.. >> good afternoon. and the director here at the

bipartisan policy center. thank you for joining us with the release of the new book it is called white house and tevi troy is the author for commentary on the book. let me start by introducing our guest and we are looking forward to having some of you ask questions as well. and then to be a person of action to be a scholar tevi troy hands work in many places to several departments and the department of labor but also

at the white house also an accomplished author who has written in addition to this piece on the white house with intellectuals as well as the use of social media presence. i hope you will listen but also think about buying the book fight house. we have fourth of july and then to learn more about the white house. a person a scholarly refute someone his work most recently in the white house and the state department of the

advisory and other roles and the director of politics and strategy at carnegie mellon university. there she has studied the presently written books on reagan and foreign-policy as well. we have a great lineup today. john on - - jumping into the meat of the book we want you to get a sense of the book and the key points and then we will hear her thoughts and conversation than me will turn to you. when i do come to for questions, there is a number of ways. the question in comment section on facebook and also on twitter. let's begin.

this is a book tevi troy you have written extensively on the white house but of course it is above personalities but it's also about the way the institution has grown. my first question is over the period you are talking about the white house has become much bigger institution. but yet the advisers are younger than cabinet secretaries. and the relation to the cabinet and if you can with the many examples to give us a sense of what the conflicts in that area were. >> thank you for doing this. the book is the growth of the white house sat staff and

executive president before the fdr decision there wasn't a white house staff per se. and that they would had a secretary or two there was a conclusion the foreword conclusion was that the creation of the executive office of the president of 1800 people? they are career staffers so they are a little younger , they have the advantage they are close but not necessarily the person to be delegated authority.

and then fighting in the white house so too many eisenhower's and they have to think how they want to create their white house staff. that the cabinet officers are in charge of the respective areas but then they were setting up policy. this is your area you handle it. that said i do highlight a couple of instances where you do have the cabinet secretaries meeting with white house staffers in a way that was different.

so in the truman administration and to fly in the face today that such one - - not such a cultural proposition but it was a big ?-question-mark at the time including george marshall who is not only a war hero but also secretary of state and revered more than anyone else in public life. and then to recognize the white house meeting where he would be against marshall. he was not that interested in said what we are doing here but he said he is here to help.

and john foster dulles who is secretary of state. and then to negotiate on the arms deal. the new york time when they came on board and he was causally trying to undercut. and then to have women to run afoul of the cabinet secretary.

>> so another thing that you address how a president has centralized authority. like a gatekeeper all things go to that person? sometimes referred to the theory were many people have access so tell us about that organization and how that affected the complex one --dash in the book spent that chief of staff was always there and chairman adams and eisenhower but then over the next three or four administrations but then that would be every current position. after eisenhower we had kennedy and they said they did not have a chief of staff and

then very prominently it was very prominent between the substantive and the presidency. and the chief of staff with donald rumsfeld and john lofton to be came chief of staff. and then to be in charge of tradition. they were were the transition people would take their jobs.

and he says from what i hear her i would not be in this position right now. and then to have a second term so that chief of staff to understand and jim baker who is widely part and to see what a good chief of staff can do. but then to replace jim baker and doesn't get along as well with mrs. reagan. and jim baker so that's a

hanging offense. so the chief of staff at the same time they get involved in conflicts. >> if i give advice to the incoming president how we deal with conflict in the white house what is your big advice and what you detail in the book and what we saw with the

johnson administration and then to marginalize people and in fact people at the state department that are uncomfortable with that policy and they formed a little group to discuss those alternative actions but they were so nervous and then they met secretly and that is just way too much conflict and then with the ford administration while the controlled white house and people leaking to the press and he was a nice guy but that specifically a

very thin skin they will call him slb and it was a joke that sneaky bob. but ford was very reluctant to control him and he said he would control the presidential inbox. he even shared a bathroom. so he saw something and then pull it out and then into the presidents in this was untenable and not manageable

but then dick cheney later became chief of staff. so cheney was assigned to figure out the heart problem and then to say can we get rid of your friend we need a room for quiet contemplation and necessarily what the president word articulate. so to continue with groupthink

