lindsay chervinsky, director of the george washington presidential library at mount vernon. first explain what this decision by joe biden looks like through the eyes of an historian. guest: i was struck by, it was

really and extorted every moment. you study power, the presidency, there is a certain type of personality, a certain amount of ego -- and i don't say that negatively -- but a certain amount of ego to do the job. to want the job if these crazy times, and to believe you are the right person to be making the nearly impossible decisions that will come across the president's desk. that type of personality really has a hard time of stepping away from that power, across human history, let alone american history. to see it happen is really an extraordinary moment. host: stepping away from power earlier this week on twitter. you make comparisons to george washington and his decisions to step away from power, 1783, 1 797. remind viewers of the history here. guest: the history and the

contacts are so important. 1793, the revolutionary war had ended, that you as head its independence from great britain. washington traveled to annapolis to return his commission, to basically go home. there were immediately these parallels to the great generals that had come out of retirement again and again to defend rome and then go back to his farm. it was an amazing thing to do, amazing for washington do not try and stay on as the military dictator, not stay on as the leader in some fashion. while we, in retrospect, say that was the expected thing to do, it was not at the time. to add to that, in 1797, after serving two years as president, which washington was called to do unanimously through the election, he retired and went home. this was before the 22nd

amendment. he could have easily won a third term. even his opponents wanted him to serve a third term. for him to give up power at a time when he could have remained president's entire life, effectively been king and all but name was remarkable. and it was remarked upon by people across the globe. i am not saying that biden is exactly like washington, by the act of being able to step away from that power especially in that moment. washington was living in the age of napoleon. in this moment, biden's main opponent tried to start an insurrection to overthrow the results of the election. that context is so essential. host: we are watching today in real time their reactions to joe biden's decision to not seek reelection. you say it was remarked upon, george washington's decision. what was the reaction at that

time that we still remember so many years later? guest: after he returned his commission, he was immediately called the father of the country, and this was before he even became president. that gives you a sense of his stature, reputation, how trusted he was, how revered he was. this was before he had this enormously powerful position. when he decided to step down as president -- the evidence of this is not fantastic -- but reportedly king george the third said he was basically the most impressive man in the world. that is my language, but essentially that. those are a couple examples. they were not exaggerating. this is how they genuinely felt about washington at that moment. host: it seems like the historical assessment, george washington would have won, had he run for president again? guest: yes, he would have.

it may have not been unanimous, but it would have crossed his mind. host: president is seeking reelection after washington, james pohl, buchanan, rutherford b hayes, calvin coolidge, lbj, now joe biden. how many of them do you think stepped down because he didn't think they would win again if they ran? guest: i think probably most. the only one that maybe could have won again is polk. he came into the presidency saying he wanted to do a number of things, had done a number of them. overseeing the end of the mexican-american war, which expanded the united states. somewhere expanded about that but also didn't reignite the debate over slavery, whether these new territories would be free or enslaved states. that could have potentially been used against him. you make a really good point.

a lot of times, presidents, especially in the 19th century, it was not quite so rare for presidents to be one term, whether their party decided not to go with them or they decided not to run, health was very unpredictable. it was a small number, and that is worth noting. host: coming to the next level, the vice presidency, a column in today's wall street journal, for a vice president, hard to succeed. noting that 1988 with the last time a vice president succeeded directly to the presidency by election. of course talking about george h.w. bush. bring us back through history of vice presidency were able to make that jump before george h.w. bush. guest: it is a really smart column because the vice presidency is a terrible job. it is just awful. john adams, the first vice president to, i suspect, harris,

has suffered under the expectations of the job. the only constitutional responsibility -- what else are you supposed to do with your time? sometimes they have been good governing partners. vice president's in the 19th century just stayed at home, they didn't come to washington, d.c. it has been a really weird position. early on, it was expected that the vice president would be a good stepping to a presidency. john adams became the second president after serving as washington's vice president. thomas jefferson did, as well, but they were actually of different parties, so they ran against each other while actually serving in the same administration. there have been a handful of other presidents who have succeeded to the office but it is not a great place to launch a

