be that would not work either get a lot more correct if you think it's corrupted now, get rid of the free press get rid of reform movements you will see real corruption. every country in the history of the world who could not have free press had tremendous corruption, corruption of power corruption of money. even as distasteful as the press can be and it can be pretty distasteful, it performs an important function. its impetus to drain the swamp it could be political movements. that is an important movement. is not going to work it's not going to work in the pure sense but it is important not to be too disappointed when it doesn't work. the eye give up it's hopeless. you have to be engaged. specifically engage, locally be engaged to keep working at it. keep trying overle time great

things do happen. in our country's history a very long time. i took 100 years to free the slaves. i mean way too long. took another 100 years before african-americans in this country were given the rights they deserve. or are entitled to. you have to wait generations. it is outrageous. the arc of history does bend toward justice. things do get better. maybe very slowly i have a weak theory of history occult a weak theory of history which is it does get better two steps forward one step back but it does get better. >> but not on its own? >> know it takes people to do. that's not just inertial forces it takes a human being something very brave human beings. john beauchamp has wrote a book about this going back, looking

at our history very bad. this goes to the great man theory of history question. times in history that really look bad but where a president if the president was able to do very brave things. on civil rights but in other areas as well. things look really dark. one man or one lament was able to make a difference. that is the history of our country. >> let's go back to your favorite books. we looked at three of them that you sent us we discuss those three. we did not look at the fourth one and this is a book by john and a woman named luisa. she happened to be my daughter. my daughter is married and it's a fascinating guy. the professional football player in nfl football player alignment for the baltimore ravens.

he started for five games anment seas. getting his phd at mit is a math genius pretty unusual combination. and so he has written a book with my daughter called mind and matter. it is two-story it is his discovery of math in his life in football. it's alternating chapters. there is a commonality it is his fascination and why he was drawn to them and how to do both at once. there are a couple of years he was playing in the nfl and going to mit and getting his doctorate i don't know quite how we did that but he did. and it isng a great story.

>> are going to ask the producer on this one as well did we cover mind and matter in case people want to see it i cannot remember if we coveredo it. >> the book is adjust out. i don't think you did he's gotten a lot of publicity. but the book is just out. >> will certainly look at it. bob and oklahoma city, thank you for holding your on with author and historian. >> yes, good afternoon. first, let me say how much i really enjoy book tv. how much i enjoy his books and listening to him speak. and along those lines i was wondering if you need thoughts on the passing of tony horowitz this past week. thank you. thank you. >> i knew tony horwitz a little bit. a wonderful man just full of life. there is an expression that journalists use about walking the battlefield.going to the place where it happened. tony horwitz really did

>> guest: i think he wrote a book about -- i guess it was cook, maybe, through the pacific? he went down to the south. his most recent book is going down, his most recent book which is just with out, if i remember this right, he's following only stead -- >> host: yes. central park. >> guest: we think of him as the architect, the landscape architect, central park. actually before he was that, he was a new york times correspondent going into the south pre-civil war as kind of a spy. i think spy's a fair word. and so what tony horwitz did was toy retrace those steps and get to know the people in ways that journalists often don't, you know? one of the raps against journalists is we kind of sit up in our palaces in new york and, you know, just talk to each other. and tony or horowitz is that journalist/historian who

actually went and talked to the people. and god love him for that. and i can see high. -- why. i knew him well must have to know he had this tremendous personal warmth and curiosity and non-judgmental kind of warmth. he was smart as heck, but he could talk to anybody. and did. in a a way that that didn't judge, that was warm, that was smart. just such an -- such a tragic loss or, oh, my god. >> host: and it happened right here in washington. >> guest: it was right here at politics & prose -- >> host: yeah, the bookstore here. >> guest: he was justng walking around bethesda, his wife, geraldine brooks, is a great writer. >> host: pulitzer prize winner. >> guest: she writes historical fiction. >> host: and tony horwitz was at the carter center in atlanta the week prior to his untimely death. booktv covered him there. we aired it this weekend. so if you want to see one of mrs talking about his newest book on

