welcome to politics and prose live. we're here with jean guerrero discussing her new book, hatemonger. i just want to do some quick house keeping notes 'the first is that tonight's book is located in the chat. there's a link to purchase from politics and process' website and be encourage everyone to purchase tonight's book. a great way to support the are authorize and politic and pros, $505 flat rate shipping shippind curbside pickup the other thing, the latter portion of the event well be did indicated to audience questions and to ask a a question there's a q & a box at the bottom of your screen. to click on that and type in

your question and he will try to get to as many as possible. there is a chat but just keep your questions in the q & a. with al that out of the way it is my honor to introduce jean guerrero, an investigative reporter contributing to npr, pbs news hour and other media. the author of crux which won the emerge writers press and recipient of an emin for the kpbs series, america's awesome tonight she is is discussing hatemonger, stephen miller, donald trump and the while nationalist sagged. straight the ascene from stephen mill are from spiteful teenage troll to one of donald trump's chief adviser, miller who outrafted many others as encourages his boss' worse impulses and help instill the native gist an miss any how much

from the speech to the muslim ban the family separation policy border his fingerprints have been over the cruelest moments of the trump era. she wail by in conversation with jonathon blitzer. won the 2017 national award for education reporting for american studies, a story about an underground school for undocumented immigrants. his writing and reporting appeared in the "new york times," atlantic, and the nation. so here are jean and jonathan. >> hi, everyone. good evening -- thank you guys, thank you for being here and jonathan thank you for moderating. i'm super excited talk tut bee bike. >> likewise and congratulations, a major undertaking. >> thank you. >> there's so much to say.

so, let me just launch right in. and i have a few ideas for how we might kind of mo move through the conversation to capture the fell sweep of what you have done here in the book but before we kind of march through miller's biography, i want to ask one kind of general sweeping question at the outset. that may help serve to kind offerorrent people as they listen. that's the following. stephen miller is known to everyone. he is not a kind after retreating personality inside the trump administration. he is notorious for all sort odd things. involved in the most controversial policies don't by the current administration. he's kind of enthusiastically and pridefully seen phobic, immigration hawk. people have seen him on tv and used to seem his raise his voice

and being pugnacious. me question is what do you think the general public at this point and the media and its coverage of him -- what have we all misunderstood? what aspects of his personality or his thinking are the least well understood, given his outside public per sewn -- persona. >> i would start with the fact that he has a lot of -- had a lot of friends who perceived him to be a really funny. they -- he has this layered personality that is not really i captured in a lot of account about stephen mill and are he is depicted as the architect of trump's antiimmigration policy which he very much is, but in the book i thought it was important to also show how he is seen by his friends, many of whom point out that he -- in many ways was the normal

teenager growing up in southern california. he was into reality tv show. he really loved elvis presley and mobster movies. he would dress up as robert de niro's mobster character on trips to las vegas. totally normal. eccentric quirk that he had which made him appear to be very funny to a lot of his friends, and stephen miller as obsessed as he has become with his antiimmigration agenda, he -- for a very long time in his life was capable of having friendships with people who didn't necessarily agree with him. he had this ability to be civil which you don't see coming across when you hear him being very combative in his interviews with journalists. he is able to be laid back, able

to be civil and there war lot of people who kind of found him to be funny because they thought -- a lot of people thought he was joking growing up when he would say these outrageous things how racism is a figment of our imagination and how multi culturism is an existential threat. they thought he was joking and wasn't until the join the trump campaign people realized this mission was inseparable from his identity and became fully consumed by his antiimmigration hostility and this what i see as his radicalization, true case study in radicalization and what happens win someone is exposed to an extremis ideology as a young age and slowly becomes consumed by it and eventually the most powerful adviser in the white house.

>> that's fascinating point and something that has fallen out of the popular majors where mill irconcern. there's a personality there, a big personality there. just listening to you talk brings to mind a quote from one of his friends just quoting from your book here, the from i believe high school says to you quote, what they're saying about him, about miller, is directionally accurate. would just say i think stephen in reality is probably two-thirds what you think of him he media. a ten in the immediate a, in reality he is probably six or a seven. how surprised were his friends, the friend you spoke with, that he became the figure that he did? were they -- obviously by the time you got in touch with him he was very much in the public eye, but did they describe feeling to you shocked on seeing

