turmoil. the event of reporters roundtable about the future of the trump presidency. ♪ announcer: this week on q&a, national constitution center president and ceo jeffrey rosen discusses his biography of william howard taft. ♪ host jeffrey rosen, where did it : all start for william howard taft, president of the u.s.? jeffrey rosen: in cincinnati, ohio. he was born in 1857, before the u.s. constitution. he was born to a family that invites the constitution.

taft, who was alfonso wrote republican platforms in 1856. he founded the republican party on the principles to defend the union and the constitution have resisted slavery. his father was secretary of war and ambassador to russia and told young william to be chief justice is to be more than to be president. young william imbibed from his father a reverence for the constitution and a yearning to be chief justice that was finally fulfilled after a geforce the presidency. brian lamb: what was his life like up to his education? jeffrey rosen: he said everything i do about the law i learned at the expense of hamilton county, where he was a prosecutor he fell upward into a series of golden -- that invites and him a reverence for the law. he went to yale. he started as a young lawyer as an assistant prosecutor and

watched a jury acquit and accused murderer and a mob burned down the courthouse and created a fear of mob violence that defined his outlook for the rest of his life. he was a judge at the young age of 30. he introduced the practice of confessing error, saying when the government has made a constitutional mistake, it should not profit by the error. he became a judge on the sixth circuit, federal judge at the age of 35, which he thought was -- which he found as his heaven. he loved judges and courts and they are his idea of heaven on earth. he went to a transformative career general in at the philippines. president william mckinley asked him. he created a constitution for a grateful people and extended the bill of rights to the philippine people because he thought have to be educated in order to be

ready for the duties of citizenship. what he wanted to do was be on the supreme court. roosevelt offered him a supreme court justiceship and his wife nelly made him refuse because she wanted him to be president and she had gone to the white house under president harrison and said, i hope to marry a man who will be president and he said i hope you will and he is in ohio. she is pining for him to join washington. she thinks the supreme court will sideline him. he turned down the offer of this court seat with reluctance and distinguishes himself in the philippines and becomes secretary of war where he is an administrative marvel. henry stetson, the circuit as secretary of war under president and hoover,sevelt and truman, said taft was the greatest administrator of the

-- them all. he was still effective as secretary of war that roosevelt anointed him as a successor and ran for president in 1908 and won. brian lamb: when did he start his relationship with roosevelt on a personal level? jeffrey rosen: they were extremely close, almost like brothers when they were working together in the government. roosevelt relied on tapped to -- taft to provide the administrative apparatus that would carry out his extraordinarily poignant ideas with an alias force of nature who wanted to do everything by executive order. he was impatient and wanted to circumvent congress. taft disapproved of roosevelt circumventing procedures and he wanted supporters on from constitutional grounds. they were so close that roosevelt predicted that taft would be the greatest president in washington since lincoln.

after the taft election, he confessed that taft means well but he is weak. he is beginning to have second thoughts. the story of the collapse of the relationship is riveting. brian lamb: where did he learn politics? jeffrey rosen: he never learned politics. he told his aide, archie butt, i will not play a part in popularity. if the people want to reject me that is their prerogative. ,is he rose are alexander hamilton and john marshall. s are alexander hamilton and john marshall. he considered one of the greatest americans ever. they said the majority should

rule, but only slowly and thoughtfully over time so that reason, rather than passion, could prevail. he believes the system is setup to slow the direct expression of popular passion so the people can be governed in public interest rather than perfection, that favor self interests rather than the public good. in the philippines, as secretary of war, and then as president, he views everything through legal and constitutional terms. he was our most judicial president. as president, he refuses to consider political implications of his actions with disastrous political consequences. it was his decision to fire roosevelt's close aide, the environmentalists. and led to a scandal and let roosevelt to challenge taft and spoke the republican party. roosevelt refused to bring a tax. it is a remarkable example as an anti-politician as president. instead of considering popular

implications he considers , constitutional implications and the political consequences are dire. brian lamb: why didn't theodore roosevelt run in 1908? why did william howard taft run again in 1912, given what happened in those four years? jeffrey rosen: roosevelt did not run because he made a promise the day william mckinley was elected or soon after. he said i will serve one elected term because i want to keep the tradition of presidents serving two terms. he regretted it, but felt duty bound to obey it so he did not -- so that is why he did not run taft run instead. taft ran again even though he did not like being president, but he ran because he felt the election was a crusade to defend the constitution against the demagogic populism.

