identified, when it was iraq and afghanistan or somalia or haiti or others, was a once we had achieved military victory, we then changed our mission we then decided to move to try to bring democracy and reform the governments of those countries. and that's what we ran into failure. >> to watch the rest of this program visit our website booktv.org and do a search for robert gates or the title of his book exercise of power. >> greeting everybody and welcome. my name is sabir sultan. before we launch to a discussion of carl hoffman "liar's circus" and steve bannon's imposture would like to share history about the strain. it was done in 1927. stretch of mean square, the book would wait until after overnight

figures the strand is a false fiber that run by third-generation owner. we want to thank all of you for your support. without a multimedia booklovers and offers like carl and steve we wouldn't be here today and we are so appreciative. so tonight were said to have with us carl hoffman in stephen for a double book launch. carl is a former contribute editor at the national geographic traveler and his travels on assignments to 80 countries turkeys off of five books, savage harvest was in the times editors choice, "new york times" bestseller, the "washington post" notable book of the year and has been translated into nine languages. the last wild man was a finalist for the competition. the lunatic express was named one of the ten best books of the year by the "wall street journal." i marks launch of his latest

book "liar's circus: a strange and terrifying journey into the upside-down world of trump's maga rallies." steve benen is a producer on the "rachel maddow show" and author of the maddow blog. his articles and bits office o. in the near times, washington monthly the american prospect salon.com and other publications. for his work on the "rachel maddow show" has received to make any awards, has been nominated for three more. tonight is in it for his new book "impostors" so without further ado please join me in welcoming steve and carl to the stage. >> thank you. i appreciate that. it's great to be. i think this "the impostors" fight against. carl, congratulations on the launch book. i had a chance to read last week. cause i would meet with republican national convention which make for an interesting

experience. one of the things i saw at the convention that i thought dovetailed well with the book was the convention, republish acting as if trump was basically the country, that there is a decision what is the united states and what's good for the present. i think just the same can attain when reading your book and reading what people are saying to you at the rallies and i'm wondering do you think those points are more or less the same that those threads tie together? if so what is is about trump and what does it say about them? >> clearly trump's whole thing has been to kind of mailed and confuse the state with the man -- meld. and if you don't support trump, you are anti-american. you are a loser. you're either a winner or a loser, in trump's world.

and at the rallies that's really, really apparent when you go from the very first rally i went into in minneapolis in october, i was struck by this whole kind of, i i was struck y something i think we saw at the convention this last week, too, which was this surprised me, this idea, trump appeared dig to me. he's a big man physically, but he appeared big. he's up there on the stage and he's incredibly self-confident and he looks strong in this kind of sort of third world strongman and he grows. this crowd is a bear, this wild crowd, mob, that is screaming for him and he kind of grows and he gets bigger and bigger.

i was shocked by that when i first saw it because you care about these things that you really see it, , and i'm not honesty but yet i felt that power. over the last three months or so, four or five months net income at times, trump has been on the road since he's been in the background. he hasn't had that screaming mob. he's like a blue with a big hole in it. let's face it, in that he needs that crowd, the screening people or the air that makes them big. suddenly we saw at the convention this sort of reinstallation especially like the last night, and so he gets big and to his followers he is the state, for sure. it's classic sort of authoritarianism right-wing populism. if you oppose him you are a traitor. all of those things come into

play and a powerful way and a really visible in the rallies. i think they speak to things you talk about in your book as well. >> i was thinking about the timing, during the covid crisis when trump basically had to give up the rallies and he had to substitute them with the press briefings. so there was a point in which almost every weekday or including some weekends trump would go to the white house briefing room, stand on the podium -- go ahead. >> there was this line like that trust briefing was the new route it wasn't. it was like he was trying for it but he had his crowd was skeptical journalists. not the same thing. what inflates trump is thousands of people screaming for him. at a trump rally, there are so many things but they would be a

moment of silence and a man, a grown man, burly guy will call out in the middle of that moment, i love you. and you can laugh about it but it speaks to the power that trump has and the love. i was in the parking lot. i spent -- i spent about 52 hours in the parking lot tailgating for the tupelo, mississippi, rally and at one point there was a guy, there was the crew setting up the fencing and everything and this guy in a pickup truck sort of 60 year old burly guy and a carhart suit sort of drove past and we, as super fans would been out there suffering in the cold and wind and rain, and we started talking to him and he said i would have believed this if i have not

