>> before that, isi also published books but not under our own publishing area. we've been outside. 1993 we've been independent with the state institute itself. >> and is the ideological -- is there an ideological concentration? >> yes. it brings back the intellectual and cultural underpinnings of intellectualism. and to bring back the thought

and the culture into the movement and just get people to think about it. ruminate about the topic we're seeing playing played out. -- played out. thanks for your time, christian. >> first, author and director of the richard nixon museum. takes booktv viewer phone calls. and nomi pim e from washington to wall street.

>> so tim, thanks for joining us here at the "l.a. times" book festival on our set. what's the importance of a book festival like this in the world -- in the literary world? >> it's a pleasure. it serves a couple of purposes. the first it's proof that you can have a good literary discussion in good weather. the second is this is an opportunity for people to listen to authors talk about their books. talk about the ideas that inform their books and answer questions. when you write a book you're not sure who's going to read it. you put a book out there and it -- and it moves around and it goes to public libraries so people buy it. but it's nice to get feedback. so this is not a one-way street here. this is not just authors talking to people. it's people who read their books asking them questions.

and sharing their stories and explaining how their books -- what their books meant to them. so it's a lovefest. >> i want to ask a couple of recent books that have come out and get your take. the new book "the bridge" about barack obama. and a new biography, "out of this world" of barack obama. there's been four or five big books written about the 2008 election. is this -- are these important books? and what do they add to the whole lexicon of knowing about president obama. >> well, history proceeds in stages. and there's the first cut of history. and that first cut of history, the books fall in that category. bob woodward's book on george w. bush fell in that category. those books do two things. one, they give you a sense of zeitgeist.

what people were thinking and how people first reacted into the issue. the second thing is that they're talking to people -- who are in the game still. so the memories are fresh. they're fresher. there's, of course, some spin but there's always spin. so there are real advantages for readers to reading the fist cut. -- first cut. it's the first cut of history and we're going to learn more later and we may change our mind. >> we'll ask tim in just a minute. we only have 30 minutes with presidential historian tim naftali. by the way, if you want to send a tweet to tim naftali, twitter.com/booktv. we'll be looking for your tweets as well as we go on throughout the day.

jeff has a new book on fdr. dave has a new book on calvin coolidge and amity has a book about calvin coolidge. there is left to learn about fdr or calvin coolidge. >> again, every generation reacquaints itself with the towering figures within american history. it's very important, i think, to go back to fdr because we are living through an economic downturn. a lot of people -- we're also watching the federal government participate and strive stimulus packages, take over banks briefly, take over gm briefly and, of course, now we have a new -- we have health care reform. a lot of people are asking, when did the welfare state start and

had it been a success? did it end the great depression as opposed to the great recession. so there's renewed interest in that. there's also obviously a sort of political side to it, which is the debate between liberals and conservatives in the country over the size of government. so people are going to have their cuts on which way it should go. as we go back to fdr or to calvin coolidge. nobody talks about hoover anymore. but if you want a balance, it's coolidge versus roosevelt. who was right in dealing with the economy. while it's kind of exciting to watch the debate coming out. >> tim naftali, "blind spot: the secret history of counterterrorism" is one and "george h.w. bush" is it important to be a two-term president to be successful? >> i think it's unfortunately true.

that presidents believe they have to be re-elected for them to have had a successful presidency. you mentioned polk, james k. polk came into office and i'm saying only four years. he won the war against mexico. he changed our northern border with canada. he achieved what he intended to achieve and then he left office. i argued in the bush book that if george h.w. bush had decided not to run for re-election in '92, his reputation would have been much higher because his achievements in his first term particularly in foreign policy and also what he did about the budget deficit -- people forget that the reason we were able to overcome the reagan budget deficits because that two presidents one from the republican party and one from the democratic party worked together over two terms. to raise taxes judicially and cut government spending.

