to bad policy. find more information at booktv.org or consult your program guide. here is christopher elias on the history of political gossip. >> good evening welcome to the facebook page and youtube channel my name is andy the event coordinator which is an independent bookstore in minneapolis the first virtual event with us, thank you for being here into needed, it is not your first, welcome back, thank you so much for your continued support of our events program even as it switched over to the virtual event era it is been really fun talking to authors is way over the past year and we are really excited to be able to talk to authors christopher elliott and kevin

boyle were gonna be talking about chris's new book gossip men joe mccarthy, and the politics of inflation, it should be a fascinating discussion. i'm going to be putting a link to the book on the website into the chat if you're watching on facebook or youtube it'll be in the comments of the chat section. speaking of that section wherever you're watching from say hi, let us know where your tuning in from, if you have any questions please write those down you can write those down anytime of the broadcast and we will take questions towards the end of the hour and i'll be back to handle those in any time you can think of them write them down. then we will get the show on the

road, christopher is with the professor of history and american studies at the college in the american university in egypt gossip men. thanks so much for being here and we having conversation in american history northwestern university the publication include uaw of american liberalism 1945 and 1968 of images of working-class detroit 1900 - 1930 organize labor in american politics, 1894 - 1994 and art of justice the saga of race, civil rights and murder in the jazz age which received the national book award for nonfiction. the tribune and the simon center tolerance book award.

kevin, thank you so much for being here i am looking forward to hearing this conversation. i'll be back at the end of the show to do questions. >> thank you so much and chris thank you for letting me join you tonight. . . . for four years, is a dominant figure in american politics. and at the mccarthy hearings

the army lawyer, joseph welch, called him out. the most famous a moment i think people know from those hearings is when he says to joe mccarthy, have you no decency sir? long last have you no decency? the iconic moments, and you give us an entirely different moment from those hearings. it would be great if you just tell us about that moment. >> yes wonderful. first thank you so much for being here, thank you for any and everybody watching this is really exciting and wonderful. the sense of decency moment from welch has really, continues to have a life of its own. i have an alert on joe mccarthy a google alert in almost every single day is an op-ed and sepa losey has sense

of decency, does not matter who you are critiquing. the quotes still have some purchase. so i think i'll start by reading this is my opening move in the book. going to read for five minutes this is how i start. i'll start by reading a little bit. >> the hearing room was sweating, though the weather was mild partly cloudy with a high of 74 degrees, the temperature inside in the caucus room kept climbing steadily. an ornate space designed by theater occupants on this day packed with 800. even congressman were sometimes escorted out with capitol policeman who cited fire codes. television cameras cramped even further. push the temperature higher. any discomfort felt by those in attendance was secondary to

the need to broadcast the hearings to the 20 million people watching on television. they hearings became the most watched live event and televisions infant history. offering a clear look at the fontenot on already known as mccarthyism referring to wisconsin senator, against communist subversives him of the government into his controversial tactics. for over four years mccarthy has mesmerized the nation and attracted millions of fawning supporters to create a serial drama the promise of glimpses the clandestine operations and backroom dealings of the most pressing geological concerns the fight against communism. so the end of world war ii the united states had been gripped by fears of the soviet union and the global communist movement were conspiring to destroy western style capitalism and democracy.

the threat required constant vigilance against domestic subversion mccarthy's rapid ride to power had been fueled by his promise to protect the nation. but mccarthy and his crusade trampling individual liberties attacking individual employees , and fabricating evidence. promoting a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide in the end of everything that we americans hold dear. now mccarthyism faces most substantial test and mcafee star for an : close friend to

use the draft status of homosexuals and its ranks in the 1854, questioning turned to a photograph that mccarthy had presented for his case. special counsel for the army, joseph welch noticed the image have been corrupted. he wondered where the photograph had originated and who had ordered. on the stand set up the perspiring jim juliana, the mccarthy assistant who prepared the print pudgy face and dressed in a baggy suit. after juliana peter lee pled ignorance he asked whether he thought the photograph came from a pixie. welch's sarcasm was, cut more

deeply the audience for many months both mccarthy and cohen have been hounded by rumors they themselves are homosexuals. and perhaps intent on securing preferential treatment because one or maybe both of them was having a homosexual affair with him. keenly aware of the large audience and hoping to he asked to define the term pixie suggesting what was possibly an expert on the >>. welch replied, with a grin, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy and asked if he had enlightened mccarthy. the audience burst into greater laughs of the television scene cut from a view of the two tighter shots of welch seated within.