and to have a president that would survive to engender a little chaos and with the midterm election in 1994 he secretly brings in advisor dick morris with a political consultant at times of his career and clinton's aides don't like it and then daily get to the press that dick morris is advising the president and people like stephanopoulos but he even

knows he got better results. and then tried to get better results. i will do two things. we will be coming later she for questions in the audience. >> there with the reagan

administration. >> first of all thank you all and the bipartisan center for doing this book event and the work that you do and then to bring us together of the policy issues. and then with those judgments and then the comments on the model that he sets up. to talk about ideological

bodies with the broader category of infighting and if you can take a look to say and have the best outcome for public policy. let's start there. that is fascinating way to look and frame what goes on in the white house. many of us are old enough to remember for what they would say next. but think about your role of leaking in the leakers with public policy.

so you correctly don't i have three lovers the ideological comity. if you have a process whereby people can get their voices heard even if they don't win at the end of the day the bid to say the president decided

we will accept the president's policy and they do what does the infighting and the white house and road blistering e-mail about the way she was treated and that somebody leaked her. but she doesn't know why. it was shocked the president even bothered it has the best

policy results were even fighting in the reagan white house. and knew where reagan wants to go. and that where we are going in general policy directions the process is extremely important somebody with respect to your

second question and it plays an important role the let us know what's going on. and what looked up to see novak and in that particular fight that was a great source for me. that he liked the fact and

then they would leak in the press against their colleagues. in a survey approach in a say that because the reporters are complaining room cooperating better so can we talk about the trump administration and

then to cover as much but tell me your thoughts and when reagan was in charge but that ideological and have numerous national security advisors. every 14 months over an eight-year period there was a new national security advisor. and that attention between the ideology he was committed to and his ability i studied reagan and found that fascinating and often wondered a president who has that national security advisor and

as a defender 1987 the washington summit led to the nuclear disarmament treaty with the cold war. how did he get something that historic done. 's how did that happen from the work that you did? and then to go early on in the process. and with air force one and he

said mi leper and that he complained that the deputy chief of staff in a gorilla costume said hi i'm jim baker. you cannot imagine that they he was secretary of state and knows what he wanted. and that stability there so the idea of reagan rule if you have a sense then you are more likely to know the direction the president is trying to go.

and george h.w. bush with more conservative staffers because bush itself was a little less clear of his position. so they really weren't clear where they would go. >> related to that. and it's been talked about but it has been difficult and those variables that you mentioned if there is chaos in the agency going on and related to that and cabinet secretaries you happen to disagree with the president. we have seen that in the trump administration so can you give

us some historical examples that is how they have experienced with the national security advisor in the nixon administration kissinger who is the national security advisor and also remember now that the foreign-policy very young and aggressive and rogers who is the secretary of state and yet they were close friends but rogers was in part because nixon recognized so

with our national security advisor similarly you had this issue and the secretary of state. and then working together the first day of the carter administration he is briefed on the communication and then from the secretary of state.

but then sometimes to have a relationship that works better in the nixon administration internet bureaucratic standing to be much more effective to be secretary of state because he scared off kissinger he was a bureaucratic bully. and then pushing to see the limits of what they could accomplish. but you can show you can bring value to the process.

>> i want to go to your audience questions and on the comments section of facebook. or twitter. we have a number of questions in already and that question is what role does vice president play in the conflict is that change to play a more active role? >> they give her the question. the vice president does play an important role but he doesn't necessarily have to because really they act in some ways to have as much power as the president grants him so with the lbj and jfk

administration lyndon johnson is the vice president under jfk the attorney general kennedy's brother from the days they were both in the senate and robert kennedy tries to demean johnson and we can his role in that was the first 1000 days but then you have those circumstances now suddenly the vice president and now kennedy works with the president and in the oval office that in the

coronavirus. but that is unusual. sometimes you have a president giving certain powers to a vice president it's interesting in the book i point out humphrey was lbj vice president and from what he said he was nicer to his and in fact the opposite as he was belittling humphrey but then in his later years he did say the vice president did become more comfortable you look at dick cheney he is very involved between secretary rice as the national security advisor and then :-colon