him for the first time either warming up trump during the 2016 campaign or on the early cnn appearances in 2017 in the guy who gave you this quote himself seemed to be pretty self-reflective but what it meant for him to have once been friends with miller. seems like there was some soul searching among his friend. >> yeah, this friend you were quoting he told me he was very corn but miller getting attention on the trump campaign and watch his friend on national tv and cnn battling with jake tapper and started to get really concern, what would happen if -- what would happen long-term, mean long-term for stephen miller's career, and at one point his friend calls him up

and says are you sure that this is something that you want to be dog in are you sure that this is right? and miller said, yes, he was shourd. hi friend weren't surprised he came into a position of power because they know how disciplined and hard working stephen miller has been for his life and very ambitious from the time he was in high school, appearing on talk radio show programs, just being on national television when he was in college. so people aren't so much surprised that his friends who knew him well weren't very surprised by his rise to power, but there were some of them who expressed to me they were concerned what this this would mean for him long term because he was coming off as so just -- such a villain in the media. >> that's really interesting. and so let's start with his childhood and the question of

geo graphy. the early chapters your book smartly deal with california in the late 80s and mostly the 90s and they were -- california as state was a staging ground for me ugliest and more virulent antiimmigration politic the sun trisaw. wonder how much that shaped the miller that we all know? so much of his childhood was defined by this contrarian conservative in a community of liberals. but of course, there are plenty of conservatives nationwide who live in lib rallying enclaves but -- liberal enclaves but seems california where he grew up in california in santa monika had a different flavor. would miller be who he is now if he hadn't grownup california in tell us about that. >> no. i think that from my reporting for the book it's clear that

california played a central role in who stephen miller became, both in the brand of conservatism he has, a very reactionary combative conservative ideology that incorporates the language of the left into it, incorporating the language that liberals normally use, and using it against them, this notion of oppressive elites, being used to describe the democratic party which is normally been used to describe republicans, and so there's the reactionary component where he use this tools of the left and also is very combat enough a way at that time reflects having grown up as a person whose ideology was a minority in the city in which he grew up and he high school in which he grew up. the other aspect -- this casino of what drew me to tell stephen miller's story as someone who

grew up in southern california at the same time as stephen miller just a couple hours south of where he lived, i remember there was this unprecedented antiimmigrant hostility in california attacks on affirm temperature action and bilingual education, attacks on social services for children of undocumented migrants. there was really this widespread statewide scapegoating that happened in that era where democrats and republicans goon blame their problems, the state's fiscal problems, crime problems, on immigrants and it is truly a microcosm- -- what a microcosm for what we're seeing nationally today as far as the white sphere white backlash and

resurgence of white supremacy ideologies. in california when stephen miller grew up white people became a minority for the first time in the state and we're heading into that nationally, and so i believe we're kind of family going through the same growing pains that california underwent. but stephen miller was growing up, listening to this. i believe he was internalizing a lot of this racist rhetoric. i remember even me as the daughter of a mexican immigrant and a puerto rican mother, internalizing these -- this shame associated with being mexican. my mom used to say, you're american. you're innovate mexican. you're not puerto rican. you're american. so in a way i felt i could bring my perspective as someone who could relate to having internalized these views and this desire to be seen as american with all of the privileges that was supposed to

guarantee to the book, and kind of try to approach it with a really open mind. didn't want to come into it vilifying him. i just came into it thinking maybe that stephen miller had been misunderstood and trying to understand him and this is why the environment in which he grew up plays a central role in my book, and turning that into a character, and he was listening to rush limbaugh who is huge talk radio host and at the time was less well known but stephen miller was listening, broadcasting out of the state, railing against multi cull tourism and paint -- culturallism and painting white men as the principle aggrieved party in america and saying that anyone else who complaints lacks self-reliance, but white men are allowed to complain about anything. and stephen miller was listening to this and graph gravitated to it. later he talk but reading rush

him but's book and the most formative in his life, and even though she is a descend dent of jewish refugees he associated with white men and whiteness. >> and i want to ask about this because it was real rev flyings me a reading your book, his father seem to be kind of a major vector for stephen in his childhood to begin to shift this sense of identification going from a family eye jewish refugees to identifying with this kind of white minority in california under siege. his father seemed like his father would -- his father began in your telling as a kind of moderate democrat but who over time seemed like largely for personal reasons, very conflictive person, was kind are embroiled in a series of lawsuits with his family, with law patter ins and that sense of aggrievement, while very personal ised idio sin cat trick and was a get away into a