heavy bags under his eyes the frustration washed over him he shifted nervously his shoulders slumped and dropped his gaze to the table or possibly to his hands in response to kevin's question. the question by way i started there, it's really what you suggest. we are told and our textbooks, and u.s. history this moment is a memorable because of the larger geopolitical concerns and circulating around it. the issues of security the issue of what it means to the

american and how we can protect american identity from this march of communism and replaced the american dreams at this moment. and here is this homosexual, homophobic dancer that is being used in the slur is being passed around. we can in essence stop. about social issues or cultural issues rather this major issue of national security want to file the strings were that pulled me back where it goes is back in time is this tangle between

masculinity the growing surveillance state and gossip. the first thing you see is representative of that is the third person third person in the title j edgar hoover's longtime head of the fbi it's a good question the short to the answers hoover such a fascinating person. you can continue reading about him forever and find out something new. he does a couple of things. number one logistically his long jevity. he's born in 1895 pretty takes over the investigation in 19204 that becomes the fbi about ten years later. and he stays there in that job until 1972 part he survives presidents that kind of like impaired he have survived presence that really don't like him.

annie's able to have the staying power. sue have you can follow through this man that gives you this wide swath of american history of the first half of the 20th century. but the other thing i love about hoover is perhaps because he has the staying power he's a person is a feat in of areas of historical imagination. some ways it's very victorian. board in the 1890s he's born into upper middle class family in washington d.c. in the book are at is literally born into democracy because so many of his people, as brother, father, uncle, his grandfather worked for the government in some capacity. and some ways he has a 19th century series of morals, understanding of class. perhaps even what justice is just some degree he's rooted

in that consciousness. at the same time he becomes very modern. he modernizes the fbi. he introduces the scientific policing tactics bird is the one of the people to say fbi needs training on building a card catalog to be cross reference about criminals and political subversives in the united states. inspired by some of the us army intelligence divisions adult of the philippines. he absolutely changes the way fbi agents, he professionalized them pretty does not want to get rid of it was professionalize the borough. they can look up to and most

tires and counting degrees. then finally most important for my argument, hoover uses the modern media more successfully than any other bureaucrat of his age. but he does in his ways he uses the media to characterize the fbi presented in the way he wants to and comic books, movies, short cereals writing himself or had ghost written for himself he's using modern mass media to amplify the legend of the fbi. he's also using mass media example by the legend himself. this way that he is able to use as professional credibility, his intellect and certainly this understanding

of him as a masculine leader. you can combine white-collar bureaucracy and old-school masculine toughness in order to do something new united states government. it's really one of the reasons is such a fascinating character. but you get at so many things. of course the bone is here as hoover is using mass media is using gossip himself to implicate color and attack his enemies he himself ends up getting bitten by gossip when the greatest victims releases a memory becomes a victim. >> those of us of a certain age can easily relate to the

fbi because we grew up with the fbi tv show glorifying the fbi. one the things you mentioned at the end really hooks me one of the things hoover is exclusively sue puts himself into the government a wonderful picture of him with the new year's eve hat posing for the camera what's it like to work with the sources who were quick to get to the gossip side of your analysis? i imagine it's a lot of them but they gotta be tricky sources to purge. >> from fighting the sources standpoint, noise going home

and putting this week's edition of the national enquirer and that really going to what deceit the story. when whites difficult to get act them. the other fascinating thing going back to hoover these magazines not only gossip magazines and tabloids also the writers themselves. a lot of colonists start to pick that crosses the line between celebrity gossip and political reportage. it's a new form of political gossip that starts to be widely read and spread beginning really in the 1930s. certainly exploded in the 1950s.

