>> today we're up to you to reliable tv viewers of the public service . >> weeknights we are featuring tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span2. tonight we look congressional biographies and memoirs rid editor john mccain's former speechwriter mark salter shares his thoughts on the life of the late senator. then "time magazine" national political correspondent volleyball discusses the career of us are nancy posey later the republican representative gates was movement forward in .: 30 p.m. eastern. enjoy tv this week and every weekend on c-span2. >> good afternoon, i'm john fortier, director of governmental study icons and thank you for joining us in

our virtual event here for a reason, the release of a new book, the book is "fight house: rivalries in the white house from trumanto trump" . author, tevi troy, will be joined by him as well as kiron skinner. start by introducing our guests and we are going to talk a little bit and we're looking forward to having you ask questionsas well . the reason i'm excited about this book but also on our guest is a rare thing to be good public service and to the person of action and he's also it's a rare thing to be a scholar and the excellent at the study of something. tevi troy kiron skinner to the table. kiron skinner was someone who works in many places in public service from the congress to departments, department of labor department of hhs but also

importantly at the white house which is what these books are about where this book several other books. is also a list author was written in addition to this he is on the, he has these intellectuals in the house as well as emergency preparedness in the white house. and the use of social media by presidents so i hope you'll take the time to listen but also think about buying this book, "fight house: rivalries in the white house from truman to trump". we got fourth of july coming up obscure presidents birthdays this summer. anytime is a good one for loved ones the presidency. kiron skinner is also a person of action and of scholarly repute. she is someone who's worked most recently in the white house or in the state department as director of policy and planning, serving a number of other white house administrations in advisory the rules as well as the

presidential campaign is also the toby professor and director of the institute of politics and strategy at carnegie mellon university where she studies the presidency, he's written books on ronald reagan foreign policy as well so we really have a great lineup today. going to do is jump into the meat of the book. we want you to get a little sense from the key points and i want to turn to chiron to hear some of her thoughts. we will have conversation then turn to you and i want to mention now a couple of other times, i do come to you for questions, we have a number of ways of getting in touch with is to submit questions in the comment section . also, with the youtube chat function finally on twitter at ubc live so we will look for your questions. let's begin. this is a book that you've written extensively on the white house.

what i like about the book is course, personalities conflict and important advisors in the hospital about the presidency and the white house itself. it says a lot about how the institution has grown so my first question is you point out that over the period were talking about going after fdr the white house has become a much bigger institution. it has more staff, it's more prominent. yet advisors there are often many younger secretaries but they often have your of the president so us a little about the growth of the white house, its relation to the cabinet if you can, with the many examples you have in the book a few of them, just to give us a sense of what so those conflicts inthe area where . >> thank you thanks to kiron skinner for doing this. is really as you said about the growth of the white house staff, growth of the office and many people don't realize

it but before the fdr and ministration, we didn't have a house staff per se. people sometimes say what about nikolai kane or the truth is presidents may have had secretary or to, you called around the commission this brown location at a famous forward conclusion was the president needs help forward conclusion led to the creation of the executive office of the president which has now about 800 people. those 1800 are career staffers who serve administration in their 3400 are what we would traditionally got as white house staffers those are the people we directly to our younger and happy at what i call proxy, president they're not necessarily a person with that delegated authority. however, they are very close to the president, often just

a secondary was in charge of the area was on you fighting against the white house. the first to present our training at eisenhower these guys are the first two presidents to start in the white house staff so that anybody want to create their white house staff and how they want to structure in both of them. our were believers in cabinet . if you have canada government is that the cabinet officers are in charge of the areas the white house staff is can help the president, the guidebook is the cabinet officers who are setting policy and tell officers came to him with problems he said it's your area, you handle it . i said, i do in the white house: instances where you have cabinet secretaries buying has white house staffers or people who seemed to be delegated by the president in a way that was different from what the county government would seem

to entail one story in ministration is true and was basically he would issue whether it was recognized, today it's not such controversial proposition. but at the time it was a day? for us policy and most of the national security establishment was against it including george marshall was not only a war hero but secondary estate and truman was revered more than anyone else in public life. truman you he wasn't hearing the other side of the issue so he decided: at the time a white house aide to make the case are recognizing israel and his white house meeting or he would be running against marshall. marshall was not interested in having this junior white house a way the present no. truman backed up clifford and he said he's here because i have to me be here, clifford mexican in the us does recognize israel marshall was so angry he lost his argument

