that is why she chose the interview by arthur schlesinger. the pulitzer prize-winning historian who had served as a special assistant to my father. it took a good deal of courage to be as honest as she was, but her own reading of the chronicles of chronicles of the past convinced her that future generations would benefit from her commitment to tell the truth as she saw it. it wasn't easy, but she felt that she was doing it for my father's sake and for history. since this book has come out, some people have been surprised by your statements and opinions. in today's world of cautious political memoir, it is hard to imagine a contemporary public figure writing such a forthright book. that she did not -- did knock dick cheney out of the number one spot on the bestsellers list. [applause] [laughter] so i think she deserves a lot of credit for her honesty. one of the difficult decisions i faced was whether to edit the interviews. there are repetitions, issues that haven't stood the test of time, comments that can be taken out of context and views t

in a 1962 poll arthur schlesinger, sr. asked 75 scholars to rank the chief executives washington right up to eisenhower based on, quote, their greatness. of the 31 presidents rated dwight d. eisenhower ranked 21st. he was tied with arthur. just above andrew johnson. most of these academics would have agreed at that time with the presidential scholar who said eisenhower would be remembered primarily as a man who single-mindedly pursued his appetite for leisure and recreation while leaving the day to day administration of his office to trusted subordinates like assistant to the president sherman adams. over the past 50 years, however, these earlier assessments of eisenhower as a well-meaning but bumbling political novice have been challenged. drawing on newly opened collections of official records like right here at the eisenhower and personal papers, eisenhower revisionists have constructed a new image in which the president emerges as a capable, clever executive to led the nation with a strong hand and a clear vision. the n

[laughter] >> arthur schlesinger, who is a friend, said, don't use the word "compromise," the american people don't know what compromise means. they think it's about people who have no principles, who have no real understanding of government. who are ready to do anything to get along. gilbert and sullivan ridiculed it in the mccotter -- the man who has a little list of society offenders who might well be underground and who never would be missed li-like the compromis like. it's not about surrendering your principles or your objectives. it is about understanding how government works. that if you offend somebody, they're going to come back. you've got to go to them. and say for the good of the american people, we need to do this, this and this. look at what's happening with congress today with the attempts of reform of wall street, financial reform. they may be getting together and that's the way you have lasting achievement. otherwise, you will have conflict. sooner or later or later. and what happened in the 1850s came out of this situation of the mexican war. and the southerners felt

that is why she chose the interview by arthur schlesinger. the pulitzer prize-winning historian who had served as a special assistant to my father. it took a good deal of courage to be as honest as she was, but her own reading of the chronicles of chronicles of the past convinced her that future generations would benefit from her commitment to tell the truth as she saw it. it wasn't easy, but she felt that she was doing it for my father's sake and for history. since this book has come out, some people have been surprised by your statements and opinions. in today's world of cautious political memoir, it is hard to imagine a contemporary public figure writing such a forthright book. that she did not -- did knock dick cheney out of the number one spot on the bestsellers list. [applause] [laughter] so i think she deserves a lot of credit for her honesty. one of the difficult decisions i faced was whether to edit the interviews. there are repetitions, issues that haven't stood the test of time, comments that can be taken out of context and views t

you quote arthur schlesinger in a very simple and important line saying, arithmetic is everything. and i can feel that going through the president's head, every time he's making these decisions. i want to read another passage here, where you say, a year into the obama presidency, a gallup poll showed how starkly he had failed at reducing partisanship. obama was the most polarizing first-year president in history. that is the difference between democratic approval of him and republican disapproval was the highest ever recorded. the previous record holder was bill clinton. and ryan, one of the reasons for that, which i think the president possibly miscalculated, was just how partisan the congress had become. you point out that there used to be an overlap. it used to be, even as recently as the '90s, that there were six democrats in the senate who were more conservative than another six republicans in the senate, and that's where you found the overlap for compromise, similar kind of numbers in the house of representatives, and now the most conservative democrat in the senate is more l