that's how we cut the deficit. so george bush, had he decided not to run for another term, i think would have been remembered very well at the time. i believe over time his reputation will continue to increase. >> and one final question before we go to calls, three winners of the pulitzer this year for nonfiction. we have david hoffman, t.j. stiles and mr. ahmed learning about finance. do we learn history again through current events? because all of them deal with history in a sense but at the same time, all very current? >> i think all -- anyone who's a teacher understands that there's a challenge in a web world of getting people's attention. how do you get -- and particularly, you know, young people that there's a future of. how do you get people's attention? well, if there's a current event

is that is a traumatic, explosive event you can get people to understand the path a little bit better because, you know, it's like that. but at least you've got -- you've got a little hook on which you can hang the past. that's why you find that major lamentus moments in american history don't just produce history of that period but also retrospective look at the past, to look for analogies and parallels. the first call is from new york city. go ahead, new york. . >> caller: i have a problem. i love reading history and done it for a number of years. i'm reading a book by a very famous american historian who goes through a period of 1932 to 1972. i'm not giving it away. but they're going through the book.

i find that there's some glaring statements and i tried to look -- get verifications on the internet and my first -- >> what's the name of the book? >> and i see that i can't -- in my mind, in general when someone reads history sees this, what is the reader supposed to make of this? >> well, a couple of things. first of all, you should look to this historian's footnotes. because if there are statements of fact in the book, generally speaking you're going to find a footnote. and that's where you would look. go to your public library -- generally -- you would go to the public library if you didn't want to buy the book yourself and check. that's the first thing do you. the second thing i want you to

keep in mind is -- we all love the web. but there's no filters. not that there should be a filter but there's no filter on the information. you should be careful about using the web to contradict a scholar's work. again, scholars make mistakes but i think take them at their word first of all. go to the source they cite. check that cite if it's that important to you and if you find there's something wrong with your interpretation, well, you have a case. >> amherst, new york, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, peter and tim. yes. am i going to have a chance for two short questions or do you want my best one. >> please go ahead with your two questions, sir. >> okay. we'll take them one at a time. i'll submit to you that newt gingrich made president bill clinton in my mind a great president. would you agree with that? >> and go ahead with your second question, caller. >> okay. like that very good.

during the '08 campaign for president, i wrote -- i had a big concern and i called into c-span constantly every 30 days asking for barack obama to get his opinion what he might do about slave reparations and it wasn't just about that. it was what he was basically get to the heart of the matter. what he would do for the black folks in this country who we all knew had big problems and continued to have big problems today. right now everybody and their mother in the liberal media is calling white folks who disagree with the president a racist. i submit to you, if he doesn't put a stop to that or address that, he's a one-term president. would you agree with me. >> newt gingrich and bill clinton. >> thank you for your questions, caller. i know a lot more about the relationship between newt gingrich and george h.w. bush.

and george h.w. bush had to negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement. newt gingrich was part of the negotiations. and then at the last moment when president bush was going to announce the disagreement, newt gingrich who was in the oval office with him, did not walk out to the rose garden to be photographed next to the president. and the next day attacked president bush for his budgetary policy. i would have to argue that in that instance newt gingrich wasn't part of the solution but part of the problem because he wasn't helping president bush dealing with budget deficits. the second question, i'm not really sure the connection. what i would like to mention is fiery rhetoric. i think that we are in a period time and it's not the first time in american history 19th century had several of these episodes.

when people used very inflammatory rhetoric to express their disagreements, let's just disagree on policy. let's not disagree on personality. so i think -- my sense of your second question is, the more we move away from fiery rhetoric, the better our government will function and the better we'll feel about our government. >> next call for presidential historian tim naftali comes from boulder, colorado. boulder, please go ahead. we are going to move on, folks. boulder is not there. so let's go to riverside, california, about 60 miles from where we sit now. riverside, you are on with tim naftali. >> right. riverside is really building up. i was wondering president kennedy -- i was listening a book review about letters to jackie after his death. why do you think he came off as being so popular and it's just a

shame that somebody had to take his life that, you know, there's always somebody there when somebody has progressive ideas and has to stop these people, the world would be a better place if they would stay out of the scene. but i would like your opinion why he captivated people all over the world. thank you very much. and god bless. >> thank you very much. it's a great question. and i have to say i'm working my next presidential book. it will be about john f. kennedy. i think kennedy represented an entire generation of americans who were -- the first lieutenant in the world war ii. it was the greatest generation and that whole generation was coming into its own in the 1960s. john f. kennedy was a charming, effervescent person for that

