unfiltered congressional coverage for five years. here's a highlight of a key moment. >> the distinguished gentleman from california. >> my colleague is yielding. today my firstborn is to be married at 5:00. and again i find myself standing in the chamber hoping that this is not one more time when i miss one more event of young children that i love and love me. to get married in 1990 as an act of love, faith, inactive idealism. the veto is an act of cynicism. cut off this debate, we know how we are going to vote, let's override this veto and let me love my son. >> c-span, powered by cable.

the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source on capitol hill. providing unfiltered coverage of government. all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. joining us now is lawyer and historian thomas boston author of the new book, how the best did it. welcome. >> glad to be here. >> why don't you start by telling us, why did you write the book? what did you find out? what did you want to share? >> most of us have a general awareness of our greatest presidents. not enough of us have gone deep

on what exactly it was. that was the purpose of the book. anyone who is or aspires to be a leader or if you're already a leader, a better leader. these are specific lessons from history that can be applied to anyone in any field if you're a company, law firm, media studio, whatever it might be. these lessons are timeless and they apply across the board. >> you are a lawyer by trade, this is your fifth book. earlier books were focused on baseball. how did you get into writing presidential history? >> when i finished the second one i realize i have written about everything in baseball that i truly cared about. my last two books were presidential history. i have been a fan of presidential history since i was seven years old. my mother got me presidential trading cars where i could

memorize them in order. what were the great things that they did? i went to grade school in the early 60s when america was celebrating the civil war. i have been a student of presidential history my whole life. over the last 10 years, this was my sole focus about what i have written about and read. >> the book looks at a different presidents. how did you pick those eight? >> my choice for my eight greatest presidents comes from the c-span presidential ranking poll. the top nine have been the same. i think truman is overrated and reagan is underrated. i think that truman got us into

korea and had no idea how to get us out. completely ineffective with dealing with mccarthyism. he gets a lot of credit for dropping bombs. there was no way that we were not going to drop those bombs. plan b was to invade japan. the best thing that happened to harry truman was the biography that endeared him to many. i'm very satisfied with my choice. as i mentioned, closely tied to the c-span poll. >> the historian survey done in 2021 is done every time there is a change of administration. done in 2021, 2017, 2009 and 2020. the presidents you mentioned in your book largely stay in the same position. why are those presidents widely

regarded? >> in large part because throughout their presidencies they abided by leadership traits that caused them to be so successful for the most part. in all respects, people like washington and lincoln, integrity, credibility, all these persons are extremely effective communicators. there is a historical record of each of them. it is accessible for how they went about their lives to make them so worthy of emulation and study. these things do not change over time. >> we are talking with thomas boston about his book. how the best did it, leadership lessons from our top president. we will be taking your calls. you can start calling in now. democrats your line is 202-748- 8000 and from your book, it

talks about one of the chapters you just mentioned. how to be the most successf d esteemed leader of imaginable. let's look is quote from your book. before e art of his first term in march 1861 he famously chose a team of rivals for hi cabinet. some of whom haopposed him at the republican conventi 1860. this assemblage of talent was immortalized in her award- winning book, with that tie. despite being discredited and disrespected by new york senator william stewart that he chose as secretarofstate, ohio governor chase and edwin stanton, his secretary of war.

lincoln refused to take the slights personally and chose them to serve in his cabinet believing he would need their skills to lead the country during his presidency which he knew from the start would be tempestuous. he explained his decision. these are the strongest men and i had no right to deprive the country of their services. what happened? >> it did not take long for them to realize that in fact abraham lincoln that they had discredited before they served under him did not take them long to realize that he is the smartest guy in the room and his head and shoulders above the rest of us in terms of his wisdom, brilliance, emotional intelligence, every aspect of the way that he interacted with them. mutual respect earning their respect promptly. chase who could never get beyond his own ego and was always undermining lincoln. he considered running against

him in the 1864 nomination and ultimately dropped out and to show his magnanimity. he went off as supreme court chief justice and names him as a u.s. supreme court chief justice. always forgiving and never took the bait. the way that he worked with his cabinet was matched with how he treated union generals. he was a distinguished west point grad. it did not take long to realize he was not good at war. he did not want to engage in battles. if they were going to win the war, it would have to be a hard war. he read about military history and strategy and implements a game plan for the balance of the war and so ultimately even though he had never been to west point and had one year of former schooling, he devised a plan that would win the war.