the election of 1912, george will said, all american politics can be traced to the election of 1912 and you can tell who was a conservative today based on who they would have voted for. he says conservatives would have voted for the constitutionalist, taft, trying to defend judicial independence and the rule of law against the attacks of roosevelt who says people should overturn judicial decision by popular vote. it was that claim that the most alarmed constitutionalist and made taft run for election even though he did not want to. roosevelt insisted that the president is a steward of the people who can directly channel the people's will. he endorses instruments of direct democracy, like the initiative and referendum, that he believes empowered the presidents to be a channel of populism. wilson, too, is a progressive

populist who insists in his latest book unconstitutional government, that the president in congress is like a prime minister who represents the people's will directly and this appalls taft who says no, he derives his authority not in the people, but from the constitution. they designed and electoral college to filter popular will that people elect wise delegates. this appalled taft's constitutionalist heart. he won only two electoral votes. he felt it was necessary to defend the constitution. brian lamb: you mentioned artsy -- archie butt. jeffrey rosen: there is a two volume and more. this serves taft.

he is at his side while taft is dancing alone on the white house for ran into a gramophone. what is so interesting about butt is he admires taft and roosevelt so he watches with sympathy. as for taft, archie butt says it is as if he is too good for politics. people cannot appreciate him. butt noticed taft's achilles' heel, which is that he was a hater, the greatest hater he ever knew. if taft knew someone who was disloyal, he took an instant dislike to them and lashed out against them. one example is when taft was young, someone insulted his father, and he bashed his head against the ground.

spasms of anger would erupt in him in the name of royalty -- loyalty. taft would engage in self-defeating spasms of anger against people he considered disloyal. he fired an environmentalist and the deputy and these had catastrophic political consequences. butt is clear-eyed and sympathetic. butt went down on titanic and taft was heartbroken. brian lamb: when did he write the book? titanic was 1912? when did he write a two-part series? jeffrey rosen: i should have it immediately in mind. it was after the presidency of taft. it must have been a contemporary diary. there were letters to his sister. taft's presidency ended in 13. the book breaks off in the middle when the titanic goes down. brian lamb: he was in the military?

jeffrey rosen: he served both roosevelt and mckinley. brian lamb: you allude about how long it took you to get the book done. when did they first ask you part , of this 44 book series on the presidency? jeffrey rosen: this wonderful series started by shawn willens. they asked me years ago, another author have been asked and he couldn't do it. they gave it to me seven years ago. like william howard taft, i can only write on tight deadlines. there was no deadline, so i did other things. they said, if you do not finish the book, the guy who is writing obama will be deal. my pride was quickened. i set myself a six-month deadline and i wrote it in concentrated bursts. it was the most satisfying book i ever wrote. i felt like i had an opportunity and duty to channel taft and let him speak in his own words to resurrect the underappreciated

constitutional senior who ginsburg said is the most unappreciated figure since george mason, the anti-federalist who refuse to sign the constitution because it did not have a bill of rights. it was this intensive burst and it was more fun than any book i have ever written. brian lamb: there have been 42 written so far. no president trump and no president obama yet. and they sailed for $26 and they are only 170 pages long. jeffrey rosen: they make you write short. 65,000 wordst was and they make huge frame it down to under 50. the benefit is it is short and you are forced to intensely distill the core ideas of the president so that you can educate people. brian lamb: what were the accomplishments? five bigor

accomplishments for taft? jeffrey rosen: he lowered the tarrif. brian lamb: lowered the terrorists? -- tariff? can you explain that? jeffrey rosen: tariffs were the biggest constitutional battle of the early republic. the question was how to fund the republic. alexander hamilton, defended the government by excise taxes, taxes on things like whiskey and carriages in particular goods. the income tax is only introduced during the civil war by lincoln and it is temporary. if there is a brief one again in the cleveland administration and very unpopular and it expires. a supreme court decision in the 1890's called the public case rules that the income tax is

unconstitutional. it makes it impossible to administer. it was a 5-4 decision and taft thought it was wrong because alexander hamilton thought it did not have to be a portion. respect of the supreme court's and did not want to embarrass them by trying to overturn the decision. he thought a constitutional amendment was necessary and the 16th amendment was introduced during his presidency. the tariffs are bubbling as a political issue and splits the republican party. the party had been devoted to protective tariffs for income but not protection, moderate tariffs to fund the government but not protect certain , industries over the others. it favored some over others. eastern manufacturers, glove manufacturers. within the republican party there were three camps, one who

wanted to keep the tariff as it was or raise it to pander to their constituencies. republicans who wanted to lower the tariff and not eliminate it like the free trade democrats. and taft was in the middle. the republican platform pledges the party to revise the tariff takes isa lawyer, taft so seriously that i pledge to revise the tariff. he calls congress into special session days after his inauguration and they are waiting for what he is going to propose. they read the message that half 'sribbled -- calf -- taft group. everyone expected a state address and he wrote it like a lawyer writing a judicial dispatch.