political career because there is very low visibility, there are not portfolios built in, you don't have a constituency like you but if you were a governor, senator, congressman, so it can be difficult to get attention because you have to demonstrate loyalty while also trying to be your own person. it has not proven to be particularly effective. where vice president may be have found success is doing something else in between there vice presidency and coming back. we saw this with richard nixon and of course joe biden. host: you also may be bound to comment on the washington post, cites calvin coolidge. the role of the vice president involves little more than waking up and checking the president's health in the newspaper. guest: [laughter] it is a really good quote. there have been some colorful ones. john adams said the american

people invented the most useless office for him imaginable. i think it was john nance garner who said i'm not going to use -- i'm not going to use the actual phrase -- but he said the office was a warm bucket of spit. he used a different word. vice president have not particularly enjoyed that position. host: with us this morning is lindsay chervinsky, executive director director of the george washington presidential library at mount vernon. about 15, 20 minutes for you to call in. phone number explained as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. john is in buffalo, new york. independent read good morning. caller: good morning.

i have something to piggyback off of this topic and i think it is relevant because when we are stuck with right now in this election of the vice president being basically the democrats only choice is the broken two-party system. we don't technically just have two parties but really you cnn excluded a major candidate from the debates. everything else that is not a democrat or republican is looked at as a joke, could never win the presidency. i wanted to hear your guest's position on whether or not we were to have a more open s ystem, more open election, when joe biden stepped down, possibly four or five legitimate democrats could have been on the ballot for people to choose from

. maybe people don't like kamala harris but they will not vote for donald trump. host: the political party system? guest: i agree it would be great to have lots of different candidates. when you are talking about is kind of like a parliamentary system like we see in great britain, france, or germany, where they have to have coalitions you have a governing block. the institution a process at the state level in particular that breaks down how elections are actually going to work. if we want to have lots of parties, we have to start embracing election reform at the local and state level, that makes it possible to start building up those coalitions in our local governments, state governments, and that will trickle up to the federal government. right now the reason that third

parties are seen as a joke, in terms of the way the balloting process works, the primaries work, and critically, the way the electoral college votes are counted in states, it tends to be a winner take all system. it is not possible for a third party to gain traction regardless of who they are. i would love to see that. i think that would make congress more effective, would make people feel more represented. if that is something you like, talk to your local representatives about how they can explore different types of election reform to make that possible. host: bring it back to mount vernon. george washington had anything or two to say about political parties, did he not? guest: he really oppose the concept of political parties, felt like it would divide americans, they would be focused more on what they had that was different between them and what was similar. it was important for him to remember, being one union was

much more important than being a bunch of parties or states. he did become more partisan in his final years in office, but he would have much preferred the system you are talking about, where there are lots of different groups, more fluid, people can make compromise and work together. host: eddie on x wants us to stay on george washington, how presidents are compensated for their work. he writes, locked it and almost put himself in the poor house to be a public servant, saying that biden has made out much better. how was george washington compensated? guest: this is a really interesting question. presidents were paid $25,000 initially. that was an enormous sum at the time. the way the payments and things were paid for was quite different. for example, that $25,000 had to pay for the rent for the president's house in new york and philadelphia, had to pay for

all the food for the official evidence, pay for transportation and lodging if you went somewhere to meet with american citizens, and it had to pay for labor if he hired people. washington owned a number of enslaved individuals and he brought many of them to the president's house which meant he had free labor and didn't need to compensate them for their time and effort and energies. that has been reformed over time. the presidential salary today, if we look at on wall street or at a law firm, is actually relatively low. for example, the state department pays for state dinners. other forms of compensation, recognizing that certain activities are official. it's important to acknowledge that most people in office, whether congressman or president or supreme court justices, they don't make a lot of money based on their actual salary. they make money on writing books, speaking engagements,