frederick law olmsted, you can go to booktv.org, type in his name, horowitz, and you'll be able to join with it online. geraldine brooks, when she was on booktv, told us that she had final finally resigned herself to going to the antitam battlefield with her husband. she had been there countless times and would finally get out of the car and, you know, go on his tour with him. [laughter] >> guest: i bet it was great. >> host: yeah. randy's in slaughter, louisiana. randy, go ahead with your question or comment for evan thomas. >> caller: yes. i just wantti to make a comment. i think richard nixon did quite well when he, the visit with nikita kruschev in 1959, he handled that quite well. thank you. >> guest: he did. this is a famous theme. they had a debate, i think, in a model kitchen over -- a western

exhibit of western kitchen ware. nixon was there, but he confronted kruschev, the head of the soviet union, and they debated the cold war. spit really helped nixon's political position, because americans could seen hem as a forceful guy who could stand up to communists. he was on the cover of life and time at the time. it was an important moment for him in that weird, highly-charged period of the mid-cold war, 1959, when the soviets were our great enemies. and the important thing that the american and the soviet leader actually talked to each other. actually talked to each other. that didn't happen in the 19500s. we were in oural separate camps. but to bring them together face to face each though it was a contentious conversation, at least they were talking. >> host: well, your father at harpercollins, or at harper at the time, did something very unusual for the day. he gave somebody a million dollar advance for a book.

>> guest: you know, i'd for9 -- forgotten that. who got the advance? if. >> host: stalin's daughter. >> guest: my dad was the number two guy. i don't think he wrote that check -- [laughter] >> host: that was a huge amount ofe money at the time. >> guest: i'd forgotten that. patricia mcmillan, who e just saw recently, translated, was a translator. and believe it or not, i was the firstt american boy, stalin's daughter ever met. she had just gotten off the plane, and i was a 16-year-old boy on my way back to boarding school, and i went to patricia mcmillan's house on long island and svetlana, stalin's daughter, grabbed me and she said american boychek. [laughter] pinched my cheek. but i'd forgotten they paid her that much money. >> host: did harper's earn its

money back? >> guest: i doubt it. a million dollars was a heck of a lot of money back in the 1960s. i don't know. guessing that they didn't but i don't know. >> host: william's in colette that, california. hi, william. >> caller: good morning, how are you? my question is about a the problem, my observations about these -- you see on cable stations. to see that they morph into slavery. they fly too close to the son and become historians, they lose their perspective -- to close to the sun. you're probably friends with these people, but i see them on cnn, msnbc, and they become celebrities, hissertorians first and then -- historians first and then celebritieses. what do you think about this? >> host: the thank you, william. thank you, we got it. >> guest: i mean, it's a contentious issue that's evolved over time. i can remember when i was starting out in journalism, "the

new york times" did not want their journalists to go on tv. in fact, there was, i think, a rule about against it. and if i remember this right, the greathead rick smith who was forced to make a choice, either the times or going on tv. and, of course, that's all changed because -- >> host: steve roberts did the same thing, cokie roberts' husband. >> guest: okay. it was a different era. as time went on and cable comes into existence, then newspapers changed their mind and they want you to go on tv because it's a way of getting the story out, and it's good for business, and it's good for thetv egos of the people doing it. finish and journalists now get paid, some of them have contracts with msnbc or fox or whatever. have contracts. and so, and the publications are for it now. now, i just read the other day the times is maybe pulling back. if i remember this right, i saw

a story within the last two days, the new york the new york times stopped somebody from going on rachel maddow -- >> host: was it ms. weiss? >> guest: my supply line, i apologize. >> host: i agree. >> guest: my only point is these pendulums swing. it is a little bit of a complicated question because the old idea were journalists were so objective that they wouldn't give their opinions. you go on tv, and you start giving your opinion, and you are violating the old journalistic -- now, as a- journalism changed, it becameless self-consciously objective -- baime became less self-consciously objective and more analytical. and analysis gets you toward opinion, and it all gets kind of messy. and i don't know what i think of allto this. ith did this for 20 years. i would go talk on a panel with

