rapid procurement method call that dancing concept technology demonstrations. in january 1994 the defense department gave him the first such contracts. a been a team of engineers who brought with him redesigned the map 750 and six months later the predator made its first flight. ..

>> >> senator brand called -- rand paul even the great conservatives ronald reagan felt compelled to respond.

but i believe that is a job. with that little push for activist government into other programs that is predicated on the notion governed by the people. though unfortunately not to care whether programs like head start actually work only that these programs by their existence demonstrate better medicare and they play along with this narrative of government priorities to improve the efficiency but people are missing the point does

conservatives have framed it as they have believed with the argument with his provocative new book with his senate history of publishing a mean-spirited diatribe against mean-spirited passion. [applause] and then a senior editor and a visiting scholar and holds from loyola university in chicago and has written for numerous publications and is penetrating into california's future riches

when of the most traffic pieces of all time. his previous book never eat enough and is also not mean-spirited at all. says he will now discover. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen,. down the street from mary and kathy at the foundation i used to come to a lot of these and returned from a great speakers and it is an honor to be here with you today. i would not be here with you

today if not for the carroll and at the very agency. and also to of my editors are here. you will get a growing sense as you except the fact i have prepared today's remarks all by myself. [laughter] so modern american liberalism and progression. with all the political principle says president obama with a quality that sets progressives apart is they care about other people, not just themselves as conservatives and shake their heads.

could they believe the changes in politics has gotten the better of statesmen and how that is so simple that is all we need for peace. are we so self righteous to insist that even in skepticism could be explained entirely of the meanspirited this. the shortest possible answer is yes and yes. the long as possible and answer is now available in hardback. and i know that news stories

with the big problem of compassion but they're really means to suffer together. [laughter] and in apolitical context your homelessness or hunker or distress and now because of that reaction i can care

about your problem. so far so good but that turns out to be a trap door. what we see too often it is much more concerned about caring about helping to be mildly in different to do what they've won it to do. if they're feeling better and that ought to be the goal of any rational government sets of public policies. so let me talk about compassion. to the political argument.

first of all, home of the modern bargaining. to be sold by a social context usually nonaggression pact where we agree to disagree about contentious questions of privilege and chief among them. to the largest portion of the population. he once beat advances to have autonomy different strokes for different folks. and also one togetherness. as hillary clinton lamented.

but then their lives are part of a greater effort. from though liberal perspective to have the best of both the of perfect liberal is someone so compassionate but could not care less. to reconcile the demands that brings me to my second observation. like every political disposition modern liberalism rests on a certain precept of nature. we can understand this

perspective which read view human nature with suspicion with those federalist papers for example, to navigate the narrow dangerous path between tyranny a and anarchy. >> but the liberals by contrast to is not lie in the defects. and with the much smaller risk with the political machinery. that they are not inherently selfish that means their relations with one another

but not coincidentally as the best aspect with the basic is accessible for the calculations necessary. the third point to emphasize compassion more and more it is a progress less and less. that which laid the foundation that natural scientists have learned the laws of nature to explain the physical world. but social scientists will

arrive at an equally penetrating a ray of history to accelerate. by the middle of the 20th century however to confidence them progress. and then for totalitarianism. the spirit but among the problems with this is the renders the untenable that progressive powers are some people's objectives that are true and verifiable.

and as a result with rhetoric and a self understanding. yes it does rest of nothing more fundamental. is it better to formulate policies? war over wetlands itself is something about the of liberal do-gooder. butted is endangered species [laughter] but the do-gooder owes it -- is always by comparison.

to be on the right side of history. that they do not run afoul since all they really need is to fulfil its destiny to become a nicer place. and never to the mean people who want the role to be a main place. the first be non judgmental how people are that disregards the important ways to determine how they are. liberalism is the paradigm for social welfare programs and for the same reason and

then to infantilize those. is perverse all the way is to be expected to help themselves. and then with those challenges. with the promising path to individuals to the economic advantages or what others to feel sorry for without them.

bit too dependent the kindness of strangers. sec didn't, that human nature for those that disagree with him. but with the desalt option with the liberals explain the ugly and difficult ones with a steadier pathology. but with the dissatisfaction of discord we could ameliorate that never could be. but that they are naturally disposed to give with one another ways that are peaceful and respectful and uplifting but those that

seek those solutions to implement. and 20 years ago when confronted with resistance to their initiatives with that hatred that is not far below the splining face but the opposition makes unitarians then they become petulant and self righteous and intolerance in the heat of political controversy they cannot conceal their contempt for those of refuse to see the light. liberals' view of human nature jeopardize his many valuable thing sadder chief among them they are inclined to interpret or misinterpret

a way of life for people who aspire to it. the non judgmental to liberals from the islamist terrorist is to suggest ways that there was reasonable and explicable of the recent isis' be heading videos us skeptical -- the spectacle gives us the chills to tell ourselves failure to provide adequate social services for men is neighborhoods. liberals first reaction with the decency of the others to ultimately we well.

sometimes it is not always clear about what exactly they're trying to conserve or why exactly. i submit to have the spirit of self governance they are vulnerable the work assisting them but is permanently a necessary. for also because it is attractive. and the issues were to get along with one another. and the gratifying process to be disengaged and the challenging process with

elemental the motion of compassion had so much power and wisdom it would provide clear answers to the questions have to govern the republic in the world of 7.2 billion people. i am pretty sure they are and always will be. head said dangers inherent but to be very afraid of both. and some say why.

and then to paraphrase but then it goes back. but then the garden of eden is the servant -- the serpent. [laughter] fait que. [applause] >> we will start at this table over here. >> it is the tricky question.