heard it with my own ears. he said i love trump so much, i would walk behind you and pick up his proof. and again, we laugh -- his poop. there are tens of millions of people who feel that way about trump, and he speaks to them and he articulates their distress. >> let's pick up on that for a second, because when i was reading the book and then hearing, reading about these perspective and their points of view i feel like there's certain threads that were tying a lot of these people together. so, for example, on conspiracy theories come the president just this week, the dark forces he says arkansas in the streets, the president embrace of conspiracy theories is well-documented but i think, i felt like there was a mere image of this conspiracy theories with his followers, the people you are with at these trump rallies.

is that the tie that binds? is that one of the main things that draws, that maintains that connection between a follower and the leader? >> i think i should say, as i said about tupelo, the sort of basis of a book is that i kind of joined the super fans and that ended up hanging out about 170 hours in parking lots and with these guys here i was the sixth and in light in tupelo ad then from then on i was buddies with these people, with rick snowden who has been at more trump rallies than anyone else in history of the world. and i in pennsylvania is his 68th rally. use first in line or i think second in line with rick frazier was first, his 23rd rally.

once i sort of joined these guys, they texted me and we say my placement line, i would save theirs. that's what i did. that's all this came about. i think, the thing is that people don't read the news. i mean, i don't know what -- it's hard to pin point chicken and egg, people live in this -- the sum total of my book is upside down world and people live in this, you know, in a bubble, and this upside down world through which everything is a conspiracy theory and then don't read the news and they say to you, if you say where do you get your news? they say they do their own investigation, their own research. this is the worst thing in the world because that means they're getting all their news from social media, facebook and

twitter, and not reading, a lot of people don't even watch fox news, or the watch one american news now somewhat and they live in this world in which everything is a conspiracy. your image of a, trump is mirroring them and they are mirroring him but they're all in the same upside down world. and it's like that literally and a culturally. at a trump rally there's wild music playing, rock 'n roll, not sappy country music. the biggest song, the song that gets people just going the wildest is the village people's ymca. in mississippi 3000 evangelicals and by before mike pence comes out literally ymca and people

singing and then the next person comes out is mike pence who is adamantly, who says being gay is a sin. that's this world and it's always reinforcing itself. i think it speaks to what were going to talk about in your book where you talk about this post policy world where policy itself doesn't, there is no policy. it's all a show and i would say to you, is this an outgrowth? is this, is trump a natural outgrowth of this sort of post policy world in which there is no reality, it's only show? >> one to things i want to ask you about was the notion of how do the attendees of the events, how does this hard-core bass response to trump's failures, policy failures? things like coronavirus and other things. my assumption before i was reading a book, they would

emphasize or reprioritize or somehow rationalize and say the democrats fault for the medias fault or whomever. after reading the book it's almost as if they are not even aware of his failures. >> it's not almost as if they are unaware of the failures. they don't think there are failures and they think, what trump says his ukraine call is that it was a perfect call and that's what he said over -- adenopathy talks about now at rallies but in those days, during the impeachment days, it's just every easy example. it's a perfect call and people think it's a perfect call and they think that, okay, back up a minute. there is a jumbotron, a giant screen that is set up outside in the parking lot of the rallies, and it goes up about, because of the day before but goes on rent seminar 7:30 a.m. on the date of

the rally and it's on an hour-long loop and it goes and goes and goes. all kinds, all the trump things are said there, but there was this one thing, when big clear word that stood out to me which was ripe brad parscale use vies campaign manager saying the biggest threat to american democracy is the fake news. that is hammered home over and over and over again. we see it in like him saying it or something and put in a newspaper but trump's base who number in the tens of millions believe that the "washington post" and "new york times" makeup of the news. that it is fake news and it's not true and that trumps called was perfect and trump's response to coronavirus is great and competent, and that everything trump does is amazing.