some other journalists, and-not a big deal. the show was not a huge success. it was fun to do -- >> host: but you've also appeared on all the cable channels -- >> guest: oh, sure. >> host: you've certainly been on c-span 4 many, many -- c-span many, many times over the years. >> guest: i have. yeah. i mean, i think it's an issue to talk about, and i've been in newsrooms where they're talking about it. i don't know exactly where i come at. the credibility -- i guess credibility of the news organization is important. and if people don't believe you, that's not good. but going on tv doesn't make you unbelievable. it can make you more credible. but the journalists go on tv and they explain if why they did x, y or dis, that can actually -- or dis, that can add to the credibility. look, the new york times itself just started a new show called

"the weekly" where it's an attempt tone get their reporters in front ofre a camera to explan why they did what they did. i think that that transparency is good for journalism. that's a positive thing. but i can see at the same time that if a journalist who's covering the white house got on a tv show and started denouncing the president, whatever, that would make his editors a little bit uncomfortable. it's hard to have a hard, fast rule for these things, and i'm trying to the think this through as we talk because i'm really not sure what i believe about this. >> host: well, let's look back at the turn of the 19th, 20th century and the rivalry or the relationship between teddy roosevelt and william randolph hearst. [laughter] >> guest: that would be a case -- i wrote about this. hearst made a lot of money by selling two things, sex and crime. and he realized he could make even more money by selling a third thing, war.

so he actively wanted to get the united states into a war. the spanish-american war. and he claimed like a journal's war. that's not really true, but he claimed it. teddy roosevelt also wanted to get us into war for different reasons, because he thought the american empire needed to grow. they had a confluence, but they hated each other. they -- i think roosevelt looked down on hearst, hearst felt patronized by roosevelt a little bit like richard nixon, actually,s if you think about it. and so they didn't have a cozy relationship, to pit mildly. but, youou know -- to put it mildly. but this is a great country, and the press uses politicians, and politicians use the press, and i suppose roosevelt and hearst used each other. >> host: next call for evan thomas, janice in new york. janice, you have been very patient. >> caller: hi. thanks for having me on. i have a question, a comment and just by way of grounding, ordinarily i wouldn't introduce

myself this way, but i am a former c-span guest as an author and historian. and ironically, i co-anchored watergate. so, which brings us to my questions regarding your comments about nixon. i am a little bit concerned, honestly, mr. thomas, about the way you kindne of use the phrase tribalism to be the a little bit dismissive of some of the serious is flaws not only in the country, but in our thisstanding of what country has historically done, is still doing. nixon, by way of example, nixon wasn't responsible for being the lead president on civil rights. if anybody, it would have been johnson. but in truth, it was the people whose dead bodies were being

washed up by the backlash of the, that nixon helped fuel if -- >> host: hey, janice, two things. >> caller: -- strategy. >> host: if you could turn off your tv, it's a little difficult to hear you and the tv at the same time. just talk the mr. thomas without the tv in the background, and you give an example of what you mean by the use of tribalism? >> caller: well, earlier evan had said that essentially, you know, he knew it was a bit of tribalism, and in a way what he was referring to, i can't be absolutely specific, but i will tell you that a when i heard it inin context, i said, oh, that's white maleco supremacy. you know? it's the old school, it's the so-called elites. it was, it was in that context. that that it was mentioned.