>> overall the chapter is how to be the most successful and esteemed leader imaginable. obviously that worked well for lincoln. tie that together. how does history remember that? >> my book contains 24 leadership traits across these eight presidents. an average of three per president. lincoln embodied all 24 traits. he is head and shoulders above the other presidents. there is a quote earlier in the chapter. lincoln is head and shoulders above any other leader in world history. he was a strategist, he knew how to handle people. he was eloquent and in the first inaugural address and the famous words, better angels of our nature. he is a strategist, and organizer to organize this war effort. as the highest moralist that

can bring about the end of slavery. and be prepared to bring the country back together and he was fascinated. this was america's most typical year in our history. 750,000 people were killed. many amputees. to be a leader in that type of situation is unique in american history. at every juncture, lincoln found a way to found in moving forward. >> that is according to the c- span historian survey. every year we have done it, lincoln has come in at number one. let's hear from our audience. we will hear first from clearance calling from miami florida on the independent line. good morning, clarence. >> good morning. i want to ask about eisenhower in your book.

i find it to be so interesting because you have american presidents that fought against britain and france. can you speak to why eisenhower opposed the israeli invasion of egypt. it is not that far from world war ii. it was just over 10 years ago. was there any blowback to standing up against britain and france and the secretary of state during this incident? >> eisenhower stepped up in the crisis because he had told the leaders of england and france not to do it for fear of engaging in that type of

aggression, that it would trigger an onslaught from the soviet union and there by disrupt what is going on in the middle east and disrupt the balance of power in the cold war. the last thing that he wanted was world war iii or anything that will instigate world war iii. that is why he took such strong action. and because of the way he responded to a playing hardball and imposing sanctions, denying the three country requests for substitute oil and denying the request to provide dollars to stabilize the british pound. soon there was a cease-fire. when bryn would not remove their troops, eisenhower bought up all the pounds and told the prime minister he does not get all of the troops out he will

drive the pounded down to max zero. playing hardball when someone goes directly against your wishes. within a nano second those british troops had left. in terms of the american response, people understood that you have to do what it takes to avoid world war iii. you have to show that we are the strongest nation in the world and we get to make decisions. when eisenhower as the supreme commander takes on somebody who is violating what he thinks is necessary to preserve world order and does what it takes to preserve it. people were very understanding. it's always a good idea when you are pursuing national action to get the approval from the united nations and of course, he had gone that by getting those sanctions. eisenhower was a master organizer and working within an

organization in world war ii and throughout his presidency. he had to play hardball in order to achieve quick results. he did not want that situation to be prolonged and more complicated. you deal with it quickly, achieve the desired results and moved on. >> let's hear from patrick calling on the democrats line. good morning, patrick. >> hello. i would like to know why in history we look at what is going on now in our country compared to germany in the late 1920s, early 30s. the comparisons are there. thank you. >> i assume you are talking about the 2024 presidential campaign and our current president and most reasoned and

former president. presidents trump and biden. we are in a unique situation. never have 70% of the american people said that we do not want either one of these guys. never before from my perspective. particularly during my lifetime have we had presidents that are devoid of the leadership traits that i read about in my book. my great hope and to your question about what was going on in the 20s and 30s, that the american courts will continue to enforce the rule of law and that congress will find ways to be more and more responsive to what the american people need on so many fronts. when presidents have enormous

power and in recent years the way they use executive orders, i don't think that either of these presidents have the respect. you can see high disapproval ratings. again, your question, when there was such a mediocre level of leadership that led to hitler's rise. i do not expect that to happen. i'm hoping that whoever wins this election in november, somehow, wherever it turns out to be, the country will survive and that four years from now, we will have a new wave of the younger leaders with greater leadership traits to leave the country in a higher and different direction. that is the story of american history. we have not had one great president one after another after another. there are gaps in between the gray presidents. we just have to rely on the rule of law. rely on congress and the balance of power and hope that

nothing will lead to a situation like germany had in the late 30s and early 40s. i created world war ii. >> not from a historian perspective, something in your book is how past presidents i you look at, what they would say about present-day politics. tell us about that. >> in the book in my closing thoughts chapter, if these presidents came back in 2024 and look at the situation of the country, what would they say to us? i go through all eight. george washington, do you think today is tough? what about in my day? we were having the start of the country. with all new institutions row government was going to work. in his own terms, major-league

stuff. with what we have with political polarization and anger between the parties, it was regarded as minor-league stuff. thomas jefferson, after the john adams presidency, congress passed a law that anybody that criticized president adams were imprisoned by exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights and so the nation that jefferson was coming into and over his eight years, he wrote down those laws. if he is here today and sees the level of polarization. look, stop complaining. think of what you can do to break down these walls today. listen to other points of view. engage in civil discourse. we are mutually respectful.

