bookstores this coming weekend watch for the authors in the near future on book tv and on booktv.org. >> a program now from the book tv archives, john mecham recounts the presidential tenure of andrew jackson and american lion, the winner of the 2009 pulitzer prize in bare feet. he died at the age of 78 on june june 8th 1945. this is about an hour and ten minutes. ..

>> truman was so interested in is that he drove over to check on the measurements. most important, he was the first truly self-made man to become president the first president

that came from upper echelons ultimately of american life. this is a man who by force of will came from the hills of south carolina to the pinnacle of power and the young republic. it was a remarkable feat. at that point, unprecedented in american life. andrew jackson never knew his father. it is an interesting presidential paradigm. residents tend to come from families with strong dominant father figures come or none at all. mccain and obama, easy that. you have the bushes committee adams, the kennedys, in terms of having a father that was quite

president. you have jackson and 40 did not know their fathers. what i conducted in the psychology of the young andrew jackson, is it gave him the ambition and the noble sense of ambition, to rise to power and come to control as much of the circumstances around him as he possibly could. he was accustomed to being unsettled in his life. his mother didn't seem to pay much attention to him. they particularly happen when when he was younger. he was therefore, not particularly popular there in south carolina. so he learned to depend on

himself. i interviewed senator obama in august about the issues about himself and his own experience not having a father. and he said, obama said, basically, i had to learn how to race myself. that was an experience that jackson shared, that there was a kind of necessary self-reliance because there was no one else to rely on. the reason there was no one else to rely on, his father had died before he was born. he lost his mother, he lost his brothers, he believed that his family's blood had consecrated the american union. he, himself, was a prisoner of war. he was hit over the head by a british saber leaving a gash in his head that was as long and deep as a man's finger in the head for the rest of his life. there was a joke about the british officer that hit jackson in a cost-benefit way, it was

not a good idea after new orleans. [laughter] one thinks not, ultimately. i spent a lot of time trying to figure out how did he get his intellectual virtue? the man had almost no education, maybe a year or so. a self-taught lawyer as many people were on the frontier. if you look back, just simply where did he spend his time? he spent the most time in his childhood from babyhood forward in the presbyterian meetinghouse there at home. i don't know how many presbyterians are here, but i am an episcopalian. there are six of us left. [laughter] we used to just fight over gin or vodka. it has become more complicated in recent years. we do things relatively quickly. we can get in and out fast.

presbyterians, it was, particularly in the 18th century, a service was not what i would call -- well, you wouldn't want to skip breakfast and just wait for lunch. hours and hours on all of those endless sundays, he heard the catechism, he had an interesting way of communicating. he always used rhetorical questions for the rest of his life, and catechism form. episcopalians, we don't have those. [laughter] the bible was hugely important to him. when he was under stress for the rest of his life, he always felt that on images from scripture. when henry clay threw in his -- he made adam's president, jackson had run the that she had won the plurality of votes in

1824. another thing that instantly regretted. jackson said clay is the cutest of the west, and has and his end will be the same. not exactly in audacity of hope kind of moment. [laughter] we will talk about all that in a second. so he saw the world in this, i think, wonderfully epic wait that largely grew out of the bible. another favorite book was the scottish chiefs, which when you think about braveheart, it makes good sense. it was a historic tori of william wallace. the other book that isn't much noted, that he gave to other men in his family, where the letters of lord chesterfield. this is an age when americans were trying to make themselves into gentlemen. they didn't have much to go on. chesterfield had written this kind of manner sky, which taught you how to be in the world, how to handle yourself.

most importantly, i think, for our purposes in terms of the political development of a man who dominated in an era, remember, there is only one president who is given a name to an age. there is not an age to theodore roosevelt, there is not an age to lincoln. there is an h2 jackson. it was to always control how you feel and how you protect what you feel. whatever you may actually that's whatever is actually going on inside, always present a serene face to the world. this was a critical element. while he could be a compassionate, tempestuous person, you do not get to be the president of the united states from him background and have the record he had if you are just running around completely temperamentally. it just doesn't happen that way. and he was brilliantly taking

advantage of the fact that people thought that was his weakness, and they turned it into a strength. that is what i think is one of the best stories of this. one of the stories is going to bangor, one of the fingers try to say that he, jackson, was wrong. that jackson ranted and raved and spewed. he had this vision of overturning furniture, but that is cinematic. jackson turned to an aide and said, didn't i manage them well? [laughter] he knew exactly what he was doing. it is a little like the old saturday night live skit where reagan is guilty and schoolchild leaves and he says, let's get back to work. it is a little bit like that. he believed in the country, and he believed that its fate would be in the best of hands, and he

