and the same time, he did throw people out of unionized employment into nonunionized labor, where they their own wages and now,it packages, we are going to look more like a banana republic than any first-rate nation. >> thank you for the call. >> the union story is interesting and longer than the time with that in this series, union rates in the country peaked in the 60's and have been declining ever since. competingve jobs natchez with nonunionized workers in america, but workers who havee world dramatically less. eight -- a bit of a catch-22 for the labor movements right now.

they're trying to figure out how to be competitive but also have exactly the same worker protections in the areas you are talking about here it is a tough action. about. it is a tough question. why you would hire an american right now rather than a worker in china or india or anywhere else in lower wages. one of the answers of that continues to be there are things american workers can do that nobody else can that make them valuable. there are countries that are still investing in america for that reason, and trying to figure out what it is that is our advantage and strength is, and invest more for that would be a good thing. from outside cleveland, dave is on the phone. caller: good morning, c-span, and the wonderful c-span audience. i would just like to make a comment that probably has

something to do with where we are at today, at the end of world war ii, rosie the river came out of the factory and she came home to run the family, rich or poor, white or black, and she became chairman of the board of the house. that remained basically constant until around 1974, when we had the massive oil price shock start to begin here to you all remember we used to pay about $.22 per gallon for gas and from there, it went to over four dollars. that and the chairman of the board of the house had to enter the labor market and come he for the limited number of jobs. everybody, butwn you needed two where one used to do it. my comment is, if we could

somehow, and i am not saying i know many house debt than they love to be have stats, if we could not have us competing against each other, and take advantage of the productivity gains, it would be a better place for all, and whether the man stays home or the woman stays home, there will be clean sheets and a well cooked meal and the kids taken care of properly. thank you for the call. the issue of dual income households. guest: right now, if you look at the skills acquisition of american workers, the women are going to college more, and their labor force participation rate peaked a few years ago and men have been declining a little while longer. you could make a good argument that we actually need more women working were and more men staying at home, if that is what

you want or think is socially desirable, because, we want our higher skilled workers doing those things, and increasingly, it is women who are the ones going through to get the extra knowledge and skills and information. some of our highest skilled women are the ones working as much as you might think they would be based on the numbers we suggest. host: if you numbers, orlando, florida, earning between $51,000 and $100,000 a year. do you consider yourself middle-class? s we are entrepreneurs and i do not really think about stuff like that. get i'mried to make it not a good statistic. i want to thank you for c-span. a tremendous outlet to even allow this discussion. i will go quickly. this is instructive of a brown versus green economy. if america can focus more on a green economy, it will open up a lot for everybody.

have kids outu there, get them to learn technology that will put them in a green economy. are we doing the right job oureeking out -- teaching kids about the economy and specific skills? went to a nephew really good public school in north florida and they had a great science program. there are good public schools that teach really good science. a lot of it is the impetus of the parents. whether it is the one parent household or the two parent here in -- parents. we have a really nice solar farm on the edge of town. people need to take their kids to their and say, this is a future and you need to learn how to work at a place like this.

place as washington a merging of mexico, canada, and the united states into a north american type of operation, where it would be run out of kansas city and that area, it would be north america. we we need -- we need to try to change the way the whole thing is set up. thank you so much. i probably should not get into the question of whether we should have a big north american merger. i will say hello to my eight-year-old watching in the green room, hello, max, and i will say he is absolutely learning the things you're talking about about science and math and that's very likely energy transition we will make. if you look at what will happen, one of the big areas, people will always ask what will be next. one of the things that could be

next for the global economy and the american economy is the shift from higher carbon to lower carbon energy sector, and a lot of infrastructure work needs to be done to get there. max: what is the future of and his generation? guest: i try to be hopeful but i often come off as pessimistic. a difficult situation economically has been left for my generation. an atmosphere basically filled to the limit with carbon and high national debt and this dwindling of opportunity. it is sort of up to my generation and the folks a little bit older to figure this so that when my son and his children grow up, they have the sorts of opportunities my grandparents and my parents enjoyed when they were starting out. been the deficit has coming down steadily but the debt goes up and we expect to

the end ofspike at the decade. >> depends on what happens with health care. that would be a big thing for his generation. we could get government health care costs and bend the curve even more. from aould do that more government standpoint, it would absolutely be helpful here at >> lisa, you get the last word, joining us from arkansas, earning between 26000 and $50,000 a year. i work in a hospital, and construction. after insurance, i live on $21,000 a year. host: how do you make ends meet, first of all. well, i do not go many places. i buy most of my clothes at goodwill. the art sales. -- yard sales. try to get three meals out of everything i purchase. if it is a meat product. but washington is out of touch

