there are lots of things, lots of lessons and having made similar mistakes or witnessed similar mistakes made by others. you step back and say but this war, you could say war is always with us but is becoming more and more high-tech. the weapons of mass destruction we have been with them, now they are at highly new levels, we of new levels of threats in terms of information technology the way to bring societies down in the digital age. the basic passions i try to understand and i did this somewhat with the atomic bombs, why would the bombs drop and it drew me into many areas, the level of violence, there was a lot of violence. there was a sense of duty in

violence. there was the drive to make a better weapon. .. >> then the get the machinery. the machinery takes on a life of its own. then it becomes so complex. and your individual prerogatives. then you get the political pressure. there was enormous -- one the

reasons that we dropped the bombs was because they believed it would end the war quickly. i don't -- i wrestle with this. i believe that. that's not the only reason. there were many reasons we dropped the bomb. another one was politically. you don't show what you spent all of that money, you democrats spent all of the money for during the war. you don't show what it was. you are do you meaned in the postwar elections. >> unfortunately we are out of time. we barely dented this book. one the things that really impressed me was not just the number of parallels between the two long painful wars fought by two different generations now, but the depths and the breaths of those parallels and important differences. i hope this becomes required reading at our service academies and certainly by our elected officials who have to deal with issues of war and peace. i want to thank you for writing this book.

>> thank you so much. nice to have a chance to chat with you. >> thank you. >> coming up next, book tv presents "afterwords" an hour-long program where we invite guests. nigel hamilton discussed his book "american caesars." the award winning author of "jfk: reckless use" and bill clinton's biography exams the path to the white house and each man's strengths and weaknesses. he also takes a close look at the more challenging issues of each administration.

he speaks with fellow historian, and author richard smith. >> host: nigel hamilton, author of "american caesars" you have spent a lifetime thinking about and practicing the art of biography. this book is among other things a group biography of the last 12 american presidents. what do you think the biographer ours his suggest? >> guest: i think the first thing he owes is truth. i think he owes, or she, a agree of curiosity. i think it's fatal for the biographer to go into a project with a set opinion. i think a biographer needs to have an open mind, and clearly, you need some driving interest curiosity. i think you've got to be willing to change your mind if the facts and the documents or the

interviewer, it happens several times. >> host: does a biographer also owe his subject empathy? and i mean by that, that word -- i mean that a biographer is engaged in the almost godlike act of recreating life. if you are going to explain another human being, his character and motivations as well as his actions, presumably, you need to try to step into his shoes, perhaps even inside his skin. is that? is that something that you think is a -- is necessary? >> guest: i don't know i would say necessary. it depends what kind of biography that you want to write. personally, i have always until now avoided writing biographers

about people i don't like because i think -- fair to say it's difficult to emphasize. you may end up judging them unfairly or not being able to put yourself in their shoes. if you do have to write about people that you don't necessarily care for and in this book, among the 12 presidents there were several -- >> host: right. >> guest: they didn't like. i think you owe it to them -- i don't know whether empathy is the right word. you owe it to them to try to keep an open mind. at least intellectually be able to project on to them. of course a big challenge with "american caesars" to see not necessarily the domestic president, as the most powerful men in the world and how they responded to that challenge. which had never existed before the second world war.

>> host: for those that don't know, tell us what is the inspiration in classical literature? >> guest: well [inaudible] was a roman historian at the time of the -- of hadrian. who was working in rome and see the archives, and got this idea, he'd like to write the lives of the great roman dictators or caesars from julius caesar on ward. he chose the first 12. many of them assassinated. and some of them terrible tyrants and dictators, and some of them great men like caesar augustus. and that book that he wrote

became famous and since printing began has never been out of print. it is basically our source material not only for the lives of those great roman every poorers, for the characters and the personalities. because he being in rome, he was able to do interview with people who'd actually lived through some of the lives of those caesars, and by telling not only their public lives, but their private lives, he gave this unforgettable insight, this window on to the world of rome at the height of the roman empire. >> host: so when whiten is often credited in some ways the father of modern psychological character-driven biography, in fact, he had a classical president. >> guest: that's true. i think the big difference is he

