by successful speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained to not entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. so we do not have unanimous consent. pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 967, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, december 28, 2020. merry christmas.

host: how should you look at a president's legacy? guest: you have to let the battles to be settled peacefully, or moved on from, before we take a look at a president's legacy. decent years for a biography to be written about jackson. and other presidents, when they

left office -- when harry truman left office, he had a 22% approval rating. he was trying to seek reelection fro one more -- for one more term in 1952, but his own party turned against him. now is considered to be one of our near great presidents because of the courageous things he did as president of the united states. john kennedy, after november 22, was considered to be a great president, then years later considered to be a mediocre president. now he is going through another reevaluation to be considered a great or near great president, or at least the potential for greatness is there. so i would avoid any instant evaluations of the trump presidency in the minutes and hours and days after he leaves

office. i think it is important for passions to quell and for people to take a whole look at it. host: what elements or things that will be looked at in determining a legacy ultimately? guest: certainly his personal behavior will be looked at. character is one of the two most important elements in a president. d jameser hamilton an madison, when describing a president in the federalist papers, when they were making the case for the constitution over the articles of confederation, they repeatedly wrote that the two most important elements in a president were character and experience. and so those things have to be considered, and have been considered. for virtually every president. and we feel it most of the not

so great presidents also often had questionable characters. so i would say that those of the two most important things. it would be his personal behavior. then you get to policy. you break it down between domestic and foreign policy. and historians will judge wereer or not the tax cuts good or bad, the withdrawals from afghanistan and iraq, whether those were good or bad. and foreign policy with extensions to north korea, the weres with china, would -- these ultimately good or bad for the presidency, and ultimately for the people of the united states. i would avoid instant evaluation of his presidency. host: i suppose the management of the pandemic will fall into that as well. guest: absolutely. that is one of those things,

too, that you have to look at that. attackedst, when we viruses, various viruses inflicted on the united states, it took many months, even years to find cures. when donald trump said we were going to try to cure it in less than a year, he was mostly mocked. yet low and behold, here the virus or the cures were found in december, in less than a year. and something that 20 million americans have already been -- the vaccine has already been administered to them. it's rolling ahead. you have to put aside your personal feelings about donald this was aay, yes,

monumental achievement. host: you have written four biographies on ronald reagan, looking at various aspects of his life. i can only imagine where you there are request to compare ronald reagan to donald trump. where are you on that? guest: many times i am asked. i think it is unfair to compare one president to another, because there are so many intangibles and variables. first of all, there is different character and make up of the individual man, the set of circumstances he finds himself confronting the world and the united states. best thingthat the to do is to compare them to they selves and if succeeded in front of challenges, or if they failed. i worked for ronald reagan.

my wife worked for ronald reagan. we were there in the 1980's in washington. and i have given many lectures on reagan, and i have written pieces on him. i am deep in ronald reagan biography. and you have to say, if you look at him, even if you do not like him politically or ideologically, you have to say, is that -- is the goals he set wereo conquer, to achieve, they all done? he wanted to restore the nation's morale. 1980, the soviet union was in afghanistan. they were in africa. cambodia,in laos, south vietnam -- they had all fallen to communism.

we were retreating. the american economy was in a horrible shape. the worst economy since the great depression. we were contracting, jobs were disappearing. combined with that was we had an economic condition with economists say in the book did not exist. we had an economy with high inflation, which it they said was impossible to exist. 60%, 20%was upwards of 20% a year and the value of the dollar dwindled down greatly in the carter administration. so, carter -- or ronald reagan was confronting a depressed american morale, an awful economy, and soviet advances, yet eight years later we created 18 million new jobs, interest

rates -- the high interest rates were eradicated. and within two years, less than that, within a year it was the beginning of the end of the soviet union. so this is one of the greatest achievements in human kind, but one of the greatest of the 20th century and one of the great achievements by an american president. he brought the soviet union to its knees, crushed it. the baltic states, the warsaw tax country states, the soviet catalyst states are all liberated. millions are set free who had been behind th e iron curtain. an achievement for the ages. so, reagan, in the context of history, and it does not matter if you are conservative or