broader sense of rage and anger. tell us about his father. >> his dad -- this is when he his father starts to rail against the quote ridiculous liberal elites. you see him start to express very conservative viewpoints when his real estate company is sort of falling apart, getting sued by his brother, suing his former law firm, and unsuccessfully, and having all of these bankruptcies he was dealing with and being forced to move from a very affluent part of santa monika to a slightly smaller house in a more diverse area, and this is -- when you see the shift? stephen miller's dad you start to see the shift in stephen miller himself going around -- one thing he had to go to santa monica high school, which is very diverse and hi younger brother would later taped a

mostly white private high school. so tee seven miller fines behind displaced, angry, feelening like he lost his place in line and this is when you see him breaking up with his mexican friend, jason, telling him that he can't be friend with someone with a latino heritage. and this is when you see him going around school, telling his mexican classmates to go back their countries going into school board meet doing rail against measures to improve racial equity, just expressing a lot of park about these issues that you don't normally see a teenager getting that riled up about. >> his father, too -- i was shocked by this parallel to the current president. and obviously miller's current load star. his father who is a lawyer by training ended up leave the law and entering real estate of all things. and that -- what a bizarre

antecedent to the present moment. >> his father's described to me as being very trump-like, very combative. court document its fund for the book describe him as master piece of evasion and manipulation, so a lot of the same language you see used to describe trump and his business dealings, and from the people i spoke with for the book they believe people who know stephen miller believe part of the reason he gets along so well with donald trump is he gets him. he gets him emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually because he group a similar family to donald trump. not just with what we talk but with the lawsuits and bankruptcies but stephen miller's paternal uncle got permanently separated from the family with a no contact order in a settlement agreement and deprived of most of the family inheritance after alleged bullying from stephen miller's

father. so very much like what we see with mary trump, donald trump's niece. very striking parallels between the families that happened to explain trump's attraction to to stephen miller and the way the mutually understand each other and jibe. >> i just want to give people who are watching and listening in a little flavor of what this might have sound like at home for a jung stephen miller listening to his father. this is from an interview you with stephen's uncle, his mother's brother, who some people know as a figure who has written publicly about his frustration with the term his nephew has taken. and here's glade glosser describing tee seven's father. he says that tee seven's father was a quote traditional economic republican who over the years became more and more embitted e'ered over regulation and what

he felt was the intrusion into this personal and business affair but what he call the ridiculous liberal elite with the west coast around california. convinced that american universities and colleges were more or less dominate by the extreme left wing political view of the world. so i mean, that -- you read a passage like that, in your book, and that could easily be a description of stephen. were you yourself taken by some of these parallels? did you know about this going in? as someone who reported a lot of stephen miller i have to say this is was really a total revelation to me. i'd love to know more how this came into view for you. >> yeah. stephen miller has this myth that he per pep wait he media he comes from a democratic family and helped turn them into conservatives but from the court document is found and my

conversations with stephen miller's other relatives it became clear that steffen miller didn't invent this ideology in his family. it came in large part from his relationship with his father. and just reading during hearing you read that passage reminded me how similar stephen miller's fathers comments are to the comments of david horowitz who meet tee seven miller during the time in his life and really indoctrinates him in the idea that schools are these left wing indoctrination machines and they're contributing to the destruction of america because of the democratic party is allying itself with muslims and other people of color who according to horowitz pose an existential threat to america. so, introduces stephen miller to this fan assess that he has to save the country from some kind

of apocalypse that david horowitz perpetuated. he under tours young conservative like steffen miller through this school for political warfare, and trains them to attack the civil rights movement with the language of the civil rights, and to launder white supremacy ideas through the language of heritage and economics and the language of national security. and then he introduced stephen miller to this idea that white men created everything that we healed -- hold dear in america from equality to freedom, which ignores the central role that people of color played in our history, and obviously ahistorical which appeal to stephen miller at a young age and took over his life. >> absolutely. i have yeast about david

horowitz and one final questions but miller's childhood. before we dive head long into the horowitz stuff which is 0 so important and makes a lot of sense to connect up the way miller's father sounds to the kind of rhetorical platform that david horowitz offers later on. one thing that struck me me reporting i've done on miller, someone once told me who worked with miller at the department of homeland security once told meld in response to a question i had about what animated miller's racism toward immigrants. how that could be explained, and the person said to me, that miller -- this is a direct quote -- miller sees immigrants and fishingty refugees and asylum seekers as rabble. there's one formative experience in the childhood which you alluded to but i want to mary