he again spoke clifford under his name the rest of his life . one quick story in the eisenhower administration is john foster dulles with the secretary of state and we have is frequent secretary of state and white house people and eisenhower decided to bring in hell, foreign minister a donor to the negotiator on armistice with the soviets and the new york times had a lot of editorials about stassen when he came on board: the secretary of peace . the skirt foster dulles who said what to make me, the secretary for war he was constantly trying to undercut staff and eventually demanded to get rid even with these two residents who really believed in god, and often had these people who were designated by the president sometimes run afoul of the secretary create some tension. >> so another scene that you address is how the president

has centralized authority or not within his white house area residents wanted to have a chief of staff, a strong chief of staff, and who all things we go through that person and others in quantity. at all or wanted a very loose operation, sometimes referred to as the spokes on the wheel where many people have access to the president . about organization of the white house and how it affected some of the conflicts youhighlight in the book ? >> i'm glad you mentioned chief of staff people assume that chief of staff was always there and the first one was is under a have this back and forth over the next three or four and ministration but it wasn't clear that chief of staff is going to be areferring physician in white house hierarchy . after our, you have kennedy who did what he said, the spokes on the wheel and not have to chief of staff.

johnson followed them also did not have the staff probably hr holden as chief of staff is a very kind and furious fellow and then the subsequent administration at reaction against nixon and the imperial presidency you first have four chief of staff, it was donald rumsfeld but he didn't want to call him chief of staff, the holden staff coordinator jimmy carter want to have to chief of staff that led to all kinds of challenges so ministration to have a chief of staff, relatively around the in is a strategist and chief of staff and working well and actually jackson becomes chief of staff he was the guy is with house in jordan during the campaign. 1976 because watson was in charge of the transition all the campaign people like you see today, even in the modern era all the campaign people were worried they were going to their job.

so watson eventually becomes chief of staff is pretty good, so much so that when ronald reagan wins the next watson and he says to him from what i hear, if you this position earlier not be in this position right now meeting carter had gone with chief of staff early on human and presidency may have term so there's a chief of staff's role. under ministration you have your is widely regarded as the best chief of staff never once he comes in and he does a really good job and he's doing what chief of staff does, you basically have to chief of staff in every administration so that doesn't mean there are problems. don regan replaced jim baker as chief of staff who is not nearly as effective and did not get along nearly as well with mrs. reagan. in fact during the iran-contra scandal you hangs up on mrs. reagan when she's telling him to do something what to do. jim baker was the chief of staff years about this and

he's hanging up on the first lady, he says that's not a firing offense, the wealth on reagan was a tank he was fired a month after that so that chief of staff can help quell conflict the sametime sometimes gets involved in conflict . >> if i ask you to give advice to a president, an incoming president especially with respect to how you deal with conflict in the white house, is it a famous adversary? is it good to have a little? does it thatpresident is ? is your four of president really to be able to run a white house well knowing there are these drawn conflicts that you detail in the book some examples from the book the great. >> yes sir. in "fight house" continue. on one side you have no conflict in the johnson

nutrition, johnson didn't want to hear avoice in opposing voices on vietnam . he silenced he tries to raise drilling voices and there were people at the state department comfortable with the vietnam policy they formed a group to discuss alternative policy outcomes were so nervous that johnson might find out about this they call themselves the nongroup and secretly johnson would be aware take revenge on it. so that is way too much conflict version. and on the other hand you have to much conflict in this aspect you have afforded ministration and you kind of have a mild uncontrolled white house and you have people leaking to the press people not able to trust one another before ministration was like this because everyone thinks jerry ford was a nice guy and he was nice to his niceness precluded him from taking

steps to control so i specifically was guiding her was a friend of words, you were before he became president to must be very thin-skinned and egocentric fellow and in fact his nickname in the white house was the joke that stands for sweet old also we know that he did as well. for was very reluctant to jewel our department did these shenanigans like you with controlled inbox from his office is the room to the old also share a bathroom which is an unusual breach of protocol so what you like controlling and is also in the box he didn't like calling out and feed it to you as you wasn't his, split into the presidential going through the steps. this is really manageable and in fact, they decided they had to do something about and