that's what they think. >> it's one thing to know that in abstract, as instruction, he said it is fake news and deleting because he said. it's nothing to get him to read your book and get into the weeds of their prospective and how it's just compass a bubble that seems impossible to permeate. if a journalist wanted to talk to those attendees, what's true, i think effectively would be literally impossible, right? >> yes. i mean, you can't come you cant argue with the conspiracy theory. i thought going into this that i would be having these long substantive conversations with people who were my, hang out with them for long periods of time, we would be able to have several, interesting conversations about the merits

of big government or small government in the most basic sense. that was proved to be impossible. i couldn't do that. you can't have a conversation with somebody who believes that michelle obama has -- or hillary clinton -- met this woman in dallas, texas, and i liked her. she seemed very normal and she had traveled and worked, traveled to india and she seemed like a sophisticated person and i said to her, the one thing that really gets me is the conspiracy theories. i said, i don't know what to do with it. she said, she goes, i don't have 99 friends commit suicide, did you? and i was like, wait a minute what are you saying? then i realized she was talking like the clintons and hillary i guess, the clintons murdered all

these people. she said to me, well, i believe hillary would kill to win, absolutely. and that is not fringe. that is a constant and it goes deep with everyone in the base. i hate to say it but it's true. it's a literal fantasy world. >> one of the other threads in addition to conspiracy theories was an issue of race. i won't read from the book but on page 181 you tell this great come fast eddie anecdote about his farmer, the peak on farmer. he said some pretty disgusting things. would be insulting and offensive and leading a bad taste in your mouth as you read it, and it got

me thinking a lot about whether they consider themselves racist, whether come to be considered trump a racist is it trump's racism that helps you will their affinity for the or do they just consider themselves above such ugliness? >> racism and religion are huge parts -- racism, religion our ideas of masculinity i think are the most sort of powerful cultural threads, and racism is everywhere. it permeates everything. i trump rally it's all white. the first thing a person will say to you is -- i know a lot of nice people and i hung out with a lot of people who were very kind to me, and if you talk to them the first thing they say is they say everybody accuses us of being a racist. i'm not a racist. no, we are not racists. and what they mean by that is sort of a kkk racist, a night

writer or something. but the idea of systemic racism they just are not even aware of. the rally is 22,000 people and there might be 200 black people there, and the campaign will gather them together and put t-shirts on them, blacks for trump and set them behind the te president so the cameras can see them. everything is a race. everything is code. everything is, you know, driving this wedge of xenophobia and racism, and they are sort of -- they don't admit at the don't want to say at the don't want to confront it. they don't believe they are racist. they will say well, why should i be held liable for something that happened 200 years ago?

it's a crazy world, but let's talk a little bit about "the impostors" because i mean that's a perfect segue. there's a line in your book that says is there no true, how did we discuss and make decisions rooted in fact? i think that's kind of where, there's so many places but where these books will he come together, talk about that a little bit. >> it's true. one of the things a document in the book are series of conversations that barack obama would have at the white house with congressional republicans on any number of issues. obama would try and appeal to their intellect and say i'm going to present you with the data and evidence and roll out testimonials from the authorities, subject matter experts. the thinking was if he could just get through to republicans on an intellectual level, that from their you can go some kind of consensus, some kind of compromise and govern

effectively. i i make a joke about him bringg facts to oppose policy fight. really all the arguments went right over their heads. he was making arguments to them as if they were members of the governing party when there were not, these folks are talk about a group of people who consider the very idea of governing to be -- something not prepared to do. their pundits and they the cart ideology and when elections but they are not interested in governing. in all likelihood they fit a pretty one of those rallies you attended because it helps me from reading your book about that the people for donald trump are part of post to the same problems. they are not necessarily consider what's the best way to solve problems. they are interested in glorifying division and advancing this partisan political agenda but all they're interested in. >> at the convention, here's this whole you are saying the gop has abandoned substantive policy, and then has been having

for a long time and then the convention is launched with no platform. >> perfect moment. >> and speaking of that also segues into the idea of trump as the state. >> right, exactly. the republican party starting in 1850s produced the first platform in 1856. every four years since that thee had a policy agenda, they've had it a superficial way about governing other produce a document that is scrutinized say here's the parties agenda and you can invite we get on the merits. except in 2020 for the first time since 1856 he said no, we will not bother with that their only care about is glorifying trumpet whatever trump says that's our platform. if trump changes his mind, that's our new platform. i thought they were just going to rehash 2016 platform. this, this year they didn't even bother. i felt like in some respects

