perspective into the classroom, so it's great. >> host: suzanne smith, professor at george mason university and author of this book, "to serve the living: funeral directors and the african american way of death" published by harvard. >> here are the best-selling nonfiction books according to los angeles times as of october october 5th. topping the list is jacqueline kennedy, a collection of seven historic interviews with the former first lady. the book details so america can rediscover its values. third is the $88 champion, the story of the rise of a racehorse and snowman in the show jumping circuit. unbroken, the story of an allen decries survival and world war ii, followed by not for a children's book go the f to sleep.

simon garfield recounts the history of thought in his book just might tie him which is sixth. actress jane lenses tell-all book, happy accidents, is seventh. former vice president -- detainees and mark is a fellow by in the garden of beasts. both recently discussed their books on book tv, and you can once the program on line. finishing up the list is arguably a collection of essays from author christopher hichens degree from more best sellers go to l.a. times staff,. >> and now an interview from george mason university. >> professor of public and international affairs at george mason university, also the author of this book a hard-line, the republican party and u.s. foreign policy since world war two. professor, what is hard-line

mean? >> such as the title because i think it sums up one of the main arguments in the book which is that the republican party, at least since the 1950's as that of foreign policy approach that tends to be hard line by which i mean hawkish on foreign policy, taking very seriously the idea that there are threats out there to the estates and trying to be uncompromising and face those threats. that is pretty consistent. there has also been variety in the sense of what the can -- the particular republican approach has been. quite a bit. >> well, that was my next question. sixty-seven years since the end of world war ii. about 66 and 67 years. thirty-four of those have had republican presidents. has there been a consistency among those republican presidents? >> the main consistency has been the one we just described, the idea that the u.s. is spinning days under republican presidents and having the isolationist

policy since the '20s, a tendency toward a hard-line approach has been the consistency. the variety has been somebody like bush 41, but senior and bush 43, bush jr. very different form policies. the two of them each differ from richard nixon or ronald reagan as well. this. >> how were the different from ronald reagan? >> the first for example, his main emphasis was on stability, prudence, caution. he was trying to preside over a very dramatic changes. at think it was pretty successful. much more idealistic. the u.s. would try to undercut support for terrorism. very different. >> in your book you have

chapters as well on barry goldwater and robert taft. does the senators to look particularly good indicators of republican opinion, conservative republican opinion. goldwater, of course, was the republican nominee for president. floridian taft. half represents the 30's and 40's where most republicans, especially midwest republicans, anti interventionist. one of the main stories in the book is so republicans eventually abandoned that tradition. you have the success of eisenhower and republicans by the 50's, but it took a long time. in some ways it is never completely safe. ron paul today, kind of and that after patrician. nigel's -- says cool water because it was such an important figure as the republican party moves to become more conservative, southern, western, and more hawkish with foreign

policy. that is what cold water was. a very important transition figure even though he lost the presidential election, and he pointed the way toward the republican nominee like reagan and bush 43. >> robert taft ran for president. >> he ran and 52. >> forty, 48, 52. >> was he not elected because of his isolationist policy? >> that is one of the reasons. i think that especially for more moderate republicans, more northeast and republicans, the establishment, that was an unacceptable position. >> by that. >> staff was criticizing german for not being tough enough. one of the stories of his own career is that by 52 he actually is -- a staunch anti-communist and won them over. the posture for the cold war. what he and eisenhower had was really more of a series of

tactical differences. they disagreed on how much of alaska's commitment the u.s. should have in europe. by the early 50's taft was pretty hard line on the anti-communist foreign-policy. >> you begin your book at the end of world war two. is this a reaction, republican reaction to the fdr presidency? >> inclined to oppose fdr, including foreign policy because they just opposed some so bitterly on the domestic side. that was part of -- both parties back-and-forth. the associated fdr's new deal with the liberal internationalism that went out during the war. very skeptical about the idea that the u.s. should play a leading role through multilateral organizations. >> when you hear the phrase partisan politics stop the water's edge what do you think?