did something that's never been done since, as far as i know. as a biographical history. i don't know the book is the first time it's been tried since roman time. but he decided to write about those emperors, first in terms of how they became president -- caesar, and how they operated as caesar, and only then to look at their private lives. he separated the public from the private. now over the last few centuries, we've become more and more interested in the psychology of human beings. so certainly everybody biography that i've written whether jfk or clinton or bill marshall montgomery, i've always tried to lace into an understanding of the character. right from the very beginning. almost before he's born and understanding of the context and psychology and the upbringing and so on. when i was asked if i would like

to write a new version of the americans, like the roman caesars. i looked back and i thought and tried to analyze how he would structure his lives. i like that temple plait, -- template, that you first look at the public life so that you can actually see clearly the political challenges and the administrative challenges, the leadership challenges that those men faced in -- in the time when they were caesar. and only then look at their private lives. and so i wrote an initial chapter on harry truman and showed it to my editor. he said this works marvelously. you first see him as president. you first see him in the way that he had to deal with these extraordinary responsibilities

on the death of roosevelt, and how he dealt and only then do you stop and look at him in terms of his personality. >> host: that's true. you do derive the reader of a sense of a life being lived, evolving, growing, reacting, and all of that prestory, if you will, shaping the individual who coming into office. >> guest: but the advantage as i say, if you are looking a political another it. >> host: there's a statistic that's jaw dropping early in the book. i think i have that right.

in 1938, the united states was responsible for 14 overseas, military installations. today that number exceeds 1,000. how did we get from -- is that the story how begot from 14 to 1,000. >> guest: that's the story of the american empire. the united states was 17th in terms of the military ranking before world war ii. the army was desperately under staffed. >> guest: how much of that was the result of disillusionment following world war i that it had been in effect sold to the american people as a crusade? >> guest: absolutely. it was the same in britain. kennedy wrote the thesis why england slept? england slept because it didn't want to know any more. but once the japanese attacked

at pearl harbor, the whole scenario changed. and what i've found so fascinating looking back at fdr was the way that the united states geared itself up so incredibly quickly to fighting not only a world war, but a world war on two vastly separated fronts in the pacific and in europe. >> host: it's interesting because -- well, first of all will you acknowledge that there would be candidates for a caesar before fdr? would teddy roosevelt be an imperial figure? >> guest: certainly there were characters who could be caesars. often they were offered to as caesars. [laughter] >> host: yeah. >> guest: but very quickly that notion of the united states

becoming a pseudomonarchy or empire was abandoned. it's only for world war ii was the united states forever abandons isolation. and the real reason is the atomic bomb. once the united states had developed the atomic weapon, it was all -- i mean people talked about disarmorment. the thought that you could disarm and somebody else would have the bomb was just -- so really out of necessity, the united states became in world car ii but the great democratic of the post war. >> host: i'm wondering, you are a native brit. does it give you insight? and, in fact, is one the factors of the american century post war the route of withdrawal from britain from that role.

>> guest: absolutely. i don't think i could have written a book and certainly wouldn't have had the arrogance to under take it. because a lot of people said, nigel, isn't this rather ambitious? tackle 12 american presidents. i had written quite deeply about two american presidents jfk and bill clinton. >> host: yeah. let's make sure our viewers know, you've written about young jfk, a book that certainly stirred a fair amount of controversy, and a two-volume biography of bill clinton, including the presidency. and of course in your multivolume, mr. montgomery, you certainly met up with dwight eisenhower. you brought all of that into this enterprise. >> guest: right. i felt i had a sort of handle. as you say, the real advantage that i felt i had in relation to my colleagues in the united states who teach history was

that i had actually grown up in a decaying british empire. you know, i was born in 1944. you know? churchill was still dreaming of holding on to india. the african colonies, one the most fascinating things about fdr in my chapter is the way that fdr basically tells churchill that it's no go. >> guest: it's interesting. you portray -- you have hinted at this. but you portray churchill with all of his heroic qualities, larger than life qualities as essentially a man working over his shoulder. and fdr is someone with a clearer grasp of the future that has yet to unfold. >> guest: i think fdr was a real visionry. he's definitely the hero of this book. >> host: that brings something