but they also argued but then to be aimed but have you decide what is the true aim? >> beats me. [laughter] i choose to attempt to understand those understand themselves. the shadow may go but if they're starting point is to

say those who set up programs like cali hobby and headstart at one point were sincerely interested. but it is an answer but the problem that often happens the desire to solve the problem to colonize that problem is all dependent upon the management of that problem. >> but my question is that

if you were not a liberal at 28 you have no heart of the 40 year have no aim. budget the question is what we call liberals but the heart is in the right place but their head is not. my question to you is particularly in to change

the have nots. for this is the opportunity so does it make sense in your opinion for the grand bargain between obama to make good deal on a tax reform to only limit them to

those people? >> with that new deal is something that franklin roosevelt is a rhetorical achievement in then to about '08 their new deal with the founding of jefferson and then did consented in

conservatism. but in general but the of political concept as it has been created in this country to make it as complicated as possible. coming in a variety of ways it goes to different people and a variety of ways. nobody is sure if they are a net importer or exporter. i think the conservative interests that we should

invest that liberals act as if they have to keep bribing people i don't think that is true for reasons beyond their control. so we can achieve the goals and be serious it reduced the burden. >> but for meet and then the

understanding of the role. with isis that liberal thought will they come around. [laughter] but those who were anti-communist to create the

program to be biting off. but that comes in mind when you talk about isis. so have you considered that analysis? beck i have but there are two problems it is the old adage if you give a fighter role they hammered the whole world is a nail. may tend to interpret everything that is out there to the utilization of that.

seven worst-case said vietnam war the johnson administration would relegate and was so impressed that coach she did they would call off. so there is that. the belief that there is no fundamental disagreements. we can address those. and the flip side is so committed are they put a problem of the democratic experiment itself. life as a democracy is so agreeable that it is impossible to seriously believe their people out there who reject it locks

stock and barrel. so what we see is an advanced case of the inability to believe that they are not that bad. that we could work things out. to make a dangerous situation in more danger is. >> 50 years ago lbj focused on social programs with spending in the bombing continues to spend it the

department of energy literally with the fuel the efficiency standards so we go from big spending to micromanaging. >> if you look at the arc it is more of a culmination. once you announce it is the government's job then it all the ways people live their lives, for example, that before there was medicare and medicaid you could have the position that they

wanted to ride motorcycles without a helmet but once you socializes to that extent we will pay your medical bills but then we say we are invested three have a right to protect ourselves. so things that used to be private becomes public so there is more of a rationale. >> hagel if you prove the effectiveness of the individual program? with those factors of a outcome with the limitations of the data? there will always argue

because they did not have enough resources. >> yes. roosevelt in 1932 said we need bold experimentation but there really does presuppose they would get rid of them. for reasons that are episcopal logical that people had a vested interest the idea is not very democratic the people that are part of the experiment do so they care about their little side of it.

there are a lot of people doing work on just a question on a variety of issues. like health care for example,. for what the house of office of management and budget calls human-resources is about 2.3 trillion dollars that includes social security, medicare, all other programs and federal programs in education and social services. if you want to throw the biggest tenant there is another 700 billion in this area. bennett those that come that

the people help one another. with more than $9,000 per american but to see why with that level of expenditure now what you are supposed to be doing. so i think it is to the liberals a vantage and the conservatives advantage to look at the aggregate we can

argue all day and night but we will never convince each other. shouldn't we consider wholesale? >> and talk about the ceiling fan and regulating it. and then to add so they run out and don't say gone fishing. >> yes.

[laughter] >> i could not have said it better. and there was a notion of jimmy carter that we could acknowledge this problem with the sunset law so agencies would have so many years than 1/2 to justify themselves all over again that with the zero base budget to say we will start with zero to make a case for the whole thing. it sounded great in theory. the political forces at work are powerful yet made a guest speaker for the manhattan institute.

you can have all of the political opposition but those who are their day and night who cared nothing else about that public subsidy that it is why you need to go macro. >> i thank you were right how attractive compassionate liberalism can be. if not then with is the policy? >> compassionate conservatism was george bush signature framework the cave

now in 1989 and 2000. it was not fleshed out so well but to this day we can only source of no what might have spent. but i talk about that. this summary is there is good idea is that george w. bush recognized it should encompass the entire human being and how you sever from what you do.

said he wasn't favored to delegate more welfare to the armies of compassion. so far so good. but the reason it did that work out is because it could not with george bush running for president he wanted to be ronald reagan. but the idea we would entrust the government to be a moral catalyst to bring about greater discipline and self respect that it is implausible and dangerous. so there is a need for a great social revolution but probably should not have been a political

transformation. >> so to what degree is the depth of the ideology? >> why he has requested you know, the answer better than i do? [laughter] it is the chicken and egg. a lot more people go to college than they used to. but there is that innocents which is derived from pieties pity is left after

you trade away the overarching theological implications. all of the great colleges started off as a religious institution. was it is left is the idea you can care for one another. it doesn't mean god forbid we should judge when another so perhaps the higher education the atmosphere is conducive to that confusion. >> i with health care financial. and with the practices they

all have to do that. is it time to force the taxes from the federal or state government? >> wide u.s. requested you already know the answer to? [laughter] may be but the silver bullet solution we would have solved it already. but if he set up something like that just like zero based budgeting or the sunset laws, people find a way. you can write the regulations or the stipulations if you don't deal with the underlying political problem of lack of

availability or resources i don't think you'll ever come up with that and it makes a difference. >> from 9/11 n. the question is in the post 9/11 world they have the calamities the worst problems. is there not of you -- a

view? >> but if indeed there are calamities and an uncomplicated world there is increasing ways to affect one another. but it seems to be what cuts in to that is conservatives have a legitimate reasons to push that up against to over generalize. economist for though "washington post" and other peace after the big typhoon in the philippines where he said here is the moral lesson. we help people when they suffer.