thought that his were the best of hands. that is not an uncommon political view. as you may imagine. except, of course, for the man whose library we are in, who is always tricky about these things. [laughter] [laughter] fdr once said that franklin roosevelt's philosophy of himself was a lot like that. [laughter] [laughter] it is a lot like that. jackson's philosophy of the presidency was himself in it. in a good way, which we will talk about in one second. he became a leader of men through physical force. this is something we don't think about anymore in 2008. there are very few men or women who bear the marks of visible bravery anymore in our public life. actually, several of them have connections here. there is max cleveland, there is

john lewis, there is bob dole, there is bob kerrey, there is john mccain. jackson did, too. he bore the scars of war. during the war of 1812, he received his old hickory name because he refused leave a single man behind it. a wonderfully named doctor, samuel hoggart, said what are we going to do, and he said we are going to put them on the wagon and none shall be left behind. they wheeled him through the wilderness. his political rights have much to with the sense that the republic -- the republic was a brilliant beginning, but democracy had a role to play. we forget sometimes that the story of philadelphia in 1787

and the bill of rights in 1789 is not so much about the democracy, but about republican is in. the people had a role to play in the conversation, but it was a fairly limited one. in jackson's view, the republican structure had created too many corrupting influences. to the point that the country was in a moral crisis, because the channel between the president and the people had become clogged, like an artery. the bank of the united states was one. clergy was another. he loved religious people and was really religious himself. there is nothing new under the sun. [laughter] [laughter] he believed that in classic thought, the virtue of the people is what formed the virtue of the country. so he wanted to clear out those intermediate and institutions and establish a direct channel

between himself and the people, believing it would create a more just and stronger society. as we talked about briefly, i don't know what it is about people -- democratic nominees from my native state, that they manage to win and then lose, it happened in 1824, it happened in 2000. when working on it, bill is worried all the time now about this. i think that he believed -- jackson believed in -- but the country was slipping into corruption in 1824. once the election was decided by the house of representatives and not by the people. he became obsessed with it. he began running for president shortly after the evening of the ninth of february, 1825. it was a wonderful thing. jackson, in the white house, munro's white house, adams and

clay have cut their deals. adams has become president and clay is on his way of. the vetting process for secretary of state is much easier. [laughter] display did not have to talk about her trips to dubai as far as we know. [laughter] [laughter] it is just going to be great. it is a story that will not end. the campaign was just great. so jackson goes to the white house, he has a woman on each arm. and he approaches talked with the adams. here is john quincy adams, the son of a president. one of the most brilliant men in the country. a european diplomat from the time he was eight years old

forward. he had every advantage. jackson had no advantage. adams couldn't speak to him. he stood stock still. here is andrew jackson come out of nowhere who simply says, as you can see, mr. adams, i have given my arms to the fair, but i hope you are well served. and he moves on. brilliantly, at this point. he has become the noble loser, and adams becomes somewhat of a sour winter. that would not change until 1828 when jackson won a decisive victory, and endured a remarkable personal tragedy in those intervening months. he had married a 1799 -- he married in 1799 rachel roberts. she was at that point mrs. robards and not ms. donaldson. details, details.

[laughter] there was some confusion, as happened in those years. this is not entirely uncommon, about when the divorce was final. jackson mary's rachel. and while it was okay in 1799, it was not so great 30 years later. what had changed, and most important, jackson now had ferocious political enemies that were going to use anything that they could to fight it. she was called a bigamist and a [bleep]. it was said that she was unfit to occupy such a place as the wife of the united states. the cumulative impacts, and we knew that she knew about them, they finally caught up with her, and she collapsed on the 17th of december, 1898, and died on the 22nd. midway through the transition. it was the great tragedy and

crisis of jackson's life. they buried her on christmas eve, 1828. afterward, he went back in to the hermitage and said, if i could have my way, i would stay here and never leave the woman whom we have just left in the garden, but i am now president-elect of the united statescome and i will go into my duty. he blamed henry clay for it. he ultimately blamed john see calhoun for a lot of us come this, as you may know, he later said his only two regrets in public life was that he did not hang calhoun and shoot clay. again, just take this part. people are so mean on cable. [laughter] [laughter] there is just nothing like it. i was actually in georgia -- i