>> host: okay. thank you for calling in. let's see if mr. thomas has like i'm guilty of white supremacy, please. you know, that's not, that's not me. that's not what i'm saying. mix son was not -- nixon was not the lead forcen on civil right, you're right about that. lyndon johnson dud way more than richard nixon ever did. but nixon is relegated to being considered to be a racist and a bad guy, and nixon made some racist comments on those tapes. he did. and nixon was not blameless in this area. >> host: so did lbj. >> guest: and so did lbj. my only point is that nixon did more than we realize in the cause of civil rights. >> host: and you went back to his vice presidency. >> guest: yes, in the '50s, he certainly did. he was opposed to martin luther king, had a bit of a relationship with nixon and are

respectful relationship with him. in the '50s nixon was -- i wouldn't say he was an activist for civil rights, but he was not unfriend hi to the cause of civil rights -- unfriendly. when he became president, he made sure that the schools in the south were integrated. and you can look at the statistics on this one. he came in, a tiny percentage of blacks were in integrated schools. within a couple of years, a large percentage were. he really moved the numbers. that has been overlooked, and george schultz talked about this, actually, his labor secretary. and so i think nixon deserves some credit for that. but when i used the the word tribalism, i mean that there's a streak in american politics where people naturally want to be partt of their own gang, ther own group. and they look at their tribe as their group, and they look down or askance at the other, capital t, capital o to, the other. the other can be white or they

can be black or can be, you know, whatever color you want, this religion or that religion. but it's the other. i got my group, and there's that group, and we're not the same group. now, sometimes there's some intermixing between these groups, but when i use the word tribalism, that's what i'm referring to. it's the fear of the other, looking down on the other and building up your own group. we had hoped after the end of the cold war that we were going to go to a new era that was beyond tribalism. that didn't happen. and i think in the united states today there is the a lot of tribalism. >> host: and with the nixon example you're reusing, we are talking mainly about the eastern establishment, the so-called eastern establishment here in the country. >> guest: yeah, yeah. i mean, and there was -- i mean, i'm loosely using the word tribalism there. there was -- mix son regarded the establishment as this other group, and he was fearful of them. he thought they looked down on him. and they, actually, he was not wrong about that.

he wasas not wrong about that. that group, the eastern established press, looked down on nixon. i worked for "the washington post" company. believe me, i was there. i was -- i know how they felt about nixon. >> host: did you have that feeling insidee you as well? >> guest: yes. i was condescending to nixon, and i, i don't think that was right. [laughter] i don't think that was right. one reason i wrote the book was to explore those feelings and understand that and to try to understand that better. you know, i'm guilty, i'm sure, of all sorts of assumptions, presents, whatever you want to call 'em -- prejudices, whatever you want to call 'em as is everyone. every human being has these. they just go would be the without saying. we may not like to admit it, but we also got 'em, you know? as journalist, i want to understand that better and get to the roots of it, and just as a person to understand it better. and so i -- that's my context, i think, i hope that's what concern if mys communicated,

that i apologize, but that's what i'm trying to communicate. >> host: evans van thomas is currently winning -- reading a book by pulitzer prize winning rick atkinson. >> guest: i i just started listening to it on audible, and i justit got through lexington d concord. rick attkisson is the great military historian. he can really bring it. he's a whole other order. he's not just giving you military history, there's a literary quality and a depth of vision and storytelling, and you are right there. so he'sh just -- as i was drivg here this morning, i was marching back from lexingington and concord with these beleaguered red coats, british soldiers, as the minutemen are taking pot shots at them, and i'm right there. i felt like i was marching down that road from lexington back to boston, you know, taking cover. so i was literally in the thing

of rick atkinson just a couple of hours ago. that's a gift that he has. i know i'm going to love this book, you know in i'm early in it, but i know i'm going to love all three by him. >> host: did rick read his own book, do you know? >> guest: he would write a prologue or introduction, but then he has a professional a actor reading the rest. >> host: do you find yourself doing that more and more, the audible version? >> guest: my wife ande i listen to a lot of books as we travel. sure. my daughter sends us novels that she thinks we'll like, so we do some of that. i generally don't do nonfiction. i'm doing it in this case because atkinson's sod good, it's like fiction, you know? it's so memorable, it's so immediate and gripping. but mostly we listen to nonfiction, a wide variety. our daughter provides a lot or we askds friends. >> host: and this is rick atkinson's, the first in his trilogy on the revolutionary

war. >> guest: right. >> host: jason, salem oregon, you're on with historian and journalist evan thomas. >> caller: thank you for having me on today. i've enjoyed this program of mr. i have several questions for you. a few moments ago you were speaking about the meeting between president nixon and kruschev in 1959 and how you felt it was sort of a ground breaking meeting that happened, you know, we kind of kept to ourselves. and i'm wondering if you see a certain correlation between what president trump has done with meeting with kim jong un. that that's my first question. and the second question would be do you find yourself correlating things that happen today with certain experiences you have had in your long career and maybe making conclusions about that? >> guest: well, to answer both questions at once, there are, there are always patterns.