he is doing get as a contract with america. all the craziness breaks loose because politics are dying. he refuses to intervene and it -- and he is rolled and the initial bill proposed by senator paine lowers the tariffw substantially. it wasn't the only achieved since the 1890's where the democrats tried it and lost the election. howard taft went on the campaign trail. you remember when i was at the new republic and mike kinsley was there and in the 1990's he said that in washington, a gap is when a politician is held -- politician is telling the truth. taft went on the campaign trail and said this is the best tariff bill the republican party had ever passed. this goes viral on the telegraph

and people are outraged that he is defending it because it is flawed. it is an example of him being an anti-politician. it was better tariff revision that anybody else had achieved. woodrow wilson continued as a free-trade democrat. basically represents a bipartisan consensus until the election of 2016. taft gets credit for trying, but not for being a good politician. brian lamb: what else did he accomplish? jeffrey rosen: the canadian free-trade agreement, the precursor of nafta. this is a really big deal. between theee trade u.s. and canada is essential. he confesses congress to pass a canadian free-trade treaty. he writes a letter to theodore roosevelt while canadians are debating it saying that if

canada does not pass it, they will be in annex of the u.s. it leaks and goes viral. the canadian premiere called him tricky taft and said he was trying to pull something over on canadians and canadian voters rejected it. it would have been the greatest accomplishment of his presidency. his other significant achievements are his constitutionalist vision of foreign policy. he sends troops to the mexican border where there is an insurrection but not over it. ,he thinks of the constitution gives congress the power to declare war. he invokes a young congressman lincoln who criticized president polk for sending troops over the mexican border. taft, like lincoln, maintains the peace and resists the cries

of his party for war and it starts the u.s. toward a path of a vision of legalization of foreign policy in international courts which he thinks can adjudicate all questions, including questions of national honor. brian lamb: what impact did his appointment of six justices to the supreme court have? he created a: conservative court and he served with some of them when he became chief justice. some had retired then. it was a court that protected , undery rights and also his leadership became a cohesive body. we can talk about what he achieved as chief justice. brian lamb: six in four years. is that one of the bigger numbers in all of history? jeffrey rosen: it is and he cared so much about it. theare tremendously about

supreme court. the moment came when he was about to appoint a chief justice. he is about to appoint chief from new york. as he is dressing for the appointment on the way to the white house, taft cannot bring himself to appoint him because he wants to be chief justice. he was so young that cap knew he -- taft knew he would outlive him. he counseled the appointment and appoints edward douglas white, and older man whose only qualification was the hope that he will expire in time for taft to succeed him. he loses at the presidential election and he is pining for douglas to die. he keeps stopping by, how are you doing? finally, president harding meets with him as says if there is a seat on the supreme court, i

will appoint you. says it has to be chief justice. the chief justice died a few weeks later. now taft lobbies hard for the seats because his service in war made people reject them. he is appointed and confirmed unanimously. how many stories in american politics are there of not only a president who goes to the supreme court, but someone who, ever since he was a child, had pined to be chief justice and waited meticulously and finally achieved the dream? that is the most beautiful story of someone who has found his true calling, excelling in the most miraculous way. very briefly i know we talking , about his presidency, but he achieved three things as chief justice that make him arguably

the greatest chief since the judge marshall. first, he passes the judiciary act of 1922, creating conference of the federal circuit judges and creates the modern administrative apparatus of the judiciary and gives the judges of the bandwidth to challenge the president and engage in a moderate administration state. second, he passes the judiciary act of 1925, giving courts total jurisdiction. before that past, the justices were wasting time with obscure private disputes. by allowing the court to focus on great constitutional battles, taft increases the prestige of the court. third, he built the supreme court building, a temple of justice designed by taft. it was a product of his lobbying congress for the money, helping choose the site, and when it was opened after his death, chief

justice hughes gives him credit for it. he also makes consensus in the court. he persuades justices like brandeis to suppress their dissent in interest of creating a single opinion of the court, as john marshall did. there are more unanimous opinions in his chief ship than others. our current justice is a great admirer of taft. trying to discourage dissent and create unanimous opinions and is a tribute to taft's legacy. brian lamb: you wrote a book on louis brandeis. what did he think of taft? jeffrey rosen: they clashed dramatically. he had the unrealistic point that wilson would appoint him for the seat.