liberal, must be judged as an exceptional president because he accomplished those goals. is joining shirley us and are talking about issues concerning the gop and president trump. if you want to ask him questions, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 free democrats. -- for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. let me ask about the party of reagan. let me communicate to you a tweet from one of our viewers, saying, "without president trump the gop has no future. they need to accept that." guest: that's interesting. both parties generally are not about individuals. they are more about policies and positions. a person can dominate a party for a time. the publican

party for years. dominated the democratic party for many years, who kindbill clinton, of broke -- i do not want to see the adoration, but the respect for president kennedy probably broke with the presidency of bill clinton. isimately, donald trump going to fade from the scene. but will his policies stand up to inspection? do they stand up for, you know, for being embraced year after year after they leave the presidency? i would say that donald trump's policies, on many things, wer simplye -- were simply a continuation of ronald reagan's

policies. teh rebooking party -- the republican from the 1930's up until the time of richard nixon was really a me too party. the democrats were always the big government party and they had been since franklin delano roosevelt. and they were the result of big government. but, you know, the republican was what really -- it ronald reagan called a banner of -- of full colors and no pastels. ronald reagan changes all that in the 1970's and 1980's, and makes the republican party the party of the individual, not the state. and democratic consultants told me at the time it is pretty easy

to understand, the democratic party was the party of the government, the republican party was that of less government. george hchanged with to be a bush and his various policies, breaking his word on taxes and things like that. then it really continued. along,wt gingrich comes takes it back to the party of less regulation and more power to the states, the federalism that the republican party was based on. and then -- sure. host: we have people lined up to talk to you. our first caller, mike on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two points. obviouslyquestion is, i am a democratic caller, i do not like ronald reagan, but i

must agree on his successes. but i want you to talk about the loss of marines in the ballard explosion. you brought up the success of the vaccine by the trump administration, which must be celebrated, but it is equally played out with a tremendous loss of lives that has to be laid at his feet because of the failures of his administration. guest: you are absolutely right. i will take the second point in thethat donald trump, context of history, must be judged on the success of the pandemic, but the previous questionable actions about the operation and all those other things. for a historian must take both of those considerations. you are right. as far as ronald reagan and the middle east, those policy failures -- he did it, he did not want to do it. in beirut, he knew that the

middle east was a spiders nest. that these people have been fighting with each other for about 4000 years and there was no way to bring about -- in fact, peace at that time. but i will say that donald trump must be commended for the opening of arab emphases in israel. who would've thought that morocco, for instance, would open an embassy in israel 20 years ago? donald trump's doing, so that must be added to how he is judged by history. as far as a reagan, he fully said going into beirut was the biggest mistake of his life. he mourned the marines. it was a burden on him for the rest of his life. host: john on the republican line. caller: the truth is, president

trump very likely from an honest and aware historian's standpoint, will go down as the greatest president in our history. the reason, he stood up to the existential threat of china, unlike the other presidents. their bigdia, with heads making money off of china, and then the people in silicon valley in bed with china. the public does not really know that they have been lied to about this great president. basically, because he put the american people first, ahd a great foreign policy -- had a great foreign policy based on leverage, unilateral leverage with the u.s. versus other countries, one at a time, which gives us the best leverage in international u.s. -- like acting in the best interest of the american people. this guy has been the greatest president ever.

