we picture book to be programs, showcasing what is available every weekend on c-span2. tonight will show you the in-depth, and autobiography devon thomas discusses his books, dixon and most recently sandra day o'connor. then university prevent pennsyla russian hackers and trolls helped elect a president. and after that, political scientist and professor paul king gore talks about his book on market politics and history including dupes, takedown and the divine plan. >> richard nixon, robert kenne kennedy, edward williams, john paul jones, teddy roosevelt, what connects all these topics?

>> one of the great things about being a a journalist, you can do anything you want. i am not ai' scholar. i don't have a specialty. having said that, i would say america after world war ii. this country really coming in as a global power. . . . it like to be a leader in this world that's your world, your time, your world. so that drew me initially to the wisemen which i did with walter isaacson, and then -- john paul much everybody and example of joan a couple of centimeters ago on leadership. i am fascinated by the burdens of leadership becausef it's har. [laughter] it is harder than we think. i am fascinated by what it's like to be a man, usually men

obviously senator in my last book story. to her, man. human weakness is enormous pressure and how do they handle it. some really well and some bravely and some not so well. but it's the pressure that interest me. how do human beingse respond to grandiose global leadership. let's go back to the first book, came out in 1986, wiseman. it seems looking back now, that there was a coordination to their process and a coordination to their goal and that was a shared goal. i was just looking back. >> no no no. i get your. >> imposing order on chaos.

actually it's just year's passing. i take your.but in this case, it is actually a shared worldview. the worldview was it is america's time. it had been britons, [laughter] in the 19th century was basically world britannia, chaos in the earliest 20th century but out of world war ii, it's our time. it is our time to some good and some honorable and idealistic things and bring democracy to the world. they were seriously idealistic about this. it is also true that they were going to make money doing it. so you can't divorce these things. these are people from wall street and they had paid money by dealing with wolves. part of the global vision, this free trade, a global community in which countries trade with each other's an american is going to do pretty well.

america is going to do well. you cannot divorce the money piece. there is a lot of idealism here. the third piece is power. in order to dos all of this, tht is a power. how do you use power and what is the military power when is at war. diplomacy question mark smart enough to not to go to work. those are huge challenges which these men met pretty well initially. obviously the wise men is a valedictory book of celebrating the world they made because by and large, created decades of global peace, no world wars. they did this in a training system that really benefited the united states but also benefited europe, which was rebuilt, asia africa and other, the whole

world. things are not as bad as you think, books about that. global standards of living have gone up. democracy has spread. itce spread after world war two. good things happen not in the united states only but in the whole world because of the system. important exception, vietnam. americans can be, we make mistakes and we exploit people because are all true but if you take the totality, the world got better. sumac from that book, the wiseman, you write that even the most careful scholars in facthe particularly the most careful ones, sometimes seem to forget that in the midst of thepe momentous forces that shapeds modern world, were flesh and blood individuals acting on imperfect information and have formed beliefs. twomac is no life. g

certainly my life and it is also the lives of who had to make these great decisions. for instance, what is russia really up to? russia was a closed society. the we like to think of james bond.es we did not have any spies in moscow. the first american station chief was thrown out on on a trap. what they called a honey trap. they picked him right up and throwing back. we didn't know what the heck was going on in the soviet. until we had five satellites in the late 1950s, we had spy satellites and we could look down to see if they were building missiles of thinking jealous. did we have bad information, we had no information on our chief adversary. then you add to that, human ear and blunder, we made mistakes.

but here we are, we did not all get killed and we might have had it not been for the good judgment of eisenhower who i wrote backod who was really her first nuclear president and because he had been ad smart oasoldier, he understood war and was determined to keep us out of war. we are not now radioactive dust which we could've been and he made the wrong move. we survived this dangerous. but we were in english through much of it. >> before we get too far, i want to ask you about, you mentioned that democracy was these receding these days. >> what i was thinking about about a year ago, a professor, i think michael if all, former ambassador. i was at my wife's reunion, they track democracy and it was

disturbing in eastern europe. this was the rise of a strong. places like poland and hungary, have seen their democratic norms of road. a lot of this has to do with the judiciariess who are truly independent and can enforce then rule of law or do they take orders by the figueroa called telephone justice. but taking orders from the party or are they doing the rule of law. measured that way, very sorry, i think democracy is eroding somewhat. i don't think it is necessarily at the end of the world, i am not an expert on this. there are signs of after this great spread of democracy slide back. >> before we get into europe another one of your books, how would you describe the 50s.

>> confusing because in my generation, was kind of boring in the early times. it was a nice time, american prosperity was a very amazing. i think american income roughly doubled in the 1950s. america did a spectacular job in the 1950s of creating and growing middle-class washing machines and cars and houses, people just did great. that's sort of the positive view of a it. but of course it was also a scary time because the soviet union are building nuclear weapons to kill us maybe. and we didn't really know how many or what their strength was that we were building our own weapons.po that was scary stuff read at the same time, and much of the wor

world, we had the aftermath and african and asia. are there growing pains, of course. how can you shift of colonial rule, the self rule system without agonizing rowing pains. also being exploited and manipulated by the communists in moscow and beijing, and the democratic catalyst in washington. playing these companies against each other. >> does that world still existed today. are we still feeling the effects of that generation question ma mark. >> yes.. the world is still essentially a peaceful place but an open trade order. i know the news is full of tariffs and trump and all kind of to an older person to me, alarming having running up under

an early order. but you can get overwrought about these things. we still have a national trade order. we still have conventions that bind us. these things may be dated and they may be under threat that they still exist. before we get to upset about this, we need to try to step back and see the broader picture. world order created after 1945, still exists. it's a parallel process of evolution. bad things may happen. my crystal ball is terrible. the basics news of it. >> evan thomas the berlin wall falls, 1989 did we enter a new chapter in world history question mark. >> i bought into that. we won, democracy one this is great. some people warmed, other forces

were afflicted. nativism, the darker side of human nature. tribalism, fearfulness about the other. these things never go away because they are in our nature. we arewhys in political systemsn fact, many do a good job of tryingug to help us through thee terrible human urges but the human urges are there. people are t tribal. they are suspicious. they don't like the other. they want to stick to their own kind and easily fearful and threatens. i am describing myself, every human being. that's just the way we are. we are hoping we are past all of that by the end of the cold war. of course we weren't. some smart cult scholars, i think so this he wrote about the clash of civilization in his own way. my.is, there were some smartic people who said hey, don't declare victory too soon.

we have some rough stuff. we have human stuff ahead. i just think it is always with us. it is a twilight struggle. we are always going to be struggling with ourselves. to be better. ike's bluff which only i could've pulled off. it was s basically to threaten e soviet union with nuclear annihilation to keep them from either attacking us or being too aggressive in their own rights. in their own extension. how did he pull it off. >> pretty casually. he let it be known that we had a lot of nuclear weapons and we use them.ng to this is not a bluff that anybody could make. it happened in our case. it was made by the supreme allied commander of werewolf two. the five-star general who had conquered europe. if you are the man, your bluffs

have credibility, not every leaderve, not even the guy who followed him jack kennedy, had that kind of credibility. this is very eisenhower thing to do. i say all of this because it's not really applicable to others but it worked for him. i'm not sure how well it would've worked for others. he had a particular ability and coolness about this. he didn't allow himself to get wrapped up. i think because, he had some great midwest virtues, wonderful values, he was a soldier who had seen a lot of war. actually never in combat himself but he had sent thousands of young men off to die. so he had to live with it. he would lie in his bunk, on the d-day and one man, i think his

order was okay. it wasn't their grant. he has to live with sending not just a few fellas, but whole armies off to die and hopefully to win. but the burden, and strength. things that don't break you, will make you. he had a weak heart and his stomach was shot and he was taking sleeping pills when he was a present buddy paid a high physical cost. for this tremendous pressure he was under. he handled this pressure, brilliantly. >> did you write in ike's bluff, kennedy or johnson could not have done what he did. >> i don't think so. now this is in the realm of speculation and what they call counterfactual's, historians like to say that. what would eisenhower or johnson or kennedy would have done with