more, which is the miller family moved during stephen's childhood, basically from a kind of as particularly wealthy enclave in santa monica to one which is more racially and necessarily diverse and seems a come down for the millers, the family if wonder how much some of the views he has toward immigrants also has this kind of class conscious overlay? was that something that struck you? having dug into this childhood to the extent you have. >> that is a really excellent question because i do think it's very tangled up in stephen miller's head this racism and this sense of elitism and classism. one of the first kind of racist thoughts the express is really more process than racist. he talks about how he hates his latin american house keeper dropping him off at school

because it makes him look poor because he referred to her junky car and how embarrassing for him to have to get dropped off at school by her pause it was just -- because it made him feel poor. ... in a very nice, complex in d.c. he embodies the elitist and a very conscious away. but he is able to deflect as a very young man and because

people to seat trumpets are the only person who can fight against these elites. even though trump him self is very much an elite. >> one of things that was striking in reading this book, just straight through his that with trump you couldn't have scripted it better for me bill araiza standpoint. it is the culmination of all the different strands of his childhood, all the things you are describing. one big question i have for you. one big question i know. >> you mentioned david horwitz, the conservative activist to describe them so well. in our conversation the book is someone out white grievance in trying to turn the language to the left, against the left. miller became a quick study in that department. you quote a friend of

miller's, he said the following, some people want money. some people want power. some people want influence, some people what women, some people want discover preet a lot of people run around not knowing what they want. steven very much wanted tears of the enemies and what went out and got the part it is a college friend of miller's. the reason i bring this code up in particular, went to ask you, what point it seems like muller actually comes to an ideology. for many of these years, as child high's good years, even for much of his book throughout his college experience, so much what animates him is the trolling, just going straight for the jugular of liberals. i'm wondering if there is actually an ideological worldview. something that is practical as a policy and when that start

to take shape. does that happen when he moves to capitol hill it works for jeff sessions as a staffer? has it happened later? when does he make this conversion from grievance politics to actual kind of policy ideas? spinning i don't think there was a clear turning point for steven muller. i think it slowly began to realize how effective it was for gaining attention and power. slowly starts to become more and more ingrained kind of question it to do in a laid-back way there is a turning point to identify i would say it's probably at the university when the rsa would cross a that a lot of people heard about. for a black stripper accused him of raping her. the charges were eventually

dropped steven muller was repeatedly defending these players as being vilified and targeted only because of their white skin color. it was confirming for him which horwich says the only real race of them racism against white and black pre-figment of your imagination according to horwit horwitz. when he began to get national tv attention and decided he had been right all along. becomes a true ideology ingrained in his character is getting so much into it got so

much out of it. eventually it lands on the trump campaign. eventually in the white house. the more it provides for him, the more necessary it becomes for his self perception. i truly there's a part of him that he is truly protecting americans from some grave threat in the form of too many brown and black people coming here. i was the steven muller nothing to do with race, with skin colo color. but when you connect the got dots between what you're doing and saying the whites of supremacist literature becomes very clear what is motivating him. there is no denying that he is

extremely intelligent. and he is a quick study. whether combative policy he is probably parent failures of the trump administration and all the controversy i think it has to be said that muller has wildly been successful how does he hit the ground running when he joins the trump administration. he's going up against people who are out gunning him in every sense. and yet he manages to get the in force through what he wants. whether it's forcing through regulations on public charge. he is working the bureaucracy.

what's your sense of where that came from? first of all, want to say oh it's a feeling he often looked at the coral road treatment like he is the brains behind trump. he had to distinguish what's going on with steven muller. steven milledge is not some kind of mastermind who is inventing all this stuff and coming up with it. part her discipline and work ethic he's so skilled at regurgitating the talking points in the ideas of other people. he's got a great skill for memorization. and also he is just really good at networking. one david horwitz has asked loitering talking points and

you'd see trump regurgitating later. radical islam and this is a horwich suggestion from these e-mails horwich sent citing fear and other emotions around an agenda steven muller knows how to use that. and obviously he's helpful to use in the beginning pretty help them get the border patrol and ice endorsements during the campaign that were so important shall demand his status as a key player later on.

trump trust him for the other thing about steven muller is he is comfortable being an trump's shadow. the way he saw steven bannon he's obsessed with media attention, and exaggerates his credentials is tried to lurk in the background and cast himself constantly as a devoted vehicle for trump's agenda. in trying to make sure that trump gets the credit for whatever, whatever successes they are experiencing. there is that. he repeatedly found things to bypass the bureaucracy, reaching deeply into the bowels of homeland security to push through the agenda. on really disregarding the input of national security expert. and making sure what he needed

from trump was made into reality. >> essentially over the years, he really has kind of gutted dhs leadership. it's got to a point where to circumvent kind of the established policy channels, he has just replaced wholesale. people who are experienced in a definite views on how government should be working. and replace them pretty guess the question i have two, this falls we said about everyone attributes to muller the omnipotence and the administration. obviously he relies on the co-conspirators jurors exploits, with the exact were for, the apathy lack of interest of other parties in the administration on the administration policy.