now we will have a prostitute of china and other bad interests coming to the white house because of all this cheating. host: we will leave it there. guest: whether or not donald trump is one of our greatest presidents is something for historians to judge. g back to mygoin earlier point, you could not make passionate judgments in the moments after a man leaves the presidency, it has to be -- we have to let those passions calm and for people to look into the cold eye of history and to judge these things. when judging a president, you have to judge them on personal behavior, policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, how he him as a himself, and speech maker. in the modern age, we have electronics. before, it was a time when abraham lincoln talked in his voice, and teddy roosevelt also

had a voice. they weren't speeches that have the dramatic cadence of john f. kennedy or ronald reagan. judge a president, not just one thing, all thing. miriam,ry him -- democrats line. caller: i'm calling about trump's legacy. how much does he owe russia, saudi arabia, and turkey, although strips he took to foreign countries? [laughter] i don't know, i have my own finding. host: you can contrast president

reagan's relationship with the press versus president trump's relationship with the press. guest: i just wrote a piece on this with "the washington approach to the press, he knew they were important, and the national press was different in the 1980's than it is today. nbc, and cbs.bc, you only had certain newspapers. there was no internet, no cable-tv. there was cable in philadelphia and new york, that's it. there was no widespread media that we have today to get your message out many other ways besides the traditional media. they failed in fighting with the

national media so they were going to work with the national media as much as they could. knew ifnd his staff they were to talk directly to the american people, it was through his radio broadcast or to conference people. afterwards that reagan had put the national media in its place very timely through its speeches -- his speeches, many speeches that were broadcast. he was almost always given airtime when he wanted to talk abc, nbc, and by cbs. there were the op-ed's would occasionally write. reagan not only worked with the national media, he went around and above and beyond the national media, whereas trump's style is kind of a derivative of your dish w bush when he

campaigned -- george h w bush when he campaigned unsuccessfully in 1992, annoy the media, vote for bush. that is cute but not ultimately very productive, and trump's combative attitude probably added two more woes for his wife how -- white house himself then he needed to encounter, if he worked with them a little bit more and got them focused on --icy and away from personal the character and personal behavior issues, it would have served him better. host: would you say twitter was thatresident's owned way own way to go around the media? -- phone way to go around the media? guest: yes, that was a key for donald trump in his early days and his presidency to reach the american people, and of course he had talk radio shows to reach

the american people. many had facebook. he had many tools at his command that previous presidents really did not have -- obama had them to a certain degree, but obama was in many ways the first new media president. donald trump took that and expanded it and enlarged it, and used it obviously very successfully. host: oliver in falls church, virginia, independent line. hello? caller: hello, pedro, good morning. host: good morning, go ahead. , i am 67r. shirley years old and i live in northern virginia for a long time, retired from the hyatt hotel chain is a chef. feel sorryg you, i

for americans like yourself who don't see the damage that donald trump is doing to this country. has twohame that he report to americans how he has destroyed our country in front of us. there are thousands of people dead. he is $400d out -- million in debt to people we don't know, and you support that. it is really a shame. i hope you understand one day that this man you are supporting to the american people and presenting to the american people was a disgrace, and we will find out exactly what criminal enterprise he is a part of when he is out of office. thank god for joe biden. int: that is all of our falls church. first, i need all the

pity i can get. second, i have also -- often praised joe biden in the past and praised bill clinton in the past and praised john kennedy in the past, so i tried to be a nonpartisan in my approach to the american presidents. host: let's go to anthony. if you are done, mr. shirley. guest: unless you want me to say more. host: i want to ask you about economic policy, because there is a story in "the washington post," from the london school of economics on the topic of trickle-down you get does economics. -- economics. the tax cuts succeeded in putting more money in the hands of the rich, the top one point sent, but -- 1%, but had no effect on economic growth,

although those fluctuated slightly. the effect was indistinguishable from zero as it applies to president reagan and his tax cuts. what do you think of these findings and the efficacy of tax cuts? iest: as far as reagan goes, reject -- i think the reagan tax cuts, i rejected. it is not about giving people their own money back. it is not just about that. it is that the time -- when i was in high school when i wasn't asleep in physics, i remember energycher saying that can never be added or subtracted, it can only be moved around. what reagan wanted to do, he

believed the national government had too much power and the individual citizens had too little power. because it was about power away from washington and back to the individual because he was a child of the enlightenment, it was a student of the american revolution, was a student of all the writers and thinkers of that resist, they wanted to throw off the shackles of british rule. in so doing, create a new government and not a new british tyranny over the american people to allow people to pursue their livelihoods and take advantage of their freedom and be unencumbered by the heavy hand of nobility or government. that is what reagan's tax cuts were ultimately about, is that reagan told a group of observers, the tax cuts, i have been asked what they are about.