up. 12 figures. it's interesting that the first four, roosevelt, truman, eisenhower, kennedy, the great caesars. >> guest: in my view. >> host: in your view. that brings up what happened post kennedy? has it all been down hill? has it been the nature of the imperial exercise itself? was vietnam, individual presidents coincidence, what combined to trace this trajectory from fdr to the present? >> guest: well, the short answer, all of the above. but i do think the big turning point was lyndon johnson and the vietnam war. and in a sense, that's the most tragic chapter in the book. >> host: you see johnson as a tragic figure? >> guest: absolutely. he was a man who raised in the south in texas who hadn't shown

any particular enthusiasm for civil rights, but who then took up that mantle of civil rights reform. and basically rammed it down the throats of congress and certainly southern politicians. and who knew that it might be fatal from the chances of democratic candidates in the future. and i think he showed enormous courage in that sense. in 1964, when he was still an unelected president, in

goldwater. people are concerned about the republican right he was pressed into service. >> host: he didn't have that in mind? >> guest: yes, he had it in mind. it's interesting, in a way if he had stood aside, he would be the 5th great president. what he achieved as civil rights really is extraordinary. and he inherited kennedy's involvement in vietnam. it wasn't a war in that stage. and the -- and i think in many ways although a great man, johnson was not equipped to be a caesar. he had traveled somewhat around the world as vice president. but essentially, his realm was the united states. his real realm was texas. you know? and he went --. > host: that's an exercise in

itself. >> guest: yes. exactly. i don't think he had the confidence in the same way that jfk developed even though such a young man. i don't think he had the confidence to over rule his advisors. and to say, well, goldwater maybe still pushing from the right. but we won the election and we are not going to go there. even larger sense. >> host: we all want to have our presidents with a sense of history and the perspective that it brings. is it also possible for them to become prisoners of history? clearly lyndon johnson's generation was branded by munich. munich analogy kept services.

and he also was haunted by the fact that the right wing has exploited china's going communist in 1949. you know, he recognized that in the signing the save rights bill, he was probably signing away the south. you just wonder whether all of this came together to influence in any way -- >> guest: well, of course. i disagree with my fellow historians who tend to believe in movements and patterns that can't be changed. >> host: right. >> guest: i think a good example of rejecting this notion that you are imprisoned within the history of munich of appeasing a dictator or a threat is the way that president eisenhower, the third great caesar in my view, the way that he dealt with the crisis in 1956. because the british and the french and the israelis went in

to take back the suez canal. they assumed the united states, even though the most powerful country in the world, would simply stand back and say tut-tut naughty kids and awe -- allow it to happen. eisenhower did not. he's the president of the united states and commander in chief of american armed services. he said no. he basically bankrupted the british by saying we're not going to support the pound sterling. the president is an extraordinary way to change history if he or she one day chooses to do so. >> host: and in eisenhower's case, it was interesting. it's on the eve of the 56th election. and he's writing, you know, in his private thoughts that this may actually cost him the election. taking a firm stand will cost the jewish vote. he can see new york.

other northeastern industrial states. from his perspective at the time, it was an act of political risk on his part. >> guest: and courage. i think one the common themes about the president is definitely courage. >> host: i was going to ask you, are there themes that run throughout the period and lives? themes essential to leadership under all circumstances? i mean, what do you learn collectively from these lives? >> guest: the first two years in office are the most difficult. [laughter] >> host: well, that's will probably come as consolation to the incumbent. >> caller: exactly. if you think of the difficulties, almost every one of these presidents had whether you are talking about reagan or in their first two years in

office, it is -- you know, it's a huge learning curve. and in that sense, you'd think, well, surely there has to be a better political system that trains people in advance for this. but i don't know that there is. i mean i was interested in -- when i was writing about bill clinton and my multivolume book. bill clinton, i'm sure is the cleverrist, intellectually, the smartest and highest iq of any president that's ever occupied the white house. he just has an extraordinary able mind. but in a way he was the worst president in terms of the caesars, in terms of taking over the reigns of power once he reached washington. he was obsessed with public approval. you could psychologize that.

but you have to have a tremendous chief of staff. i spent meres from monty thurgood's perspective. i knew monty, he would say, you have to have a good chief of staff. you work him to the bone. and when he goes mad with all of the work, you toss him out and take on another one. you know, seriously, you say that. because two presidents -- well -- >> host: this issues arises in the ford white house where ford with the mindset has the spokes of the wheel which clearly does not work. but that doesn't keep jimmy carter from employing it in his presidency. as you write to his detriment. >> guest: and clinton. it's like -- let's hope that future presidents will read this book and at least learn some of the lessons. because they are so obvious.