he could drill down to have their tension divided who do we need to know about to understand muller and millard success? >> one of the key players is jean hamilton. he met during his time working for jeff sessions to help bring into the white house bird who played an instrumental role on the department of justice and working together with homeland security to implement this anti- immigration agenda. but over the years, steven muller has become increasingly, even though he continues to draw from the ideas of other people, he's getting some hostility from people used to be allies of his. he seen as trying to have sole control from the pushing out people that were effective at implementing it as well. for example. [inaudible]

was the citizens ships until steven muller decided he was taking too long to pursue the treasury regulation. decided to get rid of him. over the years he has become --'s been so with the number went expert on this issue for trump, that people like ann coulter who used to love steven muller now are kind of angry that he has pushed so many restriction us out so we can continue to have control over the issue. large of the core group of people who are young like jean hamilton, julia and others as well. >> he's become kind of a one-man show. what would you say, two final questions and i went open this up for others to ask.

two final questions. the first is, i would love to get your sense given your expertise in these matters, generally and then specifically your knowledge about steven. what would you say if you had to come up with a list with major major accomplishments of the last four years. what would you say are the key highlights from? what would he be able to come away from the first term saying he has done? and how should we understand them? student he is largely to reengineer the ethnic blows into this country. mostly through, from the very beginning cracking down on refugee admissions. slashing refugee admissions to new historic lows every year. in part of his obsession with refugee admission is tied to the relationship with david

horwitz. a large part of refugees are muslim. they come from muslim majority countries. the idea that muslim pose a threat to america really pushed steven muller to destroy the united states his reputation internationally as a beacon of hope and refuge for people fleeing violence and persecution. they've dismantled this infrastructure that is going to take years to rebuild if ever. so i think that is one. he has succeeded very well with obliterating refugee admittance engine into united states. he is made a big dent. >> damn close. >> the other key thing's eve miller's son a splitter rated the asylum system at the border. i started initially with coming of the executive orders from january with a expand

border patrol and isis ability to keep people detained and to deport people. and to no longer prioritizing serious criminals but instead trying to keep everyone detaine detained. space on the deterrence strategy to make people no longer want to come here. and then over the years you saw the systematic separation of the children from their parents, which even though that was eventually struck down as a policy, it did have its intended effect of veto, traumatizing hundreds of families. many parents were deported without their parents without their children. many children are permanently traumatized. and this was of creating a show of cruelty to deter more family immigration from central americ america.

and then eventually with the migrant protection protocol for the forced asylum-seekers to wait there court proceedings in mexico. i'm not what we are seeing in response to the pandemic where they're essentially turning everyone away at the u.s./mexico border. the two main accomplishments have been to target people fleeing violence. to the refugee system where there very deeply vetted. and because of this very long process to come here. as well as the a silent system to obliterate access to that. >> sorry. at the start of your answer, i think it's really managed by various policy lovers to change the racial composition of those who enter the country or attempt to order the country.

is steven muller aye nationalist? you've been swimming around in the smirk for a while. , definitional, is that his identity? is that his worldview? do we need to be more forthright in her writing and thinking about the extent to which she is aye nationalist? >> who would deny he's aye nationalist. much harder for him to not denies implementing aye nationalist agenda. regardless of whether or not he identifies as aye nationalist or not. lists that were created to for population control nonwhite people because the white

supremacist defended the organizations that he drew his policy from believing the genetic superiority of whites. that americans have to be a majority white country in order to preserve its unique culture and privileges. and so, yeah, that kind of speaks to the thai were talking about between racism steven muller. anyway, i also train of thought. [laughter] >> no, no, i think it's really important is generalist we about white nationalist white supremacist ideas with intergovernmental institutions by not calling it what it is. and by allowing these

organizations to launder their ideas through heritage and economics. in national security. but you know, called the book hatemonger because, you know, i didn't write this book to tell you steven muller has hate in his heart. that he hates mexicans, that he hates muslims. because i can't say that. i think as journalists we have refrained from using terms like races to describe people because i can't tell you what is in steven miller's heart. but what i can tell you is he is fluent in hate. he has deliberately been inciting hate and playing with the motion of hatred in order to become more powerful and to rally people around his anti- immigrant agenda. so, if you look at the documents he has worked on, where he is being inspired, it becomes clear that hatemongering is in essential