will tell the story. i was actually sitting on the set when your former governor and senator challenged chris matthews to a duel. [laughter] [laughter] hand of god. [laughter] [laughter] i was sitting next to andrew mitchell and joe scarborough. and we all went -- because chris will do it. [laughter] he would've been happy to go out there. particularly during sweeps week. i like to think that i have been part of the great dueling stories in modern political history. god, that would've been nice. he expressed those regrets, but he dedicated himself to his job in a way that into the presidency, that in a way if

rachel had been alive, he may not have been able to do as much as he did. he clearly felt it was redemption. he was going to show his enemies and do everything he could to save the country. he believed he had to rescue the country from what daniel webster once said was some dreadful danger. and he really believe this. he sold himself as the champion of the common man. as long as the common man was white and a man. this is important and we will get to it in a second. one of the things that makes it relevant to us, is his vision of the relationship between the government, the private sector, the financial sector, and the people. in 1832, when he was vetoing the bank of the united states, that's when he was vp of the bank of the united states,

jackson was lying there, he can't keep anything down, he drinks gin because you can't drink anything else. that's what i tell my doctor. [laughter] van buren is terrified. jackson rises up and it was the old jackson come all of a sudden. and he says, the bank, mr. brin bureau, is trying to kill me, but i will kill it. >> did it. he did it with a veto message. i would like to read a little bit of it because you could hear this literally this afternoon. it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often been the acts of government to their selfish purposes. tensions in society will always exist under every just government. equality of talent, of education or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions, and the full enjoyment of the gifts of heaven and gives of economy and

virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law, but when the law undertakes to have these natural ingested values, artificial distinctions, to grant titles coming gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer, and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society, the farmers, and the laborers who have neither the time nor means of securing this for themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. there are no necessary evils in government. it evils exist, only in its abuses. they will confine themselves to equal protection and as the heaven dumps the reins, showers from the high and low, the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. but it was not an unqualified blessing. jackson believed that he was the man come and he held the office that had to protect the people

from these intermediate forces. now, jackson's visit of the presidency is something we take for granted now. it is like the air we breathe and the wallpaper. he asserted that he was the direct representative of the american people. not exactly a radical proposition. now, it was a radical proposition then. john see calhoun said what a dark and insatiable ambition, mainly because calhoun could not be president and his own dark and insatiable visions were truly untainted. he believed that he could play the role of interpreter and an actor of the people's will. it was not a nepotism, it was not journey. he believed in the system of checks and balances. he fully believed that, as he put it, the virtue and intelligence and the wisdom of the people would ultimately win out. but he did believe that the

people had not been given a substantial enough role in the original system, and so to torture a metaphor, forgive me -- the script that the founders had written had put the people in the audience. they were there and they were vital to the production. jackson took them out of the audience, put them at center stage, he was the director, the producer, and sometimes the star of the show. but he wanted the will of the people to have unfettered impact on the country. again, not that the majority was always right. that was not part of it. all in all, we would be better off as a country in a democracy if the people's voice was heard more loudly than those of institutions that might have more specific interests. andrew jackson, he was an

unrepentant slaveholder. he thwarted the forces of abolition, particularly in 1835 and afterward. he was the architect of the trail of tears. we are standing in a state that was party to the most significant supreme court cases, involving the removal of the american indians. i grew up on land that was once cherokee. i am always careful -- i went through some of the this one is writing about franklin roosevelt and winston churchill, about their reaction to the holocaust. it is tempting and wrong to be self-righteous and in retrospect. it was used to be said that self-righteousness was easy and cheap. the test, though, had to be how loud were the voices in real-time that the men and women who were architects and implicit -- complicit, rather, in a given course of action. was there a counter case?

answer is yes. a man named jeremiah evers was the central player. he was the william lloyd garrison of indian removal. he wrote an essay called the william penn essays, that made a moral case against removal. the south was underwhelmed by that case. as happened a little bit later in abolition, the southerners were able to say, well, it is quite easy for people from new england who have already driven off others to lecture to us. it seems, however, as the second well, one of the two darkest chapters in american history. our twin tragedies, they are our treatment of native americans and african-americans. there is no getting around it, there is no sugar coating it. there is no to be sure. there is no excusing it. there is some explaining. jackson believed he was securing

the country. he believed that indians were potential allies for foreign forces. the spanish or the british. to possibly threaten the sanctity of the union. but there was -- and he genuinely believed, as he referred to himself, that he was the great father, that he was doing something to save them, ultimately. ultimately, he was wrong. but the country was wrong with them. to dismiss them entirely, because of this tragedy, it would be to make a serious mistake. great leaders have to teach by their vices as well as their virtues. before we get too self-righteous, i think we should always take up at the sins of our own time, and wonder what will people say of us in later generations?