gossip magazines are fascinating because number one, there's a challenge in the of the columns are published in the mainstream press and the buttoned up press you need to read between the lines. part of the fun was looking between the lines is a okay, collier says jn girl hoover someone really good and this is reference possibly to sexuality? clearly with homosexuality? there's a little bit of that. on the other side to think you

can see magazines as legitimate sources of political information. not necessarily because what they reporting is accurate. but because what the reporting gives us insight into what i thought was important that moment. while people are wanting to read about. oh people were wanting to think about. when you start to see stories about sexuality in politicians, when you start to see quite frankly gossip about politicians. pisces creators of gossip magazines at all these wonderful titles, hush-hush, tidal, confidential, all of these other ones top-secret, what it tells you is there are people interested in reading political gossip. and it is starting to shape. yes it is entertaining.

think of is marked traditional sources like letters overwritten to senators. opening these letters from constituents saying this constituents is the most recent edition of confidential i read this thing, is that right? if it's right we deafly need to do something about it. it's tough to ask where the people whether they read a gossip magazine. because they do not want to admit to it is not something people wrote down in traditional sources like letters and diaries and things of that nature. what a way to figure out their importance and their spread is to look at how these rumors came back and circuit it back

to people and how they were then disseminated. mickey said a couple of minutes ago, the idea political gossip in the gossip column which i think is really important as you said, really started in the 1930s. but it reached a peak in the 1950s. at the height of the cold war. do you think those sources and reading the political gossip has changed your sense of cold war politics? >> that is a great question. and i think it has. part of the reason gossip magazine explodes at logistical reason. the paper rationing of the second world war ends and i believe 1947. as a result is much cheaper to create things. you have these what officer people start printing these magazine thing this works if this works very famously hugh

hefner does not put a date on the first issue of playboy because he doesn't if it's going to sell. on the last two or three issues. people are experimenting trying to make a quick buck. bone for their best moneymaking ideas. the other thing gossip is writing on in that magazine is becoming so important at this moment and political discourse is because there's an overarching understand the information suddenly has us incredible purchase. the gossip about your neighbor, that your neighbor is an alcoholic or your neighbor is somebody who might have attended communist meetings when he was in college in the 1930s is no longer just cocktail party conversation.

it's also something that could be used for national security. an toast get back to your question, kevin, did change my conception on the cold war? a lot of us came to the cold war was through these moments of a to the cuban missile crisis cold war really impacting this top-tier of american political concerns and it did without a doubt. but one of things gossip magazines has taught me, looking cold work culture is the degree to which the fear of communism the right bike nuclear warfare and the possibility of it modern

nuclear holocaust that seeped into the pores of america seeped into even in the lingo and that vernacular there using, tongue what read this and read that and lavender and portraying settlements itself is in a certain way. shows the degree to which the national consciousness on a daily basis. we've all seen the signs on side of buildings and things like that. but even be on that we are living in an age where this is the dominant frame brown number people see the world. it really affects almost everything you do. so even gossip magazines. that is really where the rubber hit the road for me i

cold war politics are so dense in fascinating. suspect that's exactly right. the center of this book is the tangle of surveillance state we don't know where you can trust. a little to gossip about your neighbors have a devastating effect. that is the link between gossip and surveillance that central masculinity kind of brings us around the joe mccarthy. two of the quintessential figures that height of the cold war. that is where they come into your story. these guys are really different than j edgar hoover. they do not fit that profile you're describing force earlier. they are really different. if it into that same tangle to