aspects of everything that he does. >> yeah, i hate to say that the knight nice note and on. of course terrifying. currently one second period i just want to call up some questions. therapy one second period just so everyone sees me squinting on my computer, i am just sifting through questions of people have posted on the q and a. on the q&a window. one question, is muller more powerful than kushner? i'd be curious to hear thoughts on that. i'm also going to simultaneously be digging for other questions. muller, kushner, fortis muller fit in the white house hierarchy? >> lot of people describe kushner's being the most powerful advisor. i would say muller hosmer sway

over trump. for trump's primary goal is to be reelected. in november. trump believes that steven muller knows his face. and that steven muller is the reason he wanted 2016. and says if he wants to win again in 2020 he needs to lean heavily on steven muller and to trust him. from that very beginning of steven miller's time in the white house, he, you know, was working on using dehumanization to support his policies. where the first things he did his created office dedicated to daily demonization of immigrants. issuing press releases about their crimes, anyway kind of language of dehumanization in order to rally support weather for an agenda or in a candidate is something that has proved very useful for trump so far. so this is a central agenda, immigration has been a central

agenda. i think he is maybe going to expand it a little bit more into just a more general demonization of anyone who opposes him. which is a part of what we are seeing now with dhs going gets antiracist protests in portland. but yes i would argue steven muller is a more powerful advisor. >> interesting. here's another question this is from mark. i'm just gonna reddit verbatim. the attack against a tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh and the similar use of the attackers in their own views have any impact on muller or miller's rowley administration? any thoughts on that? i don't know if he had an impact on him. i know that after the dillon roof shooting, steven muller was very concerned about the reaction towards the confederate flags.

telling bart to attack ella mazzone fort selling of flags in their own part to get funded and getting attacked confederate symbols. that is the only direct link i can make. but throughout numerous white terrorists shootings have involved this idea this is at the border and white people are being systematically replaced by brown and black people. the idea of white genocide which is part of this book, the very white supremacist book about the destruction of the white world by brown and black people to steven muller and was inspired by and promoted through breitbart 2015. there interesting parallel between what white terrorists say in the idea that steven

muller is pushing the white house. >> >> host: here's another good question. , what role do you see steven tiller playing in a post- trump world? say biden wins the presidency, where does muller go? do you see him running for public office? >> i really don't know what's can happen to steven muller. initially he wanted to be a senator. he thought he be a prosecutor for a little while and then become a senator. obviously his career took a different path. so it is possible that he would run for office somewhere. i think steven muller is always going to have allies in the far right and white nationalist movements. so i steven muller think it's going to continue to have a community no matter what happens in november. i think it is just a question of whether these movements will be relegated to the fringes come november or not. >> got it.

>> host: here's a question from someone who points out, there are discussions that are historical in the past there have been other commissions of both democrats and republicans who over the years have advocated for fewer legal immigrants to come into the u.s. this goes back to the 70s, 80s, 90s, including sometimes prominent democrats through various points in their careers sounded a lot different on immigration issues. this person asked, what is the basis for calling muller and trump empty i immigrants? in light of that historical flirtation over the years by a number of people on both sides of the aisle, restricting immigration. there is muller in this historical sweep, where his muller department go off in a much more rattled direction in your view? >> will steven muller has

taken it to an unprecedented extreme refugee admissions in the asylum system this isn't something that trump and steven muller invented. some had tried to show in the book, the fact that trump and steven muller are the logical outcome of a decades long bipartisan assault on immigrants at the border. the scapegoating of immigrants is been going on for a very long time. even the obama administration laid the framework for what we are seeing now with the record and deportation. helping to mary the concept of immigration criminality in people's minds by only bringing up immigration when you're talking about national security. this is something that helps of trump and steve muller do what they're doing today.

it is not an invention of theirs. this is part of what i try to share in the book. you cannot reckon with the forces of steven muller and the forces of donald trump if you don't reckon with the movements that propelled them. >> got it. got it. a question, a little bit more about your crafts and muller. most like to report this book? if someone asks you reporting on one of the most controversial figures inside of the meat administration at a time when the administration is demonizing journalists. mosher experience like doing the actual legwork of the book? what roadblocks did you hit? >> guest: yeah, i mean, it was an interesting experience. i had people, people who were close to muller. i won't specify beyond that. people who were close to muller who were very -- he told me they were very afraid they'd made a mistake by talking to me.