what did we do and not do. things that we could have done that we let them do, that will also earn the condemnation of the future. what jackson did, if he kept the union together. it was not a sure thing. south carolina, always south carolina. south carolinians start weren't have to fight. [laughter] [laughter] i'm entrusted tomorrow. i am testing that theory out. they were that close, as wellington said of waterloo. john see calhoun wanted to nullify the literal tear it. they believed that federal taxation was a vintage, to use a more modern formulation, it would allow abolition.

jackson said i expect an extermination of civil war to commence. he dispatched cutters, he dispatched winfield scott. and he issued a proclamation that lincoln summoned, which he called for in 1861. let me read one bit of it. he was addressing the people of south carolina. ultimately stern and soft, jackson, again, he was acting at two levels. the mock him he was trying to cut a deal in the back. some people might call that hypocrisy. i call that statecraft. that is what great politicians do. it is what that's quick and contemporary -- what ronald reagan did with the soviet union. from 1981, two or three days after reagan's inauguration, preferring to the soviet union as the focus of evil in the

modern world, to kissing babies with gorbachev in red square in 1988. you negotiate, you use for your, you use a kind of bullying threat to soften the target. it is negotiation. here is what jackson said to south carolina. contemplate the condition of the country of which he still form an important part. consider its government, uniting in one bond of common interest and general production, somebody different states, giving all of their inhabitants proud title of american citizens, protecting commerce, securing literature and arts, facilitating interest in communications, defending their frontiers, and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth. consider the extent of its territory, it's increasing and happy population, its advanced and arts, which render life agreeable, the scientists with -- the sciences which elevate the mind. the morale of the into every

generation, into every college and every territory of state. the oppressed find refuge and they support. look in this picture of happiness and honor, and say that we, too, are citizens of america. he won that battle. by acting on to different levels. by working to cut a legislative deal. he believed that the union was sacred. again, his family's blood, i use religious imagery consciously here. his family have consecrated the unit. the ones in america were one great family. his idea was we could be at the table together. we could be throwing turkey at each other or wild turkey bottles or whatever you want to throw at each other. in a family squabble and fight.

but you had to be together. because the family could solve it, ultimately. without unions, nothing else was possible. he centralized that power, that idea. he later said the divine right of kings and prerogative authority of rulers has fallen before the intelligence of the age. standing on these military jeep's can no longer produce public opinion. commendations of the wealthy and professional practice. paging secretary paulson. [laughter] from an aristocracy with 3-d bridges and talent and those employed, sometimes exceed in preventing political institutions, however well-adjusted, from securing the freedom of the citizen. the president has felt it his duty to exert the power of which the confidence of his comment

has encouraged him to purge the government of sinister influences which have been incorporated with this administration. he was a competent admin. he was, i called him a lion, because if he was on your side, and you were in his prime, you were as safe as you can be. if he was after you, you could not run across the plain or through the jungle fast enough. he was both protector and predator. i submit that the history of this country. the history of this region and the state to the north and in the state, and of our neighbors, is exactly that. we have been able to live with intolerable inequality in one generation only to see it overturned with moral rarity and insight to the next. that is the story of the country. it is not a neatly unfolding

saga. it is messy, it is difficult. it is still unfolding. to deny the complications of history is really to render history and relevance. you end up in a kind of panglossian world that is not particularly useful order illuminating. i believe you that -- i will leave believe you with us. when jackson five, a writer, scholar, statement, was talking about south carolina. jackson died june 9, 1845. here is what bangkok said, eulogizing jackson. the moral of the great event of the south carolina crisis in those days in is this. the people can discern rights and will make their way to a knowledge of rights. but the whole human mind, and therefore with it, the mind of the nation has a continuous ever improving existence. but the appeal from the unjust legislation of today must be

made quietly, earnestly, persevering and he, too the more enlightened reason of tomorrow, and that he made quietly, persevering way, the collective reasoning of tomorrow, that's mission is due to the popular will and the confidence that the people, when in error, will mend their doings. in a government, justice is neither to be established by force, nor to be resisted by force. in one word, the union which is constituted by consent must be preserved by love. i think that is love that sustains us still. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> for the next 15 minutes or so, we will be able to take your