they are proving my point, this is a party that doesn't care. >> you don't need a policy because trump is, whatever trump is an says, he is the policy, right? >> excise array. if he changes his mind that's the policy. if he decides he doesn't care about governing, then the party doesn't care about governing and the fact it does appear in some respects i i felt like this wan embarrassment for the party or at least it shouldn't if they're capable machine. this is the party that has a rich tradition of caring about ideas and caring about conservative solutions to problems. they just forfeited all of it. they lit the critical importance they were no longer going to pretend to be a governing party. i found it breathtaking. >> i love some of your stories about sort of your examples like a couple of them i loved example

of herman cain saying he would about anything longer than three pages, that if he was elected president he would allow any law come i i understand, in a law r policy paper longer than three pages. that such an example of disdain of the complexity, expertise inherent in government. >> exactly. right. that's a a classic example. he was saying he couldn't be bothered with complexity. if anything, i'm speaking in the context of say like a nasa scientist. if you and i were going to be working on a manual for the lunar module, three pages, that's it. some things are complicated or health care policy complicated. immigration from economic policy, take time and involves people of goodwill rolling up their sleeves and digging in the weeds in caring about the substantive details. herman cain was one of these folks and forcefully he's not in

the party, late herman cain was saying none of that matters. we want something simple, something we can fit on a bumper sticker or in the tweet and that's it because the alternative is hard work. we're not interested in hard hae because that would require them to take governing seriously and they don't. that's a classic example, i'm glad it resonate with you. >> or recognizing there's something that there is this novel virus out there that can kill you and herman cain, i mean, i don't want to, you know, but he went to the rally and didn't wear a mask and he is no longer with us. it's just crazy. it's mind-boggling. i also like the one about the june 2017 face time ceremony about privatizing air traffic control. >> it's funny, signing surrey our normal part of governing in a normal administration. congress passes a bill of significance, the president lines of the pins and they sign

the signature and have -- hand up the pins. something presidents enjoyed doing. given the lasso for years there have been any legislative breakthroughs in large part of it because republicans are so indifferent towards governing. trump trump-pence to make up hin signing ceremony. he announces wendy and would come to the white house, a big deal, a lot of fun will announce a new transportation policy,, we're going to privatize the faa. the congressional leaders all line up behind and it does the whole signing ceremony as if he was playing present because, in fact, he was, and so sure enough he goes through the motions and a smile for the cameras. next day the policies effectively gone. congresses were not privatizing the faa and whole thing was a nothing. i was all for sure because they were just pretended to be governing which is what i call them the imposters. >> it's all aesthetics and away. at a trial probably one of the most amazing things is when trump always talks about sort of

three-quarters into his speech he talks about healthcare and he talks about we will never take away your healthcare, and we will never get rid of pre-existing conditions, when the gop is suing to get rid of the affordable care act whose central policy is pre-existing, making sure that pre-existing conditions are covered. >> right. on the one hand, it's brazenly dishonest. i don't know if he knows, it's hard to say to what degree he understand reality. i don't know if he realizes that his administration is begging the supreme court to destroy those benefits but whether or not he knows it or not that's what's happening. the fact is this capacity of flying so brazenly is extraordinary also think this ties in drug with the thesis of

my book which is not governance. the affordable care act was being legislated, refusing to participate any meaningful way. then once it became law they tried to sabotage it in every possible opportunity. when they win a position to decide the buyer in 2017 when the the call control the levers of power in the senate and white house they put together this ridiculous bill that ultimately failed because it was a wildly unpopular and because it ultimately didn't work. it wouldn't have worked and so here we have a part of this as this are deeply concerned about healthcare and he saw obamacare as his national scourge of society but yet when given opportunity to do something about it they didn't know how. there governing muscles atrophied to such a point they couldn't pursue their own goals in which they could have pursued those goals. >> let's say trump loses, knock on wood, and what happens to the gop? how can the gop big anything