they are about restoring rights and power and dignity to the individual. host: when you hold that same standard -- would you hold that same standard to this president's tax cuts? guest: i think so. i don't think he intellectualized it the way reagan did. one time where he came ofse to restoring the power individuals in the cody's. realize howle don't deeply he thought about things and how often he read and how often he met with scholars on economic policy, foreign policy. he read six newspapers a day. he read at least one book a week. the 1950'says in

when he was going back and forth across the country to give going andhe wasn't club cars and knocking back cocktails with other businessmen. he would take a private compartment and take a steamer trunk because a trip may take five days to go from los angeles to boston, and he would sequester himself with a steamer trunk full of articles and books. he was unusual in that most men reach a point in their life where they are static. they reach a point where their view of the world doesn't really change. reagan is dynamic. his view of the world is changing into his 50's and even ideology and philosophy and individuality are becoming more refined and much more sophisticated and subtle by the time he becomes president,

when he is 69 years old. host: anthony, democrats line, french gulch, california. caller: hi, there, mr. shirley. i have a question about trump's legacy and reagan's legacy in the context of racial injustice and racism. as you are well aware, things have come out about ronald reagan and every day about trump in the context of anti-blackness wordeagan using the "n" and i'm sure trump to this day uses that word. what about their legacy moving forward as these sorts of issues become even more important to the public? guest: i appreciate the call, but you are going to have to do better than that. you cannot make accusations about reagan using the "n" word. this was the most nonjudgmental

president of the modern era, back to the time when he was a child. wouldrents, his father not -- because of the racist content of the movie. when he was in college, the team was scheduled to stay nearby his teammatesd two of his -- for an away game -- two of his teammates, african-americans were not a for dutch allowed to stay -- allowed to stay at the hotel, he took these players to his parents' home and his parents welcomed them, to feed them and give them a place to sleep. reagan, when he was governor of california, appointed more african-americans to positions of high authority in the eight years he was governor of california than any other president before him. earl warren, the great suppose humanistst -- supposed

liberator, liberal, earl warren who was the administrator of the internment of 100 75,000 japanese during world war ii, trampling all of their constitutional rights, you go writing on the internet and look up my writings on reagan and race. there is no evidence. in fact, just the opposite, that aagan had any -- in 1953, club in los angeles invited him to join and he found out that jews could not join the lakewood country club so he did not join. i can think of a hundred cases were lit -- where reagan was totally egalitarian and believed in the rights of all citizens, regardless of -- and that is part of his conservatism and

individuality, not in groupthink, not in the whole theory of the american office today. anyway, go to the website and you will see the writings over the years about reagan and race. host: i will say this much, "the atlantic" and others highlight a tape between reagan and richard nixon where apparently he disparaged african-americans. guest: there was that one example, and i think that reagan was trying to be funny but it did not come off, that he was trying to -- nixon talked like that and was probably doing it out of respect or something like that. one incident in a life of 92 years, i'm going to disparage a man because of one faux pas of 95 years of life, i don't think so. it is the totality of his life, not just on one minor incident.

line,from our republican anton in florida, hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i became an american season only because of trump. trump was the last hope for america. i have been living here for a long time and came from one of the communist countries, so i know what is waiting. what you call the democrats or communists. ,t is mob rule for everybody except a few rich people like it has been for thousands of years. i don't know what the solution is really. i personally think the only way we can save the country is by civil war. that's my opinion. thing aboutne democracy, democracy is not what we have. democracy in the olden days was inut 200,000 people lived houses, 40,000 were entitled to vote.