it's not as though, you know, it has to -- yes, it's always going to be a learning serve. there are some things that we can learn from history. and i think the ability to be a good administrating -- administrative chief once you enter the white house is absolutely crucial. and looking at these past examples, it would be useful. >> host: that's fascinating. because it's probably wasn't least taught aspects of the presidency. we are so enarmorred of the advocacy role of the presidency. harry truman about public persuasion, setting the agenda, using the media. the unglamorous aspects of actually making the white house, let alone the country function are often over looked. >> guest: well, again, one of the -- my changes of mind as a biographical historian was

ronald reagan in this book. because i'd be brought up in the united kingdom where i was there when reagan was president. and reagan was considered by my colleagues to be a joke. i mean they didn't know really much about him as governor as california. and nobody had any idea that his political convictions went so deep and so far back into his career. i ended up having -- i didn't always agree with him. i ended up having enormous admiration, first of all for the depth of his assurance that communism could be confronted from an economic point of view and soviet union could finally be brought down by economic competition.

but the other thing i admired him for was his temperament. we haven't talked about that. i think one the themes that run through the book is certain presidents did have the right kind of attitude. >> host: if we talk about self-confidence, jimmy carter had no lack of self-confidence. ronald reagan had no lack of self-assurance. but two very different presidencies. >> guest: right, i don't think self-confidence is the right -- necessarily the right requirement. no. i'm talking about temperament. such as jfk showed. the ability to distance yourself a the bit. to stand back, you know? looking at the way jfk handled the cuban missile crisis, to

listen to the advise that you are getting from your cabinet and your national security advisors, but to be able to filter that through your own mind as an independent mind and to remember that you were elected by the people of the united states. not by these people sitting around the table. and you owe your loyalty to them. i think that was -- is a terribly important. and i'm not sure jimmy carter really had that. he had the absolute sincerity, and visionary quality that he saw the challenges of the united states. it wasn't a lack of patriotism, or at least in the national interest. >> host: right. >> guest: on the contrary. he believed that so deeply. the problem was he believed it so deeply that he wasn't listening to the other people. >> host: but you quote him on

-- i think early on as telling someone that he hoped to have a relationship -- established relationship with the soviet union akin to the relationship with great britain. >> guest: yeah, i mean he would come out with the these remarkably naive notions, which in a way were very christian and charitable. they lacked a certain realism if you are going to be emperor of the united states. i keep saying emperor. americans here do not like to consider themselves an empire. we got rid of the british 100 years ago. >> host: certainly we don't see ourselves as a colonial power. >> guest: but abroad, that's how the united states is seen. if they travel outside of the united states, they very quickly become aware of that. as you said, the number of military businesses well over 1,000 years means that the

united states is operating at a military level that's never existed in the history of humanity. the romans were not that powerful in their time. >> host: it's interesting. so many interesting things in the book. i think it's fair to say the revision is history in a number of respects. for example, running -- run the threads runs throughout the middle east is the relationship. particularly israel. you could play camp david's accords the highlight of reagan's presidency. you present that in every different light. > guest: yes, i present it in jimmy carter's representative life. he came to think -- at the time

he was very proud of it. after all he brought the sworn enemies in egypt and israel together. israelis were going to withdraw from some of the occupied territories. over the years, he felt that he -- he got the poor end of the stick. the israelis had run rings around them and israelis got everything that they wanted. and peace, which is what he really wanted in the id -- in the middle east would probably not happen. but in the administration, and even after that, and i know certainly most of my jewish friends and colleagues think rather badly of jimmy carter from that. i'm sad about that. he's a brave man. he constantly goes over there.

