bush not to win his reelection was that ross perot ran and got 19% of the vote. if he had not run, i think it would have been a much closer election. that is water over the bridge. in this case, what will be very important i believe is that if there are some signs that the economy is improving, and there are some signs that some of the actions that have been taken are contributing to that improvement. and that will be a better case scenario for president trump's reelection than if it is not improving, if the forecast of things starting to pick up from a very deep hole. starting to pick up and there is some evidence picking up by the election, that would augur well for him. if not it will be much tougher. host: to remind our radio listeners we are speaking with , michael boston, joining us from palo alto, california. serving as a senior fellow at the hoover institution. he also served as a chair of the white house council of economic advisers during the george hw bush administration. let us get your phone calls. john from louisiana. you are on the air. good evenin

bush, bill clinton, ross perot. we kill ross perot. we could hard live avoid a screw from become become and marry kindly old george h.w. bush. now, of course the outcome of the game is not always a forgone conclusion. witness our elopement with bill instead of of walk down the aisle. in 2004 we were undecideds on screwing george bush-0 killed by al gore. won't give anymore examples -- kill screw marry. got me thinking, the game works on a parts of government, too. you kill the postal service, get in bet women fema housing, mary the armed forces, same for government policy. screw growingal subsidies, it's great cool of political analysis because in a free and democratic country, politics is sort of a three-legged stool. politics balanced upon a tripod of power, freedom and responsibility. kill, screw, marry. we live in a free and democratic country, a little let democratic than it was before last night, which was fine with me. also, kill, screw, marry, is a great tool of political analysis because we're so passionate about our politics,

bush, bill clinton, ross perot. kill ross perot. we could hardly avoid screw from bill clinton and we marry kindly old george h.w. bush. the outcome of the game is not always a foregone conclusion. witness our mysterious -- the 2000 presidential election america was pretty much evenly divided about whether screw george w. or get screwed by al gore but i think we all agreed on killing ralph nader. i will venture in examples from recent elections for fear of attracting attention from the secret service, hard is that sometimes seems to be in the obama white house, but anyway, kill, screw, marry, it got me thinking. the game works on parts of government. you kill the postal service can get in bed with fema housing, marry the housing forces. screw aquaculture subsidies, marry so social scared and healthcare reform kills us. i mean kill, screw, marry. a great tool of political analysis because in a free and democratic country politics as a sort of a three legged stool. politics is balanced upon a tripod of power, freedom, and responsibili

george hw bush, bill clinton, ross perot. we kill ross perot, we can hardly avoid a screw from bill clinton and we married w bush the outcome is not always a foregone conclusion, witness walking down the isle with george. the 2000 present the presidential election america was divided about whether to screw george w or get screwed by al gore but i think we all agreed on killing ralph nader . i won't venture any examples from more recent elections for fear of attracting attention from the secret service , hard as that sometimes seems to be in the obama white house. but kills through mary. it got me thinking the game works on a partisan government to. kill thepostal service, get in bed with fema housing, marry the armed services and same withpolicy . screw agricultural subsidies and healthcare reform tells us . it's great tool of political analysis because in a free and democratic country, politics is sort of a three-legged stool area politics is balanced upon tripods. of power, freedom and responsibility.kill, screw, marry and

, the progressives were doing very well, so there was a third party, la follette, which sort of ross perot-wiseas dividing things. and normally when that happens, in our experience, the democrats win, right? coolidge took in that election because he was so popular an absolute majority, not a plurality, which means that is he beat the democrat and a very healthy progressive party at 16% or 17% combined. he was massively popular. the republican party had a heart attack when it realized he would not run in 1928. he could have. and he was on the radio. what are missing and they may yet be found, because so much is found nowadays, are recordings of coolidge on the radio. we don't seem to have those. we have the recordings of fdr. and that became national memory. that's not to say coolidge was a lovey-dovey person when he entered the room. he was famously spare and restrained, but he was a recognizable type, especially to midwesterners, actually, a farmer type, which is to say, dry humor. didn't say a lot, but much appreciated. so, i wouldn't say he was a poor communicator. he was a different kind of

schwarzenegger and his friend jesse ventura, trump and ventura tried to take over the reform party, ross perot's reform party. when you get the outside celebrity presidents two choices, if they run nominally as one of the leaders of the two parties, they can govern as conventional republicans or democrats or triangulate between the two. from the very beginning trump became a republican. he had not been a republican for most of his life. evidently a democrat or independent, but that was the fundamental strategic decision i think he made with the tax cut, with a lot of other things with one exception, the exception is foreign policy, where the president has far more discretion than in domestic policy where if you're much more dependent in our own party in congress. and there, i think, he has made a difference, that is as george w. bush left the country with two ongoing wars in afghanistan and in iraq. obama was elected because he was going to end the wars, so he added three more in syria, in libya and in yemen. to date, despite the iran thing, trump has not added a, you know, a sixth war. and he s

