textbooks. what happens there echos around the country. many of the debate is worthwhile. i think some of the stuff is silly. what you should do is teach the truth, teach what happened, talk about the people who have mattered to american history. you shouldn't leave out the liberty bell and you shouldn't leave out the alamo and when there are two important sides of the story to tell, you should tell the two important sides to the story. there is a kind of reduction as you might find in a lot of the journalistic accounts of these debates which make them seem simple minded. i always when i entrepreneurer into the debates, try to find out from the people what they actually said and it's usually different from what's reported. this may come as a shock to some people, but you would know this business. but i think these debates are fine. look, the education of our children, plateau said the two most important questions, who gets to teach the children and what do we teach them. so have at it. :

>> guest: i don't think there's any question people who wrote these documents were writing out of the tradition. to get if you read "the

federalist" papers, this is what all the references are. it's pretty hard to understand a phrase like we hold these truths to be self-evident, and all men are created equal. certain enable right. the key i think is to understand that although most of these men came from a certain perspective from religious background and orientation, we established the first really sensible way of getting with these issues and a large and open society. think of washington's letter to the hebrew congregation. we shall all set and none shall be afraid. >> host: even that sense in the declaration of independence that you cited, there's a wonderful scene of the three great drafters of the declaration, franklin, adams and jefferson doing it. jefferson was first drafted, and it was adams who endowed by the greater with certain enable right. and then jefferson had we hold these truths to be secretarsecretary of franklin road in we hold these truths to

be self evident that they are doing a careful balance there. almost a ds to balance where they make reference to a creative but not necessarily to a christian god or any particular god. >> guest: fair enough. i think, you know, when i was redoing a lot of the textbooks in preparation for writing mine, i noticed that they try to -- seem to expunge any reference to god, to christianity, to the history of christianity. i like edward koren's essay, one of the great professors of princeton. is a great sense in there. he said religious liberties are the residual of ecclesiastical animosity. these things were fought out in churches. >> host: that's why they became such good travelers. they were fighting out of the church is the whole notion. >> guest: this is a great topic for debate.

it's a great topic for discussion in a classroom. as was before the supreme court. but i would say, and, you know, i am partial to america here and the idea of american exceptionalism, is it would have been much come with our struggle but we pretty much work this out about as low as any country has. >> host: the way we worked it out it seems is the founders gave to america one of the greatest gifts that was very unusual, especially for a well-traveled puritan founders, which was the good nature of religious tolerance. that even if you are of constantinople you would get to preach in philadelphia. and in some ways these debates seem to downplay this notion of tolerance. instead, try to push a more religious view of america's founding. or am i incorrect there? >> guest: i don't hear that i hear. i don't see it. i spend a lot of time and

homeschool community. i spend a lot of time in conservative community. i hear the claims of bigotry. i saw more bigotry myself. when i was at harvard that when i saw when i was in texas. i saw more and tolerance towards southern christians, young people that i saw of people in the south being intolerant of people who had no faith or other faith. it is more competent now, and i don't know if you want to discuss this. more competent now because of 9/11. and because, frankly, it is harder, it is harder to support the notion of an islamic faith, islamic religion, which will condemn these acts of violence when we see so few professions by an islamic leaders and spokesmen on this issue. i still think it's a case that americans are enormously tolerant, but they're worried about this business. and i think they're right to be worried about.

>> host: the struggle we are engaged in in the world today after 9/11, in particular, opened our eyes to the struggle, was against the financial system in jihadism of intolerance and islam and in favor of the notion that all people should be tolerant and have different views. and that's sort of the basic divide in this world today, between those who believe in pluralism society and those who believe in imposing their own moralities. >> guest: sure. but i don't know a lot of christians, for example, and they are usually the object of criticism here from the left who wanted to impose their religion in america, and the schools and elsewhere. i do know, because we can go to the looming tower, in a number of great books and see this as part and parcel of islam. and the problem with it, it may not be the majority view of muslims, but by gosh, it seems to be the one with all the

energy and the passion. now, when someone in my church shoot someone at an abortion clinic and we condemn it and the church condemns and the pope condemns it, and that is absolutely right. would we have the same thing in a consistent way in islam? >> host: the struggle that we are fighting against terrorism and jihadism, let's call it, you in this new book talk about it starting really with the 9/11, and how bush gets involved in the struggle. do you think that it became partisan after 9/11? or was there a period in which he was sort of a unity on that issue? >> guest: there was a unity on the issue. i don't think there's any question, the country was together. there was, getting back to this point, there was a word that americans would turn against muslims, and there would be terrible acts of retribution.