questions for mr. jon meacham. remember, questions, not comments. i am sure primarily about the book, but also about today is livable world. are you up to that, too? >> there is no distinction. [laughter] the folks from book tv are here tonight, so we will ask before you -- raise your hand if you have a question, and wait until the lady with the microphone gets to sit your question can be heard. the first hand i saw, unfortunately for you, is all the way over here. >> we have not only jacksonians, but jackson's in the audience. scott ward, a descendent of andrew jackson is here that he is incredibly helpful. he helped me on her papers and other relics of the great man. thank you. [applause] we hope he doesn't share his ancestors love of dueling.

[laughter] >> i will ask a question. we are about -- we are about to inaugurate a new president. we are expecting it a million people at the inauguration. one of the great legends, but jackson's administration, is his inauguration day. i was wondering if you could elaborate on that come and speak to what the truth is about it, and also, how that legend has evolved over time, and how -- what might represent, in his part of the legend. >> that is a great question. the only thing people know about into jackson, by and large, is that people from tennessee trashed the white house. [laughter] it has been very painful for many years to me. but it is a more comforted story. thank you for asking. people always talk about the party afterward. it is a little bit like, and i don't want to protect any of my

own personal issues on you all, but have you all than to a wedding that was very serious and moving and lovely? and then maybe the reception was -- i got a little out of control, just perhaps a little bit? this is what happens. the wedding was the actual inauguration on capitol hill, which i have spent a lot of time describing, because i was taught by it. franklin scott keyes, the author of the start singled dinner with their. with a woman named margaret bayard smith. she was the woman who was the town chronicler in the days of the establishment. she was -- they were incredibly struck as the crowd was at the capitol, as jackson took the oath from john marshall, as he kissed the bible, as he bowed to the people. as he delivered a not particularly interesting inaugural address, again, not uncommon in american history.

the language they used was that there was a sublime spectacle, that there was a kind of majesty of the people. that was the wedding. then they went down pennsylvania avenue. jackson wrote a white horse, appropriately, and they got their and basically people went a little overboard. carpets were ruined, glasses were smashed. it was not exactly your side. nor was animal house. it really wasn't. according to the records. but it was enough than an aide, andrew donaldson and others, had to form a protective circle around jackson and hustled him out. the white house staff has always been pretty good. the way they got the folks out

of the first floor was by taking the spiked punch and putting it on the lawn. [laughter] [laughter] you know, again, we did a lot of that. [laughter] it was used on at the time, it was used as an oh, my god, the mob had come. joseph, a federalist, said that the sublimity and the magnitude of the people worried the reign of king mob. there at the white house. and it scared people. like daniel webster and clay and john quincy adams. i understand that. it is understandable to some extent. jackson was someone they couldn't control. everybody else had been sort of from the same club. i view a far more sophisticated bigger than people gave jackson credit for. it was in his political interest

for people to believe that he was somewhat rough around the edges. no one could be more elegant when he wanted to be. when louise livingstone, the wife of edward livingston, had a ball around the war of 1812, the battle of new orleans, there was a terror that the president come into jackson, was going to come. one of the ladies was terrified, he said that is your backwoodsman? he is a prince. he culd play either role. the ite house breaking down to it -- the menace madness of democracy and the common man running amok. you know, you can't be for -- you can't be against the common man running amok and then being for democracy when it comes together. it is like one man's pork in another man's state.

[laughter] >> if you're going to charleston from you have to go by the college of charleston and say hello to his mother's grave. >> always, there is endless controversy. >> just go say hello. >> okay. we appreciate the whole sumpter thing. >> that worked out well. >> if you have an e-mail that said the man killed 10 people personally with his three indian wars, his revolutionary war battles, and those for other ballots on jankowski mentor, would it surprise you? >> what's surprising? that he did didn't? >> that he did kill 10 men himself? >> i don't know. there were certainly 10 people you wanted to kill by the time it was all over.