taft hoped he'd get on the supreme court. taft attacked brandeis. it had almost an anti-semite tinge. he denounced anti-semitism. after taft and brandeis get on the court, they bury the hatchet. they are devoted to the institutional legitimacy of the court and he persuades readers to join him in unanimous opinion and brandeis embraces the decision. his administrator asked how it , was possible that he is a good judge in about president. he hated being president booking -- and the court is all happiness for him. an example of two great thinkers putting aside their personal differences for the devotion to the institutional legitimacy of the court. brian lamb: what impact did his weight have on him as a person,

a politician, a justice? jeffrey rosen: it is an inspiring and moving story. he was our largest resident. president. there are cruel jokes about him in bathtubs that he was stuck in a bath, a story by the white house that has been confirmed by no other source. he was large, 340 pounds. he ate his feelings. he hated being president. what is a remarkable about his weight is that he lost it after he was president. he went on a paleo diet of fruits and vegetables and lean fish. he lost 76 pounds in six months. it was incredible. he kept it off for most of the rest of his happy career. when he was chief justice, he was of a lower weight.

when he died, he was at his college weight of 280. what is remarkable about the story of discipline is that he connected his struggles with weight to the struggles of citizens in a democracy to restrain their own passions. he gave a speech that he who takes a village, quoting the bible, citizens of democracy, like those who struggle with weight, have a responsibility to restrain their passions so they can discipline themselves. it is a beautiful story. even in his own day, his weight was an object of public fascination. there were all of these mean jokes about him. the citizens of glenwood, colorado, waited for him at a train station with a specially constructed bathing costume they wanted to put on. he refuse. he took the jokes. they would be considered w eight-ist today. we really would not tolerate this sort of thing today.

they must have stung. then he lost all of the weight. brian lamb: his father, you talked about him. he was the secretary of war. and he was secretary of war. what about his children and their children? jeffrey rosen: what a family they are. it is a remarkable story of public service. the taft children were a distinguished group. his son was known as mr. republican, the most famous isolationist senator of the 20th century who passed the taft-hartley act, which forbade secondary boycotts, boycotts by unions against companies that do business with companies they are boycotting. it is self like a technical thing but it was a thing he cared most about as a lower court judge. it was poetic justice that his son pass this into law. he is the founder of the modern isolationist wing of the republican party. his other children included charlie taft, who became mr. cincinnati.

his daughter helen was a very distinguished historian and professor and intellectual. their children were equally distinguished and include the recent governor of ohio. we are having our first william howard taft day on september 14. i am going to go to cincinnati and we are going to assemble the family and pay an overdue tribute. brian lamb: did robert taft son have any impact as a senator? he died in 1993. jeffrey rosen: huge. the taft party act was significant. brian lamb: i mean after that. i'm talking about his son. jeffrey rosen: i think you are talking about governor bob taft, senator taft's son.

it was another one. yes, that their generation was equally distinguished. it is an amazing dynasty. underappreciated dynasty will of -- full of people who are brian: you have some quotes that, i am trying to remember if they came from, i am not sure where they came from. it doesn't matter. you will get the gist, when i read them to you, about the aft and that the t roosevelt had about each other. here's one of them. campaigned taft vigorously after winning the massachusetts primary. he told the man in maryland, i am a man of peace and i don't want to fight, but when i do fight i want to hit hard. even a rat in a corner will fight. after alarming the public with this unfortunate image, this is during the 1912 campaign, he lamented the "hypocrisy, insincerity, selfishness, the

monumental agate has an -- egotism, and almost the insanity of the megalomania that possessed theodore roosevelt." why would he be saying this about a guy who got him the vice presidency, and encouraged him to run for president? jeffrey: the egotism, megalomania, it was constitutionalism that animated those colorful insults. he thought it was egotistical, megalomaniacal, for roosevelt to embrace a vision of the presidency allowing the people to overturn judicial decisions, and he thought that roosevelt was acting like a populist demagogue. but here is what is really important. from he unburdened himself one of these attacks, he went back to his railroad car, weeping, saying, roosevelt was my closest friend. of course, roosevelt is reciprocating, calling taft a flubdub with a streak of the