these issues. i don't really know but think sure to, they did not have his experience in the know seem to me to have the same flawed is coolness, i don't think so. >> evan thomas, you spent 45 years of a contemporaneous journalist, how do you make the segue into being a historian as well. at one time was that what kind of a sideline. >> also easily divided. i worked for the washington post coveting. the owner was catherine graham, her husband phil gramm, said journalism is a rough first draft of history. i was already in the history business somewhat in general and in journalism and in history, journalistic historian. i'm not a great archivist that i depend on scholars. when i get into a subject, i go

to try to find the great scholars. the ones who have devoted their lives to this and know a lot more about this than i do. i am a historian who goes and finds the deep dive scholars and i use their work, i find them and i talk to them and i asked them for help. i'm doing it right now actuallyo so i have my journalistic historian. as a journalist i was, one who tried in the pages of newsweek to bring historical sensibility. that sounds kinda pompous but at least some sense of detachment. magazines which barely exist today on the news would come in after. we made news occasionally but more familiar positions was to comeme in right after and try to give perspective andan say whate think is going on here. sometimes we are right about it,

sometimes wrongg sometimes only pretty close. i was already doing a historians work as a journalist. i am oversupplied find this but there is a linkage. >> one of the things that i learned about eisenhower was that you reported in his memoir he was opposed to marcasite and to russia. spak he said so. there is actually scholarly debate about this. his son john who i got to know remember the conversation where ikeon and germany said we have t this bomb and we shouldn't use it. i think the scholars are skeptical of this because i didn't record it elsewhere. and it seemed to i me he, i'm trying to remember with the scholarly debate was. but i remember reading an article that kept out on a this and maybe go did he really. i actually really don't know. >> is not the only president you

have written about. in cspan2's newest book theew presidents, your chapter on richard nixon is our featured chapter and he has ranked in this surveys of historians that we hear every couple of years as number 28. would you put him in 28. >> i guess so, it's hard one. president nixon did some amazingly big stuff. and good stuff in the foreign film. i think opening up china was anf amazing act.ta the president of the united states goes toes mexico and negotiates the first ever nuclear arms treaty. how many presidents have done that. nixon had a worldview that was, you could pick at it but it was an amazingly robust and working

with henry kissinger as national security advisor, very ambitious who was also a very successful domestic politician. he got elected and ran five national, elected four times. only franklin roosevelt has done that. he won by i think the second largest landslide in history. in 1972. because of politicians. they passed a lot of domestic legislations. especially in the environment, he created the epa. he was much more effective on the civil rights and people think. i say all of that because he also doomed t his own presidenc. by his unruly emotions. he made foolish decisions because he let his emotions carry away with him. he wrecked his legacy. he is number 28 from a really self-inflicted wound there. not dealing with watergate when he could've.

>> you also have a personal connection who people run for president. >> i do. my grandfather ran a lot. he was a socialist candidate for presidency six times 1928 to 91448. that all sounds kind of impressive. he never got more than a million votes. the classes he evern came in was a million, i think roosevelt became something like 2,020,000,000 and 800,000 but he was not very successful. he was an unsuccessful politician but he did stand for something. a is this something i personally agree with. i'm not a socialist. but i love him and i admired him. >> do you remember your father's reaction to his running. your father was a book editor. >> my reaction was for my father. he loved his father, he didn't agree with him but h he admired him.

>> was your grandfather's socialism similar to today's socialistic movements. >> how am i going to give a good answer to that. it certainly involves more government and your social welfare. for sure. more medical care. my grandfather's platform in 1932 looks like a standard democratic platform now. any social welfare in 1932 was new. if you just actually look at the socialist platform in 1932, it would look a lot like the far left of the party but it was the middle left of the party. so the general notion of the government involved in helping people, yes. it was a different age, different situation, just different. >> evan thomas, your book nixon came out in 2015, i think it's fair to say is sympathetic.

not in. >> my aim was to be. why did i write it. i think it's the 13th nixon biography. what was i going to say new. i was, this is going to say sample conceited but i represent the east coast, establishment press. my politics are actually moderate, i'm not sure i actually have any politics but i, type. i'm a harvard graduate. nixon hated people. nothing personally but it would be interesting to try to reverse engineer this. in a sympathetic way, how did he see me. how did tcs. how did the see the washington

post company for which i worked. how did that world look to him. who is like being him. that's why the book is called being nixon. i made the best effort i could to switch the land so instead of me looking at him. in a way it's him looking at me. it's much more than that but that was the impetus of the book and the best parts of the book really, are synthetic about his moments he had with the east coast staff when they treated him terribly. you begin to understand why he was resentful. he let the stuff get out of control he really did. he ended up bogged down by the washington post. ironically or maybe suitably. i'm not sure what the right word is here. i am synthetic about that. he was treated badly by my kind. he really was. spent quite. >> stupidity,, snobbery, there s

a scene in the 60 collection and they are all sort of a garden party in georgetown and they are all sucking up to jack kennedy. something vaguely offensive about it. the smugness in the promise in the art we better looking but we better dressed. just better. nixon would know about that and he would feel put down. there was an arrogance about it. that would that nixon was right to be read with that. some of our politics today, is a descendent of richard nixon saying hey you can get votes by running against these people. the lame stream press, then have that word then but this can work for you. populism. he discovered this at way your

college. it is so revealing to me. nixon is a student population is not very likable, not an easy guy. but, at the college the issue was dancing. it was a quaker school, no dancing. nixon runs on the probe dancing ticket. h nixon himself couldn't dance himself. he runs on it because he realizes that rich kids can go dancing. they can going to clubs in la, country clubs and all of that. is the poor kids who can't. they're a lot more orchids and rich kids at whittier college in 1932. nixon wins and 90 landslide. so that's a rich against poor thing but it's being sensitive to the needs of the needier kids against the rich kids. it was the snooty fraternity called for the ghanaians. kind of a little man's party.

it was a football halfback, franklin's and the lineman or whatevers more than halfback. do the math. smart politics. the richard nixon coined the word, the silent majority. he happened to win after the next election he ran and he one with more votes than any president in history and a greater percentage of votes than anybody in 64, might've been here better. but it worked.r >> from your book being nixon. he refused to cash in as an ex-president by sitting in corporate boards and taking directors speak. it's interesting, it has been disputed a little bit. i think it is generally true then nixon inxo his own way and

principles. he didn't see himself as a crook. he saw himself as somebody who didn't feel and didn't drafted didn't do a lot of stuff. there are endless debates about this. nixon got some sweet deals from friends i don't want to get too far into the weeds whether he was or wasn't. i know nixon was really offended by thisen picture of him being. into your., when he retired, he wanted to make his h money by writing books about great subjects. a little bit more. >> nixon's relationship to reagan successor was problematic. nixon told his family that he thought bush wast quote the perfect vice president and bush had his own doubts about nixon which he expressed in a perceptive letter in july 1974. this is george h debbie bush writing to his sons, about nixon, he is enormously complicated.