with the middle-class. bill clinton signed come it took 10 years for us to see all of our jobs go overseas. bush signed the other part of that. orhave had the stimulus whatever you call them that obama done. into ourt went infrastructure, where we needed it. everyone is talking about, they give the free light bulbs away at work once a year. turn them over. they are from china. i want to know the next president in 2016 or whoever is us?there, what about what about the american people? for the call.u what about those individuals? what: i cannot say enough, she just voice is the voice i

hear going across america, whether home to oregon or out through royal parts of the country, on these trips to texas , to california, to north carolina. people are frustrated. they're frustrated with washington. they feel like they have been struggling for a long time. they are tired of hearing excuses. i hope we can have a moment where we have a real discussion, not just little things in the ,argin, but -- big things moving in the right direction. we do have great natural resources. have a real opportunity as a country to start getting people back to doing what they are best at. alicia isthink what voicing here is the sentiment of america that will underpin the next election. host: >> the full series is available online.

jim, thank you so much for stopping by. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will focus on a book getting a lot of , "the end ofled greatness: why america can't have (and doesn't want) another great president." washing -- watching washington journal on the first day of winter. back in a moment. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> here is a look at some of the programs you will find on christmas day on c-span networks. the holiday start at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama, and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. just after 12:30, celebrity activists talk about their causes. justicee supreme court and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers very at 10:00 a.m. eastern, venture with steve pinker. feminist side of a superhero, the secret history of wonder woman. others talk about their reading habits. on american history tv on c-span3 at 8:00 a.m. eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president george w. bush and bob dole, with speeches from john kennedy

and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts in how they represented the styles of the time in which they lived. more thannchor tom on 50 years of reporting on world events. as this christmas day on the c-span networks. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. host: we want to welcome back aaron david miller, with his new book, "the end of greatness: why america can't have (and doesn't want) another great president." explain. guest: very simple. spine against presidential greatness in our system. we do not want another great president because presidential greatness is driven by one thing if you thing only, so, want another great president,

buckle your seatbelt because you will have a crisis that is relentless, inescapable, and very risky. host: we will talk more. i want to read one excerpt as we begin christmas day week. you write, great presidents continue to hover -- -- it is a sense of sober of knowledge meant that the nature of the political system is changing, the nature of the way we appreciate greatness in our own politics has changed. the absence of shared responsibility, shared sacrifice, it makes it very difficult to imagine greatness in a president if we cannot in essence imagine greatness in ourselves. that is not a message people want to hear, but it is a

realistic one. i do not think the country is in danger of collapse. i have a profound belief in the american story, but i think we have to get a grip and stop -- stop expecting presidents to be great, so we can allow them to effective, and moral, and remain within the parameters. the great president listened as our first one, our 16th president, and franklin d roosevelt. you write he was the last great president. these three the indispensable's. that is to say, that is to say, they're separated by different personalities and challenges and challenges in different times, but the reality is they accomplish several things that put the middle-class of their own. they inherited the three worst crises and challenges the nation

faced, they extracted transformational change about the way we see ourselves, in ways that endured. finally, they have grown to be appreciated to rise above artists and debate -- partisan figures torecognized be recognized as national treasures. very hard to imagine today thinking about the last decade or so. genuinely popular and beloved polarizing,owever who rose above republican and thinkatic politics to about and be perceived as a national treasure. that is why it is so hard. the media changing the nature of our politics, changing the nature of our crises. there are rising expectations, all inspired to make it very to imagine another

undeniably great president seen .y the public time is a great arbitrary. no one can predict in a matter of days or months. but even with the benefit of time, it is hard to imagine any of the 12 men who held the presidency since fdr the longing in that category. >> two president you qualify as --at at being president though clinton, ronald reagan. explain. those two and fdr, probably the three greatest politicians in the last 60 years as president. they understood the job. profound agree, undermined his own legacy by his own indiscretions.

still perceived as genuinely popular. he understood politics and he liked politics. ronald reagan loved politics. attack,bama is more to -- more detached, and in some case -- in some sense he does not like politics. you have to at least create a real bond with the american public. that is not easy to do. >> another category, failure in one area, failure for and in vietnam and richard nixon, it was watergate, but great-another. -- great heights in another. guest: johnson was probably the greatest transformative since s p.r. -- since fdr. you had vietnam fundamentally undermining his presidency and kept them out, and would continue to do so.