therefore you're also in favor of obamacare, the great society, a and the notion that because people truly are in desperate hope situations that by no means could they ever be accused that you generalize to say all suffering. this is where suffering talks about everything that happens to us where hard-working in the environment. even if we are disciplined that is for the better opportunities rehab as children.

so conservatives are pushing back and if you were suffering period as your fault, there are grown up distinctions here between what we deserve. >> to imply that it would not be effective for the individual for micromanagement but also of a to imply spending $9,000 is too much. so what do you think is the root of the goal of a

functioning society? to keep costs down and the incentives that? >> it is a great last question. i say that to those that i cannot answer. [laughter] >> it seems to me that you will recall 20 years ago to introduce the idea of a conservative welfare state given the political reality so what is the conservative welfare state? he never spelled it out. it is a difficult question but one way is the welfare

state that the college is prepared to pay for. the liberals are so skittish to say about our project will cost money bedeviled the wonderful things we will be better off. but democrats say it is a package deal. the jacket - - taxes will be high on either hand you will not need very much because the government will take care of so many things. did they make a difference sales pitch. says a kindu and lawlessness of wonderful things. for those making more than $250,000 per year the numbers cannot begin to add up. so a starting point is since

you tell us we can do it in the revenue streams let's figure that out that is a much meaner welfare state is the essence of all right and and his changes that are severe. voucher medicare. those are big changes. but to say if you have the language to go to the american people to say guess what? and the results are better off then rehab a different argument that where we are is where we are. [applause] >> thanks for coming. date you very much.

to be on sale in the lobby. he would appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] spee nec on one hand multiculturalism be set the boundaries that we would argue as students in the '80s and '90s the first group of kids that were a part of the majority minority. that was part of the first-class. which you knows whether that means in. but we at that time we'd

want to be on campus to deal with the racial micro aggressions to make us feel you don't belong in the classroom these all happened during the '80s and resets so the language that reactionaries need to use in multi-cultural terms. pat buchanan has an amazing piece in his book will america survive 2025? he talks about how everybody can enjoy. we all like to go out but keeping it at that. sold has reset the boundaries of civility but we're at a point where we

cannot have these conversations about the inequalities that persist in our rising. this is a huge blind spot. the book was trying to get at that. that we work at the culture to promote these visions but there was a poll that came about after ferguson and to questions were asked. the first was to the events raise issues that ought to be discussed around race? and second, do the events draw too much focus and attention to the issue of race? there is a big split. africans america -- african-americans say overwhelmingly we should talk about and whites and

there is a plurality but we paid too much attention to raise. sold one set invitation to have a conversation and others is the cue to leave the room.

[inaudible] he was extremely talented and ambitious end ambidextrous in new at a time before germ warfare it was proven and do the difference between a dirty doctor and a clean dr.. and also extremely empathetic at a time period of of additional detail as to in-between doctors and patients but you have to imagine when we think somebody sawed off the leg while you are still awake but imagine being the person who's been years studying to help heal people knowing you have to do what needs to be done.

you have to have emotional detachment but he does not have that quality he trusted people with them to join them on that journey and came back to philadelphia to make a name for himself and clashed with another doctor there that is the main antagonist. so jefferson the local college would be discussed as a vanguard medical institution they also brought some of the most brilliant minds of surgery but the problem is they were all crazy they did not want to work with each other and i found fistfights that faculty meetings and they would heckle each other.

so he fired the entire faculty and brought back space to their vision into the end just so happens that he was selected as the chair of surgery he got his medical degree at 21 and the oldest member was the share of obstetrics they had clashed before and there would be more to come. . .come to miami and broadcast several of the nonfiction authors to our national audience. 20 hours of live coverage, 25 authors today and tomorrow. some of the office you will hear from and talk to today include cornell west, richard dawkins, norman lear and two of the guards at the benghazi complex.

full schedule of coverage is beyond the schedule on booktv.org, the c-span bus is down here, we are passing out book bags as well. if you are in the area come on down. joining us now on our outdoor and windy sets, the founder of the miami book fair, mr. kaplan, the wind is here, nice and warm. >> will be a beautiful day. i spoke to the weather guys, the sun is going to break, come through the clouds and we have another great clear day it's nice and warm. >> is going to be a beautiful day. i spoke to the weather guys in charlie the sun is going to break. after the clubs will have another break and i also want to personally thank you for coming. it's hard to believe, it's been 17 years. seems like a blank and/or support of what we do has been immeasurably important to the growth of this book there as well. >> host: we are covering 25

authors but this is just a small part of what the miami book fair is. >> guest: this year we have 600 authors coming to the fair. we have run for a full week, sunday through sunday and we have a quarter million people that come through not to mention during the week we provide authors to schools. we bring schools to miami-dade community college so we have our tentacles buried deep into the community in order to further literary culture and how that next group of leaders find themselves as well. >> host: when you came up with the idea for this book fair when was that and how big was it at the beginning? >> guest: is a group of us. it was in 1982 that we started talking about it. the very first book in 1984 so this is our 31st when the first year was two days. we have probably about 100 authors who came.