powell. and then i mentioned earlier the bush domestic team but the foreign-policy team and then the vice president was an important part of that. and that situation with the vice president. >> we have a lot of questions coming in we will get there as many as we can now we will get to more of them this is the question we are happy to have you share your wisdom as well. here's a question from gabby g. which white house had the

biggest fight that actually impacted the execution of polic policy? >> i would say the ford administration and the infighting on this with allies. but you had presidential addresses including state of the union's that would not get resolved because of the infighting. it was the night before the state of the union for is yelling at the staff because we stop resolved everything. there is a great story about they are thinking of ways to celebrate the bicentennial in 1976 and they are afraid that the other staffers are working against him so they give a bunch of ideas from the outside world and it so that you don't know the name of the

person who made the recommendation he was a person a or b or c but he tricked himself into not knowing who made the suggestions. but sometimes you try to protect yourself. >> this is a little bit of a different question but with evans and novak that was a high watermark. but in this era we have technology and social media where many people weigh in limited if any journalistic background. but we also have government

officials going to these various individuals leaking important information. what you think about that? especially in the trump administration were there is an attempt to smear and destroy people. and leading to a lot. >> but i found in the book there's a constant race for technology and then to improve to chase down these leaks from the johnson administration. asking the white house operators on who the staffers were calling. similarly he asked the white house motor pool where they were being taken.

the president always tries to get a handle in the nixon administration that led to motivation in the litigation but they were trying to stop leaks that the reason they started it was for the leaks. so it was a cat and mouse game between the administration there will always be technology but to define who the leaguers are but to make sure the president has a standard that set i don't want to suggest all leaking is evil

sometimes able talk about certain policy but that isn't necessarily designed to destroy to get sunshine and air and then you can assess if it would be treated well by the american people. so the word leak has negative connotations. >> if you look carefully at his screen you'll see not only fight house his current book but also his other books displayed behind him. feel free to buy one or more of his books. annexed a question for russell newsom a comment that i agree with this is a truly great book of the modern presidency but the book gets into this but i would like to hear the

author discuss was this personality? >> it's great question as a former white house staffer personality is obviously an issue kissinger was sharp. also a guy i cannot imagine that there are a few people who would try to do policy about the fight and in the reagan administration you have ed meese who was the advisor to reagan but he didn't get the chief staff job that he was disorganize it's known as a place where papers go into don't come out or the black hole the only object may give

in the book is the nickname for his briefcase. but he also said i will not leak because it also hurt the president so that was a higher idea of what they are trying to accomplish with a policy perspective but i will do what i can to be unilaterally disarming. but then on the policy side to have a strong disagreement about direction. and the policy is a variable. >> we have another question

what are those factors with a chief of staff and cabinet secretary? >> it's a good question. the chief of staff is above everybody else but at the same time for what he does in his meeting sometimes you get ahead of himself so as we mentioned earlier when reagan says he's good on one part but doesn't get the other part. so the way to make sure they get along is to try to inculcate that they are all on the presidents team and they

all have the ability to access one of the reasons don reagan wanted to become chief of staff and then treasury secretary never had one on one time alone with president reagan. if you keep them isolated from the president make it hurt us chief of staff because then you are isolating the president and not letting them have the face time they need to help set policy. so the chief of staff needs to be a crucial player and to really recognize the importance of the cabinet secretary and that's a good model. >> it helps the secretary of transportation also helped. >> let's talk about that question from the standpoint of the trump administration.

again that has had a lot of charity also the national security council but also the role of chief of staff. and it is critical for the modern american president i think it could survive without a chief of staff with the sheer operational activity that the common factor that leads to a great chief of staff in the trump administration and in a prior relationship is ending and a lot of what we are seeing in the trump administration is a collection of people who don't know donald trump either in

the cabinet or chief of staff or national security advisor. it's hard to build a relationship and often when you're that close to the president the more i think the trust is there we are seeing a collection of people serving a president they don't know him very well. and he doesn't know them very well there's a very important point that the president with the mafia operation is not

mafia in the mob since but if he is president you have to have some level of distrust because you are president and the people who knew you then you are closest to in like those vice presidents and that in that relation. >> we still have a little more time if you like to submit questions you can.