gerald ford was close to martin and he want to do anything but happy chief of staff regarding cheney who had become chief of staff presidential history cheney was assigned to only deal with our problem one thing he did was he was next to the old. he worked as a your friends but what he did say was mister president, you need room for contemplation of the issues of the day read constantly. so you didn't stay in the white house he no longer had always aware he was being so, so sometimes need to take steps are not necessarily what the president is willing to articulate words. i would say in continuum went

to extreme chaos somewhere in the middle is a comfortable zone sometimes you have to president was willing to have survived little chaos or engender a little chaos in order to get better results stories of the uses the midterm election in 1994 because his staff knows he's alternative voices. brings in advisor charlie, charlie with dick morris was a lost angle consultants to residents but also had consultant. charlie brings in these memos are trying to drift quentin back toward the center is install light eventually find out charlie we get to the press and to the new yorker dick morris is advising people like this, george was the girl he who are more liberal white house aides are going to have her tongs entire time is in the white house was excellent by way,

or he talks about how much he dislikes morris the end quentin by bringing in the force that a result of his staff. sometimes the president is there are edits to fostering a little chaos in order to get better. >> 's and i think you get a pretty good sense of self. there's a lot more is certainly more reason togo out and buy a book . i'm going to do two things, sort of turns you kiron skinner but first i want to remind you to come to you later for questions depends on how you do that, you can submit your questions and comments do so in the usual function so twitter handle ddc lot. so you have also experience in scholarly work in this area but for some brought up a book and if you want to

share some of your experiences in the trunk or reagan administration, we will. >> to all bipartisan center for doing this book and for the work you do across the political divide. together, to talk about these policy issues the book to me is just a great demonstration of what you stand for and believe it. he's looking at democrats and republicans the house, how they address scholarly way, not making judgments along ideological. being said i would to ask tevi troy's comments on the malls he sets up his analysis . he greeted factors is work as he white house. one, he talked about ideological fights. he was is also in

administrative decision making process. and finally he talks about just the broader category of infighting. tevi if you could take a higher and say which variable as the best outcome for public policy in the white house. i like to just start there. i think that's a fascinating way of looking phrasing what goes on in thehouse . relatedly, i'm interested as you mentioned as i know that many of us are old enough to remember the amazing columns we waited for what they were going to say next before the scoop what you think about the role of leaking and leaders in public policy process. do they do something that's important for outcomes that are or are they just a nuisance to a corrupt and

corrode and destroy the democratic process. those are two big areas to have a conversation about. >> you for your careful reasoning for your scholarship over the years. you correctly note i have three lovers in. conflict number one is ideological conflict area you have a team, you do have a team that gets along ideologically, you are going to see this play because they generally agree in an ideological way. number two if you have a process whereby people voices heard and have their thoughts expressed to the president, you have a fair process and are more likely to walk in the discussion as president decided, i had my chance to accept this as the

president's policy judgment for his presidential power. president is willing to seek more inviting, is tolerant of i will have more. president thinks i don't want to see obama is no: unit clear he did not want to see inviting blackouts and there's a great story i have a somewhat political, much was written about her she wrote a blistering email to many of the white house staff planning of the way she was treated she was upset somebody, offered is the office, that's not unusual because the person of the president he says there, you set she was shocked at the present even bother going about an email she was sending was a clear signal. i want to see this partnership.