right in the beginning, right from the beginning it started off as a success. we knew that the rooms are filled. they were clamoring for more. so there was never a question of whether we would do it a second year. the second year we went to three days, friday saturday and sunday and we were doing that for a number of years when the campus build another building. so we decided we would fill that up with more authors. i like to say as long as the biltmore building we will present more authors in those buildings. this year we have incredible support from people like the light foundation, poets society of america, lots of different private individuals but certainly we could never do it without the support of miami-dade college. they provide the backbone. it's miami-dade, miami-dade college's gift to the community

miami book fair. >> host: mitch kaplan i know you have a full day ahead of you. we appreciate you stopping by her booktv set prior to your activities. >> guest: we thank you for being here and i look forward to a busy busy day for u.s. well. >> host: mitch kaplan founder and by the way the honor of books & books bookstores in the miami area. coming up in just a minute our first live panel of the day and this will be john dean and rick perlstein. they will be talking about richard nixon and in the 70s and part of that era. john dean latest book is called "the nixon defense" what he knew and hen he knew it and rick perlstein's most recent book is called "the invisible bridge" the fall of nixon and the rise of reagan. they will be up in chapman hall in just a minute talking with the audience. i think mitch kaplan is going to be introducing them and a little bit later today he will have a

chance to talk to john dean from our set here at the miami book fair. let's go to chapman hall now. john dean and rick perlstein in just a minute. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. good morning, it's a sunny day in miami. my name is pascal and then the dean of the honors college at miami-dade college and it's an absolute pleasure to be here with you today for the 2014 miami book fair international. the book fair is grateful for the support of the knight foundation but weigel or allow no american islands and many generous supporters. we would also like to knowledge very special people in the audience today friends of the book there and i see some of you here. thank you for your continued support. [applause]

today's presentation features two speakers as you know. we will reserve time for q&a. as you entered you would have been given an index card. please be certain to jot your questions down on the card and pass them to the right on this site and i guess to the right on that site as well. we will be collecting them throughout the program. lastly at this time we invite you to please silence your cell phones and of course enjoy the program. please join me in welcoming the mayor of miami beach, philip levine. [applause] >> thank you. good morning everybody. welcome. it's a great windy morning i thank god it doesn't look like rain. it's a beautiful day in and a great day for a book fair so, and as we say in miami beach if it sprinkles a little bit it's

not really rain, just liquid sunshine. i'm the mayor of miami beach and let me get right into the introductions because this is fascinating. i'm so honored to be here to introduce both these gentlemen who i grew up listening to and a lot of you did and will be very exciting. first off this john dean a legal counsel to president nixon during the watergate scandal and in senate testimony submits his resignation. in 2006 he testified before the senate judiciary committee investigating george w. bush investigating george w. bush's nsa warrantless wiretap program. is "the new york times" best-selling author of blind ambition, broken government conservatives without conscience and worse than watergate. in his latest book, "the nixon defense" what he knew and hen he knew it, dean connects the dots between what we have come to believe about watergate and what actually happened. in the nixon defense of dean draws on his own transcripts of

almost a thousand conversations, a wealth of nixon's secretly recorded information and more than 150,000 pages of documents in the national archives in the nixon library to provide the definitive answer to questions, what did president nixon now and when did he know it? and what will stand as the most authoritative account of one america of america's worst political scandals, "the nixon defense" shows how the disastrous mistakes of watergate could have been avoided and offers a cautionary tale for on-time. i've always been a big fan of john dean because i remember as a kid during the watergate scandals they were always on tv in my parents let me stay home from school so from that point forward i thought he was the greatest guy in the world. i would also like to introduce rick perlstein the author of nixonland the rise of the president and the fact -- fracturing of america "new york times" bestseller. before the storm barry goldwater and the unmaking of the american

consensus. his essays and books reviewed in "the new yorker" "the new york times" or "washington post" or the nation and the village voice and slate among others. his latest book is "the invisible bridge" the fall of nixon and the rise of reagan. in january of 1973 richard nixon announced the end of the vietnam war and prepared for a triumphant second term until televised watergate hearings hastened his downfall. the american economy slumped into a prolonged recession. as americans began thinking about their nation is no more providential than any other country that pundits declared that from now on successful politicians will be the ones who honor chastened national mood. ronald reagan never got the message against the backdrop of melodramas from the arab oil embargo to patty hearst to the near bankruptcy of america's greatest city, "the invisible bridge" asked the question what does it mean to believe in america? i am honored to ring out our

first speaker will be john dean. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i have got these new glasses in case i need to look at my notes. i took them down but i must say i found something good about getting old and that is i had cataract surgery. as i was about to head out to do at my doctor said i am glad for you. i said what in the world? just do it. i am now better than 20/20 vision. i got these glasses but then i started wearing these glasses and a friend of mine said you know john no one is going to recognize you. you used to wear those round kind of things so he was right.

the first week i have them on went through lax true story. a guy came up to me and sizes me up. he thinks he knows me and finally comes up and gets the courage and he says didn't you used to be dick cheney? [laughter] this morning we are going to talk about political histories and i was doing a rough count this morning. it looks like i have done about eight of them by most counts. some are biographical and some are autobiographical and some are a little bit of both. it's because i happen to know so much about the period of history i sometimes wish i didn't know about as well as i did that again into watergate with the latest book. my editor said to me as we were approaching the 40th anniversary of nixon's departure

from office he said isn't there any question you have at this late date you might want to find the answer to so i thought about it and i said i can't quite figure out how somebody is seemingly intelligent and politically savvy as richard nixon could make the kind of mistakes he made that he could lead a bungled burglary really desecrate his entire presidency. so i said i think probably the tapes will tell that tale and while i might have to transcribe a few i don't think many, i think historians by now have gotten through most of them. that was a mistake right away. as i started to go into the material i realize that nobody had ever catalogued or even made an attempt to catalogue what might be called the watergate