he was in tennessee in the late 18th century. we weren't even the south, we were the southwest. it was a wonderful story of leading settlers threw north carolina. a classic jackson story. john overton was with him, one of his great friends. indians were after them. they were trying to get across the river, so they flashed together a raft very quickly. jackson said, don't worry, i will take care of it. he jumps on the raft and starts going towards the waterfall. overton saves him, and jackson jumps up and says, don't worry, follow me, and i will save you again. [laughter] a lot of people loved it. they were always willing to mount up and ride with him again. they knew he would not fail them. again, if he was on your side, you were in great shape. his duels and brawls, when he

was -- when he got into -- i think this answers it, he was capable of great violence, but he also inspired great love and loyalty. at the same time. he was in a gunfight, i think the only president to have a gun type of moment. in the early 1800s, with jesse benton and thomas hart benton. jesse benton is wonderful.on common currency, he became a senator from missouri, and jackson's largest legislative ally. at the beginning of their lives, they were in a brawl, a gunfight, in which jackson got shot. they were fighting each other. they were not on the same side. jackson bled through two mattresses, and they were about to cut off his arm, and he simply ordered the doctor -- i will keep the arm. even the doctor stood back.

so, yes, he was quick to violence as a young man. but it was not uncommon at the time. again, i think we have to judge them by the standards of his time. >> the early 1800s was a period of revivalism. did that have any effect on the democratic lifestyle of the people? >> absolutely. there is a wonderful book by nathan hatch or john butler. they have both written great books about this. on exactly this. how the second great awakening fed democratic thought, and the energy that really reached the higher point by the 1820s, it

was -- and to the extent of religion beating the revolution -- clearly you are living in an era where a fundamental assumption about the way the world worked was changing, which was summed up with jefferson's all men are created equal, and endowed by their reader with certain in a label rights. it was the central assertion that the rights of man did not come from the hands of the king or the whims of a mob. but from god. therefore, they were sacred and inviolable. you could not take them away. if you didn't come from god, nobody could do it. that was a revolutionary, largely american principle. the spread of evangelism, probably put, absolutely had this idea of individual liberty and the capacity of people --

the right of people to shape their own destinies. very quickly, on jackson and religion, he is very interesting. he resisted calls beginning in 1827 for the formation of a christian party and politics. a man who became more notable for his part in the great sex scandals of all time, which, that is a whole another evening. there was a lot of lust and a lot of hearts. [laughter] it's going to wait. it's going away. it is hard to do 40 year old political humor. god, i'm going to pay for that. [laughter] he resisted the formation. he wrote an interesting letter

about it. eli had written that the duty of christian freemen to elect christian rule goals. jackson robaxin no, that liberty of conscience is more important. the blessings secured by our constitution. he refused to join the presbyterian church while he was still in public life because he believed he would be doing it for clinical reasons. he went to church a lot. rachel went more often when she was alive. he refused to sign proclamations for national day of more often e was alive. he refused to sign proclamations for national day of pray rachel went more often when she was alive. he refused to sign proclamations for national day of prayer and fasting. there was a terrible cholera epidemic in 1832, and the presidential candidate was

anti-cholera. [laughter] a safe position, it seems to me. and drafted a bill that we must pray. jackson had a veto drafting. it went away, ultimately. the draft of the veto bill exists. he was an interesting separationist on these things. i would like to say was entirely principled because it was madisonian, jeffersonian view of the separation of church and state. it also had a lot to do with the fact that he didn't like what he would call a combination of clerics. he didn't like the idea that there were ministers that were standing between him and the congregation. so that was a rival the power center. >> the gentleman right here. >> welcome to atlanta, thank you for being here. i'm i am curious to bring it up to date -- there was such a shift in his time. now we have seen a historic election of change. what you think is the next

direction that we are moving in, and the political total landscape -- and sucking, he spent some time with obama. the president-elect, what presidents does he really feel a connection with, and that he is going straight to move forward. >> lincoln is obama's favor. we have a separate conversation about this in june, i think. i was telling both mccain and obama, asking them what presidents they learn from. obama said i hadn't thought about bill presidents. mccain said instantly, herbert hoover. make of that what you will. [laughter] but there we are. he has a very strong connection.

the cover of "newsweek" is actually about obama and lincoln. he has, a sense, with lincoln, that history is a mystery. and the idea that anything is magical, in the sense of if we say a few words or we do one thing, everything will be perfect. that is something that lincoln resisted, jackson resisted. i think what people -- what many great presidents have in common, is an appreciation of the tragedy of history. we are never going to work all this out. if you are a religious, perhaps, person, perhaps god will wipe all the tears from their eyes. but you are completely secular, i guess, it just is not -- there will be something. what lincoln understood and jackson understood, and i think