things they do outside the office. you can feel one way or the other about that. if you don't want them to do that, we do have their salaries to compensate them in line with other types of well compensated jobs when the to encourage the best people to take those positions. host: that salary today is still four $100,000 a year? guest: i think that is the correct number. that is a lot of money, i am not suggesting it is not, but if we look at the other opportunities available to ambitious, successful people, that is less than some of those other things, and it is worth noting that. host: waterbury, connecticut. tony is next. caller: what an interesting topic we have here. my question today is, i am a longtime democrat. i live in a democratic city, etc. i supported biden, democrat

party here. i think you need to address the elephant in the room. joe biden has dementia. my wife died of dementia. i have seen the different stages of it. joe is in the middle of it. maybe the lady could tell us, why is it that this is not being explained? why are we being told, great career, stepping out of the way. if that is true, the gentleman that did, the inspector general that did the research on him for the documents cases, he was incapable of standing trial. is he capable of standing trial? what is going on? host: we will take the question.

lindsay chervinsky, ej and the presidency. guest: age is a challenging subject because people don't age the same, everyone ages differently. nancy pelosi is 84 and she is still sharp as a tack, no one would doubt her efficacy and her position. and of course age can change rapidly. a conversation that took place with someone last year may not necessarily apply to this year. in terms of competency to stand trial, i'm a doctor but not that kind. i wouldn't want to presume to say whether someone is or is not competent to stand trial. that was actually not what special counsel hur said. he said he felt like he would be too sympathetic to the jury because the jury would conclude that he is an old man with a poor memory which is a different legal distinction. in terms of age and the presidency, that is something worth talking about. i don't know that we want to put

age limits on something because it can be a very personal thing. but this is a relatively modern conversation. through most of the 19th century, health was so unpredictable, and someone who was young and hearty could die next week. people didn't talk about health and age because they knew they couldn't predict it. it wasn't until woodrow wilson, fdr died in office, eisenhower had a number of health scares, that this became a regular topic in elections and when considering candidates. host: before joe biden, where was the previous president where it had a good amount of focus, ronald reagan? guest: ronald ragan was the last time that we as an american people were talking about the president's age, both in his reelection campaign, when he had that amazingquip in his sec. debate, that he wouldn't hold his opponent's youth and

experience against them. there were a number of reports of people around him, suggestions that he was starting to show signs of alzheimer's. i should say that his family has denied that, about others around him said that was the case. the challenge with a disease like alzheimer's, you cannot actually dig into the brain, so you don't know until later. so these conversations are difficult, they can depend on the person, the day, and are really tricky. host: less than 10 minutes left with lindsay chervinsky with the george washington presidential library. for viewers that have never been to the library, what will they find their? guest: it is fantastic. it is by appointment. people are welcome to come on open houses. otherwise, it is available to researchers, people looking to learn more about history. we have incredible resources in

terms of books, great collection of revolutionary-era maps. wonderful documents and materials about washington's life, the people that lived and worked at mount vernon including the enslaved communities. and we have begun to collect as many of his original books as we can. when we cannot get the original that he actually owned and touched, we are trying to acquire the same edition, so we can re-create his library as it was when he died. host: what have you done with your research, what was your focus? guest: that had a fellowship in 2015 when i was working on my dissertation and my first book. it is a full circle moment for me. after that, i was at the center for presidential history, historian at the white house historical association before going out on my own and doing a lot of writing and speaking. it is really fun to return here. feels like coming home. host: you missed a chance to

talk about "making the presidency." guest: that is my new book, coming out september 5. i did most of that research at the international conference. it looks at the john adams presidency and what it takes to ensure that the presidency works and survives once washington leaves. he was so unparalleled in his stature, a lot of the american people genuinely were not sure that it would work for anyone else. john adams established a number of critical norms and precedents that are with us today, including most importantly, the first and second peaceful transfers of power as the bedrock for a democratic society. host: making the presidency, john adams and the prece dents that formed the republic. point pleasant beach, new

jersey. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of points. listening to president biden yesterday and that speech, the only reason he is leaving is because they were either going to invoke the 25th amendment, or they were going to use the doj, who has been covering for him and his corrupt family the last couple years, and they probably blackmailed him. he has had dementia since 2019, the first time he ran. they were losing in the polls and that is what they did. he is talking about saving the world with democracy. they are using the doj against president trump you legally. his family is a bunch of crooks. i love my country. we have become a little self-righteous. we should worry about what we do at home. i want to say one more thing to your guest. she is the head of the george washington museum.