nothing like this happen, or if they did they were very isolated. there's a restaurant not far from here run by, out in virginia, won by a muslim. and apparently within two weeks after 9/11 this guy could meet anybody in. it was back. they want to show their support. president bush went to the national case the girl and then went to the mosque. some criticize that. but again, this is a very american response to embrace rather than condemn. know, there was unity but then it broke apart. largely because of iraq. that was the catalyst of that crisis and disagreement. but i think, you know, i actually think closure on that that we're getting now is encouraging. some people are maybe forgetting what they said earlier, but there does seem to be a consensus that we have worked through this and thinks maybe working out all right. steel fingers crossed. we're not done.

but that's where the fight was about. >> host: you have to deal with iraq in this book. how do you think history is going to look back on the decision to react to the 9/11 attacks by invading iraq? >> guest: great question. 64,000-dollar question. brian crocker was our ambassador said the other day, a lot of criticisms about going in there, whether we should have gone in there, how we went into. he said, we can discuss that and debate, but he said what matters most of all is how we left it and what we left there. i think that will probably be determined of how we see what we did. and if indeed a democracy is established there, one that can sustain itself, i think you'll be a double plus. a double thumbs up. that will be the result. joe biden the other day, not my team, not my part, but joe biden the other day said it looks very

good, it looks a promising. and we can take some pride in is that as long as that we is inclusive of a larger group, i think i could agree with that. remember, too, and i try to point this out in the book that there was a lot of unity in that decision that there was an awful lot of support for it as candidate obama reminded clinton she was for this, jay rockefeller was for the. so people operating on the same assumption on what they thought were the facts on the ground, all very much took the same position. a few exceptions. >> host: one problem i have, what we're doing now, is not with our struggle against jihadism, even the struggles we have in iraq and afghanistan. it's that getting too close to nation building and occupying other territories can be problematic. and i say that with reference to american history because it's in

our dna, one of our forgotten amendments which is we don't like quartering troops in our homes by foreign governments. that notion that we're not going going to help ourselves in the world by giving too much involved in occupations overseas. do you worry about that? >> guest: i do worry about it, and i was, fair-minded and ago, i hope an evenhanded. i was a little more worried about the second inaugural of george w. bush when he talked about this nation building and our task is democracy everywhere. when i thought the fact that the priority should stay where it was, which was the global warship on islamist terror, let's take it at first. our task is not to establish democracy in these countries, but there is that way. at the same time, i think it is in our dna and is in our national interest because democracies tend not to declare

war against other democracy. free countries do not to do that to other free countries. but again i think of this thing comes out any and will determine. we shall see. >> host: you know, your book is sort of book ended, i shall say, with the to george bush administration. george bush the elder and george buch the younger, and my mind they had the most divergent philosophies of the foreign policy. george bush the older being the realist who after you and jack iraq during that war, sees no reason to try to nation build an iraq. sees no reason to go to baghdad. and very, very carefully choreographed the end of the cold war. there will be i think you quote him saying to his press secretary there will be no dancing on the berlin wall. in other words, we're not going to be trying to celebrate. will be careful, cautious and

realistic. the younger george bush seems to be much more of an idealist, a crusader, somebody who wants to promote democracy. and that tension between realism and idealism, both of which are audible strains in american foreign policy, seems, i noticed it in this book, this contrast between the two george bushes. >> guest: difference does, different approaches. i had the opportunity to be the home office with both of them. i worked with the first president bush as the first drug czar. visited as a journalist, a radio talk show host with the other president bush. yeah, i mean, i think there are stylistic differences. and, of course, there was the very different reaction to what happened in iraq that what happened in the first gulf war. and he had more difficult issue to deal with, w., then age to be. there was this interest in nationbuilding. again, i'm something of a skeptic about that but i'm going to be the first to salute arab democracy in the middle east if

this thing holds. i think it's great that i remember during the purple thumb campaign it was very hard not to get excited about that. the other thing is, a kind of apart from our dna, you know, the "washington post" a new currency of the day, they interviewed some guy living under a t.a.r.p. in haiti. they said what's the solution? he said there is no solutions. they will just take us over. thank you, we will pass. but in a way a lot of people know that. that if you're in desperate circumstances, what's the one country you would like to deliver you that you know likely doesn't have any ulterior purpose but to help you. it's most likely the united states. >> host: speaking of the elder george bush, h.w. bush, he was in my mind one of the best or perhaps most underrated foreign policy president we had, whether it was how he handled cautiously and successfully the demise of