capable of great kindness. i am not that close to him as a warm personal friend for he holdsol. but i've been around him enough to see some t humor, and feel se kindness and he goes on to say that deep in his heart, richard nixon knew that george hw bush our fealty so not tough enough and not willing to do the got job that is political instincts have taught him. >> george w. bush was a a very astute judge of character and not an unsympathetic one. quite sympathetic to nixon.sy that's a pretty accurate portrayal of him. >> the hardball nixonon never quite went away. he turned both bush and clinton with going public against them if they did not follow his advice on russia. [laughter] >> nixon was nixon. >> what you going to say the bill clinton left them on hold

for an hour. or wouldn't take his calls when he first came into office. he did not attend nixon's funeral. was there ever a result of that relationship. twomac yes clinton ended up liking him. initially, clinton was kind of a stop to nixon. by the end of his presidency, clinton was praising nixon's advice on the former soviet union. nixon trusted, excuse me, president clinton trusted it next his advice and he was smart about the populist forces going on in soviet union and read it pretty well. clinton listened. i don't know if they bonded. clinton has an amazing ability to bond with almost anybody. i'm not sure bond is the word but there is some warfare. >> howow many presidents have yu

met and interviewed in the us. >> i got to count them. i met nixon of course, i met him eddie and had a brief conversation with him. i meant clinton, reagan and interviewed him coming george hws, pretty much all of them through obama. i've never met donaldd trump. but the rest i i have. >> evan thomas is our guest here, he is the author of several books. we are going tow show this to yu right now so you can get a sense of what we have been talking about. the wiseman was his first came out in 1986. the land to see 1992, the very o best men, the early years of the cia came out in 96, robert kennedy his life came out in 2000, john paul jones, 2004, see if under four enable commanders

was out in zero seven, the war lovers roosevelt lodge came out about nine years ago. ike's love came out in 2012,2, being nixon in 2015, his most recent which we haven't really touched on it just came out this year. about sandra day o'connor. we'll talk about that in a minute. plus i do want too mention evan thomas is the historian c pan his chosen for his chapter on richard nixon. the new book is called the presidents. how noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. we have a different historian for any president. evan thomas is information about richard nixon is our chapter in thatoo book.

2027488201. for those of you out in the mountain and spent pacific time zones. we'll begin taking those calls in just a fewco minutes. i also want to mention you can contact dennis via social media. we will scroll through those addresses on the screen but the only thing we have to really remember for twitter and facebook and instagram is at book tv e-mail is book tv@cspan2 .org. who was edward bennett williams and should we know. was he consequential in the long run question mark he certainly was a long among the lawyers. the name of the book, in washington if you are in trouble, he gave gallup polls the same store later, black congressman he got himself into trouble, john connolly, the

governor of texas. a lot of people. he also was a unique figure because he represented both mafia figures and advised presidents of the united states. an unusual combination that really doesn't exist today. he's not well-known today. he maybe should be. he was incredibly good lawyer. he is to say it's funny, he would get his young lawyers out. they would say we want to be like you. he would say you can't. it was kind of airing it what he was saying as they they don't have lawyers like that anymore in washington. it's now specialized. you can't be the kind of represent sent mafia and president of the united states and sort of and everybody in

between, that general practice law is all gone. >> would robert kennedy have been elected in 1968. i would like to see us because it's kind of romantic to think so but i influenced by his chief advisor fred gotten. he told me no. we forget that the democratic party in 19608 was still a party boston. the union bosses and machine bosses, and those people were pretty pledge to your comfort.t. it was going to take quite an earthquake to dislodge hubert humphrey. now maybe, kennedy would've done it. he won california right before he shot. maybe it would've been something headed up this summer. mythology is always been there daily of chicago.

i pledge to him his support. that was going to bene the mache bus thing. i don't think that's actually true like a lot of this in history. [laughter] i don't really believe that one. my realistic plug has to say no. he would not have even won the nomination. had he won the nomination, nixon might have beaten him because this is a little counterintuitive. hobby kennedy was hoss. a cole medium. nixon might've been cooler. nixon is being terrible on tv but i'm not so sure on this case. you watch old clips of bobby kennedy and he got aot little ot there. he would have our heat or he would stutter or he would try to go off it was surreal thing. he wasn't that good on tv. you think of the kennedys is being lovingly and jack kennedy was unbelievably good.

bobby kennedy los so. bobby kennedy was the godfather to one of joe mccarthy's children. >> bobby was a young staff committeet called the internal investigation or whatever it was. actually they had a working relationship. more than that, joe mccarthy said senator joe and out with one of bobby sisters, karen or which one. i remember her. mccarthy kissed really hard. [laughter] weirdrd detail. maybe it was gina can't remember which one. joe mccarthy would show up at the kennedy place in hyannis port. he didn't like to swim he didn't fit in but there he was. there was kind of a loyalty, irish catholic bond there. all joe kennedy kind of liked joe mccarthy's anti- communism.

it was familiar and the kennedy family supported. there was some linkage there. >> will evan thomas, let's take some calls see what the viewers have on their mind. good afternoon and good morning jim. >> thank you very much for taking my call. it's really been fascinating. my question a common question, you talk about eisenhower likes bluffki. i'm thinking that the person that would've been president if it hadn't been eisenhower would've been stevenson. i totally agree would not have been able to pull off likes bluff at all. the thought about stevenson as president and he was a brilliant guy absolutely brilliant and capable but looking back at it, i just don't think, and i grew up during that period. i was seven when eisenhower was

elected president so i kind of followed it even careful even then. also you talk about a and think about likes bluff when not reagan. didn't ragan do something similar to that. with covert trough. during the end of the cold war made ready for you know. >> jim thank you for that call this here for mr. thomas. >> i shared most of what the viewer said. most of it i agree with. i don't think stevenson was as well suited for the era. as i was. in many good qualities a truly intelligent person and strong followers. he may have begun he may have done good things in other rooms. like on civil rights and other things. to be fair, these kind of factual's are kind of hard to imagine what might have ighappened. maybe stevenson would've been better. about using the united nations and diplomacy to bring the war

to a safer place and maybe he would've been.e i doubt it i but maybe. what was the other question.th >> reagan. >> yes reagan, you can overstate this reagan won the cold war. i think a lot of things happened. had more to do maybe with the soviet union collapsing from within. but it's definitely true that reagan was standing tall and building of our military andnd u know, that was intimidating. they realize they didn't have the technology that we did. there's the image of the desk in the criminal telephones. because they could even have one telephone. and they were spinning themselves on military spending. into ruin. they can keep up. so he could make an argument and i brought an argument that reagan kind of did out bluff the

soviet union. also heard that argument criticized by people saying there were many other factors. this is not. i am really well-versed in. i could quickly outrun my supply line two. >> evan thomas given your 40 to 50 years of being a washingtonian a insider innocen. what is that one quality that every us president needs to have. >> will call the need, is judgment. judgment is a broad spectrum of things. they all have ambition. they all have a lust for power. they have los, they couldn't get there without the summit is a necessary, i'm not critical of it. it is a crucial ingredient of becoming president but it's not enough. once you get there, you have to govern. a a power can help you govern again in a sense of power can help you r, it helped richard

nixon and others. if your judgment is poor, and your emotional judgment is j po, you're going to get yourself into trouble and not just you but the whole country into trouble with you.ea richard nixon be an extreme example. lyndon johnson in so many ways a good president wasn't for in aly not suited new way. he just kind of melted down over vietnam. sumac next call from evan johnson evan thomas. >> hello thank you for taking my call. i've seen evan thomas on shows like inside washington with gordon peterson and other shows is an honor to speak with you sir. i want to ask about justice o'connor. in jan offers book, supreme court, she reported that justice brennan, tended to love justicej o'connor the wrong way. thatth influenced more

conservative things during the 80s but in the '90s, justice thomas, did not get along very well with justice o'connor. connor had issues with him that helped influence her to vote more towards the quote unquote liberal site. in the '90s and in the early 2000's. i wonder if in your research, you found any evidence to collaborate that claim. >> thank you. there is some truth to both of those things but the important qualification in brendan's case, it's true that justice o'connor did not trust brendan. she thought he had a liberal agenda and that he would sell things into opinions that would further his own opinion. it would look for the footnotes and little things that lives up to frank she had somewhat at a

relationship with brennan at the, she liked brennan. he was a warm guy. she liked him. you can overstate that gap. same thing on the tums guy. yes,s, justice thomas was like justice clelia, a pretty doctrinaire conservative and originalist, all of that.e, just as o'connor was pregnant make pragmatic over the road. different kind of stress. on the other hand, justice o'connor who got justice thomas to come to lunch after the confirmation hearings. the hearings were really tough. now it's of course, he was feeling hammered and she was the one who convinced him to go to lunch. that changed everything. my life in the court is that

much better. so there was some closeness there. when justice thomas bought his famous rv, he traveled around the country in the summer and is rv. he went to phoenix to buy that. o'connor family went out there and bought it with him. they were personally close. i will go on and on here. justice thomas told me that o'connor was the glue the one who made this place civil. who made the court civil. and supreme court wasn't so civil before she got there, i gather it's also civil right now but certainly in the '90s, she made it a more civil court.oo i get from your book first that she was not a terribly and she still alive atrr this time correct. yes. sumac she has alzheimer's and dementia alzheimer's. i >> i get the idea from your book that she is not been a warm and fuzzy person necessarily.