but, as you say, host policy, sort of doing this fantasy governing without addressing issues that sort of strike at the very heart of what the gop has opposed for so long? where can it go? it is painted in a corner it seems to me. >> i think you're right. they have fact that sells in a position which they have no policy agenda, no company priorities. they don't know how they want to pursue any of these ideas in practice. i think a lot about parties like an sinister in general political science tells us parties change when voters tell them they have to. so long as the parties are winning, they have no incentive to change. if our goal is to win elections and be in power anywhere winnie, and everything is fine. but when parties started losing, incentives change. those are the moments in which

parties have to take stock and say wait a minute, we've been handed defeat at the ballot box, the electorate isn't buying what we're selling. what are we going to do about it? my hope and expectation is if trump is poorly, i think he will, i think the party will find itself at a crossroads, a reckoning moment and he will have to decide what kind of party is going to become what kind of priorities will have? .. part of the problem is-- go ahead. >> i love your optimism. sometimes i wonder if it's like you being obama talking policy

and minas like the things you are talking about you know the root of so much of this is this idea that government is the problem and government needs to be cut and that's the problem yet the thing that makes government work is the thing that they are subverting. i just don't know what happens. >> here's the thing, i mean, republican opposition to a large centralized government isn't new and mean it reagan ran against the whole idea of government and his joke about how the scariest thing-- reagan ran against it but when you look back at the reagan era i still consider 1980s to be a governing party. when they tackle tax or from a 1986 republican officials took the process is seriously with months of hearings, intense

scrutiny that lasted for weeks upon months for nearly a year. they took the process is seriously because they cared about the details and despite the fact that it was a conservative party against the governing in many respects against government but they took the party-- the process seriously and that was in 1986. the fact that it's skeptical about big government is not in and of itself the-- not the centers early-- they are capable of being both a governing party and something skeptical of the big government. i think there is a needle that they could thread there. they used to be able to announce they are not and my hope is someday they will be able to get back. >> when i was in the rallies i had this feeling that you know like a trump rally and

everything trump you know everything and having to read your book now that illuminates all the more that-- that this sort of style this post policy governing-- i had this thought of like the difference between a boxing match any professional wrestling match and like a boxing match, you know, two guys go out it for 12 rounds and there's no knockout, no knockdown, just you know someone wins, it can be boring to watch whereas like a wrestling match people are jumping off the ropes hitting each other with chairs and that is trump in the gop right now and people love it in a way like people rallies because it's so much more you know it's this fantasy of government, it's not the boring you know, the boring long fight

that no one-- where there is no blood, i mean no knockout. >> i like this metaphor in part because wrestling is fake, theatrical, intended to be entertaining. i think for a lot of republicans in the trump white house, capitol hill there is a sense governing is fun, nothing really to be gained from it. it doesn't make for sexy headlines on fox news. unglamorous. >> sorry to interrupt, but what release apprised me in your book was you saying that a lot of policy staff had been reduced with a great increase in pr. >> glad you mentioned that because one of the pioneers of this in 2009 was a young congressman from indiana named mike pence. i believe you may have heard of him.

he's now vice president and i think he's one of these guys that said in 2009 let's not worry so much about hiring staffers working on governing, let's instead hire people who will get us on television and on talk radio and help prepare talking points and focus on social media and so on dead so on. this is a pivotal moment for the party. they just had their hats handed to them in 2008, 2006. one would like to think they would taking stock of their priorities set of focusing on governing they are focused on media and i think that sets the stage for among other things the rise of donald trump because over the course of the obama era they became less and less engage on policymaking and took mike pence's advice and hired fewer policymaking staff and more press staff to open the doors were someone like donald trump in which they didn't care. >> what is chicken and what's

egg with donald charles-- trump i mean the national outgrowth of this work you know is he just sort of taking advantage of this -- this and you know he's just trump. >> from my perspective, i think he is the natural outgrowth of the party that stopped caring about governing in 2009 and saw an opening. he was able to land on fertile soil because 2009 to 2015 or so the party had given up so completely on the data the substance of policymaking matters and along comes donald trump basically saying he agrees , the personification of this i did that governing details doesn't matter. web matters is a celebrities and rallies and what's going to be fun and exciting and theatrical and so he was able to take advantage of this opportunity.