conversations. the national archives bless them in the fact that i have dedicated the new book to them given their 40 years of work on those tapes. they have gone through so good they could release the tapes and make them public every single conversation. it's a godsend. while they don't transcribe them they at least get you into the substance to release them because they withhold anything that is personal or national security. they listen to every conversation, get the people who are speaking in the conversation and the gist of the conversation. when i started a new book that we are here today to talk about, they hadn't digitize this yet but i was able to manually go through all their subject lost and found a thousand watergate conversations. the next thing i look to see was how many of those have been transcribed. this got a little depressing because they were not as many as

i thought. the watergate special prosecutor did about 80 conversations flow but which were really good because they were used in the big trial of former attorney general john mitchell former white house chief of staff bob haldeman and former assistant to the president john ehrlichman and the others who got charged for the watergate cover-up. they obviously listen to the conversations and tweak them and they were good. the rest of the watergate prosecutors conversations were not so good. the content was good but then they would have the wrong person speaking. so i called one of my friends that used to be in the watergate prosecutor's office and said what happened? he said these were first drafts by fbi secretaries so if they didn't recognize the voice and often they didn't, it's not so good. i realized i had to redo those.

stanley cutler a historian who forced nixon to release the tapes much earlier than he wanted to release them also did about 320 watergate conversations. stanley did more than watergate. he did the pre-watergate as well. i realized i would have to redo stanley's conversations. but that was 400 conversations, 80 by the prosecutors, 320 by cutler, there were 600 more conversations that the best i can tell nobody outside the national archives had ever listen to so i realized this was a huge assignment. i started a test to see how difficult it would be transcribing some of these myself particularly those where there were rough draft and preliminary transcripts. it is tough work. this is a pretty primitive system. i told my wife, maureen, with

whom i am still married, that is a question i get everywhere i go, i told her god forbid, these are high heads, i would turn the speakers up in my riding area, very loud, the men in families start losing in the 70s and god forbid the last voice i hear is richard nixon, but i can hear use this morning. i plowed through uzi's and quickly realized i was going to have to have some help so i got some graduate students, a friend of mine who teaches in california, actually he is a historian but teaches archival a friend of mine who teaches in california actually he's a historian but he teaches archival science as well. he started supplying some

students who were hoping to be an arc of this one day and boy did we get lucky or did i get lucky because one of the first ones he found was a woman who had been a former legal secretary. she was a little bit older than the other students. she was working on her masters master's at that point. she has now just about completed her doctorate and we put braces on her daughter in this project. so it worked out really well for her and she ended up doing 500 of these conversations. it was impressive because these runs anywhere from five minutes to literally eight hours. there is one conversation of nixon listening to tapes of live conversations so it's a tape of him listening to tapes. and i said charity don't do my tapes.

we will do those separate but just get what he says around around them and of what have you. it was a huge assignment and it took us four years to do it. i wanted to get them in front of me because i knew i didn't know the content of a lot of these conversations. i thought it would be better to keep it interesting if i could start at the beginning and the revelations that came from a conversations than would be interesting to me as well. so i got them while in front of me before i started but the way it broke down is nixon really and this was a surprise to me does not involve terror play in watergate at the outset. he actually tells haldeman the break-in will occur or did occur on june 171972. i have got 25 minutes before the book comes out so i just wanted to be careful. he tells haldeman on air force

one to have nobody talked to him. in other words this is a will for -- willful ignorance. he doesn't want to know what's going on. for those of you who read the book you will see their something and in writing the book i don't do this. i don't give a lot of my interpretation. i give information for the reader to know things that i know that i hadn't gone through all these tapes so i wanted readers to reach their own conclusions. when it interesting that thing that happens in the early weeks while he's not getting information from haldeman to assist principle source secondarily earlier in his white house domestic advisor and thirdly the "washington post" was applying a lot of information at that point. but that's it and as he goes through he has questions from time to time, and the thing that surprised me is when pressing

haldeman and ehrlichman for information he does not get answers. they have their own problems with what has happened. how many here witnessed and followed watergate live? well we know how old you are. a lot of you understood and remember this. the details will be a little hazy at this point all these years later. as they feed the information in haldeman and ehrlichman have their own problems. the break-in occurred on june 17, the second break-in occurred on june 17 to 1972 in the middle of the 72 campaign. nixon is out of town. he returns from florida on the 20th. that's the first conversation that is recorded.

it's the one where the 18.5 minute gap will occur as well and i understand they passed out some sort of question if you want to have a question today. we will happy -- be happy to go through those and anyone who hasn't filled it out yet who has a question and i don't get to it today if it's a really intriguing question and i somehow miss it, put your e-mail on there and i will answer it. i would be happy to. because i want maybe get to all of them. anyway, haldeman and ehrlichman have their own problems. ehrlichman had been responsible for howard hunt along with gordon liddy who had organized the watergate break-in. i guess most people remember libby. i was asked yesterday what i thought before i got on the plane i was doing a "cnn" was

doing a documentary on the 70s like they did on the 60s so that's in progress now. for some reason they wanted to talk to me and they talk to me and they talked to me for four hours about it. and liddy came up. i said liddy has left the image post-watergate of being someone who nixon had brought in sort of the james bond character he brought into the white house for special assignments which is not true. even more importantly it's not true that he's a james bond character. he is not up to the maxwell smart character. [laughter] is a huge bug where but anyway ehrlichman's problem is he brought junta to the white house and he had authorized earlier long before watergate in the fall of 1971, a break-in into

daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. this will actually drive the watergate cover-up from the white house perspective. otherwise i think that haldeman would have gone into the president and said listen mitchell to head of the campaign made a mistake. this is dangerous. we have to cut him loose but they couldn't do that because of this problem of white liddy had done well at the white house. so there's a lot of animosity also that comes through between mitchell who thinks ehrlichman has given him this problem and send it to the re-election committee and then on the other side on ehrlichman's behalf leading liddy break into watergate. he knows that had to come from a highest level of the re-election committee and while mitchell isn't confessing at this point he certainly -- everyone knows