what obama understands, and certainly, senator mccain understands, is that life in politics is not ever going to be perfect. the kingdom of god is not at hand. just because obama one. sorry. [laughter] >> i've been to college campuses recently, and some of the kids are puzzled that disease is still with us. [laughter] obama has the capacity to have diminished presence. every time someone says, well, he can do this or that, well, he can. as one of the great legacies, i think, a small category -- the bush administration. [laughter]

it is the phrase ms. underestimated. we have ms. underestimated -- mis-underestimated. what is a placebo blackberry, by the way? a fisher-price? like fdr too, the politics are provisional. you everything you do everything you can just get a solution to the problem. that is going to fall apart again. but you don't give up. if you give up, that is nihilism. tragedy is different than nihilism. the first part of your question, with due respect to the amazing

obama campaign, the 28-year-old, republican coalition, it is fatally flawed now. that is about the life of these things. fdr has lasted 36 years. the republican party of reagan, the first president bush, and the second president bush was an alliance of religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks. the two planes to the amendment, have never come remotely close to passing. fiscal conservatives. [laughter] in the conduct, and i'm going to be clear about this, but the

fact of the iraq war, but the conduct of it, had given policy hawks a bad name. i think that people of goodwill can disagree about the intelligence and the road war. there is very little debate once you got through the first summer of 2003, it was not working. i think that kicking him in the shins of late 2002 or early 2003 is worthless. john mccain, also, after september, -- jesus running into data could not have one. [laughter] it was the most challenging political environment for a republican ever. the fact that he got 46% is amazing to me. and i like senator mccain.

look at it from a clinical way. remember the index where you add interest and inflation together? i wanted to add a new one, adding that people thought that we were on track, with the people that disapproved of the president's job performance. at the end, it would've been a hundred and 82%. i don't think anybody could have won it. that is the negative explanation. barack obama, whatever your politics, he has infused the political process with a sense of possibility and a sense of hope, that i don't think anyone has done since president reagan. or governor reagan. again, wherever you stand. the significance of this election, historically and in real real-time, i really don't think can be overestimated. on a personal note, i had a

six-month-year-old, a 4-year-old, and an eight year old. that is the reason why i am here. my wife is sort of the independent pioneer woman. [laughter] [laughter] >> they will not know a country in which it was not possible for an african-american to be president of the united states. my four year old little girl who talks like carol channing and smokes and has this little boys -- she is obsessed with the obama children. she wants to know what their rooms are going to be like, it is just terrific. ..

.. >> yeah, jackson's negatives has been compared to bush's negatives. nobody is grab more power from the presidency than bush and his team. he got the surgeon tea and bush is certain he will redeem him from the middle east policy that eventually democracy ever comes

to the middle east it would be because of him. so what did the similarities between jackson and bush whereby you think history would never look on bush kindly like they do on jackson? >> well, jackson was more successful. again, low bar. [laughter] again, i think one view of presidential power has everything to do with what one thinks of how the presidential power was used. so, when theodore roosevelt was carried in carried in serving for us to invest in a trust in ushering in the progressive era in saying he was out of the jackson lincoln school, i suspect that a lot of old who listen to npr were before that. davey for it when fdr did it. they'd be against it when nixon and bush did it.

my sense is that some historic fact come andrew jackson created and sharp individuals of presidential power, presidential centrality, what presidential candidate called the center of action. and we have a pendulum in the country and a pendulum swing too far one way and sometimes it swings too far the other. one parable, which has the virtue of being true, as henry kissinger used to say, is remember the last time we overcorrected for presidential overreach in 1974, 75 come as a young man who was the white house staff was very frustrated by that, his name was dick cheney pierson notes come it's come back the other way. so at some point when he does or does keep the pendulum, try to keep the pendulum in the right way. and i think jackson used his

power usually wisely, sometimes not. but he's a human being. all presidents are human beans. we don't appreciate that enough. they run for the job. you know, by a large rebel culloden force them to do it. quite the opposite. at the same time, talk about leadership and we should also talk about followership and about the virtue of patience that goes to the obama question. he clearly understands. the speech in grant park. the road will be long, they will be set backs and in that way, he was arming harming us in matching expectations in a realistic way. churchill once said that if three people can face any misfortune of fortitude and buoyant, as long as they are convinced those in charge of their affairs are not deceiving them or not themselves dwelling in a fools paradise, that's a great model.