by then it was too late he and his rallies were taking over the party before the party knew what was going on. >> you know, one of the things that also among so many that just bowled me over at the rallies was the way in which-- first of all wherever he is like if he was in dallas then there would be you know ted cruz would be there, rick perry would be there, texas secretary of state and the whole gop texas delegation and then valid people would be there and doesn't matter whether it was kentucky, mississippi, whatever and that he would-- first of all, was surprised those people would be there and that so many of them and then he would take those people in the middle of his speech and sort of applause--

pause and he would introduce them. he would introduce them by telling-- always a story about them and about how he beat them like ted cruz you know how he-- you know had ted cruz was this debate champion of princeton and harvard and he'd donald was this working-class guy from queens who had never been on a debate. like i play baseball and yet-- and then he debated ted cruz and he crushed him, i mean, he humiliated him in the insane that ted cruz is like literally below donald trump at the time and you know there are 22000 people laughing and screaming with him. it's not done in a vacuum. and so i had the sense that you know when we are talking about

the party as a whole that he's holding the rallies are way of-- they are-- they are all about power and they are this mechanism by which he dangles people in front of the crowd and he says i can give this to you. i can give you 22000 people, but i can take it away. is mine to take it away and it reached a crescendo in new hampshire, my last rally whenever sony people, i mean, this whole court in this memory of you know some description of his court and you know so just trying to think back on the gop has a whole like now kind of wrenching them back into his own into that even more of that place of fantasy and make-believe.

>> cohead. >> sorry to reappear in interrupt. it's just that we have about 15 minutes left and i wanted to make sure we have time for the audience q&a. we have a few questions, so i will begin with the first one from ceara. what will happen to people whose primary loyalty to a particular person when that person is no longer the leader? do they redirect to a new leader or do they do something else, in essence a she's asking what becomes of crohn's space should biden win. >> that's like the million-dollar question. i don't know. what happens? i mean, you have all these people and if trump loses, i don't see the right-wing ecosphere you know from fox news

to go eight and-- o8 and in people in them, i don't-- and saying this is all conspiracy, i don't see them going away so what happens? i don't know. it's a really profound questions. >> i agree with that. we were talking earlier and teasing me about being optimistic and it's hard to be optimistic when we realize we don't know where those folks will go. there's no reason to think any less conservative. i don't think they will abandon their far right ideas and i think the consequence of that is there will be that much more difficult to the party to reform , for the barley-- party to move away from its current post policy status to a more governing structure because they won't have any sense of how to do that in the absence of their leader, so it's cause for concern. >> you know you can't talk about

something a less you agree on a standard. a pound is 16 ounces and if we both agree on that, but if i think a pound is 16 ounces and you think a pound is 28 ounces, what can you do? i don't know. >> i would say the follow-up question is from mitch would be, what would happen should trump when in his base basically gets free reign to his authoritarian influence? >> i think-- i wish i-- great question and i wish i had an equally good answer and the problem is the party is no longer governing on not taking policy seriously in the policies that need addressing current

being solved so if trump wins i think we see the same problem magnified because it's not as if they will look at a victory-- [inaudible] we were talking earlier about responding to incentives and at that point the incentive to change it disappears. at will become worse. it will be the same problem times 10. carl, would you agree? >> yeah, i mean, i think trump has a fundamental urge to authoritarianism, i mean, he's not a man who knows history or the constitution or the believes in any of those things, i mean, it's clear he doesn't. when you watch him in the rallies, and really that's what my book is all about. in the end, it's this personality, this big forceful personality who has to kind of killed to survive. you know, the most loyal subject is the dead subject, and that's

a metaphor, i mean, he's not killing people literally, but he has to win. he has to triumph. we see that with him, with the post office, with the ballots, i mean, he will-- he-- he doesn't want to lose. it's fundamentally like impossible for him to lose. you know, for years unleashed, he has-- there are no guard rails. i think it's a very very frightening place. >> i just have one quick thought on that. carl is right. trump is preoccupied with the fear of defeat, but unlike normal president this not because he wants to work on his agenda in the next four years. he has this list of things he was to accomplish for these governing goals he's eager to implement to help the country. it's about him. he wants to win because of trump