not a huggy touchy person. >> that's a complicated question she can be very intimidating and scary. when a mentor is a journalist, she was very scary. she had his flashing eyes. she can be a little severe. this is in a very important but, there is a looming side to her that those who get to know her, really feel. my wife and her interviewed 94, we got to know her world. those wall clerks loved her. they found her last year and a little scary especially when they first started but over time, they realize how much she cared about them. not every justice cares about the court. most of them don't. not that much. she did. that meant the world to them. she also could be very political arid i saw her win she had

alzheimer's do a workaround. you never know she had that. she can look in the eye and be very warm. this severity, like most people she is complicated. she has differentck sides and at times are different sideshow in different ways. you tell a couple of stories. >> her time in the arizona legislature was a good task to the supreme court. stack it was in two senses. she was a first-ever majority leaderr of a female. first-ever female majority feet en history. when in a time when there were just more women in the law, and some winter number came up, when present reagan was looking for a woman supreme court justice and he let it be known that he really did want a woman, there weren't that many. out of the six at 600 there were

only eight women judges, there almost all liberal democrats right, she was pretty much it. she was a state court of appeals judge at the time. her profile helped her get on the radar screen. but more than that, more importantly than that. staying in the legislature helped her learn to deal with a noxious man. [laughter] she was not intimidated. you can imagine arizona or any state legislator, there are a lot of noxious men. who are hard to deal with and she w learned how to deal with them. usually by humoringsome them sometimes by just walking away, she was very good about not getting into stupid fights. ego fights. she just would avoidid them. every once ae while, setting up to them, there is one story have to tell about this. there was ahi house appropriatis committee chairman, tom goodman

and he was a drunk. he was drunk by 10:00 a.m. drunk. she called him on his drinking. hello to her and said, if you are a man i would punch you in the nose. she looked him back and said if you are a man, you could. ouch. now that is a fun b story. it's a one-offne. she picked her shots. she didn't go around getting into fights. mostly she would disarm adversary. w d without seeing any dignity, she could retreat without losing any dignity. not much retreatment just avoid. sumac dinner to the course, you talk about her coming down the hall and whatever clark's hiding something in thedi door. >> she was a very athletic woman herself. fourteen handicap golfer. she wanted her clerks to be in good shape. so the women had to take an

aerobics class with her upon the supreme court. the supreme court masked ball court, every women out there doing aerobics with the justice. however, one of the clark's mill clerks was eating an ice cream cone, and heat she comes around the corner he puts in a drawer. so she won't see him. >> how did you get access to her husband side. we got access to her papers. >> this was a book written with her family's cooperation. her papers are in the library of congress. they are closed. they have in the papers for us and there was the diary. >> would you say we.an to make i say we because my wife josé is a lawyer and we were deeply in this.. she wanted to have a long career in law and i didn't. i never practice law. she is a real lawyer and i am not. she carefully for the cases. but more than that, she wanted

my interviews almost all of them andd she's edited all of my boos for years. this one was different because she was really deeply involved. she's from the west, from california, stanford, and just help me understand justice o'connor better. stick next call comes from karen in detroit. thanks for holding please go ahead. >> inc. you for taking my call. i've been really enjoying the conversation. i wanted to go back to the moment to richard nixon and i wonder if evan thomas in his research of nixon, and being a journalist was aware that nixon paid the path for the first black owned operated tv station in the united statese which he granted a broadcast license. to william b banks. then open the path for doctor

banks to start here in detroit the first black owned and operated tv station in the united states. >> karen was stationed was that or is that. >> the station went on the air in 1975, to be 62. the station went on the air and made national headlines because it was a pioneer of broadcasting a museum of the original studio of the station. it's devoted to that history. we talked about william banks inviting to the white houseo at the time. nixon told him that he would work to help establish and give him a broadcast license which ultimately did happen. mr. thomas is a journalist mike bit of interested. a footnote, in detroit history because these city is widely knn as auto capital but this is important piece of history.

i was just curious if mr. thomas was aware of it. >> karen, you seem to have a pretty intimate knowledge. are you a part of the bank's family. did you work there. >> it was my first job, out of college. i did work and station. as an intern left is that this director. i knew william banks at the time. his granddaughter who has written a book about him and i am the executive director of the william b banks podcast museum.s which as i said, is in detroit and tells the story of nixon but really of the stations history and there is another republican president hamza footprint at the museum of gerald ford, a broadcast message that was aired on the station and there is a video that people can see the museum congratulating the

station on being the first black owned and operated television station in the united states. tsumac care and thanks for tha. evan thomas. >> i am fascinated to hear that. i knew that make nixon had a much better civil rights record the people think of. politically t nixon is known for the southern strategy and for kind of stirring up the white boats in the south. unattractive ways. that is true. but at the same time and nixon is such a contradictory figure that you always have to look at the button the case. he was a guy who actually made in aggression happen in south and his time. even though the supreme court had ordered in 1954, and still hadn't happened twice 1968. nixon made it happen. you can say well he did that because the car started it. while other presidents hadn't done it. in accident. interesting to the.of our viewer here, in the 50s, nixon really

reached out to the black community. republicans in the 1950s, the party of lincoln, had some ice to the black community that democrats didn't have to.or the democrats, we forget all of this, faced with southern rights. the south was the base of the democratic party. the white south. nixon partly for political reasons, made a play for african-american votes. not just for political reasons. when he was in college, nixon made sure that his fraternity took in a black athlete, as it happened. i think maybehi two. there is a record of nixon being pretty progressive on race as a young person all forgotten. all overlooked. because nixon's later politics made people and lightly made people uncomfortable.

i can't say enough what a complicated guy he was. i know in your last., nixon understood that was really important for african-americans in this country to have some economic and of it. they had been cut out, mortgages and just didn't have a chance of calculating wealth. nixon understood this. he cared about, he was early affirmative action guy. he cared about making sure the wealth was from around a little bit. so it wasn't just something whites had and blacks did not. it was all sort of lost in the dust of history. nixon was actually pretty good. sumac i think i can see your.on the election. gerald ford also had the early connection with equal rights ditty.