this wouldn't have happened without his blessing. anyway so these two men have trouble so they don't really tell the president much of anything. in fact he won't learn about the ellsberg break-in and tell and remember the arrest occurred on june 17 at 72. nixon will not learn about the ellsberg break-in until march 17 of 73 when it comes up in a conversation with me. i won't see the president for eight months. the first eight months what is ironic, these are the tapes that nobody ever listened to or had really gone through closely. everything that was key to the cover-up, every single thing from paying the watergate defendants to the perjury of judgment and grouper to make that first phase of the cover-up work and those are just two

highlights, everything necessary to nixon had been told about had approved so it's not that he is unaware or out of the loop so to speak of the cover-up. he has blessed everything am and haldeman has taken his cues from the president and authorized. he didn't know that nixon had perjury and jeb mcgruder i didn't know that nixon had sold an ambassadorship to raise money for the watergate defendants. i mean they're just all these things that come through and also as a result of going through all this i came to a very clear conclusion of why nixon's presidency went down and there's only one person to

blame. while the staff did not serve him well, as a personal example as soon as liddy confessed to me about what it happened i go to ehrlichman one of my two superiors and tell him you know what john we need a criminal lawyer in here. i'm not a criminal lawyer. i happen to realize that presidency was essential that he be a highly experienced criminal lawyer. he just dismissed that was the wave of the hand and we would start making mistakes right from the beginning. i don't think anybody planned to get involved in an obstruction of justice but slowly step-by-step we cross that line. it's quite evident to me how that happens. a lot of it is ignorance and doing things for political motives. motive doesn't count when you

are breaking criminal law. that might be something considered since the sentencing but certainly not something we should have been aware of. in fact richard nixon really never hires a criminal lawyer until he is resigned when he first gets one and really knows what the score is. i know that from talking to watergate prosecutors. he said that you feel there was anybody who is anywhere close to your peer dealing with these issues and he said nobody. they said we were just dumbfounded that we didn't get a good lawyer in there. in looking at the trajectory of the tapes in watching nixon's day bite day behavior i came at this with a very realistic conclusion that richard nixon is just not as smart as i thought he was. clearly his conversations about

foreign-policy treaty is articulate. he knows the world. he has clear thoughts and he is brilliant in many regards. when he starts talking about domestic policy there is very little he is good on. he bumbles, he stumbles. he is hesitant. the only exception to that oddly enough is finance. he's very good on the budget and have strong feelings on spendi spending. but most of his conversations are halting. he is stuttering. he is sputtering and they are difficult. but acoustically the oval office is pretty good. telephone calls can become close to broadcast quality. his executive office building office is terrible because the microphones are in the desks. they drilled holes in the desks.

his oval office which was woodrow wilson's desk, he put some holes besides. i happen to eyes be sitting over a microphone when my voice was recorded which actually i am please with today. i wasn't saying anything that didn't bother me. i was telling him exactly what dire circumstances he was in. the eob office is terrible because nobody sat at the desk. they are very difficult to transcribe and what we did is found and i talk to the people that transcribed and they also seem to stumble into it sooner or later. there's only one way to do this and this is highly repetitive activity. the change machines. i went out and digitized all of the archives tapes before the

archives themselves had been digitized. you can manipulate that somewhat. you get distortions on the voices but you can also pick up the words. i got most of it in my book is of course not a book of transcripts but rather i drew narrative and dialogue of the states. i would end up with 21 volumes of three-inch notebooks that represent 8500 pages, roughly 4 million words of nixon on watergate. i told my editor i am not sure which was more difficult, the transcription to make the tapes or digesting them back down to a readable document. nixon gets highly repetitive late in the game. there are two phases to watergate. there is the cover-up and then there is the cover-up of the cover-up. that's why nixon has jumped in

with both feet. the taping system comes out during the start of the cover-up of the cover-up when alex butterfield testifies and al hague who was white house chief of staff had no idea that there was a voice-activated system. he the new nixon had taped a few people essentially me but he did not know he had a voice-activated system. hague just can't believe the president of the united states but every word get recorded. for this political history that happens i had probably the most remarkable primary source and the author ever have. i was able to wrap up my session on a couple of stories about the tapes. i am able to hear things. i couldn't listen because of the

volume of every single conversation. i could immediately tell from my transcribers if he or she was having any trouble. it was a difficult conversation. i trusted it unless something was particularly important i would tend to look at them and just make sure i heard what they heard. i often heard things that they could not hear here because of, not because of my hearing but because i knew the players. a wonderful example is an incident that occurs with mark felt who we later knew as deep throat, one of bob woodward's principle sources. in october of 1972 i had gone over to the criminal division at the department of justice to talk to the head of the department.

and person responsible day by day for watergate. henry said john i haven't told the attorney general this-told the acting director of the fbi pat brave because i am were worried of an overreaction but the white house will understand part of the reason this fbi investigation is being handled the way it is is the number two man in charge mark felt is sleeping. i said how do you know that henry? he says i have known felt for a long time and in fact he is known by those of us who know him not to his face but behind his back as the white -- and i said why is that? he said he is prematurely gray and he talks all the time to the papers. i said i wasn't surprised.