i guess you know that george washington, i heard before he didn't like parties. he also didn't want to get involved in european wars. he didn't want to get involved in that. israel, to me, is a separate thing, an ally. ukraine is a fair weather ally. they wanted to interfere in our election to stop trump from getting in. host: we will take your point. coming back to george washington and foreign entanglements? guest: it's really important to understand that washington was not an isolationist. washington did not want to send troops to europe to defend france, when france had provoked war against great britain, but he was not suggesting that we hide behind our oceans. he believed it was essential to have robust trade and engagement with allies across the globe. it is impossible to know when anyone from the 18th-century would say if they came to the 21st century, other than, what

are airplanes, what is electricity? i think he would have no problem with those engaging in trade, whether food or supplies or arms, to allies like israel or ukraine, because it is good for the american economy, good for the american worker, which is one of the things that washington would have been most focused on. host: to the caller's point about how joe biden made this decision to not run for reelection, not the first caller to bring this up this morning on the program. what do you think historians will remember here, these four weeks in which the president declared he would run for reelection, absolutely was going to run -- how he left over that he decided not to seek reelection? guest: i think it depends on what happens next. one of the things that is remarkable about this moment, the role that nancy pelosi played.

she was probably most instrumental in getting him to step down as opposed to the department of justice. if harris wins, most of this bickering and the conversation, his reluctance will be forgotten. it will be seen as he did the right thing to put her in a position of power. if she loses, i think there will be questions about should he have stepped down sooner, should he have given the democratic party a chance to have a robust primary? i also want to address one more thing. the department of justice is really filled with a number of patriots work hard on behalf of the country. i think it's important to note, in the last couple of weeks, prosecutors have heard convictions against a democratic senator, bob menendez and hunter biden. if they are being waged against political figures, it is worth noting that those two are democrats. it's important for us to think responsibly about the department of justice.

it is in office filled with a really good people who are doing their best. host: last call from south bend, indiana. this is adam. you are on with lindsay chervinsky. caller: thank you for having me on. one of the things you discussed earlier was the idea that all election reform needs to start at the state level. i can see that being true with things like ranked voting, but right now it feels like donald trump or anybody other than trump. now there is more hope on the kamala side, from her campaign. one of the things where i feel like we let our people down, citizens down, we don't educate about how our actual elections and funding takes place. would you mind discussing, talking about the different thresholds in the popular vote, when a candidate from a third party hits 5% of the popular

vote, they become a minor party status, which gives them primary funds, gives them some ballot access that expands, limits their demands on time and resources just to get on state ballots, or what were to happen if they ever got to a 20% number, becoming a major party, matching political funds for the entire election cycle itself. that is all i have, thank you. host: can you do all of that in less than two minutes? guest: [laughter] i will see what i can do. i am not an election lawyer, not an expert on the different state requirements for voters. take that as you will. it seemed like a call there was extreme we knowledgeable about these things. one thing that is worth noting, there is a public financed election option, but in the several rounds, candidates have gone away from that because it is public financed and they cannot take pac money.

most candidates would prefer to take the pac money. in terms of how a candidate gets on at the state level, a lot of that depends on state to state. the constitution says the states basically control their elections. there are those various tiers of when a candidate kicks in as when they can go on the ballot, how many signatures they need, what percentage they need to be involved in debates traditionally, although that is not a hard and fast rule. it is very complicated. i agree, a lot of it is a lack of education. i can certainly learn more myself, as well. but just understanding the basics of how our government works -- i understand why -- but they are often angry at the wrong person, thinking certain people have the power to control something or not. so i think we need to do a better job of educating our citizens, increasing civics

education, may be simplifying it a little bit so it is easier. host: a good follow-up on x. lindsay chervinsky is the executive director of the george washington presidential library at mount vernon.