he's truly interested in peace. he's the gandhi of modern times. >> host: i think he was a former president. >> guest: i don't think he would quarrel with that. a great man, not a great caesar. >> host: it raises to me, someone at the bottom of the ex-president si. it may very well be the largest part of carter's legacy it to redefine the nebulous office. which has pluses and minuses. if you look at bill clinton's center, it is as ambitious in it's outreach in humanitarian efforts. but correct me if i'm wrong, it's not an operational, diplomatic element to what bill

clinton does. grounded in the resentment that he and others felt towards jimmy carter who they thought was operating as a kind of -- freelancer. >> guest: exactly. it can be embarrassing if he feels he's being over shadowed. i think it happened when richard nixon during president ford's time when richard was going to china. i gave this man a pardon. that was the center piece. >> host: that was one the ford

library. unlike lyndon johnson, he lived long enough to have the satisfaction of knowing that most americans had come to the point of view what he did was necessary and indeed an act of political courage. there was the kennedy library in the profiles and encourage the war. but i take it you question that consensus. you still think that it was a mistake? >> guest: yes, i think it was a terrible mistake. i think richard nixon was one of the most dangerous presidents that we've ever had. and i think he was truly close to being a madman. and i quote a great deal. >> host: you compare both johnson and nixon to coligula. which is not high prize.

>> guest: johnson in terms of the private lives. we haven't mentioned that. each of the presidents have a private life or love life if you like to call it. they areoff at complete odds with the public figure. you have to ask yourself does the private life impact that? it raises the question. >> host: clearly he behaves recklessly. it was the opposite of reckless. so what is the connection? >> guest: i don't think -- you know, if i was a psychologist or sociology, i might try to draw some statistical inference. i don't think it would be worth a dam, really. i think the fact is all of these caesars were individuals. you need a hell of a lot of individuality and ambition to get to the white house. they were extraordinary characters. and going through extraordinary tension of just to get to the white house let alone the

responsibilities that they carried and how they managed their private lives differing from, you know, one to the other. i mean harry truman is the perfect example of the devoted husband. i love that story that when he's in berlin, he's about to drop the atomic or decide whether to drop the atomic bomb and he's put in a villa by the russians and this young american officer, infancy comes and says mr. president is there anything that you need? i can get you anything. anything that you'd like. women? truman says, son, don't ever mention that again. i married my sweetheart. i am devoted, we are loyal to each other. don't ever speak to me like that again. he was a truly honorable husband. >> host: that tells us something important about harry truman. but is there risk particularly in the modern culture, sort of

celebrity driven culture where the commander in chief is celebrity in chief that we spend too much time on the private lives? >> guest: there's a risk that we do. but i'm afraid it's a lost cause. i mean you try to stop the media. i'm sure i'm not going to exclude c-span, of course, but try to tell the media not to concentrate on the personality and the private life and particularly the scandals. i mean i tried to be you know to a certain tone set the patterns of doing this. and i've tried to be unjudgmental. but they are in succession pretty extraordinary. the one that most fascinated me

was gloomy gus, richard nixon as a young man. >> host: is he the hardest to know? of the 12 figures? >> guest: i think so. he was quite a brilliant man. but he was so dark and had these different sides to him. we now know from his psychiatrist, from the notes who said he -- i think i quote him saying he was an enigma to himself and enigma to me. his psychiatrist. his first girlfriend, he pursued for five years. he was a democrat. her father was a police chief. after five years, she was still an enigma to me. >> host: after fives, he wrote a biography of nixon. he said what have you concluded?

i've concluded that you are so complex that no one will every understand you completely. nixon said now you are getting somehow. which goes to your point. >> guest: he understood himself. he would look apparently into the mirror and at one point when he was suffering through depression, and i think he was vice president and he would look in the mirror and he said to his psychiatrist, i don't recognize the man i see. >> host: i've often thought, let me know your reaction, the most remarkable thing about the nixon presidency is not how it ended but that it happened at all. >> guest: oh yes. and as i say in the book, i'm not the first to say it. i think robert dallek wrote a wonderful book on this. but basically, i think he was guilty of high treason and sabotaging johnson's piece negotiations with north vietnam. >> host: but in a broader

sense. given his personality and he said himself i'm an introvert and extra vert. there are those that regard him as a closet intellectual. that wasn't cool in the circles for that to be known. but he was not a natural in the democratic, door-knocking process. >> guest: no. >> host: but yet he reached the top. >> guest: but you know the secret of that. he studied acting at college. he was recognized as a great shakespeare reenactor. you see that when you see the archiveal film. when you see the speech and those moments when he goes before the camera and talks about about the silent majority and talks about his people and

background. the silent majority. the idea that the little guy who was being exploited, not listened to, punished. >> guest: but in fdr's case, it was idealist. to me again, there was a man born who could see beyond his own circle. and see the true pop pew louse of -- populous of the united states. but in richard nixon's case, i think it was actually -- some of that was really genuine. that he came from this this -- n you go to his little house at the nixon library. >> host: sure.