>> sociopaths via a typical president ryan for reelection talks about the things he or she is eager to do with another four-year spirit we don't hear any of that because donald trump doesn't care. that's the central thesis behind my book. >> i think so and it's illuminating. everyone should read it. >> i would say the follow-up question to that is from liz who asks:-- sorry, the follow-up question would be from dana who would say: outside of the pandemic, what do you recommend would be the first steps that the biden administration takes to address the eruption of government we have seen over the past few years? >> these questions are hard. i think the first thing that came to my mind is a personnel change it guy think right now

donald trumps been in a position where he and his team have tried to fundamentally change the nature of how federal government works including people who aren't qualified to be there in part because of their own professional background and impart because they don't really know what there are doing and impart because they are sycophantic in their affection for trump, but they aren't in a position to govern effectively once he's gone, so i think one of biden's challenges will be overhauling all the agencies and governments in next agencies responsible for governing putting people in positions who are capable and care about evidence and data because right now it's not just a question of the individual issue. it's about the governmental structure that will be in a position to deal with those issues and so i think that one of the first challenges for the biden administration is a

personnel challenge, i mean, finding the right people and putting them in positions of authority. >> you know, i will just say i think this sort of speaks to the earlier question, you know and this may be my own little-- [inaudible] he could it wish it away and you know it's exposed smoke engineers in this upside down world than night fantasize that were biden to become elected in democrats take the senate there would be returned to some confidence and relatively quickly that people see that like things are working, you know that, gets better because covid is being addressed, you know, in a constant way and so

that sort of pains the dragon little bit. i don't know. >> related question would be from liz who ask: do democrats play any role in allowing republicans to-- [inaudible] >> i think democrats are in a difficult position when it comes to republicans because they are not just offering different answers. they are asking different questions. it's something i talk about in my book because and karl was talking in this a few minutes ago how there's no real common ground to build on and so i think the democrats when they sit at the negotiating table they are talking past republicans who have been talking pass them because they aren't speaking the same language. republicans are not overly concerned about things like data and evidence and expertise and

authority so as a consequence i don't know democrats necessarily ceding ground, but they aren't able to necessarily communicate in a way republicans care about because democrats care about republican-- governing and republicans don't. that causes a breakdown in which the democrats were in a position to do something about that, but they are not. they can't simply convince republicans they care or stay here are the facts, join us. democrats aren't in a position to do that because republicans don't care. they are not a governing party right now so i would love to blame democrats more for this, but at this point i don't think there's anything they can do responsibly to kind of bring republicans back to some kind of normalcy. carl, what you think? >> well, i mean, from my perspective having hung out and

spend a lot of time with people with trump people and especially essentially white non- college-educated working-class men and women, you know, i mean, i think there is a level at which the democrats need to talk to them and biden needs to speak to them and speak to their anxiety, i mean, they have genuine anxiety whether-- i think they failed-- you know, i think a lot of white working-class people have had a lot of privilege in a lot of ways and they had taken that privilege for granted and it's slipping away in a lot of ways and that's not their fault, but still they are feeling those feelings there feeling that vertigo and they don't feel like anyone is really addressing it

and you know, which is ironic in a way because-- but another issue and you know trump right in and says i'm going to make the world great again and i'm going to make it white again and you know so you can make a good living with your hands and you don't have to go to college and you'll have to worry about all those smart chinese people went smart indonesians and smart brazilians who are working like americans and bob loblaw-- bob loblaw and i really haven't seen that happen and that worries me a little bit. >> so, on that note, strictly lighter question which is if we were to take a look at separate parties and actually look at the basis of the democrats and republicans, what is it that unites them?