proper structure and process usually provide the outcome desired that with the alternatives for better outcome outcomes? >> yes. as i said earlier if you don't have the structure but that said if you have a clear direction you can overcome the process potentially by everybody knowing where you are trying to go. the question is if you don't have the process and he the clarity of direction that can lead to chaos that's a really good question but it was incredibly important and it's not partisan in the white house policy process is a tried-and-true tradition that

is in perfectly in line with the bipartisan policy center there are structures of government we should maintain and adhere to regardless of the ideology and the administration. >> can you talk more about the reagan administration who had three people at the top. it does seem like it could have been very chaotic but then just look at that model on paper but there was a way it settles in even though there was a lot of conflict and not operated the way it

looked. >> so jim baker and chief of staff counsel to the president and each of them have specific roles to play. and then to say two.split up the roles and then to have those logistical pieces but meese was the keeper of those conservative groups with the reagan administration so that they don't come off the rails to be more moderate and to care about ideology at all and it was so important it was really good at me making

reagan. it is in their specific areas. we had some stories about this in the white house and we always stuck together as a group and they could get a lot done without people bothering them because nobody wanted a meeting with reagan because and it could be detrimental even when reagan was in the hospital and they with a joke when they showed up that we did know we would have a staff meeting. i think that is one of the instances in part reagan clear

ideological. >> coming into the white house that these were events would emerge. what makes that critical distance of the first few months? and how they perform during the presidential crisis. and with that performance to say i'm in charge but they comported themselves in a way that was reported back to the president they were respectful and dignified and collaborative.

and with that framework of the administration and maybe george h.w. bush a trusted aide in the way it may not have happened. so on the other side they couldn't stop the chaos around the national security council in the iran-contra scandal that almost trouble them. sometimes leaders are great for the vision but even nancy reagan said there is no manager and you would be proud the ideological direction not the complete ability but the authority to manage.

but the initial advice he said with the george h.w. bush admits to that he was acting president but he refused to have the helicopter landed on the white house lawn during that period. he did what him to make it look like he was creeping in those circumstances. and then mike as a professor. >> and coming up on the end of our our if you have a last thought to put on the table we will close it up with the final summation of what has not been said.

>> in particular it fills the void of presidential history we often think of infighting in the context of scandal after scandal looking for his own but then intellectual exercise and this is the book i will read and use teaching american politics. it helps us to understand the american form of government. and what they were predicting. we always have to other level

and corrupting the process but his but gives me hope because even though we have to worry about the potential of the democratic process. with the american system of government. we keep course correcting. and in the united states is a dominant power on earth. and with that domestic policy for gender to disability. that has a lot to do with a small white house and a small staff. despite the infighting and the battles we still that the

outcomes that make us the most fully functioning democracy. thank you for this important work. >> i admire your scholarship and service to the nation and because they have families. and to capture the human element and in the new york times and "washington post" these are real people and what

i want to mention in the book and in 1980 in the campaign there is a lot of to molten the campaign. the campaign manager was systematically going out to california and get rid of them. and that to be accused i am able to go to the bedroom he says i go to the bathroom with that. and to that propriety he says if you don't want me that i quit. then the next minute he walks back into the house and says i forgot my wife drop me off here. so a guy that resigned from

the campaign and then to borrow the station wagon. >> so there are human moments because again it is important to shape the direction of this great country i recognize each president with ways to some degree but also the people are and what they try to accomplish. and there is a story from the chief of staff and that there are no feminine products and the bathrooms which makes the big announcement. but that was important to her and that is the reality.

and then i appreciate it everybody and i appreciate you for doing this. >> thank you to the audience. . . . .

historian at the white house historical association on george washington's presidency. this is a virtual author event about her book the cabinet george washington and the creation of an american institution. good afternoon. welcome to white house history live. i'm the presideni am the preside house historical association. today we are going to have an