if you had something you were somehow important. the rank and file riffraff, this is how the country will go down fast. i do not know where to go anymore. host: thank you. mr. shirley? guest: i will say to the caller, welcome to america. in many ways, i think these people who immigrate from to talus arianism and oppression is him -- totalitarianism and pression --m -- o my father-in-law escaped from pakistan as part of a group discriminated against either majority muslim faith. he came to this -- against the muslim majority faith. he came to this country, became a world-renowned metallurgist, loved hising,

country, and he understood the difference between what was going on in the rest of the world and going on in the united states. the gentleman caller, like my father-in-law and so many others, in many ways, they make the best americans because they understand what happens. secondly, i don't think we are going to come to a civil war. we have had a couple of those before, the american revolution and the civil of 1861 to 1865. it will be annalynne -- an intellectual argument and will continue. as long as there is no violence, it is healthy, these debates between left and right and within the right and within the left, nobody wants violence. these things get settled by elections. that is what the elections are for, to settle the ideological differences between democrats and republicans. both parties right now are going through their own internal debate and discussions over what

they stand for, what they believe and articulate. i think it is healthy. host: how concerned are you about the current state of the , regarding the things said and unsaid by this president? guest: i am not concerned. compared to the bombast of the president, in 1860, it was abraham lincoln versus thomas jefferson and supporters of thomas jefferson called adams a political hermaphrodite. neither the firmness of a man nor the softness of a woman. the things that were said about abraham lincoln in the election of 1860, he was a baboon, anduct of a cross between animal and a human, the terrible, awful things. andrew jackson was called an adulterer.

his wife was called an adulterer. the terrible things that have been said through the years, today, is kind of milquetoast compared to the past. host: rockville, maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. enjoying the discussion. there is one glaring problem with reagan. there is a lot to like with reagan. he did an awful lot of good, but one glaring decision, the budget deficit. i am old enough to remember how he railed and railed and railed against budget deficits, and what did he do when he became president? he doubled, tripled, quadrupled the deficit. the democrats, the republicans in congress were rolled over by his oratory. the legacy is the republican party, the party of fiscal

responsibility has become the party of massive deficits. the only president in modern times who has balanced the budget was william jefferson clinton. how do you account for reagan's complete lack of control in spending? guest: it was not a complete lack of control, and bill clinton did that with the assistance of the republican congress led by newt gingrich. newt gingrich really forced balanced budgets for several years. clinton never campaigned on balanced budgets, never had an interest in balanced budgets, but wanted to win reelection so he cooperated with the republican congress. as far as reagan goes, he said after his presidency, the two greatest ribs that -- regrets in his presidency was that he did not do more about the budget and abortion. on the other hand, when he became president in 1980, the military establishment was a disaster. you had gis on food stamps.

we didn't have replacement parts for many of our planes and helicopters. the navy was, we were still using some world war ii era battleships and destroyers in our fleet. in every way imaginable, the military, from the time of richard nixon up through gerald ford and jimmy carter had fallen into dangerous disarray and a dangerous cold war against the soviet union. reagan knew, reagan had a choice -- he could balance the budget and create more opportunities for the soviets to take other countries around the world, or have a budget upset and improve our military posture during the cold war and freed millions of people from around the world. i was thought it was a small trade-off for the millions, billions spent, in exchange for millions of people to be -- to gain their freedom around the world. texas, democrats

line, you are on. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. from a real humble background. worked as a nurse until she was 80, and my daddy worked for a truck driver until he passed away. what i want to say is that the division that has took presence with trump, everything trump has done has not been wrong, but the slavery,because of what is it going to take for us to go forward and to be stronger ? of course the new administration is coming in, but what is it going to take? are ina lot of people