so those three lovers president has to control they so desire . which one have enough policy result, it's hard to say. ideological alignment is helpful because they know the president will go with you for example, units and even though it was, you written rule so phrase, you can meeting people knew where you want to go so even though people might have fought over or stature, where they were going in general policy direction one. he and his vision which i worked in the george w. bush ministration process these extremely important will decide anyway what was the process, so went around process. process is important mental powers also tone so you force me to write them the process

first i also, with respect to your question about the press, i think the press plays an important role. we need to have a process that lets us know what's going on we know about buying a house today and we did in previous eras in part because you correctly noted with each that i look at in both, and looked up to see if no phones on the resource of other scholarly work i was doing i had found. the publisher of this book is this guy named alex novak i think he liked i was looking at his father's files and he's in the preface to the book so the press plays an important role but there are people who take advantage of

the press they will leak against their colleagues they may move policy by the process leak tothe press . the president decides policy x but i was in favor of policy why kind of so is helpful. in the administration i was on the domestic side of not only was it a relatively weak free fishing, the reporters complained that there are not enough leaks coming from the information i have a stream of quotes in the book reporters complaining about the absence of leaks from the administration i think that leads to cooperating better you don't feel with utterance is going to show up in thenew york times or washington post . >> kiron, can i get you to ask some more, maybe talk a little bit early retirement from administration for your studies in the estrogen . tevi obviously doesn't cover

as much about trump that is new some of your thoughts, maybe tevi interact with what you're thinking along these lines . >> absolutely. tevi, utah companion is a we understood ray was in charge from ideological policy standpoint. but you also note that we had numerous national security advisers. there was a turn in the house, every 14 months or so over your period, there was a new national security advisor so there was a tension between his ideology which is committed to and everyone knew. his ability to have a process of the white house work. i studied reagan found fascinating i've often wondered how the president many national security advisers have historic

breakthrough in the cold war he did., in december 1987, the washington summit went to the first nuclear disarmament treaty of what was then the for your cold war. could you how reagan something that history done in the midst of having new faces, not just a national security downstream. the people underneath each man coming out. the lord that you did? >> national security advisor position was relatively right after eight those early on in the process i hope wonderful story in the book because jim baker was chief of staff fever was deputy chief of staff. try to keep him on motorcade

off air force one of the public staying in and hesaid, however, the white house . 42-year-old deputy chief of staff dresses up in a gorilla costume . sing on baker's gorilla. it's just astounding to me and i cannot imagine in an era of cell phones andwhere somebody do something .so a goes relatively quickly and george schultz comes in which is an excellentsecretary of state clear sense of what you want . yours and i think the stability family health. the thing is this idea that the idea of written rules. if you have any sense of what the president wants, then you are more likely to have these interchange know the direction in which the president is trying to go. and then the person who succeeded reagan was george w. bush there you have much more rules between the more

conservative staffers more moderate staffers to push himself was a little less clear about his positions. he said he had trouble with division of labor so what president is, you're not clear where they're going to go, it's hard . >> the related to that, john. my, i want to say that sometimes it's difficult if you've already referred to this i like detroit more tevi on this point. often difficult white house is largely cohesive on rebate variables you mentioned to get the work that they want done chaos and easy going on. and related, powerful cabinets. to disagree with the president. i think we've seen that in the 12 ministration may affect much of the 12 story so far.

can you give us some historical examples may help be a corrective to what ministration experienced indeed you agree what i just described mark. >> it's certainly clear that some of my best stories in firehouse are between the national security advisor secretaries of state in the next ministration for example . and because was national security advisor it's hard to remember now because we see him as a kind of aged group of gurus starting with on foreign policy and was very young, very aggressive, very thin skin. really to be sure he was possibly i was the secretary state in the nixon administration is going back to the eisenhower ministration and close personal friends and yet interbrand rings around water because nixon allowed because nelson recognized as billions

learned from on foreign policy whereas rogers really have nothing to teach nixon who himself was strategist came to foreign policy so sometimes you have this situation where the national security advisor runs rings around the state this issue of the car ministration where there's fighting between brezinski and sign with the secretary of state. these guys knew each other before the administration even have dinner night of the election talked about how the prospect of them working to in the first day of the car ministration, brezinski prequalification console and he's full this race from the state brezinski shots yet, pointing this is secretary of state phone, not for on the first day of the ministration he was already way markers was going to be secretary of

state sometimes you can have a relationship works better so in the next ministration, i talked about how james selections are what the secretary of defense and he put with solicitors and indiana bureaucratic standing to be able to against kissinger and he was much more effective has the secretary of defense rogers was the secretary of state because he kind of scared off kissinger. just a bit of bureaucratic bully the police so that people who is also now, people are pushing to a college you can stand your ground honestly not sure you can show that you value process and you're not going to be powered by someone with these shenanigans youcan go far in the process . >> i think we want to go

audience questions. i'm going to remind you more if you submit comments section of facebook, you can use you to function or twitter with ddc live. we have a number of questions in already want to start with one from ej. that is what role do vice presidentsplay in creating or disarming conflict ? that will change presidency on more of an active role? >> you for the question thank you for your excellent baseball comcast which items into regularly. the vice president does play an important role but doesn't necessarily have to play role because the vice president really ask in some ways as a result the president, he gets as much power as president grandson this same circumstance in lbj jfk ministration's.