richard nixon, a man who undermined the constitutional pledged to system he protect, and again, i think one of the most effective foreign-policy president come despite imperfections. host: you study the american presidency, who preceded them, and you writing your book, great presidents were preceded by weaker ones. one term acts never had a chance to make greatness like accidental presidents like truman and johnson, who would quite to become consequential. >> where you are in the sequence, and who proceeds you and follows you is extremely important. two of these greatest president, lincoln and fdr, were preceded by two of our worst. herbert hoover could not anticipate let alone cope with the crises.

roosevelt one of the most underestimated men to hold the office. the consequential president primarily for his foreign-policy decisions. >> we will go back to what you mentioned earlier. c.all begins with the letter crisis, capacity to succeed once the crisis occurs, and character. president can actually do great things in office. without him, there probably would have not been a peace treaty. was jimmy carter considered a great president? we never had a one term or who was great. no. have to align to

create that kind of greatness. when i say great, i am talking about great. great i bet 15 times a day. "he is a great tennis player." we empty the word literally of any significance in any meaning. more than that, we have transferred our image of greatness from our vertical system and our politicians, with whom we've lost great confidence, to our actors. there, perfectly prepared to greatness,wreck nice and without cynicism. that notion of transferring, the notion of hearers -- to our , anytainment culture

actors were fallen. nonetheless, we continue to do that, and it is symptomatic, frankly, of the end of an era, where greatness really is a the sheeted in our politics. >> let's go back to the word great, near great. making a list of near great residents, thomas jefferson, andrew jackson, theodore roosevelt, woodrow wilson, harry truman. y andrew jackson? failures were larger than the undeniable's. the congressman not nearly as great. but, jackson, the notification crisis,-- notification andrew jackson dominated his age. haveystem, though he may

in a persecutor of the indians, so yes, jackson, truman, jefferson, even woodrow wilson. i work for the woodrow rosen international center of scholars and cannot leave them off the list, but even wilson, a great transformer and legislative , the architect of american entry for all -- and over idealism and tried to negotiate a peace with a league of nations. ,o accomplishment significant presided over a time politically, and yet the asterix associated with the president's is too large, put them in the undeniably great category. this week, we are focusing on the leading authors and publications out this year. we are kicking off this week

with the end of greatness. the three undeniably great presidents straddled the american story. washington, the proverbial father of his country, lincoln, who kept it whole, and roosevelt, who won his greatest work. -- war. conclusion is annoyingly negative and depressing, but my -- this is german by crisis. character, that is, artfully and willfully addressed by the great president . we have plenty of crises. the question is, some of them affect the future of the country. the question is whether these crises unite us as the three ,reat crises we face have done or whether the crises divide us

and polarize the public pier that is what the problem is. we have plenty of crises, but they are not functional. they lead to dysfunction, polarization, partisanship, and the inability to take on the great issues. >> our guest has advised more than half a dozen secretaries of state on these policies. david miller, will previously strategic and international studies, and the former president of c's of these. let's get to your phone calls. john in tampa, florida, good morning. >> yes, i totally agree with the author, but i would like to go beyond that. lastwe have had over the 20 years has actually been destructive. not only have they not been good leaders, but they have hurt the american people. clinton signed off on nasa and he signed off on china as the most-favored-nation status,

those three things in themselves are responsible for the permanent, low-wage economy we have now. then george w. bush picked up the ball and ran with allowing all the illegal aliens in the fortry to lower the wages u.s. citizens that are middle-class, and he also -- also signed off and now hillary clinton talks about income inequality while at the same time going behind the scenes to big multinational corporations, and she will be a nightmare. the only hope for the country is someone like elizabeth warren. -- aboutinsincere helping the middle-class and the economy. guest: he raises an interesting point. democratic president that lack these imperfections. washington was a slave owner. lincoln's views on slavery was

pragmatic. decision, japanese-americans in california, his own fidelity's, these were very imperfect -- imperfect individuals, not just in their personal lives, to some degree, but also in the policies they pursued. you will not get a perfect president and you will not get a president that will not stumble. afraid, focus on the individual and rather than the system the individual operates and the constraints of the leads usy itself that to personalize the presidential argument far more than we should. the founders basically created a system in which they did not want a single individual to concentrate power. system, toated a

quote one of the great liberal scientists, an open invitation to struggle. we paid much too much attention to the personality pieces. even though character is very important, and much less for the circumstances in which presidents operate and the nature of presidency itself. you can find faults and flaws with every single american president. the question is, can we find a good in theat is sense they are effective, good in the sense they are moral, and good in the sense they are not riven and haunted by demons. often,lity is, far too we have concentrated on individuals and failed to appreciate the circumstances in which they operate. host: california, don is on the line, independent line.