a combination of idealism and resentment. displg -- >> guest: resentment is important. regrew up poor. brothers dying of tuberculosis. and so fearful of the father and determined to do so well and in a paper bag. and going barefoot to school. i think what would happen in those great moments of crises when he was accused of corruption and would drop him as nominee in 1952. that had looked as though nixon would have to retire or resign from the vice presidential nominations. and he goes in front of the public and gives that checker speech. i think that's the moment when he reaches back into himself.

it's not just resentment. it's that moment when he puts away his political ambitions and all of that. and he reaches back into that childhood. that's terribly moving actually. >> guest: it is moving. at the same time, it was a brilliant piece of theater. it gave him something that no vice president in american history had. a following. the ironies that affectingly turned tables on richard nixon. remember at the critical moment, ike is watching. nixon raising general eisenhower, and going after hadley stephens, and calling on everyone to release -- ike breaks his headphone. he knows exactly, ike, the instinctive politician, who spent a life time denying he was a politician, knew exactly what

was being done to him. this is an amazing moment. >> guest: that's his brilliance, his genius that he could turn that defeat into victory by being able to see other people's weaknesses. >> host: would you by the fact that nixon was the last new deal president? >> guest: to some extent, i would. he did believe in health care reform. he did believe in many public -- major public initiatives. >> host: and was some of that accommodating himself to the prevailing political consensus? in other words, 20 years later, 25 years later, there's still -- america was still a new deal nation. george wilk said in 1980, they want to conserve the new deal. specifically social security. is nixon in effect like any good

politicians accommodating himself to the prevailing consensus? >> guest: richard i would say it goes deeper than that. again what moved me was nixon's absolute addlation of his mother. he never beat the children. they were terrified of her calling them out for doing something sinful or whatever. and i think again he would reach into himself for a motion of responsibility for society for the society. >> host: fit in?

>> guest: i think very few republican opponents. you see in almost every case, they are fighting tea party style elements within or the side of it. i wonder if that's on both sides of the aisle. fdr had to put up with huey long and others who thought he wasn't -- people that thought he wasn't decisive enough. this was an opportunity not just to save capitalism but in some ways at least restructure if not replace it. harry truman talked about professional liberals. john kennedy had criticism from the left. is it fair to say that all of these presidents -- >> guest: they are forced into the middle. >> host: basically there are the extremes on the left and the right. and in the end they are forced into that middle.

and what was so interesting to me, if you exclude to a large extent the domestic policy side of it, you see the miracle of how they managed to deal with that domestics policy side. as best they can. how they still have the reserves they need and a more global perspective in terms of both the american interest and peace. >> host: i think is it safe to say that reality intrudes and ideology receives? >> guest: definitely. i think a lot of them have to take a very deep breath. and basically forget politicians or at least ideological politics. and look at the reality of the situation. >> host: it's interesting that john kennedy is the fourth of

your great caesars. i'm wondering my sense is that nixon famously said it would take 50 years before they could write about him. the irony i would think in 50 years in kennedy's case, the assassination ensured that the pendulum would fall to the other extreme. only now in some ways the kennedy presidency for a long time we heard he didn't get much legislation passed, style over substance, there was a tendency to minimize. if you look at the two of the issues of the age, the cold war and civil rights, he seized that favorite term and grew in office. and, in fact, before his death had embraced the politically difficult position on both. >> guest: just as eisenhower had adopted more projective position on the civil rights in the previous administration.

>> host: as opposed to enforcing the court order, had he, you know, in his heart -- i mean he -- he was very much a gradualist who understood the south or thought he did and make the misstate of believing that southerners would be as good hearted as he was and would be educated in a short period of time to a new racial order. >> guest: i think you put your finger on it when you use the word time. in a short order or long order. a lot of the presidents if you put them together in a room would have similar approaches. in social responsibility. they would differ on when could it happen? when is the great american public willing to accept it?

in eisenhower's case, he felt his hand had been forced in the supreme court in terms of schooling. but he embraced the moments and sent the troops down to arkansas. i think that is really a salient moment in american history. and the same with john f. kennedy, you know, he was concerned that he would get -- he should get a second term in office. so he was constantly trying to put things off to a second term. you know, martin luther king and many millions of people were not willing to wait for that. and i think he showed great courage in accepting that.