lyndon johnson is the vice president under john f. kennedy . the attorney general is kenny's brother who hates johnson and hated him fromthe day they were both in the senate and he is a staffer johnson is a senator . and robert f kennedy is constantly trying to demean lyndon johnson and we can his role and robert f kennedy was the most powerful person outside the president in the kennedy and ministration in his first thousand days but then you have this tragic circumstance where kennedy is assassinated and suddenly the vice president is elevated to the presidency and now rfk, robert f kennedy is working for a president who hates him and in fact there is a big screaming fight that they have any oval office shortly after johnson is inaugurated right after the first cabinet meeting they don't talk for two months after that which is not unusual, i'm sure everybody in the audience has not talked for two months in

this weird period but rfk is as of time when he's not talking to the president for two months. so sometimes you have a president giving certain powers to the vice president that they have in one in ministration and not in the other and i also point out hubert humphrey was lbj's vice president and you would think you might have learned from the experience he had to maybe be nicer and more effusive with his president hubert humphrey on the opposite was the case. he was as belittling of humphrey as the kennedypeople were of johnson . then in later years as dj points out the vice president becomes more powerful and if you look at my chapter on the bush 43 and ministration obviously dickcheney who i mentioned earlier is deputy chief of staff , he is very involved in the clash of the titans between secretary rice , first national security advisor and then you have: powell at the state

department, donald rumsfeld defense cheney i mentioned earlier the longer very well. foreign policy was rife with weeks vice president wanted no part so i think the vice president, i've not really seen it relating to a situation where the vice president was able to camp down conflict but the vice president sometimes are involved . >> we have a lot of questions coming in so i'll try to throw as many as we can. 80 we can keep it short or get more of them. i wonder if we can win, if you're watching tevi answer the question, have you share your wisdom as well. i have a question here from gabby which is white house had thebiggest fights

actually impacted the execution of policy ? >> i like to go with the ford administration on that. the ford administration was paralyzed by the infighting in these instances with robert hartman but you had presidential addresses, really state of the union that would not get resolved because of some of the infighting and there's one instance where the night before the state of the union for his yelling and his staff because they had resolved all the conflict in the state of the union and there's a great story in the department is thinking of ways to celebrate the bicentennial . >> training. >> ..

but then in these pre- computer era they use the code and he either ends up not knowing whose paper belong to which scholar sometimes these things cannot only paralyze you because you're fighting with others but the fact it can be used to protect yourself can rebound against yourself. >> i actually would like to jump in with a question before we move on. this is a little bit of a different question but relates to the issue of leaking. when you think that they were the high watermark. [audio difficulties] but in this era we have technology and social media where many people are weighing in and you have amended if any journalistic background but we have also government officials going to various individual and

leaking important information. what you think about that tevi? you're seeing this especially in the trump administration where there is the attempt to smear and destroy people who are serving honorably and is leading to a lot of turnover? >> yeah, good question about leaking but in the book there's a constant rate of technology so as technology has improved the leaking so do these technologies improve for chasing down the leaks. in the johnson administration, he asked the white house operators to report to him on who white house staffers were colleen and joe to try to identify leakers and similarly the motor pool to report to him on where white house staffers were being taken by the army drivers who drive around so presidents are always trying to

get a handle on leaks in fact in the nixon administration they used a plumbers unit that led to watergate and nixon's eventual resignation. they called the plumbers because they were designed to stop leaks. they broke into the watergate hotel because of the paper but the reason they started and the reason they had that nickname is because they stopped leaks. there's a cat and mouse game between the administration and staffers on the leaking issue and i think that will only be technologies for leaking and there always be technologies for identifying who the leakers are and i really think the best way to address it is to have the president set the standard and make it clear that they will not tolerate this behavior and bring in people who are willing to not be leaking against one another. that said i don't want suggested that all leaking is evil because sometimes the president or administration will put out and