>> good morning. thank you for c-span. recentee your presentation on c-span. very thoughtful. i would recommend the book to anyone. looking back to the 1960's, and the assassinations of and potential presidents, i would say greatness can be dangerous to your health. thank you. host: thank you for the call. guest: it is interesting. benjamin russ, one of the signers, thought the constitution, -- benjamin franklin believed in addition to warren, great man were the greatest threats to humanity. system, there is a danger with the over concentration of power. we have a volunteer military united states, -- which most

politicians would probably not want to change. volunteer military affords an asset to the president to be used in some respects much more at his or her own discretion, because the country basically is separated.

and i think both are in the process of making a recovery. ike's status has risen in large part because of his discretion and avoiding vietnam, opening archives, historian fred greenstein would say he was a more decisive leader, a 307 lar president. probably the highest public approval rating of any president.

grants, one of the most popular men of america if he died, caught up in scandal, but again, a president that acted boldly, with respect to civil rights in the south. i think more appreciated. i try to draw the distinction between presidents who were great, made their reputations before they even became president, and i think it's a useful distinction to make. >> didn't grant write the most extensive memoire of the presidency? >> yes, and one of the most easy to read and one of the most entertaining and instructive. host: as he was battling throat cancer guest: host: aaron david mil e, the book "the end of greatness" on the american presidency. john? caller: yes, i appreciate the discussion. i think the book raises main

issues. my comment is that the reason why we will not get great presidents is that we have basically an uninformed and unenengaged electorate. host: do you agree or disagree? guest: i try not to take unnecessary shots at the american people. i am not entirely persuaded, john, that things are fundamentally changed over the course of the last century or two in terms of how integrated people really are in understanding the complexities of politics. i mean, given the tools at our disposal with the internet and the access to information, you could argue -- you could make a compelling case in many respects, people are more engaged. certainly the bases are engaged. i think the point is less the degree to which the nation is informed about the details and the absence of a shared sense of

sacrifice of national obligation and shared commitment. i think that really is the problem. you know, i had a conversation with my daughter. she's now 341. when she was in her early 20s and she said your parents -- meaning mine -- had the great depression of world war ii. your yenration, meaning my generation had vietnam, civil rights, watergate. she turned to me and saidplatively and said, what does my generation have? where are the overarching, nation-cumbering things that make me wants to engage? i think that problem, the sense that we are alienated from an overall, overriding narrative and a sense freed from a sense of collective responsibility, i think that is perhaps even a much greater challenge than the

one that would argue that we are simply not as well informed as we should be. host: from the massachusetts, independent like, mark, good morning. caller: good morning. hello. hello. in regards to what -- the comment you made, i am about the same as as her as well. 9-11 was definitely the defining moment. maybe it hadn't askhappened whe you asked her. as far as i am concerned, that was a pivot points in my life. i had graduated from college and definitely set the press didn't and for better or worse. we have had ups and downs, but i think in regards to your opening statement with the three greats, the three, i think it's undeniable. i think lincoln, washington and f.d.r., you know, were the best of the best, but, you know, kennedy was cut down short, and

i think that historically, obama will be viewed as maybe not one of the greats, but definitely in the top 10th percentile host: thanks for the call. he mentioned 911. where would you put george w. bush guest: 9-11 was where we did come together. i think maybe paradoxically maybe no president could use 9-11 with a sense of national purn. the fact is it didn't. it led to the two least effective wars in american history. my father went to war, john, in 19411, there were 130 million people in the united states, 16 million of them. sixteen million put on a uniform. i am afraid 9-11. again, this is why i think we have to be very wary of wishing for crises in order to create

great presidents, but 9-11 quickly evaporated as a kind of national cautiousness-raising exercise. there wasn't an effort on the previous administration to create a sense of national service of some kind. energy independent, greater understanding of the conflicts and challenges we face in the middle east. i understand the logic. we were told to hug our kids and to defy the terrorists and to out and shop. i understand all of that. it was a necessary response to the trauma of the moment. but it was a crisis, i suspect, that escaped real purpose, and we find ourselves 14 years later, it seems to me, in many respects, still adrift host: pat from keyport, new jersey. republican line. caller: my question is the country has grown up.