>> i know los about ford than i do about nixon but there was a strength, the republican party got branded as, the democrats became the party of african-americans and the republicans not but that's50ny t the way it was. if anything it was the reverse. in 1960 election looked at it somewhat because of a lot of obligated reasons. the kennedys were much better about openly playing to martin king, nixon sortable it. but as usual history, is look here and more complicated than we think it is. or at least sort of cliché but it's true. nixon. >> you've written about dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. what was their relationship and what is your take on that. >> market because look nixon ended up marrying eisenhower's nixon's daughter married

eisenhower's grandson. they are still married. there is a real one there. eisenhower endures nixon and 68, but when nixon was eisenhower's vice president, talk about cold people. ike could be cold. he was pretty cold with nixon. he didn't know nixon and sinn was put on the ticket for political reasons but younger voters and western voters. eisenhower sort of dumped nixon a couple of times from the ticket. eisenhower's idea was so nixon condoned goods and sort of made sense to eisenhower seasoning. to nixon it just looked like he was being dumped. it's very hurtful to him. i'm not sure eisenhower really liked nixon. i am thinking of john eisenhower, eisenhower's son told me this. my father told me that he said

he gave himself in order to like nixon. [laughter] he may have been making an exaggeration here but you know nixon was not always the most likable s guy. so there was some coolness there. yes there was. but at the end of eisenhower's life, i think they got along fine. sumac next call holland johnstown pennsylvania, i'll go ahead. >> hello. my name is paul ritchie. my question is. it is been written about nixon and the kennedys and johnson in the kennedys, my question is what was the relationship between nixon and johnson. they had similar backgrounds and they won that different as to how they governed. sumac thank you paul.

the relationship was surprisingly good. >> they were both tough politicians and i think in 1968, you could say that lbj was in a way more for nixon. then he was for humphrey's own vice president because humphrey was being seduced by the peace party. between. in the democratic party to try and end the vietnam war by retreating. johnson wanted to stay the course a little bit more and he thought that nixon would be a smarter and tougher prosecutor of his policies in vietnam. right there, the democratic president is in some ways more sympathetic to the republican challenger to his own vice president. you had to stop and sort of think about how these pieces fit together but i think that's true. there is historicalan evidence. and my friend at texas a&m believes that.

but there was an affinity of tough smart politicians. the club of very practical and very hard bowl politicians and i think lbj and nixon had a bond of let's do the hard thing in politics. let's be tough. that's not be soft. they overdid that. . . . he summoned george bundy the

former due at harvard while he is at the bottom. they petroleum, shaman, gross amount, his accrued image so i apologize fermenting there. it is a stark one that shows it is weird relationship to the east coast establishment and resenting them, fearing them and trying to control them and use them, at these same time complicated, people are complicated. >> mike, san diego please go ahead for your question or comment. >> you know you mentioned a minute ago about a tv be in the median and i wonder if that is true anymore with the way he's on tv or is tv secondary on social media as media strategy? >> that's a pretty good point.

host: what is your take. where you put them in history? guest: it's way too early. host: when he appears on tv who do you comparator. guest: he's an effective communicator. to the notions of presidency and when this all began, people kept writing, president trump needs to be in the presidential. because i did not think i think he's bringing to the people and it wasn't presidential. he is an extremely effective communicative pre-and that is

fanfounding. and an example of it. kevin thomas, you have two histories of the presidency and i want to make sure that we mention and that includes long time coming barack obama and back from the dead about bill clinton. what are those collections? every year, presidential election year, much to his credit and this shows the dedicated and enormous article. it would appear on election day and chronicle of the campaign. and we would have maybe four or

five and hours every right in my role was to be the person who takes the reporting into a 50000 article. >> it was a 50000 article and then a couple times we turn in the book, the reason you have my meme on those, that was just a magazine article printed as a book. i think we added a little tiny book but essentially a magazine article printed as a a book. i'm the rewrite guy, i am taking other people's reporting and are very proud of the sinks, there was journalism and i think i spent a million dollars on each one of those. that is a big journalistic commitment to one-story. host: tweets from you, please speak about your writing process and you have any advice for others, here's marshall in

houston, texas. guest: my writing process, as it changed over the years, i am not going to be very helpful on this because i don't suffer from writers block, i don't have trouble writing. so i don't -- i've learned and wrote thousands from his magazines on deadline. so whatever writers block i had went away. because i did it so often and so much that i i don't suffer from nthat. my wife has to fix them. but i don't have any problem, i'm not that helpful in getting people advice because of something they do naturally, it's one of a fewin things, i'm not good at golf but i'm good at writing. >> do you take a notepad?

do you do it on a computer, typewriter. guest: books i spend a lot of ksme putting together these chronologies on my computer that are in chronological finding. in chronology year-by-year but were to find stuff, when you writing a book your mask tons of books, notes, interviews, where is that myis study? where is it. and where do they find it, it is to help me when i go back to rate to know where i found this so that i could go back and look at it when i'm in the section. and i write in chronology, that is the one device i would use and recommend to writers, i think it's good writing and if you do it much easier to organizego material. host: how do you avoid thinking with your fingers if you're typing. guest: i'm not sure what you mean. host: because you're typing and

thinking at the same time. does that work for you? sometimes if i'm writing something i have to sit and think about it at first and before i start to type otherwise. guest: yes. i wish i always thought before, sometimes a type before i think and that's a mistake. because the right stupid things. but i tried to slow down and think, it's a good idea think before you write. one thing i do when i was getting something to write something difficult, i will walk around and wonder and take a walk and play lonely bad golf or if i'm near a beach house, i go walk around a beach or the neighborhood and marinate. i walk around because it's a confusing cloud in my head. it's always a blur, like white

nosenoise. but after a while it settles. it is just as important as the rewriting. all right stuff that's wrong or wrongheaded and then my wife gets involved or others get involved in a rewrite it. this is an e-mail from marcia i am 74 years old thinking about what might come next. after listening to evan thomas, david mccall and many others, i've decided i want to come back as michael hill. please tell us more about michaemr. hill. guest: he's the most wonderful human being ever. he just is. in his human qualities. the reason he is come up, he's a researcher primarily to enter mccullough and mostly other historians happily to see me. he's worked on a number of books

with me and a genius ofhemc fing stuff in obscure libraries and librarians like him, we nsmetimes joke that librarians like them but don't want anybody to readd them. and like is really great because he such a decent person and a smart guy, he can find stuff and then he finds treasures. so popular story, primarily david mccullough. host: evan thomas? guest: i've used them a lot over the years and i hope to use them in the future because he is a wonderful, wonderful resource. he is a gem. host: next call comes from heart pearl and highlands new jersey. >> caller: my question is about

nixon. xou mentioned nixon was brought down by woodward and bernstein. don't we know that it was in the fbi who fed them the informati information, there was probably a wash in the fbi feeding that stream of information and bernstein was simply dukes of the fbi. like what the fbi had tried to do to trump. host: thank you carl. guest: certainly true that he was deep throat by bubble board. that was an important source. he was not the only source. woodward and bernstein talk to a lot of. people. yes woodward talk to mark felt, yes, and he also talked to sandy smith at the time magazine and maybe some others. but woodward and bernstein were knocking on a lot of doors, they

had multiple multiple sources. so this is not by any means purely in fbi thing. the best book is called leak by max holland. he wrote a book about felt and about -- max holland really got into this question so i would recommend if you want to know happened, i found that to be the most useful book on how watergate -- it is a big topic in woodward and steen played a critical role but there were many others involved. host: nick is checking to see a book to be covered thatno book d we will let you know i and then you can watch leak on a website at booktv.org. you talk about that being the

best book in your view on the topic and some your favorite books include herman walk who just passed, 101 years old, robert penn worn, all the a kins men, john eaton, is he a friend of yours? guest: he is a close friend of mine. i love the book because he inhabited toward george h. w. bush. all biographers wish to do this and get ahead of the heart of the subject. it is hard to do, we do our best but we fall short. john meacham indicates of george h. w. bush, that is a rubric where the author inhabited the person that he was writing about. the heart and soul and mind of george h. w.. bush, do you want to know what it is, read the book. host: just to go back to latest

book, you write that george h. w. bush wife, barbara bush is sandra day o'connor were good friends. guest: they will play tennis together once a week and the vice president tennis court. they both had a strong personality which they would use on occasion and i think maybe sandra o'connor was more politic than barbara bush and barbara versus more outspoken although sandra could be outspoken at times. anyway they were good friends, smart, tough table strong woma woman.. host: after an appointment at the spring court justice, do they ever see their patron again? did the o'connors know ronald reagan? guestanyway? and for all the judges. guest: a little bit she danced with them on near dave at the annenberg estate at the end of

the year and as she went to the white house a couple times. did you get to know him well, no. they were talking about ranching in aer natural affinity but no. the obvious reason, this is something wonderful about her country. let's stop and think about this for a second period justice do not spend time hanging around with the president. because they have to keep their distance. they are a third branch of government. they may have to make rulings that affect the person in the white house and so they need to keep their distance a little bit. i remember able for just when he had a telephone that connected him to lbj in the white house. that was a mistake, that was wrong, unusual, one-off, and got forward into trouble. that's the exception that proves atthe world.