talk about a policy they are thinking about her personnel. a leak is not necessarily designed to destroy but sometimes it's designed to get a policy some sunshine and air so you can assess whether it would be treated well or reacted too well by the markham people so the word leak as these negative connotations and it's not always the case. >> return it to another audience question. i will note that if you look carefully at tevi's screen not only is "fight house"'s current book but his other books, wake the president and intellectual of the white house are displayed behind him. many feel the need to buy more than one of these books. i will turn to a question from russell newsom. that question begins with a comment i agree with. "fight house" is a truly great book, the modern presidency in the book gets into this but i would like to hear the author discuss whether these emanate

more from personality or from policy. >> great question and he's a former white house staffer so personality is obviously an issue. kylie kissinger was a sharp skinned fellow but a person like robert who i described in the other administration but sometimes these people would try to put the policies of so in the reagan administration you had ed who was a true conservative advisor to reagan very close to reagan but did not get the chief staff job because he was disorganized and his briefcase was known as a place for papers go in and never come out so they called it the black hole but the only object in the nickname is as briefcase in the cold of the

leak case. they would find their way with james baker but unilaterally stepped out of the fighting in that he said i will not leak because leaking against baker was not only but also for the president and sometimes they have a higher stand for what they accomplish from a policy perspective and they say i will not necessarily leak but i will do what i can to help the administration unilaterally disarming so i think personalities and you can't have these without personality but and then on the policy side if you have strong disagreements about policies and direction you will be fighting personality and consistency is a variable. >> good, another question and actually i think we should [inaudible] this is from herbert

and the question is what are factors that have contributed to successful relationships between a given chief of staff and cabinet secretary? >> it's a question because the chief of staff on one level sees himself as a primary comparison above everyone else but at the same time he doesn't necessarily have cabinet rank. [audio difficulties] sometimes the chief will get ahead of themselves so donna reagan who i mentioned earlier and without him nancy reagan said he's pretty good at the chief part but does not get the staff and i think the way to make sure they get along is to try to locate the stent that they're all on the presidents team and that there is an equivalent ability to access and one of the reasons that donna regan wanted to become chief of

staff because he was treasury secretary he never had a one-on-one time alone with president reagan and so if you keep the cabinet secretary isolated from the president i think that will hurt you as a chief of staff because there's a feeling were isolating president and not letting them have the facetime they need in order to get a sense of the policies in order to get stuff done. chief of staff needs to be an inclusive player and i saw this with andy in the bush white house and he really recognize the importance of the cabinet secretary with the need to pull them into the process and i think that's a good model for how to have the cabinet secretaries. probably helped that he himself was a secretary of transportation so he knew about the issue. >> let me speak on that question based on what tevi said from the standpoint of the trump administration. again, and administration that

has had a lot of turn in the white house, not just at the nationals agree to counsel but also in the role of chief of staff. what i have been able to affirm is that both in the chief of staff which has become so critical for the modern america presidency i don't see how a president could survive without a chief of staff. given the sheer amount of operational activities that the white house is responsible for in any given day but the common factor i think that leads to a great chief of staff that may have been missing in the trump administration has been prior relationship is that individual has commander-in-chief and a lot of what we are seen in the trump administration is that it's a collection of people who really do not know donald trump when they came to serve him. either in the cabinet or as

chief of staff or as national security adviser. that's a hard place to be. it is hard to build a relationship in real time and often when you are that close to the president the more than you have prior history the more i think the trust is there and if you've been in the trenches before either in the campaign or in some other phase of life and we are seeing in this time a collection of people who are serving a president where they really don't know him very well and he doesn't know them very well. tevi, i don't know if you want to respond to that based on your research. >> i think you raised an important point which is the sense that the president has the most trust in the people and also have this appellation attached and built in or reagan with a california or carter had the georgia mafia and it's not