second rate. the aristocratic roosevelt, no man of the people when it comes to those insults. but the story does have a happy ending, of sorts. after the election was over and both men went into the political wilderness, they run into each other by accident in a hotel, and they are in the hotel dining room and approach each other. first they are wary, but then they start talking animatedly, clapping each other on the back. the whole dining room erupts in applause. they were reconciled in the end, and that meant a lot to taft, that they made up before roosevelt's death. brian: he also called him, william howard taft in the campaign, a puzzlewit and a fathead. how strong is that language, in those days? [laughter] jeffrey: john marshall, thomas jefferson used similar insults. marshall called jefferson the

great lama of the mountain, and jefferson accused marshall of twistification. there's a great tradition of literate insults in american politics, but this is generated by passion and emotion. they really came to discuss each other during the campaign. brian: when you went to research, where did you go for the best stuff? jeffrey: the eight volumes of taft's collected writings, an effort to present taft in his own words. he wrote a lot. he wrote clearly. not gracefully, but exquisitely. he made his thoughts transparent. a great, eight volume series. listeners who are really motivated to learn more can read the whole thing, but the goal of the book was to distill the essence of his thoughts, so they did not have to read the eight volumes, and present his basic ideas. there are also a lot of great biographies of taft. lots of people start with the wonderful doris kearns goodwin book, the bully pulpit, which

tells the story of the friendship and deterioration between roosevelt and taft. also wonderful biographies by lauriealled, jonathan , donald anderson, judith anderson. just, listeners, go to the library, go to amazon, google taft. of course there's a two volume set by henry pringle, the first significant biography. it is good, but he writes about taft with this aristocratic condescension. he is very stylish, but calls taft sort of a second rate mind, thinks he's not an effective politician. what is frustrating, pringle didn't allow taft to present himself in his own terms, and i thought it was very important. when you judge taft by his terms, rather than by objective political standards, and view his presidency and chief justice as a whole, in constitutional terms, his full achievements

come into proper weight. so i viewed this as an act of resurrection, allowing taft to speak for himself in a way. brian: theodore roosevelt, the supposed trustbuster, or taft? jeffrey: taft brings more antitrust suits in one term than roosevelt does in nearly two. we think of him as the great trustbuster, but he refused to prosecute u.s. steel, some say he was too close to jpmorgan. taft, the constitutionalist, thinks the machinery of law has to be allowed to see its course. we don't think of taft as a progressive, but he was. he called himself a progressive conservative. not only did he bring more antitrust suits in one term, he withdrew morlands -- more lands for federal conservation, including national parks, but he did it in proper procedures,

ordering congress to pass laws rather than the executive order. we are having this debate in america of if presidents should act unilaterally by executive orders, and taft's environmentalism is especially appealing. brian: why did theodore roosevelt run against him, then form his own party, then actually get more votes? jeffrey: well, he really wanted to be president again. brian: what was driving that? jeffrey: you know, it was almost a kind of messianic sense of his own destiny. when he walked out of the republican convention of 1912, the supporter said, we stand at armageddon, marching for the lord. there was a revivalist tinge to it. roosevelt claimed the convention had stolen votes from him. 70 contested votes, kind of like the sanders-hillary clinton dispute today. but the truth is, the republican

party leadership was committed to taft, and he was going to win according to the rules at the time. there were not a lot of direct primaries. the first were occurring in 1912, so roosevelt felt the election had been stolen. he might have won the popular primaries, but that wasn't the system in place, and he believed taft had betrayed his progressivism. he saw him as a conservative, despite the environmentalism and antitrust statistics i quoted, and he was convinced of his own rectitude. president,as a great deserves our honor. he's on mount rushmore. but he did not crown himself with glory in the election of 1912, and had he not run, i don't know whether taft would have been reelected, but not only did his running split the republican party, it guaranteed the election of wilson, really defeated both of them. brian: you say in your book that

the most scandalous decision of his presidency was firing ballenger. what is that about? jeffrey: the pinchot-ballenger affair was the james comey firing scandal of its day. brian: who were they? jeffrey: ballenger was the secretary of interior, viewed as a pro-corporate guy favoring industry over the environment. pinchot is roosevelt's former of the forest -- head of the forest service, a moralist and crusader who goes on to be governor of pennsylvania, a supporter of prohibition, even today you philly thanks in to his blue laws. brian: ballenger or pinchot? jeffrey: pinchot is fired, the one challenging taft's authority. a complicated story. there's a whistleblower called glavis in the interior

department who has become convinced ballenger, the new secretary, has given lands to a syndicate that might be controlled by morgan, guggenheim, and other contributor to taft's campaign. so he lays his charges before pinchot, who takes him to task, basically accusing ballenger of being corrupt. taft reviews the evidence, like a judge reviewing a case, and concludes that in fact ballenger hasn't been corrupt, and there's a legitimate reason for not preserving the lands, and he exonerates ballenger, but pinchot is convinced there's a cover-up. first taft fires glavis for insubordination, because he's continuing to make a fuss, and then although he knows the consequences, he fires pinchot. possessed,, pale, because he knows it will have huge consequences, but he says i cannot tolerate administrative insubordination.