the soviet union at the end of the cold war, the fall of the berlin mall mall, or likewise how he handled the middle east, the persian gulf and the kuwait situation. tell me a little bit about george h. w. bush the person, and his loss of a foreign policy of. >> guest: the person first. a guy who i believe people saw him in private as often as i did what i thought much better of them. this guy got dana carvey like. you know big iron saturday wall under life to imitate him i tell the story where we were out there for dedicating a police memorial when i was drug czar. he used to jog with me. very generously he would slow down. >> host: i have read the part that i think are in a hotel room and he wants to go jogging with you, and with all due respect, though, i didn't think it as a as a type of jogger. >> guest: i climb mountains.

no, no. , he slowed down and this is what happened. when we finished the press corps there said how is the drug war going, mr. bennett? in his i was out of breath. he took the first questions until i got my breath. now that's a good boss. so he is a good president. but before we're going to do this run, there was a demonstration outside, some would was bring the flight deck and he said that's the one thing that makes my blood boil. i just cannot bear that. i guess there's a constitutional protection for those honestly aside. but he said i just can't, i just can't bear. and i thought if people could hear that, they would see this is not a tongue tie dye who a love of the media accuse about the nicest most generous boss i think i ever had. you had the distance with him with ronald reagan. ronald reagan whom i regard and whom i served, both ronald reagan, there was nancy and her circle and there was a world.

>> host: with reagan you always felt there was a slight shield or pisa plexiglas, what he would last into a jack warner movie studio, a story for you, but he wouldn't really engage. whereas george h. w. bush was always eager to engage. >> guest: there is always a distance. ronald reagan i can't do all the time because i asked him about things that he had a tremendous interest in education. and he did use a story that you love to use the story. that was the way he communicated. but president bush had this one is robert louis stevenson a natural geniality of the world's greatest men. and easy familiarity. president reagan was very friendly and accessible. but there was always a distance. bush always broke down, everybody sitting in the room,

off the oval office, got another name during the clinton administration. we will go through that. ross perot was on and ross perot was writing about president bush, president bush, you not disrupting his daughter's wedding and the secret service. kind of crazy things. and president bush turned to me and said, was to get the stuff? you know, it was just kind of nice matter of fact off-the-cuff. i agree with that part about foreign policy. his experience showed. i do say in the book because again i tried to be fair, the china business i think was not good. i know people made a lot out of the does and it was more going on to the chinese leadership. at tiananmen square was a horrible thing. >> host: because that was as you say the realism which is if you are an idealist in tiananmen square happens you act and you

push back on scheppach if your a villas you say that's internally there's. >> i have tended to been critical of democrat and republican presidents both on china. i don't think the case can be made that when we cooperate with china it's getting better. i think if you look the tally of the sheet, i don't think that case can be made. i was one of the only people in my organization, jack kemp, rumsfeld, all signed on to permanent normal trade relations. i didn't. i think they should be tougher and i think they should be tougher now. and i think we're way too easy now. >> host: why? >> guest: because what they're doing is bad. their policies are bad. they kill growth. i really think that is a terrible terrible thing. and into all sorts of other repressive things. >> host: i also think that a repressive society that represses the free flow of information will end up losing,

say, to an idiot which is a messy economy right now, but at least allows free expression. and that is going to be one of the struggles coming up in this world. >> guest: i agree with you. i agree with you. and interesting polls lately, a lot of americans are sure we will be dominant in the future. get. >> host: if i had to bet on china versus india right now he would have a better economy i would bet on india. just as we have been ever since pamphleteers on colonial streets. >> guest: and interesting to point out, the third largest population of muslims in the world, india? but this is a country that believes in democracy, believes in freedom, believes in business development. so it isn't necessarily an obstacle. >> host: when i was in india a few years ago, i was therefore an election, just watching. and a hindu prime minister got defeated by basically a roman

catholic woman. sonia gandhi, who stepped aside in order to have a seat become president was one in, become prime ministers were sworn in by a muslim president. intimating, that's the type of thing you have to be able to pull off in the 21st century if you will be a great country. >> guest: i can't imagine that in china, can you? >> host: you can imagine in the u.s. different religions. in fact, balancing tickets. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: so george bush on domestic policy. that read my lips pledge any goes against the. that's in your book. >> guest: it is in my tenure. i was the designated i george bush and after i left the drugs our job, and two weeks i was in two weeks and i said i can't defend a tax break.