write? absolutely. the thing that unites all three is ambition. this deep desire for power. begs a deep desire power no matter how you could subscribe to that. mccarthy was a registered democrat and became republican because that was the way to be known in wisconsin politics the 1930s and 1940s. there's an opportunity for the democratic party is basically dead or did not provide avenues for an excuse me. until mccarthy and cohen, i think what they do is a couple of things. number one because of their varied backgrounds mccarthy the son of irish catholic immigrants from ireland growing up in rural wisconsin

shows us the ways in which she could take the professional masculinity j edgar hoover was preaching and turn it into a blue-collar maybe were little more comfortable in american culture today. in order to advertise very easily done right so i'm working on the farm. when he is campaigning for senate in 1946 civil got to the houses of wisconsin farmers, introduce himself always as a joe. never is a judge mccarthy which he was of the times and head of a cow outback i would use a milky break today. he has an element of class. element physical labor there. in some way mccarthy show how malleable this understanding of masculinity could be.

even as we see it concurrent rigid in certain ways. it's rigid in its focus on the aggressive. it's rigid in its focus on the act of heterosexual. a similar thing can be said who grew up relatively wealth and his father was a judge democratically appointed judge. but his family's also jewish. he has a somewhat outsider status because of his religious and ethnic background that he basically uses masculinity in some ways to overcome. and specifically pistons and hound masculine again similar power. some of these powerful can make a change my picking up a phone that is true power. it does not really matter what religious background you come from. as long as you have this

influence. i think both of these guys shows masculinity as well as they are picking up on the trail that hoover has trail blazed as far as thinking about how to use gossip colonists to characterize yourself. to create a persona comment to make yourself palatable to a public audience. and to grow both your public stature and your level of political power. >> and think they got some thing else in common too. joe mccarthy is elected and 46. student is big breakthrough in 1950 with this infamous speech i have my hand government commonest. i'm did not know this, until i

read your book. haley made his book and then when you see join joe mccarthy? smacking joins us after relatively late birds and 52 they had this flirtation he joins in general 53. okay that's an aside to say from pretty early stage with joe mccarthy, abu troy : there's rumors there both themselves yea men, the kind of flirted around. many years ago is doing some research in the tennessee library knew had connection with the whole mccarthy thing. it's in official records in the kennedy library at the

gossip magazines whether he is yea or not. rumors are floating around for a good long time. and yet to have them played this anti-gay politics with anti-communist politics. where are they playing such a dangerous game here? statement i do not want to mix fact and fiction here. but at the time he has outlined about angels in america, that is just so good you want it to be true to reply in the 1980s when he has a famous lawyer and fixer accusations he is yea thing i'm too powerful to be yea. homosexuals do not have power i have para, who did have

homosexual relationships thought of himself as yea think in some way he believes he has too much power for this ever to come back and cause a problem for him. even though these rumors are circulating around. mccarthy is a little bit different. i don't believe necessarily i don't know if there's enough evidence for us to say mccarthy engaged homosexual liaisons. there's a number of different stories collected by his nemesis group about him being in certain yea bars in wisconsin focusing a young man on the night of the republican state convention. so group peers soon collecting this dirt on mccarthy. as far as i'm concerned i had to guess i don't think

mccarthy's engage in homosexual relationship activities behavior. the fact that used against him for the las vegas sun she thanks he counseling goes against he is a communist fascist anti- somatic or number two he is yea. that is where those rumors about mccarthy's homosexuality first on their way. i think the fact this is seen as such a sharp ammunition such potent ammunition tells us something about the ways in which homosexuality is used as a political tool in the early