he told me the person i believed he was learning from was the general counsel of a major publisher of this kind of information. i've i have narrowed it down to "time" magazine which was better material that he gave to woodward or the national post and the general counsel of one of those, it is the place and we got this. he had given this person a commitment not to reveal his identity. that was pretty good information. i took that information back to haldeman not knowing what he would do with it but i realized by sosin of the tapes that he shared it with nixon. this is one where stanley cutler had done a partial transcript so i looked at stanley's transcript and was listening to the tape

and there is one point in the conversation where the president is reacting to what haldeman had told him. he said you know what i would do with felt and cutler has an expletive following that. so he just drops it but i hear something totally different. everyone is listening to the tapes since they have heard what i say is there agrees. he says do you know what i would do? ambassadorship. this is exactly what he will do with helms the head of the cia. he will appoint him ambassador to move him out on a friendly term so that he is still loyal and what have you. this never went anywhere and that is one of the things on the tapes and these conversation where nixon raises some interesting things that haldeman never shared with anyone else. so the tapes, there is no question today in watergate but

i really don't think i know the answer who are the answer isn't found in those tapes. it was a grinding exercise. one of the most difficult parts of the book was nixon gets compulsively obsessive about the conversations and starts repeating himself where he will make a spin differently here and a little change there and he repeats these conversations often with the same person over and over again towards the end. i wanted -- i couldn't burden the reader with that but i wanted to give the reader a sense of how this man operated. with those opening remarks i'm going to turn it over to my friend rick perlstein whose works i enjoy. and i have had the pleasure doing programs before. he is always reassuring to see good young historians coming

along getting the stories right. so many of them never do the digging of the kind that rick does. with that, rick it's your turn. [applause] >> thanks john. it's one of the great joys of my life, unexpected joy to be call john dana friend. without this guy richard nixon would still be president. [laughter] also i want to say something about the hospitality of miami book festival. it's been amazing. someone said they treat us like rock stars and i feel like i've been swaddled with all the comforts of home.

john tells the story of many of the same things i write about here very much from the inside. our books complement each other nicely because i tell the story from the outside. if you raised your hand when john asked if he followed watergate, this book is about you. you guys are the subject of this book and that's pennsylvania avenue. basically this is a book about how the american people absorb and responded to the trauma and that's a word i use advisedly, the traumas of the years of 1973 and 1974 and 1975. rather than explaining that i will read a little bit from the book for what it's about and i

will very much look forward to the discussion we are having. like john i would be very glad to have e-mails or if you prefer going on facebook. i think i got 800 more spots and all kinds of leglio -- conversation so without further ado this is a book about how ronald reagan came from winning the 1976 republican nominees for presidency. it's also about much more. the years between 1973 and 1976 america suffered more ones than just about any other time in history burst in january of 1973 with richard nixon declaring america's role in the vietnam war after some eight years of fighting or maybe 10 years of fighting or maybe four years of

fighting. it depends on how you count it. some 58,000 americans said $699 billion extended to american treasure. this nixon called peace with honor but that just obscure the fact that america had lost its first war. then almost immediately televised hearings on the complex of presidential abuses known as watergate which revealed the managers of the white house as little better or possibly worse than common criminals in what one senator called a national funeral that just goes on day after day after day. then in october came the arab oil embargo and suddenly americans learned that the

commodity that underpin their lifestyle was vulnerable to shortages. the world's mightiest economy can be held hostage by some mysterious cobalt of third world shakes. reading about and studying the energy crisis one of the most striking and shocking things was people didn't even really think of energy is a thing, something that was subject to the laws of supply and demand. it was like the air in the water in the real trauma of 1973 was a oh my god this entire new category of things to worry about that we couldn't even imagine worrying about before. now this list omits smaller traumas in between. one of my favorites lost to everyday historic memory was the redoubling of meat costs in the 1973 when the president's consumer adviser informed viewers that liver, kidney,

brains and heart can be made into gourmet meals. with seasoning, imagination and more cooking time. the letters were unprintable. in the next few years the traumas continued, compounding. the end of the presidency, made by fierce nixon might seek force of arms. inflation such as america had never known during peacetime a recession that saw hundreds of blue-collar workers idle during christmastime greater than at any other time since the 15th century and when i have the slideshow this is where patty hearst goes up with her gun and a seven headed snakes. senate and house hearings on this senate intelligence agency

commanding squads of lawless assassins. with these traumas and this is where you guys come in emerged a new sort of american politics. a stark discourse of reckoning. what kind of nation were we to suffer humiliation so suddenly so unseasonably so unexpectedly? a few pages and you will read these words from one expert. for this first time americans have had at least a partial loss in the fundamental belief in ourselves. we have always believed in the new men deny people the new society the last best hope on earth in lincoln's terms. for the first time we have begun to doubt that. that was only in february of 1973. by 1976 a presidential year such were so retained that when the nation geared up for a massive celebration of its bicentennial

it was common for editorialists and columnists to question whether america deserved to have a birthday party. and whether the party could come off without massive bloodshed given that there have been 89 bombings attributed to terrorism by the fbi in 1975. the liberals at the new republic reflected upon the occasion of the most harrowing 1975 trauma. the military collapse of our ally south vietnam the nation on behalf of which we extended those billions of dollars and thousands of lives. if the bicentennial helps us focus on the contrast between our idealism and our crimes, so much the better. now the most ambitious politicians endeavor to speak to this national mood. an entire class of them dubbed the watergate babies were swept into congress in 1975 pledging a

third reform of america's broken institutions. and nearly alone among ambitious politicians ronald reagan took a different road. returning to the nation's attention toward the end of his second term as americans governor pundits began speculating about which republicans might succeed richard nixon and then thanks to john which ones might succeed his replacement gerald ford. reagan when he was asked about watergate insisted it said nothing important about america at all. asked about vietnam he would always say america had not expended enough islands that the greatest immorality is to ask young men to fight or die for my country if it's not a cause we are willing to win. one of the quotes you like to repeat in those years came from pope pius xii writing collier's