he just wasn't come he just wasn't focused on. but it was such a big surprise. i tell the story in a book about the panel, i can remember who was on, too liberal, to conservatives, will george bush be reelected? all of us unanimous yes. approval rating was 70, 80%. than the surprise campaign by this surprise governor from arkansas. and bush just kind of flat on domestic issues and people changing their mind. and it was a big surprise. >> host: that me make a counterargument, which was a compromise he does, one of the last great bipartisan compromises. something would've lost in this town, in which he does help bring deficits down. with spending and with tax. was one of the great triumphs of the bush administration. >> guest: it may very well may have. it very well may have. but it wasn't, i think wasn't so much that as his inability to

address the domestic challenges in a way that was persuasive to people. eyesight in the day, one of the debates clinton and clinton was the perfect, you know, counterpart for george herbert walker bush. where president bush says i will ask jim baker to take a domestic policy and do for domestic. and president clinton says this is what we're worried about. i will do domestic policy in my administration. and for that and other reasons. luck, most of the policies george bush was and i think are very good policies. underrated president, underappreciated president. i wish he won, but he didn't run as good a campaign. and the country was ready for a change. that's another thing. people like a change that some of it is let's try the other g

got. >> host: let's go back to that for a second, which is the great triumphs of george h. w. bush on that tax and spending cutting the deficit issue showed a thing that america used to be good at, which is bipartisan compromise. ronald reagan with tip o'neill during the social security thing. that is what has made our country strong, not ideological fervor, but the ability to say let's find common ground, now we can work. that is what we live today in washington. in the past 10 years, i would say. and you don't celebrate that enough, the ability to come did you make it seem like compromisers are less committed, they give up their principles. as opposed to the fact that compromise sometimes can make great democracy. >> guest: i like doug cooper's distinction in his biography, the willingness on principle to compromise as opposed to willingness compromise in principle. i can live with the first.

reagan could do this and to do this. >> host: reagan did with tip o'neill and gorbachev. >> guest: and dan rather kautsky. dauphiné liberé three people who were not soulmates. and nowadays. >> guest: bush did and clinton did. and i think i appear to clinton but it is not going on now. >> host: that's what i wrote about and find the. he was a great person who brought together, all the passion. that's something that we need be a little more sober and about in history. >> guest: this is what the new hope was in the subtitle of this book. and indeed this is what, election night, not my candidate, not my team. but this powerful candidacy of rock obama in which he said we will surround all hope, unifying president. he will be unifying president. i said we will find out. maybe he will be.

not getting into, that was indeed the hope that was appealed. that this would be a guy who speech four years before about red states and blue states, people go to church and blue states and people believe in civil liberties in red states. that was a great speech and it was very promising. that's why he was such a successful candidate. >> host: we have to go to break but we will be right back. "after words" and several other c-span programs are available for download.

"after words" with bill bennett and walter isaacson continues. >> host: you were just talking about the breakdown and bipartisanship and the failure of the hope of obama that we wouldn't become a red state-blue state that nation. and i can so they agree with you. i think the last campaign, the fact that john mccain and barack obama got the nominations and of their respective parties was a yearning for people to work across the aisle the wing john mccain had proved he could do and the way barack obama talked about so out only in his conviction speech. what happened to make all that fall apart? >> guest: well, i think it is temporary. i think we will be back. i think what happened in this administration it turned out that this administration is not

a centrist administration. health care, which has been a 14 month issue now for president obama has been largely designed, i make the contrast, i would make the contrast the night before when the clintons did their health care plan which is pretty much a white house operation. it was an inside plan and suffers from being an inside plan. this one was delegated out and i think suffers from that. if you look at the papers today, tomorrow, next week, the major bombs here are democrats and democrats. the president has the white house all to himself that he has got the senate and he has the house of representatives, they can't get it past. so the problem isn't the proposal. the proposal is not a centrist proposal. i think that's what his problem is. but people look for common ground. i am happy with common ground.

i was on cnn the other day when the secretary of education, arne duncan, so we have two secretary's of education, one from reagan and one from obama. they have common ground that wide web, ground? because we do have common ground. >> host: in your book, "a century turns," you do talk about the clinton health care proposal from 90 to 94, white they fail. but that too seems to be the beginning of a breakdown in bipartisanship. because for a while it looked like it could be a bipartisan approach. the clinton years in which they were not great ideological struggles, we we still had greater partisanship by the end. >> guest: yeah, but we had some models of the bipartisanship. look at -- each of these interesting in its own way. clinton legislation bipartisan stuff, you had a reduction of capital gain