it works both ways when you show respect. all eight presidents because of where they were coming from doing their lives and during the presidency, they have thoughts that i believe would still be timeless. here is reagan, the eternal optimist. as easy as it is to be pessimistic today, do not lose your optimism. do not lose your belief in american exceptionalism. we will come back after the disaster is presidency. long gas lines, hostages i cannot get out of iran, that is kind of what in many ways we have right now. along came reagan, within four years, he restored the economy. well on his way to winning the cold war. and obviously facilitating all of the progress that was made in his second term that led to

the end of the cold war. you can look at these presidents, it's not hard. they would feel very strongly about what we need to do today. it sure would be wise for all of us to not only think about that but to revive our optimism that the future, we have every reason to believe that the future will be bright. when we get leaders in place that have the wherewithal to bring the country back. >> let's hear from brady calling from maryland on the independent line. good morning, brady. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. this is a subject that i have thought about for a long time because i grew up in the 70s with broadcasting radio. and president reagan, two things that i think i've changed everything in the country. started with reagan when he got rid of the fairness doctrine. or that point in time everyone

in broadcasting was required to have balance. you had to present both sides of every controversial issues. he got rid of the fairness doctrine and create a situation where everyone has their own truth. now i don't watch fox. i do watch fox because of what they say but also because of what they don't say. and then i go to cnn to see what they say versus what they don't say. when everybody has their own truth and that is the worst possible thing. brady, do you have a question? >> yes. how do we get to a point where cities -- people are allowed to make a common truth. everyone is fighting diligently

on their side. without understanding the other side of the equation. how do we get there? >> we need to dig chance will be for figuring out where the truth is. in terms of absolute truth. there are different slants that are well justified based on everything we know. in support of conflicting beliefs. in terms of the way that the networks operate, for the most part, this is not true of c- span which does a great job of being neutral. so many of the networks, it is all about money. they want to attract advertisers and advertisers have political persuasions. they are targeting their products to a certain segment of the population. one network is extreme right and another is extreme left and

you don't have balance in the middle. with each new generation, we have higher educational achievements, we read more, think more, hear more and i don't know if we listen more. it is up to each of us to figure out, with these conflicting viewpoints, where do i think the truth really is? to find the truth, you have to listen to the conflicting viewpoints. you have to weigh the evidence on both sides. that is the process. we don't have -- saying here is the news tonight, america. you can believe all the words coming out of my mouth. it's not that way anymore. it's not necessarily bad. i don't like partial news. i like complete news. you make a good point. one network rings are all kinds of facts that the other network ignores. when that's going on, you can

draw the conclusion that this is not an impartial, fair and balanced perspective. that is our job as citizens to evaluate these different resources and come to in our own minds what we have drawn as a happy medium truth. that calls to mind why 70% of the american people don't know who to vote for in this election. the networks on both sides have slanted the perspectives on the presumptive nominees. it is hard to evaluate the complete truth on either one of them. that is the choice that americans are going to have to make. it is not an easy choice. a more proactive approach of forming opinions and where we are now. >> another chapter looked at president theodore roosevelt. he came across in a number four in the presidential historical

survey like theodore roevelt here, this is an excerpt. before theodo osevelt entered the oval office in 1901, esident had ever attempted to settle a national labor strike, break up a monopoly, make an integrated effort to preserve nature, apply the law equally to the ri and the working poor or sert america's power over the world order and to advance these causes in many instances despite them being in conflict with the leaders of his own republican party. his predecessors refused to pursue these presidencies. congress, not the president should be the instrument for moving the needle. if congress failed to make something happen then it was not supposed to happen.