1950s. and of course throughout the 50s and 60s as indicated by the book the lavender scare. so in some ways i don't think he can be brought down. because if he was really worried about it you go further to hide it present in these open parties in provincetown with the men coming around pretty showing up to reagan's white house i think an 84 with his boyfriend on his arm. basically introducing them to nancy reagan. they thought he was too powerful for this impact. i think that's really telling both about his character and about his position in american politics. select that brings us around too that opening scene again, right? turns out to be in this complicated tangle you've given up masculinity and of

the surveillance state and the power of gossip and innuendo that mccarthyism, joe mccarthy at least is brought down. it's out of the whole combination of that moment on mtv. everything comes crashing down for joe mccarthy. it's tied with roy : in this relationship he was having. as he just pointed out, is not exactly disappear. [laughter] only did write? with neck joe lives of the three years. but there in america political life i don't know, i seem to remember reading somewhere had some sort of connection to another politician who done pretty well for himself in recent years. >> recent years guess. >> it seems like we can't

avoid talking just a little bit about the ways in which politics you are describing have endured now into the trump the trump years. the trump years. provides us that bridge. >> right right. first as you note mccarthy dies almost certainly of complications related to alcoholism in 1957. my father in law grow up in appleton told a great story being young and seeing all of these cars go by pretty because out to a sidewalk he thanks are separate it's actually joe mccarthy's funeral. so it mccarthy in may of 57. but is the bad penny or maybe the more cockroach that cannot be done away with. he ends up having a second career as a connected new york lawyer and political fixer or

the crime family. fort george steinbrenner who in my view is a boston red sox fan is just as evil as anyone you could work with. and then he ends up working for the gentleman, it's in the late 70s an early 80s that he makes his connection with donald trump and his father fred. because the trumps are being sued by the federal government on the basis of not allowing her not providing equitable housing and a number of the department buildings they own in new york city. and so : end trump i think latch onto each other for numerous reasons. the supposedly meet at a club in new york city in the late 70s. they latch onto each other

because i think they recognize something in each other. this larger-than-life personality this salesmanship this con man aspect about them. and they really seem to, for that half decade a little more feed off of each other in many ways. and so it is tempting to see in some ways that donald trump is taking a page out of the mccarthy hoover playbook in the way he uses his masculinity. in the way that he presents himself as a celebrity. as the way he uses gossip magazines. the only national newspaper to support our newspaper with over 200,000 to endorse trump and the 2016 election is the national enquirer.

and so in many ways trump has this a bit that connection. i think perhaps the thing that connects them the largest and the best is their fungibility with the truth. how about that. this idea that the truth does not necessarily matter. the facts that matter aren't important as long as you hold the biggest microphone. the best example for that is the trump foundation and up settling, they admit to engaging in discriminatory housing practices. i think they end up paying a fine and may end up saying okay we will be better. of course there sued a couple years later they didn't follow through with it. they admit to some degree wrongdoing if not legally than certainly ethically.

roy cohen goes out to the proverbial microphone and says we are so happy the government has seen the error of their ways and backed off. we are so happy the trump organization has been proven to be truthful in this matter. and so again, from the get-go of their relationship there is this a model that cohen is setting for trump allowing that work showing trump i should say that so long as you can control dictate what people are talking about, the truth of the matter is almost immaterial. we have certainly seen that i think with the last three months of the trump administration and the lies about the 2020 election it was election fraud that was happening there. >> i have to admit i'm really struck on the small points you

made they met at a place called look club. i have to go all the be back to my basic high school french class to say these the masculine reference. this has been absolutely fascinating. i cannot take how much of enjoyed our conversation. i really want to congratulate you again on the book. it is a terrific achievement it's a terrific read. reading this opening scene. i don't really want to hog all of your time. read like to do is open things up from our virtual audience >> ra. select that was great spirit looks like we have one question so far you are just thinking of your question, write it down in the chat.

if you're watching on youtube are the comments if you're watching on facebook i will also remind you that the book is available through majors and quinn. you can go ahead and give us a call put up with the phone number in their to place an order i have a link to the website. here's a question forgive me if i am reading it wrong. had there been a deal with not dealing with the homosexual innuendo if they did not bring up welch associate with fisher's connection to the national lawyers guild? >> and don't think a context to know. >> that is a great question. it is something that is circulated for number of years for this moment. junior associate recent harvard law graduate that was in law firm in boston.