then there are congressional hearings. unfortunately for taft, the democrats hire as their counsel the robert mueller of the day, the brandeis, the people's lawyer -- lle brandeis -- lee brandeis, the people's lawyer. he concludes taft backdated a document he used to exonerate ballenger, suggesting to those in washington the cover-up is worse than the crime. he exposes this on the stand, basically accusing taft of corruption. taft's defense is that he backdated the documents to create a chronological record of evidence he relied on, like a judge reaching a judicial decision, and he hadn't had time, kind of a convoluted expedition. it is good enough for congress, concluding taft did nothing wrong, not guilty of obstruction of justice, did not lie under oath or anything, but it creates the illusion he has been underhanded, and it is the biggest scandal of his presidency. the moral of the story, as always in d.c., don't cover up,

fire peoplend don't in padua's we because you think they are disloyal, because the consequences could be catastrophic. brian: what would it be like today, if roosevelt was in town doing his thing, taft was president, all that, what would the media be doing to this story? would they survive it? jeffrey: you couldn't imagine taft remotely surviving in the age of cable news and twitter. his entire premise as president is that it's the greatest sin to directly address the people. madison says director indication between the president and the people will foment popular passion and prevent the slow growth of reason, so roosevelt would be the precursor to our first tweeting president, president obama, not president

trump, although president trump has taken the art to a new level, tweeting on the bashan of -- basiis of passion, and we knw from studies tweets based on passion travel more than those based on reason. if we were to refight the elections of 1912 today, taft would do even worse, and you would have a fight between roosevelt and wilson, both of whom were populists. but roosevelt was probably more charismatic than wilson, a former princeton professor, and maybe roosevelt might have won. brian: you run the national constitution center. what were you doing before you got that job? jeffrey: i had two spectacular jobs in d.c. we met long ago, when i was a young journalist and legal affairs director of the new republic. i have the honor of doing that for about 20 years. i was a journalist in d.c. very happily. i teach law at gw law school. i am a professor there, and i

have had the privilege of teaching constitutional law at gw. i was a journalist and law professor for over 20 years, and out of the blue the constitutional center called. it is the most meaningful opportunity of my life. c-span viewers know. you and your colleagues have been so wonderful in collaborating, from landmark cases to other great programs. the constitution center, like c-span, has this inspiring mandate from congress, although we are both private nonprofits, to increase awareness and understanding among the public. about the u.s. constitution, and for you about public affairs. such a meaningful, important mission. i need to sit here and thank you on behalf of the constitution admirers,d all your for creating this marvelous instrument for public education. it is exactly what taft would have approved, allowing citizens to absorb complicated arguments, make up their own minds, educate themselves and develop the faculties of reason. it is a tremendous service, and such an honor to have our

theaborations, wit constitution center and c-span. brian: back to the beginning, at the new republic, how did it happen that you headed this up? how big of an organization is it? jeffrey: thanks for asking. it was the most meaningful break of my life. i was in law school, and i decided in law school i wanted to be a journalist. i didn't want to be a practicing lawyer, because i knew i wouldn't be very good at it. i was an intern for the new republic in law school, writing editorials as a young kid about the retirement of the supreme court, the most exciting thing i ever did. i clerked for a year, then decided to be a freelance journalist rather than a lawyer. my mom wasn't happy about this, because she saw the expensive law school education going down the drain. but andrew sullivan, then the editor of the new republic, asked me to be legal affairs editor at age 28. a tremendous opportunity.

the new republic in those days was one of the few political magazines writing at length about legal topics, and i had this amazing opportunity thanks to andrew sullivan to write about the law and the constitution for a magazine that featured giants like felix frankfurter, all my constitutional heroes. the most exciting opportunity i had, and i did it with great gratitude and relish, for a long time. the new republic was a small group of shining journalists and intellectuals. such a beautiful group of people, who were determined to seek the truth, with conscience, a tradition going back to the days of frankfurter. back in the early 1990's, what a thrill to be a young kid out of law school, working with people like fred barnes, mickey kaus, andrew sullivan, charles lane, all these giants who have gone on to such great careers in journalism, and i was privileged