it's not -- we are not going to grow. the west is opened. everything is done. i have seen more with clinton. clinton was the first person i saw but i have seen it with other modern presidents. they try to create a legacy. and why aren't they focused on preserving our freedom as a nation? guest: they are. the greatest responsibility any president of the american people, if you look at the last two presidents in the wake of 9-11, that is the single grattest challenge. it's a legacy, an issue of the moment. both george w. bushnds -- and we could argue all day long about the wisdom of iraq and afghanistan. george w. bush and barack obama were in many respects intentionally focused on keeping the nation secure. now, we have not been attacked, again, directly by aphon terrorist organization. there have been attacks that

have been inspired but not directed. >> that's a testament in large part to the focus of those, of both of those presidents, on the most important issue facing the country. presidential legacies are critically important to individuals. you see it now with president obama. i think it's natural. it's understandable, particularly for two-term presidents. the last two years are focused on looking at history. ultimately as the audience, not their own parties, necessarily, or even public opinion. i think it's i ha i think it's inevitable that presidents will wants to look beyond their terms at a certain point in those terms to try to shape out history and post earty will look at their presidency. >> rentals inarian david miller including the following. read more presidential history. think transaction, not transf m

transformati transformational. finally, as he indicated earlier, think good, not great. monroe, louisiana, good morning. welcome to the program. >> i would like to know what he thinks about a president that had -- was losing 800 jobs a month 800,000 jobs a months, restructured chrysler, the banks in america save fannie mae, freddie mac, got hair care for everyone and not considered in his program of being great president. host: thank for the call. barack obama. guest: historic president for who he was. i think he may be joined consequential in time for what he has done. but a deeply polarizing figure, re-elected to a second term,

clearly not that polarizing a figure. i think the problem with president obama fraifrping, frankly, is that he created a set of expectations and a frame of reference that was extremely difficult to meet. i think -- i call him at one point in the piece in the washington post disappointer in chief, not with any effort to criticize and attack him but to suggest that when he came in to office, i can't he believed generallying winly that the circumstances are right for transformation that the country wanted add profound transform medication at home and at brought. he very much fashioned himself after lincoln at the inaugural lunch in january of 2009. >> lunch literally re-created the lunch that abraham lincoln had consumed, complete with being served on replicas of mary

todd lincoln's child. he promised post partisanship in probably one of the most shark-enfested environments in our recent history. he set a bar that was extremely tough to match. i think, frankly, if the economy continues to recover and if we are not attacked again here in a consequential way, his one line plus if healthcare expands services, cutting costs and provides quality care and if a republican is not elected in 2016, i think his legacy could be a significant one. host: among the questions you ask in the book: how important are individuals in the broad current of history? and how do they matter comparison to the broaderforces that shape their time? guest: the great debate, steve, between what is more important:

circumstances or the individual? marx, karl marx say men make history but rarely as they please. one of the things i have in the book is characters are imports. individuals are critically imports but you must anchor them in the circumstances in which they find themselves. great presidents simply cannot create transformative change without the right set of circumstances. >> one of the questions, what if adolf hitler wasn't born? guest: would the circumstances germany con fronted raise a hitler-like figure. i raised the question with franklin roosevelt if in february, 1941 leagues, roosevelt went on a cruise, which was extraordinary given how he would be hammered in the press in the middle of the great depression. on the way back, he stopped at

miami bayside park to give a speech. and while chatting with the mayor of chicago kantonne surman, an unemployed bricklayer stood up on a chair. he purchased a handgun that morning and fired five shots. surmac was hit and would later d die. had roosevelt been killed that day, what would the implications have been for his policies with respect to the great depression, wor world war ii? the country was already established then. but had washington died of what they think was an anthrax infection in 1789? had lincoln been asisinated in 1865? if you took the individual out of the story, out of the american story, these three, lincoln, washington, and f.d.r.,