necessarily mafia in the bob sense but people who are with him before and if you're president, anyone you meet as president is someone inherently you have to have some level of distrust of because they want to talk to you and they talk to you because there president and. [audio difficulties] for people who knew you when really have the closest to you that add value to it. that's why talked earlier about bob who was close to ford and he was close before he was president and vice president and the honesty that comes inherent in that relationship is extremely important for the level of trust the president can put. >> okay, i will remind the audience that we have more time and so if you would like to submit a question do so in the comment section of facebook or on the youtube function or on twitter and another question here, this comes from peter and that is proper structure and

process usually provides the outcomes desire but when a president does not care about either what are the alternatives for better outcomes? >> what, as i said earlier process and structure is important so it is hard to beat that. you don't have process and you don't have the structure you will have problematic outcomes. that said, if you have a clear direction you can over come some process by everyone knowing where you are trying to go. question is if you don't have a good process and you don't have clarity of direction that's what can lead to chaos. i think it's a really good question but process is boring and dull but it's incredibly important for getting things done and also not a partisan thing. the white house policy process is a owner, tried-and-true tradition, the goes from administration to administration

perfectly in line with the theory of the bipartisan policy center that there are certain structures of government that we should maintain and adhere to regardless of the ideology or parts of nature of the administration so let me just. [audio difficulties] >> could i follow up with maybe get you to talk a little bit more about the reagan administration and reagan administration famously had a triumvirate, three people at the top and as described it seems like it could have been very chaotic wasn't necessarily something you would recommend just that model on paper and the president but there was a way in which i settled in and was successful even though there was conflict so maybe you could say more about the reagan tramp rent in that process which may not have been operated the way it looked like on paper. >> i think the reason the reagan

tramp rent worked as a people late jim baker chief of staff and then you have counselor to the president and mike seaver as deputy chief of staff and the three of them worked well together because each of them had specific roles to play for jean baker chief of staff, operator, i made the trains run on time and the paper i talk in the book divvied up the roles to and baker took all the kind of logistical pieces but actually helped him run the white house effectively. he was the keeper of the ideological plane and outrage -- outreach and he would try to make sure that they did not go off the rails. baker was more moderate and seaver did not care about ideology all but he was a more image guy in the reagan image was so important and he was good at making reagan look good so because each of them had

specific roles and even though they might have thought they did not step on each other's toes in their specific areas and that's important to other think anything about the tramp rent in this book and "fight house" is the extent to which they distrusted the other so they always stuck together as a group and the other staffers knew that they could get a lot done without those three senior people bothering them if they were all going to reagan because no one wanted to have a meeting with reagan without one of the three because then reagan could say something that was detrimental to the mission and there's even a story or reagan in the hospital with three of them had to visit him at hospital altogether they cannot individual leave visit him and reagan joked that i did not know we would have a staff meeting and i think that was one of the instances in which a tension filled tramp rent was able to work in part because of reagan's management style and gay people slack and because of reagan's

clear ideological guidance but also caused the three. [audio difficulties] >> if i could add to that it wasn't clear coming into the white house that these three men would emerge as the ones that could really work together and help organize success. but what made the critical difference in the first couple of months of the administration was the fact that reagan was shot? and how they performed during that presidential crisis. remember, al ended up being outside of the community surrounding the president because of his performance especially before the press when he said i'm in charge but these men comported themselves in a way that got reported back to the president that they were respectful, dignified and collaborative. i think that presidential crisis also helped the framework of the administration and also made

george hw bush a trusted aide in a way that i think may not have happened it with the speed that it did but on the other side even with them he couldn't stop the chaos around the national security council which ultimately got us guy ron conflict scandal which almost cobbled the reagan presidency. i think sometimes leaders are great with the vision and that was reagan but even nancy reagan said that her husband was no manager and you really need the president to have both the ideological or policy direction with some ability, not complete ability but some serious ability to command and reagan was better at one than the other. >> yeah, i think that is accurate and that initial crisis