to be a young staffer at that exciting time. brian: the constitution center. how big of a deal is it? what kind of budget does it have? where does the money come from? what do you do on a day-to-day basis,? running it? jeffrey: thank you for asking about that. it is this beautiful temple to the constitution, on independent small, across from -- independence mall, across from independence hall. i want citizens on c-span to come see it. it is the most inspiring space, and the only education center in the u.s. devoted to constitutional education, with a haul of statues of the signers, where the kids can touch george washington, benjamin franklin, see how tall they were. and the rarest original copies of the constitution and declaration of independence, the bill of rights. but also a national education center, devoted to bringing liberals and conservatives together to educate people about the constitution. c-span viewers know about our

great online resource, the interactive constitution, which brings together the top liberal and conservative scholars in america to write about every clause of the constitution, describing what they agree about and disagree about. it is so exciting, the college board will work with us to create a special curriculum on the first amendment. supreme court justices gorsuch and kagan will help us to videos to teach kids about the first amendment, and anyone in america will be able to click on the interactive constitution. i want people to go to constitutioncenter.org and see it, and find these materials that teach the essence of the constitution in a nonpartisan way. what do i do during the day, and how was it funded? it is almost entirely privately funded. it was created with a mandate from congress, but we get almost no government money. the budget is $16 million, and about half of that is earned from our admissions, rentals and endowment, and half of that i have to raise. we have to raise about $8

million a year to create all the phenomenal programs that c-span viewers have been so wonderful about watching. we are funded by a patriotic group of donors from both sides of the political spectrum. our board chair is doug devos, a wonderful, patriotic american whose family has been a great supporter of the constitution center since it opened. we have liberals and conservatives on the board. it's hugely important for me to make the case, not only that americans have to educate themselves about the constitution, but also to find people at any level willing to become part of the project and help us. brian: who is your single biggest contributor? jeffrey: it is the devos family. richard,s, his dad have been extraordinary generous to the constitution center of the years, and we are grateful for their patriotic philanthropy. brian: how do you keep your personal views out of the discussion?

jeffrey: you do such a mast will job at it. you are one of my models. the way i do it, i insist on separating my political from my constitutional views. i have political views. i used to write about them as a journalist. i am not interested in them anymore. what i need to do is help citizens look at issues from a constitutional, not a political perspective, and understand that on most constitutional issues there are good arguments on both sides. pick the right to bear arms, the most controversial question. looking at the constitution, it is not whether gun control is a good or bad idea. people disagree. the question is, what does the second amendment allow or prohibit? it is possible after you look at the text, you might conclude that assault weapons bans are a good idea, but the second amendment forbids them, for that they are a bad idea but the second amended allows it. i teach my students to separate political from constitutional views, and that is my mission,

to bring to all citizens the tools of constitutional interpretation that will allow each of them, all of you c-span viewers, to separate your political from constitutional views. it opens your mind to the arguments on the other side. there are good arguments about the second amendment on both sides. it also turns out, we agree on much more than we disagree about talking about constitutional issues, as the interactive constitution shows, requiring liberal and conservative scholars to write about what they agree on. when you address issues on a constitutional rather than political plane, as william howard taft understood, you can rise above politics and cultivate reason. brian: on a personal side, you dedicated this book to someone new lauren coyle rosen. who is she? jeffrey: she is my wife. we were married in october. this book has special resonance to me, because we met in

january, as i was beginning the book, and finished in june just as we were engaged. she teaches anthropology at ainceton university, and has brilliant research agenda of writing about anthropology and law and comparative spirituality. one of her specialties is ghana, and we are about to go to ghana next week. i will follow her on her fieldwork. dedication.the brian: "more than i ever hoped, the happiness i have been granted. love led me wisely through "ome, passing its palaces by. brian: we were reading goethe as we fell in love together. i am a very lucky man. jeffrey: you talk about your children reading. brian: hugo and sebastian, they

just turned 12. they are fraternal twins. it is so exciting for me to see their love of books, their --ger for fo cultivat for cultivating their own faculties. brian: how are they different? jeffrey: completely different. fraternal twins, i think of them as two people who happened to be born at the same -- for cultivating their own faculties. brian: time. but i think i will respect their privacy by not talking about them in detail, but they are two beautiful individuals who love books and music. i'm very proud of both of them. brian: given what we have been listening to in our country for the last several years, politicians talking about one another, i want to go back to letterok, and quote a you found, to nelly, his wife. they were married 44 years. this is a quote, talking about roosevelt, he is "utterly

unscrupulous in his method of stating things, and his power of attracting public attention is marvelous. i think he has really convinced a great number of people of the united states that we committed gross frauds, that i am the receiver of stolen goods in taking the nomination." what is the depth of this disgust for one another? jeffrey: part of them is nelly. he never trusted roosevelt, and when roosevelt ran against taft, she basically said i told you so. he said, i know you did, my dear, and you are maybe even happier that you are right. he won according to the established rules of the republican convention, and he's furious roosevelt accuses him of stealing the votes. roosevelt supporters say taft has been railroaded through, and they have slogans like "choo choo."