would the story have been altered for the worse? i think the answer is yes. so individuals counts big-time, but they must be alterred in the circumstances at the moment as well. host: the end of greatness, the book by aaron david miller, mark, from north carolina. thank you for waiting. ca caller: good morning. thank you, sir. mr. miller, my question is: in your research for tyour book, dd you finds presidents, let's say before ice en hoeisenhower, yes they attached as it seems the presidents have been since by hecklers and things of that sort? guest: it's fascinating. i would say we haven't come quite full circle, but the viciousness that characterized late 18th sentence truly american politics, the competitiveness, slandzer, after all, they took their argument did, unlike today, out into the streets. you know, alexander hamilton

patrol never could have become president. but he was -- he was shot and killed in a do you recall witharian burr. the reality is the kind of rhetoric that was hurled at presidents, andrew jackson's wife, rachel was called a whore. roosevelt was called a manical criminal. one friend vowed to go to the bahamas, he was so angry at the kinds of policies that f.d.r. was going to pursue. lincoln was called a gorilla. i mean these sorts of comments reflected a politics that was in some respects much hotter, much nastier than the ones that we experience today. the difference, i think, is that the media ends up driving the argument, and creating opportunities. look, when the president of the

united states has to respond to the comments of a pastor in florida. you remember this. who threatened to burn a koran and later did burn the book, the president of the united states actually identified this individual and responded to his craziness. >> that's an extraordinary example of how the media really does not only intrude but create a willful, new frame of reference for american presidents. culture is tough these days but not nearly as tough as it was back in the day. host: gabriel, phoenix, republican live caller: hello. host: if you could turn the volume down on yourset. caller: it's done. hold on. it's done. host: go ahead. we can continue you. caller: hello, mr. miller. i am fairly interested in your

views about calvin coolidge. host: calvin coolidge. guest: he provided over one of the longest expansions of economic prosperity in american history, and one of the debates or knocks against the whole presidential rating game is that it has been hijacked by ds, democrats, or rs, republicans, in the serviced of narrow partisan agenda. i mean coolidge was coolidge a great president? no. did calvin coolidge not get sufficient credit for his accomplishments? perhaps, and the republicans would argue that, in fact, one of the reasons that the presidential rating game over the years have been dominated largely by liberal progressive professors at universities, and i think that point, even though i think it's to a somewhat exaggerated, there is a fair amount of truth in the perceptions of who rates the

presidents and how, in fact, they are perceived over time, and, yes, it has become very much a partisan zam. calfin coolage, i think, to some degree fell victim to it. >> it's good >> host: politics has a much nastier than it is compared to history. guest: about that, there is no question. preston brooks nearly caned someone to death on the senate floor in 18641. i mean on the floor of the u.s. senate, sumner would return to work in a matter of years, but he was nearly killed. host: richard from trenton, new jersey, democrats line with aaron aaron david miller, his nook bu on american presidents and greatness. richard? caller: yes. i just want to say: greatness talking about president bush running for president. when uss cole was struck, that's

when he took a stand and started taking taking it to the terrorists in america having to protect america. if it wasn't for bush right now today and barack obama, also, barack obama, bush and barack obama took out every terrorist from the top leaders today, talk about greatness. how can -- who decides who is greatness? one man decide this, or does a country decide this host: thank you. guest: it's the actions of a president and how they are vi viewed and appreciated over time by historians and the public. i mentioned earlier, george w. bush and barack obama deserve enormous credit for keeping the country secure and free. last year, the state department reported there were 17,891 global fatalities to terror.

17,891 people were killed in this world as a result of terrorist attacks. sixteen of those last year, 20s 13, were american citizens. more people, 33 people were killed in this kuntz try in lightning strikes last year. >> that's double the number of americans that died. so, i think that is the first and foremost obligation of the president, to keep the country safe and secure. and despite the flaws and imperfection and realty an attack could occur here any day, our presidents have done, i think, at least the last two, quite an extraordinary job in this regard. host: from life tavison, richard, good morning. caller: yes. yes. my comment or my question or whatever is how anybody could put wilson anywhere near the top of this list. the reason i guess i've got several reasons for saying this.