generation. when he was cut down so young, it was a slap simply not against the man but an entire generation. i think that is very important to keep in mind. the second reason i think that he's had such an iconic presence in american public life, even to this day, is that he learned on the job. if you look at what john kennedy was planning to do before he got elected and compare to what he was doing in 1963, just before he died, you can see a man who sort of shared the learning process of the american people and worked them towards a different country. we don't have a lot of time but the best example is on civil rights. john kennedy on civil rights was not progressive in 1960. i would argue that richard nixon, the vice president, made some proposals for civil rights were progressive or even more progressive in certain respects than john kennedy in the 1960s.

by 1963 john kennedy and his brother are on the forefront of civil rights but it took three years for that to happen and it took three years for learning of the entire country to be at the point where it was in 19 six 3. >> can you from a historical draw parallels from the kennedy administration and the obama administration? >> it's not for me to draw those parallels, not yet. like david remnick and meredith, i haven't done the research on the obama administration. i can't say. what i can say is this, what is very interesting is to watch leaders express their willness to change. not just to change the country but themselves to change and to learn. we've been -- we have a tension in american society where some people think you have to know what to do the minute you become president. but is that really realistic? frankly there's no job like

being president, even vice president, even a strong muscular vice president in the case of, if you will be the vies presidency of dick cheney. even in that case you're not president. and so there are burdens of the presidency which you can only really shoulder when you are president. so is it realistic to assume that day one the president is going to have all the right answers? is it realistic on any day to have the right answer? what i think it will be interesting for all of us to watch is the extent to which barack obama shares his learning process with the public. because, you know, he is after all if you look at his training and you read his memoir, he is a man who does learn and who believion. >> what do you hope to bring to the table with your new jfk book and when will we see it? >> i have to say -- you'll see it as soon as i finish it.

my publisher might be watching. i will be getting more into it. i just started the research. i'm getting more into it in the next couple of years. there's a lot of things about john f. kennedy that has become available to the public in the last few years. i believe that with the exception of the cuban missile crisis, the materials on his tape have nst been fully integrated on his presidency. you can see him learning in the tapes on vietnam. you can see him learning on the tapes on the civil rights. it's learning in other areas, too. there's a whole narrative. and there are some beautiful books on kennedy written. ted sorenson's book and arthur schlesinger's and there's more that bring kennedy more to life than ever before. and i also i think my generation should come to term why he remains an icon and whether it's fair.

does the kennedy presidency have lessons that are useful today? i hope to answer that question. >> and tim naftali mentioned richard reeves who will be participating in the first panel that we cover today. his most recent book "daring young men." next call for mr. naftali, boulder, please go ahead with your question. >> hello. hello. mr. naftali, i have a brief question regarding the mckinly administration and subsequent roosevelt administration. i have, you know, been a scholar of presidential history. but i do not no means a presidential historian. as a recent government and international politics major i have a great interest in the opposite presidency. and my question is relating to president mckinley's final

inaugural address in which he seemed to solve the manufacturing, labor and industrial issues that we were having at the time while also providing a $41 million tax cut. and when president roosevelt talked about president mckinley and his first address to the nation, he said that at the time of president mckinley's assassination, he was the most beloved man in the entire united states. can you shed some light into why that was the case for president mckinley? >> thank you, boulder. let's leave it there. go ahead. >> by the way, there's no special training course to become a presidential historian. i think you just have to read one biography or just be interested in presidents. there are all presidential historians that live in the united states. well, remember about mckinley, two important points.

first of all, the spanish-american war. mckinley was a wartime president. and it was a -- at least of the standards at the time of the country were considered to be a successful war. secondly, tariffs. and protection of, you know, american -- american products. the united states crossed over an important bridge in the late 19th century and became a real power. mckinley was the first person to walk us over the bren. -- bridge. woodrow wilson and franklin roosevelt talked about the inch indications. but it's mckinley who walked us over the bridge to make us is 20th century global power that we were. >> we are here live at the "los angeles times" book festival. it's held on the grounds of ucla in the west l.a. area. and, in fact, the c-span bus is also here.