it's very adult. [laughter] it is understandable they would work themselves into a mutual lather about it, as is often the case. those are your closest to, when you get disappointed, have a breach, you become most inflamed by. so nelly is jyusust working him, he's complaining to her, convinced roosevelt is a make a maniac that will destroy the republic -- megalomaniac that will destroy the republic. brian: you talk about nelly, her husband, the tapestry. why did you begin with that? jeffrey: i will let your viewers decide, but it struck me as meaningful. taft, secretary of war, goes to japan. the embers of japan offers him a beautiful tapestry -- empress of japan offers medieval tapestry. there's just one problem. taft is convinced that as an officer of the united states he's for been from the foreign emoluments clause of the

constitution of accepting any gifts from foreign kings or potentates. so he says he has to give the gift to the smithsonian. there is one problem. nelly taft really wants the tapestry, because it is beautiful. she appeals to president roosevelt, who decides that nelly, unlike taft, is not an official and can keep the tapestry. she hangs it in the white house, where she enjoys guests being bewildered by its provenance. nelly, when she was exasperated by taft's constitutional scruples, set of her husband, he stood by the constitution, as usual. from the, that's a perfect epitaph -- for me, that's a perfect epitaph for his career. he approached every decision on constitutional terms, and refuses to be swayed by personal gain, despite the importing ofions of -- importunations his wife or anyone else. brian: if you were able to sit down with taft, what questions would you ask, and why?

jeffrey: i would be so eager to ask what he thought about american democracy in the age of facebook and twitter. because i think it would represent his constitutional nightmare, his dystopia. his speeches are so eloquent, more eloquent even than madison, because he was a clearer writer on this question, about how the whole mechanism of the american republic was designed to slow down deliberation, so people can have sober second thoughts. rather than enacting direct passions into law, they should be required to allow hasty passions to cool so they could be guided by reason. what he would make of our current media landscape i can imagine, but i would love to hear his own thoughts. and i would like to ask him on how to resurrect madisonian reason in an age of twitter and facebook, and how to slow down deliberation, to create the thoughtful second thoughts that he and the founders thought were necessary. brian: so what are you working on now?

you have another book in mind? do you have time? jeffrey: i have two more books in mind. it because they are not yet, will not jinx things by sharing them. but i hope for this book, and also for brandeis, i take my time to start, but when i pull the trigger i start fast. i like writing short books on tight deadlines. i'm excited. brian: will it be about a person or about an issue? >> one is about a person. the others about an issue. brian: president of the national constitution center, jeffrey rosen, has been our guest. the book is "william howard taft: a biography." we thank you very much. jeffrey: thank you so much. such an honor to talk with you about the constitution. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ ♪

>> for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us. q and a programs are also .vailable as c-span podcasts q&a,ext week, on charles calhoun discusses his biography of benjamin harrison. ♪ >> c-span's "washington ve every day with news and policy issues that impact you. on monday, a democratic and republican consultant will discuss the political landscape,

with just over two months until election 2018. and from the government account the new report on the cost of incarcerating immigrants. live at 7:00 eastern, monday morning. join the discussion. >> monday night, on "the communicators," the impact of robots and artificial intelligence on society and business, with manhattan institute senior fellow mark mills. >> our current artificial intelligence, in the cloud, they are kind of like model t's. they are pretty good. they are commercial, viable, useful. but model t's are open to the air, pretty uncomfortable. in 1918, scientific american published a forecast of the future of the car, and they believed it would be fully enclosed and weatherproof. so obviously the model t is not so great, but it started the car

age. that's where we are with artificial intelligence, at the beginning. when it comes to the general purpose, what is known as an anthropomorphic, general-purpose robot, like a general-purpose computer, it stems from the 1890's. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern, on c-span 2. host: we continue our series, looking at 1968, a historic year. 50 years later. 1968, america in turmoil. today we focus on the women's rights movement during this tumultuous year and decade, joined by author and former barnard college president debora spar. mona charen. friedan, whose book "the feminine mystique" was ed