host: peter, richmond virginia. hi peter. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. i read your book about edward bennett williams, when it first came out. i remember being so impressed with a wide varietyim of cases that he handled and i guess after 25 years, i finally get to lak, are there anypu publicly available transcripts of those trials to read them and see how we handle them and that sort of thing? guest: i am sure there are. if the cup located question. i had access to his papers. i had stuff from the law firm i look at. so you're asking me where you would find them today? there are court transcripts for sure. and i think if you google, i'm doing this on the top of my head. if you google the case, i bet you can find transcripts through

the internet. in my case, i am doing this pre-internet, 1998, 1989. i'm working from files, his own files from his papers. those are not available to you. but i bet through the internet you can find a lot of transcripts certainly in federal courts just by googling. host: just to go back to leak, if you go to c-span.org, booktv.org, you will be able to watch, type in the search function max holland, the video will come up and you can watch it at your leisure online for free. next call from mr. thomas is norm in washington. you are book to be.

>> caller: you're obviously an expert in the legal system. i heard to saint and i like to get your feedback on them if you feel any truthfulness. the legal system is a spiderweb to which the big flies pass in the little flies get caught. another one is if you cannot find a lawyer who knows prelaw, find a lawyer who knows the judge. you think there's any accuracy at all to those scenes? guest: of course in accuracy because all old sayings have stereotypes. but the important thing here is how the wrong. those statements are actually in a large sense, omega sense wrong. more than any system in the history of mankind, our legal system is fair and it does catch the big flies.

not all, some have good lawyers and get away with stuff, that is true. and it is certainly true after the 2008 financial crisis, none of the big investment bakers -- i can give you a lot of examples of people escaping justice. but if you step way back and look at the legal system, it is remarkably effective and has worked in ways that no other system has. the history of mankind is power. people whor. have power and use their power and the power to award their friends and punish their enemies. our system more than any other has been able to mitigate that power by a rule of law. we are a government of laws and not men. i know that sounds like a clicée and millions of exceptions. by and large, more than any system ever in history, we have a system where it's a law that matters. and not all but more often, it's a rule of law that is the greatest creation of liberal

democracy. host: do you, after doing your book first on sandra day o'connor, do you have any opinion on lifetime appointments for the supreme court? it and judges in general. guest: i see the drawbacks because the stories just as douglas carried him out of there. they don't want to leave. a lot of power and being looked after and allal that. those stories of aging justice and we live in an age where medical science can keep you going forever. that does to me some pause. on the other hand i want to depoliticize as much as possible. i kinda like it's remoteness. i like the idea of the tenure and keeping these people free. i am not for expanding the cou

court, i know that the current idea, i don't know if that's a great idea. my goal, how to get there, preserve the judiciary so it can form the great function was talking about earlier preserving the rule of law. however, we do that, that is the goal. if we are tying the justices earlier i'm for that, that's a question we have to aspirate how will we preserve the rule of law. host: (202)748-8200 phone. >> for the eastern and central time zones if you have a question for evan thomas (202)748-8201 phon(202)748-82010 minutes left and if you cannot get through on the phone lines you can get through via social media and we've had great e-mails and tweets coming in via social media. that is a second avenue for you.

this will fit right into our conversation in the last ten minutes or so. this is from gary any e-mails in general, are you a component of the great man theory or that the times make-believe? guest: this is a great eternal question that historians have. as a biographer i tend to be -- just to take a step back, it is popular in the 19 century that great men, they were men, make history. and of course ever since and scholars have rightly said, wait itsecond period, it is disease, revolution, million little things, enslaved americans rising. it's everything but great men that make history. so there has been the slip in the academy of academic people that long since discarded the

great man theory of history. popular historians like me, we kinda go with the great man theory after the sentence. there are lots of times in history where the personality and the character of a man or woman do make a difference. not just about drug prices and the weather or social forces or rising seas or patterns of herding cattle. always things of academic. it is a personality of the person in the chair who has the power who made the decision to integrate the schools or to declare a war or to do this or do that. so personality does make a difference. character does make a difference. in that sense, the true answer, all the above. sometimes it is a person,

sometimes it's a social force. host: many people have come to office, congress, presidency and wanted to drain the spot. is it trainable? guest: of course not. i don't mean to be flip about this. host: your washingtonian? guest: i'm also reform in reformism. the been great years were drain the swamp notion goes up and it's really important. let's take the 1880s, 1890s, it was too easy for big money to buy congress print or you could buy ao senator. so they put in laws. they tried to drain the swamp. and teddy roosevelt, progressive europe where they did a lot to make government cleaner. did they succeed? partly. for time and things backslide

and you have to do it again. that is american history. where you come and try to clean things up, partial success, never total success. the motivations never go away but you have partial success and that is important. because you have to try. if we just gave up and said forget it, washington is corrupt, people are evil, b. that wouldn't work either because it be a lot more corrupt. if youou think it's crept get rd of a free press, reform movement. you'll see real corruption. every country in the history of the world that did not have a free press had tremendous corruption, corruption of power, corruption of money and even as distasteful as the press can become a pretty distasteful, it performs an important function to drain the swamp, it can be

political movements and it will not work in the. sense but it's important not to be too disappointed when it does not work, it is not hopeless. you have to be engaged, locally be engaged, keep working at it, keep trying overtime great things to happen. in our country's history, sometimes over a very long time, it took 100 years to free the slaves. it took way too long. it took another hundred years before african-americans and this country were given the rights they deserve and entitled to. so man you have to wait generations sometimes and it's outrageous. but, as martin luther king would like to say, the arc of history does bend toward justice. things do get better, maybe very

slowly but i have a week theory of history which is that it does get better. two steps forward one step back, but it does get better. hostit takespeople to do. it takes human beings, sometimes very brief human beings. john wrote a wonderful book about this. that going back and looking at periods in history that lookit really bad and this goes to the theory of history? where president was able to do very brief things. on civil rights famously but other areas as well. when things look really dark, one man or woman was able to make a difference. that is the history of ourhe country. host: let's go back to your favorite book. we looked at three of them that you sent us, we discussed those

three. we did not look at the fourth one and this is a book by john and a woman named luisa. she happens to be my daughter. guest: john is a fascinating guy. he was a professional football player, nfl football player, a lineman for the baltimore ravens, he played for three years and then a fall and he started, he was mostly a backup lineman but started for five games a season i think he played in 13 games or something like that. but at the same time, he is getting his phd in mathematics at mit. he's a fourth-year student to get his doctorate next year. he's a math genius. he certified math genius. unusual combination. he has written a book with my daughter louisa, called mind in matter. it is two stories, his discovery

of math and his life in football. it's alternating chapters math in football math in football. there is a commonality because it is his fascination with these things and why he is drawn to them and how he ministered both of them at once. there was a couple years he is played in the nfl and going to mit and getting his doctor. i don't know how he did that but he did. it's a great story. host: will ask the producer onn this one as well, did we cover mind and matter? in case people want to see it. i cannot remember if we covered it. host.guest: the book is just th. i don't think you've done him. the book is just out. host: we will certainly look at it. bob and a coma city. b ey queue for holding. you arein on. >> caller: let me say, how much i really enjoy book to be andis how much i enjoy his books and listening to him speak.