and those becoming after them. a lot of sources to speak to me because muller has become notoriously vindictive. and yeah, that was kind of a struggle trying to navigate that as a journalist and being able to figure out how to protect people and provide important information. prefers the process i tried to immerse myself a literature that inspired steve muller. just try to really get inside his head in addition to interviewing over 100 people who knew him. in looking at the court documents in the private correspondence and trying to really figure out what makes this guy tick. >> host: yep, absolutely.

you have reporting, to extend the question you've done reporting pressure the trump administration you've reported on order issues in immigration before trump took office. you've obviously done it during his presidency. have there been, just representative personal anecdotal perspective, have there been major changes and what it feels like and looks like to do this work? i just wonder if, professionally makes all the more careful you never want to get anything wrong be kind to go the extra mile to make sure you don't get anything wrong. you have solid backing for everything you write. because there is the tendency in the administration to go after journalists and try to discredit them. and so i hired a fact checking

team to comb through the entire manuscript and make sure i wasn't making some stupid mistakes. and these are important things to do no matter who is in the white house. but i do feel like there is an added sense of needing to make sure that everything is bulletproof. because you could come under attack personally. the other thing is, my first book is a very personal book. i delve into my family. in so knowing how journals have been attacked by trolls in the past, and being a rising phenomenon head to find ways to protect my families information. these are things you would not normally think of which are becoming an increasing concern. >> host: yeah, yeah. here's a good question from chris leonard. he asks, giving all of the reporting you have done on the cultural forces that influence

steven muller, he wonders what you think might happen if trump were to lose in november? to what extent does the white nationalist movement dependent on him? will it retain any power in government if trump were to leave office? how should we be thinking about that? >> that is a great question. i think that it exists independently of trump. it's part of why trump came to power. however, i do believe if trump loses in november that over time, we are going to see it kind of die away. i think that nationwide we are seeing the same thing that we saw in california in the '90s, because nationally white people will become a minority by 2050 or before that. so people are -- there is a lot of white fear and white anxiety to the quota browning

of america. but as in california, california became increasingly diverse place. there is no apocalypse there's no third world takeover. people began to celebrate multiculturalism and realize the strength over the next few decades. with the multiple groups. i think we are going to see tribalism died down nationally the way it did in california. in california there is still a real white nationalist movement. i am not sure is going to go away. i am optimistic it's not going to take over the country. >> host: one final question for me as we kind of near the end, the pandemic is obviously allowed the trump

administration to do all sorts of things. on the immigration front in the name of public health. and i wonder, given what you know both about miller's thinking and maneuvering inside the white house, we also know about how dhs has changed under the weight of miller's pressure, what sorts of things right now give you concern? what sorts of areas in immigration policy should the public be paying attention too? were bombarded with election stuff in their marching head on immigration policy. what should people be looking at? what should they be paying attention too? >> it's not just about immigration. obviously, anything impacting the people coming from other countries is something that we need to be wary of. as something that comes from steven muller. but one kind of important thing to mention is that

steven miller's laser focused on the immigration agenda and on attacking families. less so on attacking cartels and traffickers and things like tha that. that has created a situation where it has left americans more vulnerable to a range of real threats. like the pandemic we are seeing today. resources are diverted from fema for migrant attention. this has created a situation it's not just worrying about immigration policy. although that is obviously a central concern. it's also about looking at the broader national security question and how steven miller's ideology has affected as a whol whole. distracting on focusing masks and medical equipment focusing

on suspending green card access because we have to protect american workers based on this idea that immigrants steal america jobs. let's shut down the border because people are getting sick from mexico even though there's more cases in the united states. it's bigger than the immigration question. too quickly answer your question, the policy spirit entrenches so everyone knows this is one of those far right restriction us that you've been thinking more concerned about the conversation i just want to clear up what that is pristine thank you. one of the policies that he hasn't yet got pushed through or really made a concerted effort on is revoking birthright citizenship as a right so having the right to citizenship if you're born here.