talk about his approach? >> theodore roosevelt was probably the highest iq president. he had a photographic memory. he wrote more books than any president. he was brilliant. he could see that for the most part, the federal government was not working effectively. not addressing many of the issues that needed to be addressed. if he followed his predecessors, we would be stuck in the status quo. and roosevelt said no, i do know like the status quo. things to be done to make america better. theodore roosevelt was a highly courageous leader. talking about roughriders in the spanish-american world war, he was courageous. for example, one year into his presidency, there is a strike. coal miners are on strike and

they have ongoing conversations with coal company owners. winter is approaching. half the country will freeze to death because no one has any coal. and so no american president had ever engaged in trying to solve a labor dispute before, theodore roosevelt jumped in, brought the two sides together, brainstorming areas where they can find common ground to move forward. getting them to agree to binding arbitration, the strike is over and no one freezes to death. that is one example. right. he used the sherman act tot. pursue these monopolies. a whole lot richer and everybody else to fall further and further down. to use the sherman act to pursue these monopolies and again, we all know what he did

to expand the national parks and wildlife refuges. looking around, what needs to be better in this country? is congress doing anything about it? i am esthe president of the united states. i'm going to move forward. they were concerned about their place in history. when historians look back, what are they going to say this president did and theodore roosevelt had quite a record. the fact is, he ranked fourth in a situation where there was not a war, there was not a great depression, all of these things that cause presidential stature to rise, he did not have anything and yet he is it ranked number four. also, keep in mind the youngest president we ever had. he became president at 42 after mckinley was killed. he left the white house at 50 years old.

he leaves out the white house when he is 30 years younger than president biden is now. in expanding the presidency in it is just a testimony to his incredible achievements.very positive ways. >> a question on x. it says just curious, how many served in the military? >> washington did and jefferson didn't. lincoln served in the militia but never saw combat. theodore roosevelt served in the military. franklin roosevelt was the assistant secretary of the navy during world war i. of course, eisenhower was the supreme allied commander. kennedy in pt 109. aerobics the during world war ii. and then reagan served in the military. his role in the military was to make military films airing world war ii. with the exception of jefferson and arguably lincoln, they all served in the military. t

>> you looked at, there is 24 traits. what were some of the most common leadership traits that kept coming up with these eight? >> well, i didn't want to repeat any traits. i didn't want the reader to read about washington's integrity in chapter 1 and lincolns integrity in chapter 3 because it would be talking about the same thing. it's good to have high integrity and high credibility. many of them have high levels of integrity. in terms of three -- in terms of common traits, they were all great persuaders. some of the more great persuaders because they were great orders. others were great because one- on-one or in small groups, that's where they used their personality and firepower to bring about desired results. number one, great persuaders. number two, they all had self- awareness. which means they knew their

strengths and they knew their weaknesses. they were always thinking how can i use my strengths and in n the areas where they were weak, they bring in people who were strong to make sure that wasn't going to be a problem. that is incredibly important for a leader to know, to be self-aware and know his strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly. third and finally, all eight of them were directing their efforts in the middle way. the 70% who don't know who to vote for. they were never thinking what can i say that will satisfy the extreme right or the extreme left? ' that's no way to lead. you have to identify where the people are. in order to do that, you have to have a high awareness of public sentiment in all components of society. you do that as franklin roosevelt did. you have constant press

conferences where you are not afraid of any questions that are going to be asked. you stay on top of the public opinion polls. you travel the country and you don't just talk, you listen. in roosevelt's case, he sends eleanor all over the country. she comes back. here's what people in arizona are thinking, here's what people in michigan are thinking. there is always formation gathering context and the state of mind, so that when he decides where things needs to go -- need to go, he has the public sentiment agreeing with him on where things need to go. that chapter on roosevelt and how he went about moving public sentiment from isolationism in the 1930's toward being ready, willing and able to fight world war ii, knowing that if they didn't, hitler would probably take over the world is a master

class in effective communication . >> let's hear from lori, calling on the democrats line. good morning. >> good morning. i was wondering about the situation in chile in 1973. it has a lot of similarities to what we are watching in the g united states today. i was wondering what your guest thought about comparing those two situations. and i would like to say something else now that i was listening to him speak about leaders and how it is important for them to be able to recognize their weaknesses and their strengths and to listen to people that are better at certain things and not just do what you feel like doing because that's what you are used to doing. does characteristic in donald trump sort of put us in harm's

way and danger. >> as far as chile in 1973, that was during nixon's presidency, nixon is not one of my eight presidents in large part because of watergate. i don't hold myself as an expert on what happened in chile on 1973 to the extent there was a revolution. i think there will be a new revolution in the event that donald trump wins a second term? i sure hope not. i hope we can rely on people to pursue litigation in courts of law and abide by the rule of law and that we can rely on congress to do what it takes to prevent that. we i certainly think that one of donald trump's weaknesses is an inability to listen to others. in his first term, he had some people in his cabinet and around him who were solid, high integrity people. people like jim matus, bill

barr , rex tillerson. they fell by the wayside. the concern is in the second term, he will be surrounded by sycophants. the opposite of a team of he's never demonstrated a capacity to listen to anyone's advice. it's very disturbing. as i said at the outset of this program, that's one of the many reasons i am concerned about the next four years, regardless of which of these prospective nominees wins in november. >> you mentioned the president's weaknesses. you looked at flaws that these presidents also had. why is it important to recognize those as well? >> ken burns describes his process in all of the documentaries he makes with all of the famous people.