[laughter] carl? >> well, i mean, it's terrible the way things are right now. because of this book i'm trying to be on twitter a lot in tweeting and like some guy called me a marxist sock puppet yesterday and that vitriol is intense and what unites us come everything unites us. we love our children. we love our families, you know, we-- we love sitting around in the evenings with our friends. we have hopes and dreams and aspirations, i mean, you know this is the birth-- first book i've never done about america and americans. my last book you know, i hung out with nomads and before that i spent months living in a 10000 square miles swamp, you know with former headhunters and the reason i was able to do that is

because we are all the same, you know, so we have all these commonalities and the reason i was able to hang out with the trump people, i mean, i like them i like spending time with them in a weird odd way but we couldn't really talk about politics because somehow you know that's the nature of social media in the right wing ecosphere in particular fox that is driven this and hasn't been helped by russia and all these things you know driven this way and trump i meantrump is the great divider and that's his whole thing. if he tried to unite everyone he would just collapse, so you know the reality is i think we have everything in common. we have everything we share and we-- more in common than-- then, then not and it's a matter of

people refocusing on that and exhaling a little bit and being able to have conversations and you know-- >> i agree with that enthusiastically. i think if you ask a thousand americans what is important to you you would see broad consensus, portable health care, air, clean water. despite the divisions we all want the same stuff. we have a great deal in common with people they disagree with, but they want the same things to have the same benefits and disagree on how they get there and-- it ties back into governance and policy making, but i take some comfort in the fact that in terms of priorities there's more we agree on than we disagree on. >> i think there is fertile ground for people i mean the way i think that's why biden has a chance and that's why he's doing

as well as he is because he's kind of just this generic figure in a way or perceived as kindly generic figure around which people can kind of rally and hug anyway and he-- because so many people believe in the same thing or value the same thing. >> unfortunately, we only have time for one last question, so from dana again for a different dana, perhaps. we have the question him: where do you think america will be in five years? >> at the risk of having carl tease me i'm an internal optimist and i think that in five years my hope is that we will be in a better place, obviously. coronavirus will be a thing of the past i would like to think

and i think that economy bill-- will be stronger. i want to believe there will be a window of opportunity for real governance to take place and we will slowly but surely move in the direction in the five years. carl, tell me how wrong i am. >> i don't know. what i will say is that where we are in five years depends upon what happens in november, and you know the two choices represent you know starkly different paths, i believe. deeply starkly different. so-- yeah. >> thank you both so much for a fantastic conversation. both of your books are available for sale. i have a dropped a link into the chat. >> can i say one thing? and i'm always a little embarrassed to say this, but by the books. that's why we are here.

>> amen. >> that's how we make our living -- how i make my living. i'm not getting paid to do this. all selling books, so buy a book, buy them for your friends and relatives and thank you all so much for coming in. thank you strand and thank you steve. >> thank you everyone and have a good night. >> tonight on the tv and prime time, democratic senator jon tester of montana offers his thoughts on how democrats can reconnect with little america. former second lady lynne cheney chronicles the leadership up for the 51st presidents who hailed from the state of virginia. former cia director john brennan talks about his life and career. donald trump junior discusses what he calls liberal privilege and poet and playwright claudia rankin shares her thoughts on an open dialogue about whiteness and privilege in america.

that begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern find more information on your program guide or online at book tv.org. recently on our weekly author interview program afterwards offered his thoughts on what he calls the new face of socialism. >> i identify and try to diagnose, if you will, a new socialism, identity socialism, which is a marriage of classic socialism and identity politics. think of classic socialism has essentially a strategy of marxian division between the rich and the poor. it's a class divide. for the modern american socialist left the divide in society is that, but it's not just that. it's also a race divide, black against white. it's a gender divide, mail against female. it's a sexual orientation divide straight against gay.

and a transgender. it's also an immigration divide, legal against illegal, so one may sail while marx is trying to carve out society into two groups the left is trying to divide society into many different-- across many different lines. why are they doing this? because they think that if we divide society in these 82 different ways, we can assemble the majority coalition of a greed victim groups that can come together and then sort of take on everyone else. they are trying to get to 51% in the firm belief democracy itself will then legitimize them looting and oppressing the other 49%. this is what they call democratic socialism appeared to me it's a form of gangsterism. >> the new book is "the united states of socialism" is our website book tv.org and click on the afterwards tab to view this in upper-- other episodes.

♪ >> you're watching book tv on 672-- c-span2. c-span2, created by america's cable-television company as a public service. .. all "afterwards" programs available as podcasts. >> lou dobbs, before we start on this rec f