and along those lines, i was wondering if you had any thoughts on the passing of tony horowitz. thank you. guest: i knew tony horowitz a little bit, a wonderful man full of life and very an unusual approach to history. there was an expression called walking the battlefield and going to the place were happy. tony horowitz really did that. he went into the pacific and he wrote a book -- i guess it was cook who was a pacific and he went down to the south,st the mt recent book which is just out if i remember this right, he is following homestead, the new york times, as architect. before he was at, and the new

york times correspondent going into the south pre-civil war, he was that kind of a spy so what 20 horowitz did, he retraced those steps and got to know the people in ways that journalists often don't. one rap against journalist is ceset up in a palace in new york and talk to each other in 20 horowitz is a journalist/historian that when talked to the people. god love them for that. i see why i knew him well enough to know he had a tremendous personal warmth and curiosity and nonjudgmental but he could talk to anybody and did. in a way that did not judge, was warm, smart and such a tragic loss. host: it happened right here in washington politics and prose. guest: he was walking around in

his wife is a great writer. host: pulitzer prize winner. guest: she writes historical fiction and i love her books. host: tony horowitz was at the carter center in atlanta the week prior to his untimely dea death, but to be covered him there and weirded this weekend so if you want to see one of mrd talking about hist newest bookn frederick homestead you can go to booktv.org, type in his name, you'll be able to watch online. girling brooks when she was on but to be told us, she had finally resigned herself to going to the battlefield with her husband and she had been there countless times and would finally get out of the car and go on his tour i thought it was

great. randy in louisiana. randy go ahead with a question or comment. >> caller: i wanted to make a comment. i think richard dixon did quite well after 1959. he handled it quite well. thank you. guest: he did. he is a famous scene that had a debate in a model kitchen over and exhibit of western kitchenware and nixon was there. and he confronted him the head of the soviet union and they debated the cold war and it helped nixon's political position and americans could see .im standing up to the communist and it was an important moment for him in the weird highly charged. of the mid-cold war in 1959 when the soviets were a great enemies

and the important thing, the american and soviet leader talk to each other and that did not happen in the 1950s. we were in separate camps and we had to bring them together face-to-face although it was a contentious conversation, at least they were talking. host: your father at harpercollins, harper at the time did something very unusual for the day, he gave $70 million advance for a book. guest: who got the advance? host: stalin's daughter. guest: oh yeah. my dad was the number two guy. i don't think you wrote that. that was a huge amount of money. guest: he was the editor of the book. patricia mcmillan who just recently translated with the transit or and believe it or not i was the first american boy, stalin's daughter ever met. she had just got off the plane

and i was a 16-year-old boy back to boarding school and i went to patricia's house in long island and ted sullins daughter grammy, american boy check. and i'd forgotten that they paid that much money. host: did harper's earn his money back? guest: i doubt it. that's a heck of a lot of money back in the 1960s. i don't know. i'm guessing they didn't but i don't know. host: william in california. hi william. >> caller: hi how are you. my question --

[inaudible] you see them on cnn and msnbc the celebrities, what do you think about this? host: thank you william. guest: this is a contentious issue that evolved over time. i remember when no study other journalism, the newew york times did not want the journalist to going to be. i think it was a rule. if i remember this right, the great hedrick smith who was there the potable correspondent was forced to make a choice either the times were going on to be and that has all changed because. host: keith roberts did the same thing. guest: okay. it was a different era. went on and he comes

into existence, then newspapers change their mind in magazines and they want you to go on tv ycause it's a way of getting the story out in the business and egos and journalist get paid on contracts with msnbc or cnn or fox or whatever. and the publications are for. i just read the other day, the times is pulling back and if i remember this right, the new york times. host: with ms. rice? guest: i'm running low on my supply lines. but my only point is, theul pendulum swings and it's a little bit of a couple key question because the old idea journalists were so objective that they were not going to be and give your opinion and you are violating the wholeio

journalistic's. as journalism changed, i became less self-consciously objective and more analytical and an analysis get you toward opinion and all gets messy and i don't know what i think of all this. i used to be into washington so i did thisth for 20 years, on te panel with other journals. and this was not a big deal, the show was not huge success. host: but you also appeared on all the cable channels and certainly been on c-span many, many times over the years as ell. guest: yeah. i don't think it's an issue to talk about. i've been in newsrooms where it. talk about i don't know exactly where. i guess the credibility of the news organization is important.

and if people don't believe you, that is not good. but going on tv does not make you unbelievable, it can make you more credible. if they explain why they did xy or z could add to the credibility of the story. the new york times itself rkarted a new show called the weekly where it's an attempt to get in front of a camera to explain why they did what they did. i think transparency is good for journalism. that is a positive thing. but i see at the same time, that if a journalist is covering the white house and they got on a tv show and started denouncing the president or whatever, that would make his editors a little uncomfortable. it is hard to have a hard fast rule for these things and try to think this through as we talk, i'm not sure what i believe

about this. host: let's look at the 19th and 20th century in the rivalry or relationship between vateddy roosevelt. guest: when i read about this, hurst made a lot of money by selling two things, sex and crime. and he realized he could make more money by selling a r third thing, war. so he actively wanted to get the united states into a war. the spanish-american war and he claimed -- that's not really true but he claimed it. teddy roosevelt also wanted to get us into work for a lot of other reasons because he thought the american empire needed to go. they had a conflict i hated each other. i think roosevelt looked down on hurst and hearst got patronized roosevelt a little bit like richard nixon.

so they didn't have a cozy relationship. but this is a great country and the press uses politicians and politicians use the press and i suppose they used eachan other. host: 's call for evan thomas, janice from new york. janice you been very patient. >> caller: hi, thinks for havinf me on. i have a question, comment and just by way of grounding, normally i would not introduce myself this way but i am a former c-span gas as an author and historian. ironically i coanchor watergate. which brings us to my question regarding your comments about nixon. i am ae little bit concerned honestly mr. thomas about the way you kinda use the phrase tribalism to be a little bit dismissive of some of the serious flaws, not only in the

country but in our understanding of what this country has historically done and is still doing, nixon by way of example, he was note, responsible for beg the lead president on civil rights, if anybody it would've been johnson. but in truth, it was the people whose dead bodies were being washed up by the backlash of that nixon helped fuel -- 100. host: if you could turn off your tv, it's a little difficult to hear you and the tv at the same time. just talk to mr. thomas without the tv in the back room. can you give an example of what you mean by the use of tribalism?

>> caller: earlier evan had said that essentially he knew it was a bit of tribalism and in a way what he was referring to, i cannot be absolutely pacific transpacific but also you what i heard in context, that is white male supremacy. it is old-school, so-called elites. it was in that context that he mentioned. host: thank you for calling him. let me see if mr. thomas is anything he liked at. guest: if i sounded like i'm guilty of white supremacy, please, that is not me. that's not what i'm saying. nixon was not the lead for civil rights leader, lyndon johnson did way more than richard nixon ever did. but nixon has relegated to consider being a racist and a bad guy.

nixon made racist comments he did. and he was not blameless. host: so did lbj speed to so did lbj. nixon did more than we realize in the cause of civil rights. host: he went back to his vice presidency to talk about this. and martin luther king like a bit of a relationship with richard nixon in the 50s nixon was an activist for civil rights, he was on friendly when he became president he made sure that the schools in the south were integrated and you could look at the statistics, he came in and a tiny percentage of blacks in integrated schools in a couple years large percentage. he -- that has been overlooked.

the labor secretary has talked about this. and nixon deserves some credit fores that. why is the word tribalism, i mean there's a streak in american politics where people naturally want to be part of their own gain or own group, they look at their tribe as their group and look down at the other, the other can be white, black, whatever color you want, this religion or that religion, but it's the other, i got my group in there's that group and were not the same. sometimes there's interesting mix in these groups. when a use tribalism that's what i'm referring to. the fear of the other and looking down on the other and building up your own group. we had hope after the end of the cold war we would go to new era, it was beyond tribalism. that did not happen. i think in the united states, there is a lot of tribalism.