but with i think there's some cliche, history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes, you know? there are some patterns, but you can overstate them, and it's a problem for people like me, journalists, historians, historian-journalist, whatever i am. you can overdo this. oh, i remember, this is just like the cuban missile crisis. well, no, it's not. a it's a little bit like it, but other circumstances do change. to go to your first question, generally speaking, it's good when leaders meet. i believe that. but there's a whole school of thought that says it's also dangerous. that that a summit meeting that's not prebaked, precooked, rehearsed where everything's worked out can do more harm than good. they can get into areas that will cause trouble, and so there is -- particularly a state department view -- that you want to have the everything sort of precooked, and that's sort of not -- president trump is more of a wing it kind of guy. i am personally torn about this.

i have a foot in both camps. i generally believe, as i said about anybodies son and kruschev, it was a good thing -- about nixon and kruschev. that was an informal meeting, that was not preplanned. that was almost an accident that happened and that there was a tv camera there and all that. but i think it was a good thing. i also a understand the view that negotiations can go south if they're not, if the leaders haven't clearly figured out what there is they're trying to do. sometimes they can go south, interesting, reagan and gorbachev in reykjavik almost ended in nuclear weapons. itth didn't, but it was an interesting moment in history. i think it was great that nixon went to moscow in 19722 and negotiated the treaty. that was great. i, now, in the current day i don't know what to make of president trump doing it. i would like to, i would like to

envy north korean -- end the nuke north korean threat aimed at me. how you do that is a hard problem. they're a closed society over there the in north korea. they're not really talking to us. and it's a problem that has defeat administration after administration if after administration have gotten nowhere. now, trump is trying his own thing here. he's being ridiculed in some camps for doing it. i don't know. the answer is i don't know what's going to work. i think it's a good thing to try. i hope it doesn't get out of control, i hope he doesn't make a mistake. of course, i hope all hose things, but, listen, i sort of feel you ought to try everything. >> host: well, evant thomas, eisenhower was dealing with the north koreans. you talk about that in ike's bluff. have we, over the years, had a pretty sturdy back with channel into north korea? >> guest: no. we have not. we've had to go through other, i mean,re in ike's case the story always was that he threatened to

use nuclear weapons to end the korean war. but, and he sent that message through indirect diplomatic channels really aim ad at moscod beijing. they were backing north korea in the war. it was aimed at all three of those parties. there was a huge dispute amongst scholars whether the message got through, what it meant. we could go on for hours about that, but that shows the difficulty of this diplomacy. it's not easy. and ike was, i think, a master this. but even inab his case, i'm not really sure what happened there and what worked. it's -- international diplomacy especially when nuclear weapons are involved is at once critically important and very hard to do. >> host: if you'll think about one of your favorite journalistic stories that you've covered over the last 40-45 years as we take this call from rachel in tucson. hi, rachel. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i was wondering what does mr. thomas think about historians going on tv voicing theirwa opinions -- [laughter] and then lining up to buy their books hoping that they're giving us an objective opinion or read on the person they're writing about? also what influence did his grandfather is have on him in i think mr. thomas was a young man. he must have known his grandfather was a socialist at the time -- >> guest: i did. >> caller: and also has he read mark levin's book, unfreedom of the press? that's it. thank you so much. >> host: rachel? do you think it's improper for mr. thomas to be here taking calls and having a chat about his work and history and things like that? >> caller: oh, absolutely not. no. >> host: okay.