fisher had i believe it's undergraduate days belong to a club on campus that had been identified by the mccarthy committee in his own investigators as being communist front club. as future lawyers of america club that mccarthy claimed one point and the suggestion is that mccarthy and welch added backroom understanding whereby if welch did not bring up anything about cohen's homosexuality or more specifically rumors of him dodging the draft. either one of these things. sometimes dodge the draft the story goes sometimes it's about rumors of his sexuality then mccarthy would agree not to raise this thing.

but when cohen is on the stand, there is a suggestion that welch goes after him or says things in the room that he put in the chat. there is a suggestion that mccarthy feels like welch on the deal in the sense that he basically says he goes after him for personal things. so knowing that, the gloves come off for mccarthy about fred fisher he brings up that issue about enrollment in this group. and then ultimately the pixie exchange happens brighter ultimately having a sense of decency thing also happens as a result of this. they become involved in.

>> thank you that is in great detail. here's one from chris, how do social media parallel to gossett amick magazines in the book in terms of effecting political discourse and reputation are the key similarities or differences? >> yes it's a wonderful, wonderful question. the key difference is social media has absolutely no editorial oversight whatsoever. and someday can tweet something out into an 80 characters, throat on facebook or put it wherever and it's there. something was juicy it was going in there. although there had been at the same time, some wonderful work done by a number of people, harry scott is one of them we

are mostly true. he kept the craters of the magazine from being sued because they knew they were sued for libel by the stars or politicians they were talking about, then it would have to go to discovery, or to an open court that would be disastrous for the celebrity. the other interesting thing the magazines did is they would hold back one key peace of information. so this senator is having an affair and the hotel at happening but they would not say the affair was with an under age woman. or would not say the affair was with the wife of a fellow senator, something like that and making it up right now.

they would hold that peace of information in a reserve in order to ensure when the sender someone from his office came knocking and said what is this you need to retracted, or not going to retracted if you keep pushing us blood this other peace out. simmer certainly. once a peace of information is out there is not so much you can do to put the toothpaste back in the tube. and so on social media if you say the dominion voting systems, you witness somebody in an airplane hangar in minnesota fudging with

something. you know someone who's definitely screwing with the algorithm the matter what anyone says is not necessarily going to matter to anybody who was already read this peace. the truth that mccarthy more than anything is probably pretty profound and prolific womanizer. does not necessarily matter if you've already read magazine that carthy has visits average amicus back to milwaukee. goes back to grover cleveland we have this issue that once

rumor is out is not too much you can do to stop it they went to social media. how did you manage gossip versus the fact that your research? we left with gray area or lingering doubts? i think the way i managed is i tried to avoid it as much as possible. never come down and said this is definitely true. even tonight were talking about mccarthy's sexuality i'm saying i'm not sure if this is totally true. i think what i tried to argue in the book is that the facts of these rumors exists is almost as important as whether or not they are true. that is not to say truth does not matter.

but for my purposes because i can't determine whether or not jena mccarthy is yea or j edgar hoover is yea. and the idea that hoover might've been yea is that modern sexuality who may have been a sexual or gait in certain circumstances and straighten others, whatever it may be. because we can't determine the truth of that and be honest with ourselves and the readers and our historical audience really tried to lean towards saying the fact this existed, the fact this gets picked up matters. in one of my favorite pieces here about hoover is the fact that he had this incredible, you could make an argument is the most important american bureaucrat of the 20th century. maybe most important figure in washington d.c. people would argue fdr.