bush not to win his reelection was that ross perot ran and got 19% of the vote. had he not run, i think it would've been a closer election. that is water over the bridge. in this case, what will be very important i believe is that if there are some signs that the economy is improving and there are some signs that some of the actions that have been taken are contributing to that improvement. a better casebe scenario for president trump's reelection then if it is not improving and the forecast of things starting to pick up from a very deep hole. i think that what all girl well for him but if not, think it will be much to offer. -- much tougher. host: we are speaking with michael boston, joining us from palo alto, california. he served as a chair of the white house council of economic advisers during the george h.w. bush administration. let us get your phone calls. john from louisiana. er: a question crept into my mind this morning about all of these people that are unemployed and they have one thing in common. they were all businesses that were open. we have a levi

bush, clinton and ross perot. and then we married george h.w. bush. the outcome is not always a foregone conclusion instead of the walk down the aisle with george the 2000 presidential election america was equally divided whether to screw george w or be screwed by al gore we all wanted to kill ralph nader i want to mention any other elections last making attention to secret service although that's hard to do in the obama white house. [laughter] kill the postal service mary armed forces screw agricultural subsidies mary social security and health care reform kills us. it is great for political analysis because free and democratic country politics is the three-legged stool the balance upon the tripod of power and freedom and responsibility. we live in a free and democratic country little less democratic than it was before last night which is fine with me. also a great tool of political analysis because we are so passionate about our politics they and in a passion usually in a crime of passion and occasionally they turn into stable permanent arrangements

bush bill clinton ross perot. we could hardly avoid a screwup from bill clinton and the old george h.w. bush now the outcome is not a foregone conclusion instead of the walk down the il. with the 2000 election even america was divided over screw george w or get screwed by al gore but we agree on killing ralph nader i will not have examples recent elections for fear of attracting attention by the secret service like the obama white house. it works on parts of governments get in bed with fema housing screw agricultural subsidies and health care reform kills us it's great with that political analysis because in a free and democratic country it is a three-legged stool to be balanced upon a tripod of power and freedom and responsibility we live in a free and democratic country a little less democratic than it was before last night also it's a great deal of critical analysis because we are so passionate about our politics how do they end? and a passion sometimes and occasionally they turn into stable permanent legal arr

take his example, 1992, presidential election for george hob bush, bill clinton, ross perot. ... i won't venture into exempt from recent election for fear of attracting attention from secret service, hard as it sometimes seems to be in the obama white house but anyway, kill, screw, marry, it got me thinking. the game works on parts of government. you kill the postal service can get in bed with fema housing, marry the housing forces. screw aquaculture subsidies, marry social scared and healthcare reform kills us. i mean kill, screw, marry. a great tool of political analysis because in a free and democratic country politics as a sort of a three legged stool. politics is balanced upon a tripod of power, freedom, and responsibility. kill, screw, marry. we live in a free and democratic country, less democratic than it was before last night, which is fine with me. also kill, screw, marry is a great tool of political analysis because we are so passionate about our politics. an how do passionate affairs end? in the passion usually, in the crime of passion sometimes and occasionally they

i learned a lot about john mccain and ross perot, too. thank you for that book. michael is currently working on a book called new politics, the imperial presidency. the pragmatic leftm and the problem of democratic powe, 1933 to 1981, which offers the first in-depth study of how debates sparked by involvement in vietnam altered the very structure and terms of the post-world war ii u.s. politics and foreign policy. so michael is going to start us off with some remarks on how the legacies of distrust from the cold war era actually shape the conversation on the deep state today. michael? >> thank you. i would just like to start by thanking aaron for stepping in. our original chair and commentator, robert dean, is unable to be here due to a family emergency that call him away. aaron was generous enough to join us today. and i'm sure he will have many valuable insights to our conversation later. let me get started so we have plenty of time to have that conversation. my task here i think is in part to lay out the current conversation about the deep state in the united

what i really, what struck me what we had ross perot, jr., online retail, online buy asking representingof the overall economy. all that has to go to 20% or 22% and he's going to need additional 1 million square footage to put in things like an amazon redistribution center in a mall. so all of the brick and mortar are getting overrun by online and the need for space for redistribution centers, dagen, that's the bifurcation going on. dagen: and i expect amazon to pay a lot less in rent than some of the traditional brick and mortar retailers. how much worse is this going to get, burt, because restaurants shut down you will see what i call the amazon effect in restaurants where you're going to have big chains that survive but the little restaurants that we love so much will go away, however, because these big department stores chains are going bankrupt and reduce footprint if not go away there's a real opportunity for online and emerging designer to boom, sell directly to the customer. >> dagen, you're hitting on a key point. webinar yesterdays bring etsy or ebays and let them put shops in