he has criticized it, he's talked about it, trump is talked about it. i think we see a second term i think of something will get all the more focused on. >> i realize i said that final questions,. [laughter] i reserve the right as a moderator to revise that now. just a few more before we send everyone home. you mentioned birthright citizenship you mentioned things like this comment actually come up before paired republicans and democrats have towed that line at different points in very recent history. there's always been a roadblock to that kind of radical action. presumably congress continues to exercise and write laws in this country. right now we are living in a moment where we are completely dysfunctional. how important is that to someone like muller? has muller been able to do things that he otherwise would not have, had congress been

pulling its way? >> i think so. he recognizes that when you have a congress that is unable to do anything, that it gets him a lot more power. going back to his time working for alabama senator sessions who later became the attorney general, steven eller really focus on derailing this historic bipartisan immigration bill that was being worked on in 2013 and 2014. in just creating a wedge issues that divide people, not just based on their skin color but based on their ideology and creating gridlock's and congress based on these issues. i think it is very important for steven muller. we will just have to see how things change over the next

few months. >> yeah, yeah. here's a my official last question. i'm challenges so our view and is is not just me greedily asking questions. i'm trying to pull through the questions i'm seeing. so the world is on fire right now, it is completely overwhelming following all the news. this book comes out, you've spent a lot of time on it. you have meticulously reported it. what do you hope readers take away from reading this book? at this moment? i really shook up probably answer this question a million different ways. if you had to give one, two or three broad takeaways on what you hope this book brings into public view right now, how would you describe that? >> guest: yeah, i feel if you want to understand the era of the polarization and division that we are living today, you

have to understand the story of steven muller. and so i hope that my book helps people to get some perspective on how we came to be so divided as a country. because it is something that steven muller has exploited and been able to weaponize and further increase the purposeful demonization, not just people of color but any of their liberal allies. so i think that is why the key takeaways is trying to understand this era of polarization and how steven miller's story is kind of a microcosm for how they got here. and secondly, i think it is just important to connect the dots themselves. using the book as a resource between the immigration policies we are seeing now and the white supremacist and the white nationalist steven muller has been drawing the policy from. so we truly understand this is not about national security.

it's not about protecting the american economy. it is about changing the demographic flows into this country to make sure america remains the majority white country. because steven muller believes that is essential for its exit stencil survival. >> it's been great chatting with you. congratulations on the book. i wish you didn't have to write it, but i'm very glad you have. i hope everyone goes out and buys it. congratulations. >> thank you so much sean, great talking with you. >> you are watching book tv on cspan2. nonfiction authors and books every weekend. television for serious readers. here are some programs to watch out for, on our author interview program, "after words", yale university professor edward boehm looks at white supremacy through the lens of his great-great-grandfather. a ku klux klan member in the

years after the civil war. susan eisenhower examines her grandfather dwight eisenhower's leadership style putting comedian judy gold offers her thoughts on free speech and censorship. find more information online @booktv.org, or consult your program guide. >> on her monthly in-depth we talked with admiral about his military career in this thoughts on character and leadership in this portion of the program he responds to a viewer's question about the recent removal of confederate statues. >> first of all, i do not believe any statute, anywhere, ever should be torn down by a mob. that is just not in my view appropriate. we ought to have a national conversation. and we are beginning to about which statue of what individuals from what. of history ought to be

re-examined. for my money, as i look at the spectrum, i would say that for example the confederate generals and admirals who took up arms against the united states of america, they were traders not only to their oath, but also took up arms that included slavery. to have statues put up about them. where there are such it's time have a commission to come to the conclusion that i have it's time to take them down. put them in a museum. study the history of the civil

war part is a cautionary tale for our times. so i think confederate generals and admirals, should not be glorified with statues in our public places. on the other hand, we have our founding fathers. i am well aware of the instances that my fellow veteran points out that systems of individuals who have gone after a statue for example of general and president grant. i am very aware of the movement to take down statues of thomas jefferson, who was a slave owner for example. i can understand that emotion. but i think that is a different set of circumstances than the ones i mentioned a moment ago. and so, the world should not make these decisions based on

retired admiral, we ought to have a collective conversation. my vote would be takedown the statues, takedown the monuments of confederate admirals and generals for my money, washington, jefferson, grant, not perfect, slave owners. but in the broad spectrum of their life and times, their contributions are striking. and there statues and monuments need to remain on display. perhaps indicating that in addition to all that is known, making the point that jefferson held slaves. that is a valid historical points. to me that does not rise to the level of tearing down the jefferson memorial or tearing down monticello as a

presidential home outside of charlottesville. my daughter christina went to university. i think there is room for meaningful conversations. i do not believe ever mobs that should be tearing down statues or tearing down anything else. >> to watch the rest of this program visit our website, booktv.org. and click on the in-depth tab near the top of the page. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to the commonwealth club for it i am george hammond chair of the humanities form which organize today's event. i am happy to welcome back a.j. baime. we had a year end a half ago. for his las