>> caller: i'm talking about when i ask a -- >> host: what's that, ma'am? >> caller: when i asked about historians going on tv and voicing their opinions marley about donald trump -- particularly about donald trump, i'm meaning where they go on msnbc, cnn, many other venues for people to see them. that's m what i mean. no, i'm glad he's here. i love listening to him. >> host: all right. thank you so much forre calling in, rachel. >> guest: well i, look, when i publish a book, i go on any damn tv show that'll have me -- [laughter] because i want to sell the books. but she does put herself on something a little tricky because you can get drawn into very politicized discussions. that's what cable tv is selling, political argument as, you know? msnbc, that's what they're doing. so you can get drawn into those things, and it can make -- actually, tell you the truth, make me uncomfortable.

i'm on the book trying to sell the show, i'm trying not to get drawn into that argument. i don't know enough, i'm not a journalist anymore. i retired from "newsweek" in 2010. that was nine years ago. i'm not in the loop the way i used to be. yeah, i read the paper and try to stay informed, but my opinions now are about my books. they're not about donald trump. i mean, i just -- we were just talking about donald trump, and you cann see, i'm not sure what to think about the donald trump. >> host: mark levin's book, new book? >> guest: i don't, but tell me what it's about. >> host: and i apologize, we've covered it on booktv or we're about to cover it, and i can't think of the name offhand. i'm sure my price will type that in very quickly and we can tell you that. the unfree press or something like that. >> guest: i don't know, i'm sorry, i just don't know it. >> host: it's mark mark levin's new book. and your grandfather, any influence that your grandfather had on you? >> guest: well, he didn't make me a socialist, you know? [laughter] i'm not sure he wanted to. >> host: was it, i mean, was he kind of a -- pardon me, was he

the crazy uncle in the attic in a sense in any way, shape or form? >> guest: no, not. if i've implied that, that's wrong -- >> host: no, no, you have not at all. >> guest: he was at. wonderful grandfather. he was very -- >> host: what did he do for a living? >> guest: this is humorous. he lived off the great socialist lived off, i think, checks from his h wife whose grandfather founded a u.s. trust the company. so basically his socialist career was supported by, i think, dividend checks from u.s. truster company. think.di >> host: he could afford to be a socialist. >> guest: he also sold some books. he had a little income. i think that's -- they weren't rich. i don't mean to imply -- they were not rich, but they had a comfortablead upper middle class life, and i think that's where the money came from. it's sort of ironic or amusing, i guess. my grandfather was a wonderful

man to me, a little boy growing up, he was a loving grandfather. >> host: what is that journalistic story, in the next 30 second, that you wanted to share with us. >> guest: 9/11. >> host: were you here in d.c.? >> guest: yes. i saw the -- i didn't see the plane hit the pentagon, but i saw the orange fireball out my window. i overlook the potomac river, and, you know, it was a horrible but to be a journalist unbelievable time to be. and we produced, like, three magazines in four days, something like that. and wee just worked around the clock, and it was incredibly vital and exciting, and i remember thinking i was getting a little bored in journalism that summer. i remember thinking i'm bored, maybe i should teach. the i wasn't bored after 9/11. >> host: what's your next week book? >> guest: it's about dropping the atomic bomb on japan. early days, still working on it, but i'm really interested in this question of moral, moral men doing things that were

arguably not so moral. how does that work? what's that like? what's that like for them. so that's -- from the american side but also prosecute japanese side. i -- from the japanese si. >> host: evan thomas has been our guest on booktv's" in depth." his most recent book, first, about sandra day o'connor, we truly appreciate your time this afternoon. >> guest: thanks. it was great to be here. ..

revenge of the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 constantly television companies and more including spark light. >> what is great internet? at the strong, is that fast? is it reliable? at spark quote we note connection goes way beyond technology. monday morning meeting and everything in between. the best connections are always there. right when you need them. so how you notes great internet? because it works. we are spark light and we are always working for you pretty quick spark light along with these television companies support cspan2 are the public service. >> good evening everybody. while, this is g