and they are handing out book bags. so if you happen to be in the area, you want to come down and get a book bag, come on down and see us. next call for tim naftali comes from west hanover, new hampshire. good afternoon. >> good day, tim. it looks like you're enjoying yourselves. we've got a little rain here. a general comment and then a question for you there. first of all, i'm currently reading the chalmers johnson trilogy. he's position a lot of on research on militarism and his books are very well corroborated and documented and i understand well what you mean about having the documentation. but if you're really interested and questioning what's going on and his books are well documented. with regard to the presidential impact, it looks like to me that a lot of -- if you want to perceive these things as

troubles maybe the business community doesn't always see them as troubles but a lot of these things are linked to lack of regulation. that we're experiencing right now. and there's a phrase, a hostile to business. and i think over the last certainly 20 to 30 years, if any president or any one -- any politician is perceived as being even mildly hostile to business, he or she is not going to get any kind of ball rolling, whatsoever. and i want to ask you, if we get to a day where real regulation, not an a -- old time believing, but if it comes back, what will have occurred and how dramatic will a president have to be in order to see something like that come back to our country? >> tim naftali. >> great question. keep in mind these arguments -- you can find them in the late

18th century as well as 19th century. and 20th century. the point is the ground shift. the debate shift. the terms may be the same. but, you know, what's considered excessive regulation today would have been unthinkable in 1913. in 1913, the creation of the federal reserve was considered to be unthinkable regulation. the ground shift, the arguments often stay the same. but remember part of the beauty of the country of our system, or our constitutional system is this give-and-take, the constant push. so i'm not pessimistic because the words may be the same. the arguments change and the ground shifts over time. so there are periods of more regulation, periods of underregulation if you will. look at the savings and loan crisis again, you know -- the george h.w. bush period. the argument ultimately was --

they were under regulated and they had to be regulated again. our system allows for this constant debate. and so i don't worry about the same rhetoric reappearing because it's one of the patterns of american history. what i look at are the results. what is the end point of those debates. where did this take us? does it take us down the road of bitterness and division? in this case it's not good. or does it take us to a new consensus? when it takes us to a new consensus, it's just a system then working itself out. >> we've got kind of a two-party question here. -- two-part question. the caller said chalmers johnson. does that say anything to you about that man's politics. >> peter, that's not fair. because -- >> the second part of the

question makes -- >> i'm going to be terribly optimistic, and i guess naive. but you know what, it's a book festival so this is an opportunity to be this way. people make the argument that readers only read to confirm their assumptions. i hope that's not true. because then we're only going to deepen the divide. look, i just -- i don't want to go down that road because i don't want to believe that people just read what they believe in. i don't read just what i believe in. and it sharpens my own views by reading a very smart, a scholar who has a different interpretation. it doesn't have to be political by the way to be interpretation. that, i think, makes us smarter. so i would rather not assume anything about this person's politics. and i would hope that he doesn't assume anything by his politics by the book he chooses.

>> tim naftali, addressed the last part of the question. the last call comes from philadelphia. go ahead, philadelphia. >> hi. i've been a school teacher and i've taught anywhere from a.p. courses to elementary school. and emotionally disturbed kids who have a lot of issues in their life. and my question is, when do we start telling children the actual truth about american history? and not just groundhog day or columbus day and those sort of things? >> well, thank you for that great question. i think we tell the truth, educators, as often as we can. and i think that should be every day. but there is a question embedded -- or there's an assumption embedded in your question that textbooks for one reason or the other cannot tell the truth.

i worry about oversimplification. i've been criticized for being a complexfier because i do think details matter. and if we oversimplify we actually get further away from the truth sometimes. so i love your question because your question implies that you're pushing and trying. i think that's what we all do all the time. we try our best. now, people out there are going to say, oh, what's the truth and it's what you think it is. let me tell you something, i'm not a book modernist. i believe that things happen. i believe there are facts. i believe there is a real world out there. peter, i assure you, he is here, okay? it is beautiful out there. what's the larger significance of these things we could disagree about. and there's basic things we shouldn't. if we don't deliver these basic facts to our students we are first of all underestimating them and second of all we are not giving them building bs