don't you think someone of the mastery of the media, not only on the front page the "the times" and birmingham with fire houses and the like which in effect to some degree changed his hands. >> guest: history changed in that respect. that's true of all of them. i think he got training from mr. mcdowell. >> host: robert montgomery. >> guest: oh yes. the bully pulpit. >> host: the bully pulpit. it's fascinating that you mentioned that. richard nixon could go on three networks, have access to 95 percent of the nation, and move the numbers. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: that's not really

possible for a president today, is it? >> guest: no, the diffusion of communications means that you don't have the monolithic ability to address the nation and change the nation. >> host: especially competing voices. before you finish the sermon, you know, they are twittering and the internet is commenting and -- >> guest: oh, i think we are going to see different kinds of american caesars in the future. >> host: that's obviously where we want to go. first of all, what are the lessons of this book for barack obama? as you know we are taping this on the eve of midterm elections. certainly part of the conventional narrative is there's a considerable amount of disillusionment on the left. mostly in contrast with the predecessor. where does he fit in this point

in your narrative? >> guest: the obvious parallel, bill clinton in '94 who was stunned when he lost both houses, not just one, both houses and chambers of commerce. it's remarkable when bill clinton after losing the world -- well, bill clinton's image, we're talking about photo germism, his image was morphed on the candidates during the midterm election. >> host: why is it to polarizing? >> guest: for a number of reasons. now today one talks ab the possibly racism involved and in bill clinton's case, you couldn't say it was because he was white. >> host: 60ss -- >> guest: i think it's the counterpart. which newt given -- newt gingrich played they were soft.

they were all pot smokers out of vietnam. i think a lot of it was like we were saying earlier, the first two terms are the learning experiences. and he made this terrible mistake in making an old kinger garden -- kindergarten friend as chief of staff. in terms of his private life. he wanted the chief of staff that would respect those. it was a terrible mistake. you know, he has a brilliant mind. but it's not a good administrative mind. you know, he needs somebody. just like eisenhower during world war ii had general badell smith as they say kicked ass. you have to have someone that's the bad cop to your good cop. i think bill clinton is a wonderful example of how a president can lose the midterm election, and yet as they said of bill clinton, once he go

through his funk, see that he is not a member of congress, he's in this unique role as president of the united states, as commander in chief. and the whole world looks to him. it's not just the electorate, or electing senators and congress. the whole world, especially the democratic vote looks to him for global leadership. and if you think of bill clinton and the way he actually brought peace to bosnia. even in domestic terms how he dealt would be in oklahoma city bombing, the fact that there was terrorism coming from within the united states. it wasn't only those people out there. >> guest: the arguments having made. clinton brilliantly through triangulation stole a lot of republican close. he basically coopted the center. there was a welfare reform or balancing a budget or saying it

was over. does that option exist for this president in this incredibly polarized, ideologically driven political climate even if he were so inclined? >> guest: i don't know. i don't know i would hazard a guess. >> host: carter? >> guest: i think -- i respect president obama enormously. not only for his intellect, but i think he does have a great temperament. he has a mix of fdr and jfk. there are -- you know, jfk was quite a cold man in his way. but -- >> host: can you be too cold? given the tumultuous events of the last few years? >> guest: you can. but i think the focus have been on recently on those candidates for the midterm election. and i think once that's over and people see just how difficult the problems of unemploy and

foreclosure and such are and they see congress wrestling with that, where it's under new supervision or not, the stature of the president will be seen as something -- somewhat to one side. and i think president obama's polls are really not bad. they are higher than president reagan's at this time. >> guest: right. >> host: so i have great confidence in his ability to lead this country and -- would it be the 13th? >> host: long lost number. [laughter] >> host: what do you think the impact of fox news is? not only on american politics, but on the presidency? >> guest: i don't -- i'm not sure i want to say it on air. i think i -- my father was an editor and chief of the "london

times." and rupert murdoch rescued the "times" and in a sense did a great service for journalism. then proved to be i think a really awful newspaper. i think the way he has operated his communications empire, -- i suppose you could call him a caesar of something. he has had really terrible effects. particularly in flaming partnership. i think he's a man of no deep social responsibility. and i think to use somebody like roger ails who was a colleague and was a master of dirty tricks and that kind of apr