>> well, it doesn't. in a couple of senses. for one thing democrats and republicans of gender differences, liberals and the services have liberal did. it should. in that sense, a principal disagreement. they show up in partisan politics. also the use that sometimes as a kind a political instrument to critique the other side. is just one more element of partisan politics. sometimes regardless of what the president is saying doing. you see that as well. >> one wrote reagan won the cold war. >> i think ronald reagan played a vital part in winning the cold war, the way that he did it was to ramp up pressure across the board. takeover in 1981 militarily, economically, diplomatically, illogically. i think that was one of the factors that forced the soviet union to really rethink their

approach. >> to the end of the cold war changed republican foreign policy? >> it did. as for all americans, republicans had to decide where we go next. what should america's role in the world the? republicans especially, such a unifying force during the cold war. it left republicans confused and divided the pat buchanan wing in the 1990's. there was the more realistic kissinger tight school of thought. there were american nationalists to be more skeptical. >> and i think george w. bush ended this disagreements for a while to the concept of the war on terror, but there resurfaced today. resurfaced today with barack obama as president. you see that. >> professor, when lyndon johnson was president where jimmy carter was president was

there a vast change in american foreign policy? >> i think carter actually really tried to bring about dramatic changes, probably the only cold war president to believe that you could get beyond the cold war unilaterally. you could -- i think he got in 77 when he came in he could decide issues like human rights and north-south issues and try to move beyond what he called this fear of communism. it turned out that the soviet union, so continuing. it was difficult to declare. by the end of his presidency he was one back into more of the cold war. lyndon johnson, he is best known for vietnam, of course, foreign policy. initially, most republicans of the time were very firm on the idea that johnson should fight in vietnam. criticized johnson for not standing gap.

so that was actually the republican position during the johnson years. >> who makes foreign policy? who creates foreign-policy? the intellectuals, scholastic types, is the president? >> is the president. that's why i found. the influence of intellectualism is overrated. probably the best is neoconservatism. and really i think if you looked at the bush years, george w. bush, it was president bush that made the key decisions whether to invade iraq, how to invade, how to follow up these actions later on. sometimes he did it ways the new conservatives alike. at the end of the day he had a group of intellectuals were influential born making policy and there were about as influential as it gets in the cost of foreign policy intellectuals. ford policy is not made by

intellectuals. >> what is neoconservatism? >> neil conservatism, the word is usually used to mean a version of republican foreign policy. the approach which is particularly hawkish, i believe that the u.s. should really promote democracy in the world, even by force if his necessary. you know, this is something where there are routes in the broader american tradition that is not exactly unheard of. american history, but i think the word is sometimes over used. that concept of neoconservatism taps into a lot of broader republican an american tradition. most republicans are pretty hawkish on american foreign policy when it comes right down to it, so to say that it was just in the conservatives that somehow, you know, pushed george bush into iraq is really not accurate. >> in your book published by

princeton, in a chapter on richard nixon is in town of richard nixon and henry kissinger. >> right. >> why. >> because henry kissinger was just an exceptionally important figure. i mean, i only included a handful of people that were not presidents, and nixon and kissinger really were a team. at the end of the day nixon made the decision. he was the president. but kissinger, he is probably the best living represented today of extreme republican foreign-policy, which i would call realism. and that emphasizes balance of power to manage a national behavior of other countries, the need to carefully coordinate diplomacy, the kissinger approached is very different from the bush approach and very different from the reagan approach. and so i think kissinger is deserving.

>> richard nixon went to china. what did that to its republican foreign-policy expectations? >> well, at the time it was a popular move. with the general boating public it was popular. there was a group of, you know, conservative consistently conservative republicans, the national few who were very skeptical. one view, of horrible dictator. dino, a long term. they didn't like it, but the mainstream response in the united states was this makes presents. balancing. that was the mainstream view, and actually that particular move has had a law extending legacy. not rebuked by any president.

>> dwight david eisenhower, first republican president after world war two, did he set the tone for republican foreign-policy? >> i think he was very important because it was not obvious that the eisenhower came in the average republican in the capture was supporting taste for policy in the world. a lot of republicans are born, that tradition of skepticism and eisenhower made it very clear that when he became president he was going to debt be the republican party in a more international direction. it stayed there. and there never was a republican president during the cold war that never really would did that >> what would you consider to be ice successes and failures? >> i think on the whole he was very successful as foreign policy president. i think he avoided unnecessary wars. multiple cases over taiwan and over china, berlin, he managed

to kind of maintain a firm line systematically without actually entangling the u.s. another world war, so that was very reasonable. he also managed to strike a balance between the fiscal responsibility and the u.s. diplomatic role. the captain military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. despite a lot of pressure be kept it there. much higher than it yesterday. almost 10%. that was the concept at the time >> what about the coups that he cut the u.s. involved in, and ron, guatemala. >> no question he was of very sort of cold war hero, ironic because one of the criticisms eyes now are not done enough.