a way i'm saying this shows you, ralph, in a very small way the force that pat moynihan and arthur schlesinger said are the dominant forces right now in the world in ethnic nationalism, tribalism, religious fundamentalism are far more powerful than ideology. and we're not immune in this country from these forces. and when the melting pot has been thrown out and you're preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> host: let me tell you what. corporate commercial culture is transcending ethnic differences. in other words, if you want to sort of melt people together -- >> guest: right. >> host: -- even though you may not like the values -- >> guest: right. >> host: corporate commercial culture is sweeping the world. the same people in sir sri lanka are listening to the same music and going into the same mcdonald's as they are in alaska. >> guest: okay. well, you're talking economics. there's no question. >> host: but it's a culture too. >> guest: it is a culture. >> host: yeah. >> guest: let me tell ya, it is not as powerful as these forces i'm describing. take a look at what's tearing c

would you please get arthur schlesinger off the list of people who get cables. why?ous party going person in the white house. he said listen anything you can get by cable is around town by nightfall. then he said you better not. they're going to come out poorly in his book as it is. [laughter] >> one thing she says in here is how in many ways compartmentalized his life was and explicitly mentions the staff. >> yes, and you know, one of the things i found that word remarkable was real nobody in this stuff really did business in the memos we communicated by phone and conversation and that's it. >> one reason of the program. >> that's right. >> and it made it very refreshing when you could know that something you had seen or had done wasn't because the car recorded but you could also see what -- >> was their anything in particular -- [laughter] >> nope. >> it's not too late. >> i had saved up for my book. [laughter] >> no, the thing that i remember best about all of that was when they became was about getting stuff done at the white house, and everybody would get excite

chairman, i forget which for democratic action that extremely liberal institutions founded in 1945 arthur schlesinger jr. and several other people mentioned today. i can't remember who all was in it but was really liberal and john roche had been the president of it. gradually as the world changed at least on foreign policy, he found himself much more in tune with the "national review" and many of his former allies in the john asked if he did write a column for the "national review" in the bill said a delighted, please, start any time. so john wrote this column on the foreign policy and it was always brilliant. but i assumed we were far apart on domestic policy. and then one day i forget what subject came up with something to do with poverty or whatever and he gave an answer that let me to say you sound like an israeli conservative. he said know a catholic cenacle list. [laughter] these labels can be interpreted in very different ways. do you have any comments for each other or shall we invite the audience? let us invite the audience with any questions, comments. yes. >> first i would like to say it's

- of americans for democratic action, that extremely liberal institution founded in 1948 by arthur schlesingerand several other people mentioned today. i can't remember who all was in it. but anyway, it was really liberal. and john roach had been the president of it. and gradually as the world changed, at least on foreign policy, he found himself much more in tune with national review than with many of his former allies. and he and bill were talking somewhere, and john asked if he could write a column for national review. and bill said, delighted, please, start any time. so john, um, john wrote this column on foreign policy, and it was always brilliant. but i assumed that we were far part on domestic policy. and then one day i forget what subject came up, but something to do with poverty or whatever, and he gave an answer that led me to say why, john, you sound like a disrailly conservative. and he said, no, a catholic cynicallist. [laughter] so, you see, these labels can be interpreted in have different ways. well, do you have any comments for each other, or shall we invite the, invite the au

and arthur schlesinger and people like that rid liberalism of its radicalism and, boy, they sounded pretty good for me for a while, even arthur. and then again -- it happened again about '68, something like that, '72, with midge and er. husband and irving crystal and the whole gang of neocons. but the interesting thing is at some point it stopped. and the battle lines were drawn. and that's something for some serious meditation. why did the movement of liberalisms -- liberals from liberalism to conservatism stop? i don't know. >> well, it's partly -- the one i am familiar with -- [laughter] >> it was -- it was made up of many things. the world had gone through a cataclysm and now everybody was very cheerful in america and so there was a big radical sense of, hooray, we won and we can do it all. we can make this country just and pure perfect and rich and everything. easily. and then we saw our children, how they were being educated, how they were growing up and by the time they reached adolescence -- and we were also praising ourselves because we were, of course, far superior parents. i mea