don't notice i had to go to an englishman to do that, but there we are. we may guess, i was a very powerful quote that you read. you mentioned that it could very easily have been in a newspaper today week i came our national meltdown of the economy. i was wondering if you could help me find it on google. what is the title of that document? >> to veto message -- the bank veto message of 1832. >> one more question. >> it was framed. when jackson had a frame to hang from the hermitage. i've forgotten the two other things. but he likes his own work. ask mark and rightly. >> thank you.

given that the obama campaign was one of the best run ever in the wonderful ground game and all the money they raised in the bush administration and the economy, still, he only won by 4 million votes. why is that you think? you would think that it would be a land slide? >> i have a strongly held view on it. we are still a center rate country at heart. our natural place in western politics, including europe are basically right of center. if you dispute that, and many people do, i would submit that a democratic president has just been elected, who is not insisting on mandated universal health care is a human right. i'm not saying it's a good thing or bad name, but as a

fundamental piece of center last two left ideology and policy, 60 years after ray truman called for it seems like a little bit like table stakes to me. you mentioned the money he raised. let's not forget he opted out of the public time, very practically and i think ultimately shrewdly. we are -- he's come in a 52.64.7. that's the biggest number 20 years. since george herbert walker bush. it's the first clear majority present in 20 years. i think we are if you let that they were probably within a percentage margin.

72 is a blowout. ed for blowout, 92 -- clinton won with 43%. 96 we forget he came in under 50%. 2000 dasch i leave that to you all. bush only got 50.704. so historically it's more likely to have a close election then a bit going. but in historic terms, the last 20 years, this is a pretty significant victory. somebody else reads this with me recently. i don't think we should -- and i'm not suggesting that you are, but some people are saying well,

it was close so it's not really a mandate. it's a pretty big mandate. and we'll see what happens. i noticed that senator mccain and senator obama met today and talked about football, showing there is in fact a common vocabulary in this country. thank you all very much. it's great to be here. i really appreciate it. [applause]

>> you know, if we look at the 18th century, journalists and started off in this country and 17 balfour as a very puny and unimpressive kind of enterprise. the very first newspapers were very small, had circulations in the dozens and then maybe the low hundreds. and they were really intimidated by the other institutions in society, especially church and state. compared to them, these newspapers were not at all important and very much under their thumbs. but what you see over the course of the next couple of decades is a process by which the newspapers become increasingly political and what they focus on and they get to be bolder and bolder for reasons i go into in the book. so by the 1760s and certainly by 1770, they are in full throat

expressing themselves on all kinds of the political issues of the day, on independence from britain or reconciliation with another country on if we pray, what kind of the government should we have, all these huge questions. and the press becomes quite polemical during this period. it is often the product that people are reading are often produced anonymously or pseudo-anonymously by people who don't want to be known as political party since. and that is the nature of the press that the founders were familiar with. that price was very vocal. with small-scale and it was very polemical. most of the newspapers had very little, what we would think of as original reporting of nonfiction material that the stats are generated. that was not really in the

cards. so you know, as we see, you know, a return to a more polemical style today's journalism, it is not something that you know, is unanticipated or doesn't fit into the constitutional scheme. >> coinvented reporters? >> because we tend to think of reporters and journalists a synonym, but that was not -- >> not at all. it really wasn't until about the 1830s again here in new york city, and other really inventive journalists named benjamin day created the first so-called penny press newspaper, solely for a penny a copy. so he was going way down market, trying to reach the broadest possible audience. and to do that, he needed to fill it up as surprising, amazing things every day. fires, and news from the police

station, docking ships come anything like like that he could find. and he wore himself out trying to sell the paper and so he hired the first full-time reporter, a man named george wisner, who is a theory -- regrettably obscure figure in american journalism history, but i'll try and do something about that. >> when did journalism become business? that is comedy. you are describing the colonial. doesn't sound like -- how did it support itself? >> well, most of those newspapers were created by people who are really in another trade. that is, they were printers. in order to keep their print shop busy and in order to bring their customers into the shop to pick up their papers so they could sell them some stationary on the side or sell them a book while they were in there, they

had upon the idea of a newspaper as the perfect device. it expires every week, later every day once the pace picked up. they're a sideline as someone we would think of a job printer and open up running all kinds of stuff from anyone who had business. and it's really around a revolutionary parent, certainly the early federal. , where you see the sideline disappears in the newspaper itself comes the real focus. the first daily paper in the country is founded in 1783. and once the cityscape to be a certain density and the reason of commerce, enough population, then in the early part of the 19th century they get going and they really take off in the 1830s. >> so that is on it's fair to say that journalists in his business. >> yes, it is clear by