host: with the nixon example, we were talking about the eastern establishment, the eastern establishment in this country. guest: there was, i'm loosely using the word tribalism, there was nixon regarded the establishment as another group and he was fearful of them and he thought they looked down on him. and he was not wrong about that. that group, the eastern established press looked down on nixon. i worked for the washington post, believe me, i was there, i know how they felt about nixon. host: did you have that feeling inside you as well? guest: yes. i was condescending to nixon and i don't think it was) one reason and what the book was to explore ndose feelings and e understand that and try to understand that better. i'm guilty i'm sure, of all

sorts of assumptions, prejudices, whatever you want to call them as is everyone. every human being, they just go without saying. we may not like to minute but we've all got them and as a journalist i want to understand them better and get to the roots and this is a person to understand that better. that is my context but if i miscommunicated that i apologize. host: evan thomas is currently reading a book by pulitzer prize winner rick atkins. guest: i just started listen to it on audible. and i got to lexington under lexington and concord. he isns a great military historian. he is going to really bring it. as a literally quality and depth of vision and straighten in your

right there as her driving him this morning, i was marching back fromm lexington with these redcoats and various soldiers in minutemen are taking shots at the and right there i felt like i was marching down the road from lexington back to bostonot taking cover in those literally in the thing of rick and kitson just a couple of hours ago as a gift thatt he has and i know i'm going to love this book i'm early in it, i know all of all three volumes. host: did rick read his own book? host: . guest: you find yourself doing that more and more? especially sitting in traffic, doing audible version. guest: my wife and i listen to a lot of books as we travel.

my daughter sends us novels that she thinks we will like we do some of that, i generally don't do nonfiction but i'm doing in this case because it's like fiction. it is so memorable and so immediate and gripping. but mostly we listen to nonfiction in a wide variety that her daughter provides. host: this is rick atkins the first trilogy on the revolutionaryan war. jason is on went oven thomas. >> caller: thank you for having me on today. i enjoy the program, a couple questions for you. a few moments ago you were speaking about president nixon in the 1959 and how you felt it was a groundbreaking and we kept ourselves. i am wondering if you see a certain correlation between what

president trump with kim jong- jong-un, that's my first cushion, the second question, do you find yourself correlating things that happened today with certain experiences that you have had in a long career in making conclusions about that? guest: to answer both questions at once, there are patterns, i would say history does not repeat itself but is sometimes rhymes. there are some patterns but you can overstate them. it's a probleme for me, you can overdo this, no this is just like the cuban missile crisis, no it's a little bit like it but other circumstances do change. to go to your first question, generally speaking, it is good when leaders meet, i believe

that but there's a whole school of thought that says it's dangerous that a meeting that is not precooked, rehearsed where everything is worked out can do more harm than good. they can get in the areas that will cause trouble so there isa state department that everything is precooked and that -- president trump is a lenient guy and i personally torn about this. i have a foot in both camps, i generally believe and said about nixon who is a good thing that these leaders met, that was an informal meeting, that was almost an accident that that happened. and there was a tv camera there and all that. but i think it was a good thing. i also understand the view that negotiations can go south if the leaders have not clearly figured out what they're trying to do. sometimes they can go south and it's interesting, i think it's

great that nixon went to moscow in 1972 and negotiated the first culturefirst. in the current day i don't know what to make a president trump. i would like to in the north korea nuclear threat aimed at me, how do you do that? it's a hard problem. their close society in north korea and they are not talking about it. it is a problem that has defeated, administration after ministration after ministration has got nowhere. try is trying his own thing, being ridiculed on some camps for doing it, i don't know. the answer is i don't know what will work, it's a good thing to

try and i hope it doesn't get out of control but this is a hahard problem. host: eisenhower was feeling from north korea. can you talk about that? how we over the years had a pretty goo sturdy back channel o north korea customer. guest: no. we have had to go through -- the story was either in his nuclear weapons north korea done the korean war and he said that message through indirect diplomatic channels aimed at moscow and beijing and their backing north korea in the war. it was aimed at all three of those parties. a huge dispute among scholars, we could go on for hours and confusing everybody about all that. that shows you the difficulty of this diplomacy. ro easy.t

i think he was a master this. but i'm not sure what happened there. international diplomacy especially in nuclear weapons are involved, once critically important and really hard to do. host: if you think about one of your favorite journalistic stories that you carried over the last 40 to 45 years as we take this call in tucson. hi rachel. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering, what does mr. thomas think about historians going on tv, voicing their opinion and then wanting us to buy their books hoping that they are giving us an objective opinion or read on the person they are writing about. also, what influence did her grandfather have on him. i think mr. thomas was a young

man, he must've known his grandmother was a socialist at the time and also has a red mark leavens book on freedom of the press. that is it. thank you so much. host: rachel, do you think it's improper for mr. thomas to be here taking calls and having a chat about his work in history and things like that. >> caller: absolutely not know. i'm talking, when i ask. host: we lost you. >> caller: when i ask about historians going on tv and voicing their opinions, particularly about donald trump, i am meaning where they go on msnbc, cnn and many other venues for people to see them, that is what i mean. no i am glad he's here i love listening to him. host: thank you so much for calling it. guest: when i publish the book o

would go on any tv show because i wanted to sell the book. but she does put a finger on something that is tricky. you can get drawn into very politicized discussions that is what cable tv is selling. political argument so you can get drawn into those things and it can make man comfortable. i like books that try tota sell the show and i'm trying to not get drawn into the argument. i am not a journalist anymore. that was nine years ago. my opinions are about my books not about donald trump and we were just talking about donald trump. host: mark leavens book, have you read that? guest: i am not. i apologized we are covered on

what to be or about to cover it and i cannot think of the name offhand andov i'm sure my produr will type that infrequently. the unfree press or something like that. guest: i don't know it. it's mark leavens new book and her grandfather, and influence at your grandfather had on you? guest: you're gonna make me a socialist. i'm not sure he wanted to. host: pardon me, was he the crazy uncle in the attic in a sense? guest: no, absolutely not. if i implied that that is wrong. host: know you're not at all. guest: he was a wonderful grandfather. host: what he did for a living? guest: this isr. humorous. he lived off the road socialist, he lived off of checks from his wife whose grandfather under the u.s. trust company. he was supported by i think

dividend checks in the u.s. trust company. host: he could afford to be socialist. guest: i think -- they were not rich but they had a comfortable upper class middle life. i think that's where the money comes from. my grandfather was a wonderful man to me as a little boy growing up. he was a loving grandfather. host: what is a journalistic story in the next 30 seconds? guest: 9/11, i did not see the plane hit the pentagon but i saw the orange fireball out my window, and it was a horrible to be a journalist unbelievable time, we sold three magazines and producer something that. and we worked around-the-clock

and it was incredibly exciting and i remember thinking i was getting a little bored that summer and maybe i should teach, i was not bored after 9/11. host: what your next book? guest: is about dropping a bomb on japan on the early days and i'm really interested in this question of moral and doing things that are arguably not tomorrow. how does that work? what is it like for them. that's helpful from the american side but also the japanese side. host: evan thomas for the last two hours has been a guest on book tv inas depth, his most recent book, first about sandra o'day o'connor, i appreciate your time this afternoon. guest: thank you it's great to be here. >> in the late 1850s americans generally trusted congressman

but did not trust congress as an institution, nor did congressman trust each other. by 1860 many congressman were routinely armed, not because they were eager to kill their opponents out of fear their opponents might kill them. >> professor and author joined freeman will be our guest on in-depth, sunday from noon to 2:00 p.m. eastern. her latest book is the field of blood. her other titles include the essential hamilton, hamilton writings and affairs of honor. join a live conversation with your phone calls, tweets and facebook questions. then at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "after words" in the latest book the moral majority, then how examines whether evangelicals are choosing power over christian values. >> the lesser evil argument is the dangers and they get contributes to keeping a system in place that takes accountability out of the system

and i think it also is an easy way to bring in something like evangelicalism or any other faith and use that as a way to get votes which seems the worst possible way. >> watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. >> now book tv monthly in the program with author and professor kathleen jamison. . . . >> do you think there was enough interference in the 2016 election to change the votes of 78000 people?