of reagan being shot was very interesting and informative. you mentioned george h to be bush at one of the things that george hob bush did was was effectively acting president but if used to have a tall helicopter land on the white house lawn during that time and that was in part of a symbolic step he saw bush wasn't trying to accrue power to himself in some certain extent and other people like david gergen was in a situation room kept excusing himself but unclear why but richard allen was a national secured advisor and he trusted him and thought he kept leaving the room to leak to the press and that's why he got the name professor leakey. >> so, were coming to the end of our hours maybe i could ask if you have a last thought you would put on the table about the book and then i will ask tevi to close it out with a final summation of whatever else has not been set. >> well, what i like about the

book in particular is that it is filled the void in presidential history and we often think of infighting in the contest of scandal after scandal and as we read these books looking for some, you know, information about a particular person we didn't know but that is not what tevi did. he took it seriously with as an intellectual exercise and as i said to him the other day, this is a book i would use with my students as i teach american politics. it really helps us understand the american form of government and what in the federalist papers they were concerned about what they were predicting and much of it occurred from the pages of tevi's book. we always have to worry about factionalism and always have to worry about even particular individuals as they corrupt the

process but tevi's book is hope because even though we have to worry about the potential to destroy the democratic process somehow in the american system of government we keep recovering, we keep courts directing and really big policy outcome and remember over the time that tevi writes the united states is the predominant power on earth and has after each president increasing the amounts of response ability for the domestic policy as more people pushed for rights for racial rights to gender to disability and that is a lot to do in a relatively small white house with a relatively small staff and despite the leaking and despite the infighting in the ideological battle and varying levels of presidential power, we still get the outcomes that make

up the world's most fully functioning multiethnic democracy. thank you, tevi for this important work. >> thank you. >> final thoughts. >> yes, thank you for participating in this and also for your kind words. i so admire your scholarship and service to this great nation. i really think you've captured what i try to get in this book because if people are human and you may look at your democrats and republicans like i don't like them but these are humans and they've got families and spouses and challenges and career concerns and they worry or will happen after the administration is out so were really trying to capture the human element in this book because of so many instances where you think of people as all-powerful person and read about in "the new york times" or washington post but these are actual real people with real lives and there's a great story i want to mention in the book in the reagan campaign of 1980

there was a lot of trouble in the campaign who was a campaign manager who systematically went after the californians and getting rid of them and i talked in the book about a confrontation that ronald reagan's house that led to him being accused of financial improprieties and some very close to the reagan's and effect to the baker said i'm able to go to the bedroom to greet the reagan's but he's allowed to go into the bathroom with them. that's to show you how close he was and when he was accused of these in proprieties he gets indignant and stormed out of the house and says if you don't want me, i quit and runs out of the house for the next minute he sheepishly walks back into the house and says you know, i forgot that my wife got me off here so i don't have a car, can i borrow nancy's station wagon to get back to the city. very human moment and here's a guy who indignantly resigned from the campaign and yet at the same moment he recognizes that

his front up with nancy would allow him to borrow her station wagon and sheepishly comes back. all kinds of human moments in the book because again, it's important that the personalities it really shape policy and shape the direction of this great country and i recognize that each president has ideological predilections and they do help change the direction you're going but also who the people are and what they're trying to accomplish in their own concern and in the obama administration there is a story of [inaudible] who suggested deputy chief of staff and she is frustrated that there aren't feminine products in the white house oval office restroom bathroom and she fixes it and says i got the blank stares from the obama staff but it happened but that was important to her and now that was the reality she brought to the role.

again, human element is incredible important and i appreciate everybody calling in and i appreciate [inaudible] and i hope they will purchase the book i look for to engaging with people in the future and thank you for allowing me to talk. >> thank you to our audience, thank you to ms. skinner and thank you presidential historian tevi troy and author of the great book we've been discussing today white house rivalries in the white house from truman to trump. ♪ >> you are watching the tv on c-span2. every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors. booktv on c-span2 created by

america's cable television company and today we are brought to you today by these television companies who provide book tv to viewers as a public service. >> weeknights this month were featuring booktv programs has a preview of what is available every weekend on c-span2. tonight we look at congressional biographies and memoirs. senator john mccain's former speechwriter and aid shares his thoughts on the life of the late senator. then time magazine national political correspondent molly ball discusses the career of house speaker nancy closely and later republican representative matt gates on how to move the populist movement forward in america. that starts at 8:30 p.m. eastern rid enjoyable tv this week and every weekend on c-span2.