magazine in 1945 back when the united states was on top of the world. the pope said the american people have a genius for grades and unselfish deeds into the hands of america god has placed the destiny of an afflicted mankind. he would repeat that in almost every speech. now when ronald reagan began getting attention for talking this way in america season of melancholy washington only dismissed him. no one called the watergate burglars not criminals as hard as ronald reagan had in the spring of 1973 to be taken seriously as a political. the themes of my books chronicling ascent and politics has been the myopia of pundits. who so frequently fail to notice

the cultural ground shifting beneath their feet. in fact at every turn and america's apparent decline there were ours dissenting voices on the right. they said things like richard nixon just couldn't be a bad guy and america couldn't be surrounding its role as god's chosen nation. it's possible. at first such voices sounded mainly in the interstices of america's political discourse. among right-wing institution builders exploiting the cultural conditions of the 70s were largely ignored. a conservative churches whose pews grew more crowded even as experts insisted religious belief was in radical decline. i found an ap article by the religion editor that quoted a distinguished professor of

religion thing christians must accept being a definite minority for the time being. those voices were moving from the margin to the center. this was related to what ronald reagan was accomplishing politically. but things shifted independently of him as well. read one wire service headline about the bicentennial celebration nations hunger to feel good iraq is in a fever of patriotism. the keynote of articles like this which were, and was surprised, surprised that it wasn't that hard to unapologetically celebrate america after all. in this book is how the shift in american political and cultural sentiment began. it's also a biography of ronald reagan. he had been a sullen kid from a chaotic alcoholic home whose for his mother's passion for saving fallen souls could never save

her own husband. it also seemed to have kept her out of the house constantly. by the time of ronald reagan's adolescence deployed told his friends to call him dutch have cultivated an extraordinary gift in the active rescuing himself. ability to radiate life optimism in the face of what others called chaos. to reimagine the morass of a tableau of central moral clarity. he did the same thing decades later as a politician. skillfully reframing situations that those of the more critical tempers as irresolvable models such as the vietnam war as crystalline black-and-white melodramas. this was the key to what made us feel so good about him what made them so eager and willing to follow him what made him a

leader. but it was also simultaneously what made him such a controversial leader. others witnessing precisely this quality saw him as a phony and a hustler. in this book while reagan is not a uniter. it is fundamentally a divider in understanding the precise ways opinion about him divided americans better helps us understand our political order of battle today. the pattern emerged extraordinarily early. in 1966 when reagan the tv host and former actor of b movies shocked the universe by winning the republican nomination for california governor. a young aspiring journalist who began researching a profile of him but never got published because no one was much interested in ronald reagan. industriously though the journalist tracked down tiny

eureka college in central and i in the years between 1920 to 1932. i just learned miami-dade is 170,000 students. eureka had two or 300. the divergent recollections of reagan mass precisely how they would if you corralled a random sample of politically attuned citizens today. half remembered him as a hero and a figure of destiny and have judged him the mass precisely the opposite shallow at best a manipulative fraud at worst. before reagan served a single day in political office a polarity of the pain was said and adored forever more. on one side those who saw him as a rescue or a hero a redeemer on the other those who saw him as a. read a handwritten get well note received after the 1981 assassination attempt against

him. they referred to his first job as a lifeguard. this was a handwritten note that he got in the oval office. i've met you in lowell park illinois. you remember the good times ahead in the 20s? you were 17 years old then and everyone called the dutch. please get well soon. we need you to save this country. remember all the lives he saved at the park. the letter appears in a religious biography of reagan that argues this coming into the world, mating with his single handed of the soviet empire was literally providential the working out of god's plan. on the other side those who found reagan a phony, a fraud. the first time such an opinion of reagan shows up in historical record is in his high school yearbook. he is depicted fishing a suicide out of the water. he bags don't rescue me i want to die.

reagan responds you will have to postpone that. i need a medal. like the reagan worship the reagan hate the something i wanted to share this manuscript of a friend of mine who grew up in california. she told my best not send it. she couldn't think straight about ronald reagan for her rage. her beef and that of millions of others was simple that all the turbulence in the 60s and 70's had given the nation a chance to reflect its power to shed its arrogance to become a humble and better citizen of the world, to grow up. for the citizens what reagan achieved for close that imperative. americans might learn to question leaders ruthlessly threw aside the notion that american power was always innocent and think like grown-ups. they then proposing a new

definition of patriotism. one built on questioning authority and unsettling ossified doldrums. i think some of those guys are in the audience today. along came ronald reagan encouraging citizens in his estimation to think like children waiting for a man on horseback to rescue him and this was a tragedy. the division was present even among his own offspring. maureen has elvis wrote of at the time her father missed an important milestone in her life. she cast in the most optimistic as possible terms. i think dad are great at times like these at least a little bit the tug and pull up his political political life kept him from enjoying the first 10 successes of his children. oh he enjoyed them them with essence. and he was always there for us emotionally.

at the other pulled there was his other daughter patty who disagreed. patty a rock 'n roll liberal wrote i've been taught to keep secrets to keep her image intact for the world. and their families definition of loyalty the public should never stand are carefully preserved surface was a group of people who knew how to inflict one's and convincingly say those wounds never existed. this gets to my favorite ronald reagan story. it's a patty davis memoir. she writes damning things about her mother nancy reagan and she was suffering horrible depression. she is one of two children who apparently attempted or thought about attempting suicide. she was in college. she wanted to go into therapy

but nancy and ronald thought that was for people who are crazy or whatever it was so what she did was she got ahold of a pound of marijuana and she sold it and i pay for therapy. [laughter] while her dad was the governor and the future just say no first lady of california, none the wiser. she wrote of how her mother was addicted to pills and use their house as a state-of-the-art intercom system as a tool for orwellian surveillance. moring described the same intercom service as a providential gifts. ..