you have to acknowledge the flaws because of the emotional archaeology. t my friend mark, who is a former head of the lbj library and head of the lbj foundation and a wonderful presidential biographer, mark said you can't put these guys on pedestals. you have to have a section in each chapter that identifies their flaws. so, i do. it makes them more human and it makes any potential leader say he wasn't perfect but he did great things because he used these leadership traits. that's what i should try to do. i'm not perfect, none of us are perfect, obviously. i think it's important as we are trying to understand and apply these lessons from history, saying the great things done by people -- were done by people who were like me in many respect. they weren't perfect but they rose to take the country in a better direction and a higher place. i agree with ken burns.

let's not paint a false picture that somebody is flawless in every respect. then you would say that's not like me, i could never do that. they have the same flaws that each of us does. >>let's hear from ben, calling on the independent line. good morning, ben. >> good morning. thank you very much for c-span. it's a great topic and i would like to ask the guest a question . he mentions the performance of jimmy carter and how bad things were then and h then he said and "that's what we have now." i would like to remind him that what we have now is we have an economy that has full employment. we have a stock market that is -- has just set a record. and that's good for people who

have been saving money and put money aside for a 401(k). we don't have any guidelines. i find it a little bit awkward to make that comparison. but maybe he has an answer for that. >> i do. we have a national malaise and that's what i said about carter. he obviously, when both of these candidates have high, high disapproval ratings, people can agree or disagree on the state of the economy or on the rate of inflation or on people's capacity to buy with their paychecks what they used to be able to buy with their paychecks. we can recognize that as an important factor. we look at the state of the border and all that has happened in the last 3.5 years. we look at an inability to remind the nation of our exceptionalism. i wasn't talking about the

specifics of the economy and carter then. versus biden now. i was talking about the national mindset and how people feel about their country. that's what we need, somebody with a spirit of optimism who is going to get us out of this psychological ditch of feeling like there is not enough good going on in america. reagan famously, in his debate against carter, looked in the camera and said ask yourself, are you better off now than you were four years ago? i suspect that will be the question that gets asked in the 2024 debate. i don't think anyone is saying i'm a whole lot better off now than i was four years ago, economically. that's the basis for my making the comparison. >> let's go to scott in ithaca, new york. good morning, scott.

>> good morning. the difference between a sentinel event and a flaw is huge. it's a chasm. you are talking about flaws in previous president's is okay. a sentinel event like roosevelt turning away jews from nazi germany, it should knock him off that list. sentinel events do matter. that's my comment. >> obviously, franklin roosevelt, he was not a great advocate for the jews during world war ii. he interred the japanese americans after pearl harbor. and it is a free country. if you want to disagree with me, that's fine. as i said in the outset of this program, the country's 150 leading historians have ranked

roosevelt number three, behind lincoln and washington. for the reasons i cover in that book in terms of what he did to raise the american spirit out of the depths of the great depression and then what he did to leave the united states toward ultimate victory in world war ii and stop hitler's and the way -- he had four elections. in each of them, he got over 80% of the electoral vote. the american people were totally behind him. and so, that's the reason why he has the ranking, the well- deserved ranking that he has and that because he had flaws, he had a blind spot toward the jews. he had a blind spot toward japanese americans, that does not necessarily take away from -- it does take away but not hugely compared to all of the great things he did for the american people. >> your chapter on franklin d

rot, how to stare down adversity and command public iment. you talk about it here but here is an excerpt. "none before him fully explored where public sentiment appeared to be given in any given moment as he did by listeninhe many diverse positions that existed a congressman and se. be they prive, publican, independent, democrat, northern democrat or a anywhere else. for a while, roosevelt's most disruptive antagonists were some of his own democrats during his first two terms. josh >> we are leaving this broadcast for live coverage on c-span three.

>> we are standing by for the house hearing with microsoft