at least you can make the argument. when i sit down with somebody on a train new ways to do that our thanksgiving table say oh the guy in the dress. because he rumors about jay and her hoover's cross-dressing have become so well-known, so profound, so in the natural national consciousness we had in 2021 all this other stuff he did even cohen's helper is spying at martin luther king jr., he is involved in taking down leftist individuals, all this crazy stuff has a profound effect on american consciousness, all this other stuff. we forget all of that and want to hear about him and a pair of pumps and a négligée. and in some ways it's a little

bit delightful to think somebody he's gossip against other people so powerfully is now remembered in american consciousness for this peace of gossip rather than the political dynamo that he was. thank you for that question. i think maybe were getting another question someone might be typing. until we have another question kim and i will ask one. can you talk a little bit about your process? how did this become the book that you wanted to do and be your first book? >> that is a really good question. i am stealing from other historians who i love, kevin of course being one of them records being another who are so good at putting a story at

the center of the reading. it's important interpersonally and in the way we understand history. and so i wanted to do something that had a really strong narrative core at the center. i wanted there to be this moment like that pixie very exchange we open our discussion with tonight that we can explore that brings questions to the floor that allows us to think critically about larger issues. but then also allows the reader to follow along with this mystery. why the heck did this happen? where are they talking in this way? what is going to happen with these individuals and these rumors, where did they come from where they spread? and then you start from the micro history and build out

and what does this tells about the national security state question what is this tells about how information is related in the united states more generally? what is this tells about the blind spots as kevin asked me earlier the ways we think about the cold war the era in our imagination might be profoundly different from the era as lived experience. that's why started there. all the things we antedate quick weight loss things, how to have a better presentation to other people how to have a date how to have a he-man manly speaking voice. it's both satisfying and horrifying to think the american populace is not really changed that much in 75 years.

so that was really fun. then it brought together a way of thinking about american culture. i really do like doing cultural history and looking out political but from a cultural standpoint. can this thing that's easy to dismiss gossip magazines, what can we see of those things that allows us to better understand some of the bigger questions. the center of it? hello hi jaden. if you don't have any further questions, speak right now, kevin you have any final thoughts or questions you

wanted to go? >> i have one quick follow-up actually from your question. when you are writing about these fascinating people, i don't know if you felt this did you find one of them more compelling than the other? do you have a favorite, favorites the wrong word. this is the one you had the most fun writing about? >> maybe i'm sentimental them in the upper midwest now. i don't think jim mccarthy gets a bad rap. joe mccarthy really mattered. the most i like to get a birth these three favorite is a very

difficult word. >> not the right word sorry about that. i think the other kind of long car ride question who would you rather have as a dinner guests? he was so absurd and entertaining. but mccarthy for some reason, may he's irish catholic and i gripped irish catholic in some ways i think there's something there about him that's compelling. did get to did is jaisol courses and when your captors undergraduate in three years. he was a very smart, very driven compelling character. that's where there's a soft spot in my heart for joe mccarthy but i could never run for any kind of political office now. >> probably is not true.

obama question from jaden that is her final one. the relationship between roy and donald trump, she think he influence his current political persona and in what way? talk about this a little if there's anything you want to elaborate on. >> it's a showman they met but the thing that carries through of course is that he was friends with through the reagan campaign again one of my favorite using the word favored an interesting way here, roger stone. i man who we all now know who used to return my e-mails before started working the trump campaign and now does not return my e-mails. but who had a tattoo of richard nixon on his back, one of my favorite facts in american politics.

but stone ended up being a mentor to trump there is this link cohen and trump and stone is the sense that showmanship is more important than anything else, right? is no such thing as bad press. i think donald trump almost proves there's no such thing as bad press. the ended up being really tough for him was covid : : : some ways this is not unique but

the audiological that trump doesn't always seem to have a northstar and again it's not unique to the two of them but it is a framework that trump is working on. >> thank you so much for your great questions and so thank you for being with us and for the virtual event. i put the phone number and the link so please go ahead and check that out and i just want to thank you.

>> thank you, everyone. congratulations. ♪♪ ♪♪

you are a scientist, the professor in the department of psychology at stanford university and director of the stanford center for reproducible merit to science. science. for his research, neuroimaging do understand that the brain systems underlying decision-making and executive function and also the author of the 2018 book the new mind readers when the imaging can and cannot reveal about our thoughts. joining in conversation tonight is the