that was actually one of kennedy's key arguments. he did a great joke, and as you just mentioned, covert action in places like guatemala, low-cost way to contain communism. that is obviously the controversy. the idea that eisenhower was as kennedy suggested to sitting on his hands is far from the truth underrated. the caretaker. i actually think he was very impressive, intelligent. he was kind of a mainstream conservative internationalists. at think he did his best under the circumstances. a very difficult time for u.s. foreign policy because public

and congress was completely fed up with the memory of vietnam and the possibility of anything that might resemble vietnam, 74, 75, 76. the soviet union and its allies, cuba, for example, were quite assertive in promoting socialist revolutions in parts of africa, other parts of the world. if you read kissinger's memoirs, it was a very difficult time to preside over foreign policy. actually, he was attacked from left and right, the left supposedly cropping up inhumane dictatorships. attack from the right for not being tough enough on the soviet union, and that is where reagan came from. reagan actually ran against ford in the primaries in 1976 saying that it had failed. the answer was -- for data from both directions. >> what you teach? >> i teach u.s. foreign-policy, international security, u.s.

defense policy, a variety of courses, both present and undergraduate. >> economic interests. >> i think that sometimes the overestimated. i didn't really find the major decisions of the want peace. really narrow. it's not as the president's get on the phone and ask the leaders of major oil companies, should we invade? i think the broad context is pretty much every president wants to maintain a certain kind of international system which is open to these police chains and this is part of the american vision of a liberal open economic order. that's an important factor, but the idea that special-interest drives big decisions.

on trade policy that's a different story. it's a major influence. when you have a shift, for example, like today, why is it that it's so hard to get trade treaties through congress, colombia, south korea and so on? is because that they have a very strong protectionist interest in congress. very aware of that. >> what do you think it's been the biggest failure of republican foreign policy? >> i think the failure of the bush administration to adequately prepare for the postwar phase in iraq, to really seriously think through what would be required once the conventional since the war was over and then you have to recreate some kind of order and stability. i don't think the president prepared adequately for that. to his credit eventually he got it right. it took a few years, but i think

what deserves some credit, he could have just walked away. a lot of people were calling an end to just walk away. if you remember 2006, very unpopular. and he really, his presidency of a surge in the works. you know, if it hadn't been for the surge iraq would be in much worse shape today. it would have continued to spiral. absolute violence and conflict. so bush had these qualities, very tenacious, almost stubbornness. sometimes to get it right and sometimes to get it wrong. it was sort of a package deal, and then the independent to be useful. >> why is it that public opinion polls, democratic presidents get more popular and republican presidents? >> it's a good question. the broad you may -- you may really be talking about western europe. you find, for example, bush actually was not unpopular in,

you know, africa, is row, poland. where he really was unpopular was western europe and with the contras is sharpest with obama as western europe. and so that, when people talk about world opinion, that is really what they're offering. but you could also ask yourself what is this really amount to. what specific concessions of governments made because of a more or less popular american president. it doesn't really amount to much governments make peace for their own reasons. >> professor, the president's credit further less than major -- for different born policies such as president bush in africa did they get credit for those more or less sideline issues? >> sometimes they don't give as

much credit as they should. if you remember in 2008 the convention, a lot of attention was put on that initiative because i think the bush and restoration was rightly proud of it and wanted to highlight it. it was something also that it was not especially controversial. so you know, at the end of the day you have to say that the defining decision for bush was iraq. he will be just on the will of the other. we have yet to see how it turns out. right now is 2011. we will see over years weather is stabilizes, whether it is a stable, from a democracy in bush will continue to be judged and reid judged based on how to turns out. >> out can you get into it -- how did you get interested in this topic? >> i can remember when i wasn't. >> professor of public and international affairs at george mason university where we are now. here is his book, hard line, the republican party in u.s. for

policies. >> thank you. >> over the next several months book tv will travel to various universities to talk to professes to have published recent nonfiction books. this month with the good of the from george mason university in virginia. next month we had to the university of texas at austin. for more on our book tv college series visit booktv.org. here is a look gets an upcoming book fairs and festivals this month. half

>> you're watching c-span2, politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights to molest the public policy events. every week and the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules and a website. you can join the conversation on social media sites. ..