civil war because white americans are wanting to fight because of slavery. now, we need to come together as a unit. what do you think some main points would be with this new administration? host: got your point. mr. shirley, go ahead. guest: there will be a honeymoon period for president biden and vice president harris in the days, months after they are sworn in in january of next year. some presidents get long honeymoon periods, some get short honeymoon periods. i hate to disappoint the caller. we have mostly been a divided country for 240 years. there was only two times when we were truly unified as a nation. december 7,nning

and 1944 elections were still partisan. then the months after september 11, 2001, that extended for several months before congress fell to partisan bickering. historians will tell you that maybe 30% to 40% of american citizens, people living in the united states of america, living in the 18, -- 13 colonies were opposed to independence from great britain. 30% to 40% sympathized. son was franklin's own in prison as a tory spy. we were divided in the war of 1812. -- in worldr was war i, it took three weeks for the house to give woodrow wilson approval to enter the european

war, and even then, some three dozen members of congress voted against it. we have been divided down the years over prohibition, divided over civil rights, divided over the environment, divided over virtually everything, and it is probably the source of our is, weh, is, the fact are divided and will continue to be divided. host: let me play a little bit about the president elect. he made this appeal and spoke directly to supporters. -- supporters of the current president. [video clip] biden: who voted for president trump, i understand your disappointment. i have lost a couple of times myself, but now, let's give each other a chance. [cheers and applause] [horns honking]

it is time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, see each other and listen to each other again, and to make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as our enemies. they are not our enemies. they are americans. they are americans. the bible tells us to everything there is a season, a time to build, time to reap and a time to so, and a time to heal. this is a time to heal in america. host: mr. shirley, there is the politics, the rhetoric. what's the reality facing joe biden? guest: first of all, i thought that was an excellent speech. it set the right tone, sent the right message, it was presidential in nature. he is to be commended for it. whether or not the practicality -- it depends on him. one of the first policies that he rolls out with, if it is

designed to stir up republican opposition, or to come out with more centrist policies that may be -- maybe offend his more liberal base and offend the mark in several best conservative base but reach out to 80% or 90% of the american people. it depends on joe biden and what he does as president of the united states. host: from melbourne in new york, independent line. we are running short on time so go ahead. caller: my daughter is on the debate team in high school. i realized that the ideas debating [indiscernible] say what is happening but somehow when the point by arguing. never couldjunior seem to be a racist. i thought he was elite.

[indiscernible] ronald reagan? guest: i am sorry, could you tell me what your question is? host: what would you like our guest to address specifically? caller: what you think most likely -- ronald reagan? guest: i don't know. i know that the republican party and african-americans -- until donald trump, which until the 2020 election, made some breakthroughs with african-american voters -- richard nixon comes the african-american voters used to be staunch republicans because of abraham lincoln and reconstruction and the other 13th, 14th enacted, amendments to the constitution. it was only in 1932 when they started to migrate to the

democratic party. this is a problem that has befuddled and saddened republican leaders for years, on how to reach out better. they certainly have tried, but how to reach out more consequently or concretely to the african-americans. it is something i thought a lot -- 1936 -- 1960, richard nixon got 36% of the african vote and jackie robinson , and martin luther king senior campaigned for richard nixon in 1960. the slide began the 60 -- 1964 campaign with lbj and the civil rights act and other things. that has beenm thought about for many years, a problem that leaders have tried to confront for many years, and it is one that -- i don't think

it is insoluble -- unsolvable. it is just coming up with the right formula and message to be more competitive. host: our guest has written many books on ronald reagan, and also a presidential historian, craig shirley joining us. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thank you, pedro. host: that's it for our program. another issue of "washington journal" will take place on christmas day. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, they are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span2 viewers as a public service. vermont governor phil scott is briefing on his state's covid-19 response. he will be joined by vermont health officials. we will have live coverage at 11:00 eastern on c-span and online at [no audio], -- c-span.org or listen on the free radio app. with covid-19 relief legislation approved by congress and coronavirus vaccines being administered, use c-span.org/ co