first of all, starting with the most important, i would say it was his performance at the paris peace conference in 1919. lloyd george made a complete fool out of this man. for example, there is nothing in wilson's 14 points about reparations. and they conned him in to that. the reason they were successful in doing that is they held this -- they sort of blackmailed him. they yelled the fact that wilson wanted the league of nations charter to be included in the conference. and so lloyd george and clemenseaux said, well, it will do this if you will allow the rep parati reparations and so f

host: hot thank you. we will get a response. guest: wilson won his war which all great american presidents have to do but stumbled, i think, badly as you point out in the post-war period. his own i'd loddeological rigid his refusal to compromise with the senate and even include republicans on the delegation to versaille, his illness, his stroke and incapacititation. i put wilson there in large part for his domestic agenda. he was probably one of the most progressive and willful american presidents willing to work with congress and extremely successful during his tenure. and i think he really does emerge as a consequential president. i argue in the book that i hesitate and i don't put wilson in the great category anyway. i put him in the consequential, close but no cigar category in part for the reasons that you

mention. host: david on the democrats' line, dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is: how can we have a great president when he is limited by his terms? for instance, president obama will start to be a one-term president and he was lame duck the first year. so he's even more lame duck in his second term. so the 22nd amendment should be amended or repealed. thank you. host: thank you, david. guest: you know, that argument is an intriguing one. the 22nd amendment was passed in 1951 in large points because the republicans wanted to get even with franklin roosevelt. no president should ever again have the opportunity to be elected. roosevelt almost served out three terms. he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. it was the republican revenge but what they failed to understand is that in passing the 2 march 2nd amendment, they basically or virtually insured

he would be in a class of his own. no american president would ever again have an opportunities to serve more than two. washington could have had he not made an extraordinary decision to return to mount vernon to give up power. i am not sure that you are going to ends up with a constitutional amendment to that effect. i think -- i point out in my book that we are stuck with a political system that we basically have inherited. the constitution has been amended 27 times in 240 years. ten of those amendments came in the bill of rights. so, i am not sure you are going to get an amendment to lengthsen a president's term. and i am not entirely persuaded it's a good idea. i know all of the limitations. eight years in this job takes such a toll and the country actually needs to be invigorated with change. i think eight years, two terms, and i think the founders in many respects had this right, as

imperfect as it may be is the term that we are left with, and i suspect it's going to -- it will endure in the future. host: this is one of those speculation questions. bear with me: do you think if that was not in place, the bill clinton would have ran and potentially could have won in 2000, a third term? guest: maybe. i think you have a situation in which when the economy is good and the president is perceived to be a brilliant politician, capable of intuiting and understanding and reflecting what people need, good refritition and loves the game, sure. host: matt republican line with aaron david miller. good morning. caller: good morning. my comments is about presidents today as opposed to world war ii, before. it's hard to judge then and compare then to the presidents of the past because of the

nature of warfare today. it's not as conventional than fighting terrorist groups and small cells that, you know, aren't necessarily state-sponsored. host: thank you. guest: i can't it reflects the unforgiving world in which presidents have to operate. look: f.d.r., the last good war, justification for entry was undeniable. the japanese attacked us at pearl harbor. the evil that was nazism and fascism, comprehensionive and final. it was the only war that left this country -- the only one that leftcountry stronger at home and with more influence abroad. not since the ends of that war have we seen another conflict which belongs in that category and can claim that. and that's why you need presidents with real judgment, who are wise and prudent and

understand that getting in to conflicts is justaltiesier than getting out of them. and that kind of judgment is critically important. not acting. until many respects when the temptation to act is important precisely for the reasons you have identified in the nature of these asymmetrical conflicts. host: richard from florida. are you with us? try one more time for richard. going to have to move on to jose joining us from miami. good morning. caller: good morning. do you think that president obama will get to make any more supreme court appointees? if so, what direction would they take and what role would the senate have ultimately and how contentious could they be?

what are the limitations? could there be -- just your thoughts on that. guest: i try to take hypotheticals. could you see another point on the court? sure, would the president love an opportunity to find -- put another justice that shares his views? absolutely. will he get that opportunity? i don't know. it's in some respects very difficult, very difficult to speculate. host: you could argue the george w bush legacy lives on in the court today. guest: it does. that's true of many other administrations. those judicial appointments are critically important because they shape -- talk about legacy. it really does, in a way, when you think about it, it becomes in some respects the most critical pieces of a president's legacy. host: as f.d.r. found out in the 1930s.

murray from florida, democrats line. good morning. caller: yeah. quite obviously, do presidents always make statements that really most people know are not true like that your medicare is not going to -- or your health program is not going to change, or the latest one was when he said only two or 3,000 jobs are going to be created by this pipeline. obviously, everybody else said it was going to be 30,000 jobs. have other presidents made such blatant statements? guest: presidents operate within a set of parameters. they clearly don't want to willfully mislead or certainly not create their own set of facts. but they also argue within