author tevi troy will be here as well as by karen skinner to moderate this book. we will talk a little bit. we are looking forward to have some of you ask questions as well. the reason i'm very excited about our book. there is a red rare thing to be a person in action. in a rare thing to be a scholar and be excellent at the study of something. tevi troy brings that to the table. teddy was someone who worked in many places in public service to several departments. but also very importantly at the white house which is what these books are about. he is also a published author who has written in addition to this piece on the white house intellectuals in the white house as well as emergency preparedness in the white house and the use of social media by presidents. i hope you will take the time to listen but also to think about buying this book. we head fourth of july coming up. anytime is a good time to really learn more about the white house and presidencies. karen skinner is also a person of action and scholarly repute. someone who has worked most recently in the white house and in the state department and the director of policy and planning serving a number of other administrations as well as the presidential campaigns but she's also the toby professor in director of the institute of politics and strategy. there they study a presidency. we really have a great lineup today what were you in a do is jump into the meat of the book. we want you to get a little sense from tevi troy what are the key points. we will have some conversation and then bring in a turd to you. when i do come to you for questions you will have a number of ways of getting in touch with us. one is to submit questions in the comment section on facebook and what with the youtube chat function. we will look for your questions but let's begin. tevi troy this is a book and you had written excessively on the white house. of course it is about personalities and conflicts in important advisors. it's really a book about the presidency and the white house itself. my first question billy is you point out that over the time you're talking about the white house become a really big institution. and yet the advisors there are often may be younger than the secretary. they also have the ear of the president. tell us a little bit about the growth of the white house in the relation to the cabinet and if you can't. thank you. for doing this. the book is as you said about the growth of the white house staff. they don't realize this. before the administration. you really didn't have a white house staff per se. what about this administration. they may have have a secretary or two but in roosevelt you have the browned low commission and the famous forward conclusion. the president needs help. it led to the executive office of the president. most of those are career staffers who serve administration there is three to 400 for what we would think about as white house staffers. they are a little younger. they have the advantage of the proximity. they are not necessarily a person with the delegated authority. their closeness to the president also create challenges for the cabinet secretary who is in charge of the area and also for the whole idea against the white house. the first two presidents that i look at our truman and eisenhower. and they're both the first two presidents to start with the white house staff. and how they wanted to create that. and both of them for the most part they were believers in and cabinet government. the cabinet officers are in charge of the respected areas and then it helps the president is really the cabinet who is setting the policy. this is your area you handle it you work it out. that said i do highlight a couple of instances where you have cabinet secretaries can abutting heads with white house staffers. in a way that was different from what they would entail. truman was faced with the issue of whether to recognize at the time it was a big question? for u.s. policy. including george marshall who is not only was not only a war hero but the secretary of state was revered more than anyone else in public life. he knows he was not hearing the other side of the issue. they have those up against marshall's. he was not that interested in having them. he said he backs them up. i ask him to be here. but marshall is so angry that he lost this argument that he never begins to utter his name for the rest of his life. in the eisenhower administration this is a frequent test in the secretary of state. eisenhower excited decided to bring his negotiation. and the new york times have a lot of editorial about that. it really irked him. who said that technic for the secretary of war. and he was constantly trying to undercut staff. so even with the two presidents who really believed you also have the extent of people. with the cabinet secretary. another theme that you addressed how a president has centralized the authority. they wanted to have a chief of staff and a strong chief of staff. a gate keeper. all things would go through that person. were wanted a very loose operation. tell us a little bit about that organization of the white house. it's not the case. the first one was sherman adams under eisenhower. in the white house hierarchy. he did what he exactly said. and then nixon has very prominently the chief of staff help is an imperious fellow. in that the subsequent administrations. reacted against the presidency. they call it the staff court nader. the lead to all kinds of challenges. so they start without the chief of staff. and reluctantly they come around and that did not work out well. jack lawson becomes the chief of staff. during the campaign of 1976. like you said today. all the campaign people were buried that they were gonna take their jobs. he's pretty good at it. when ronald reagan wins from what i hear if you had have this earlier i might not be in this position. he went that for the ineffective list of pregnant -- presidency. under the reagan administration who is widely regarded as the best chief of staff ever. and once he comes in and does a really good job and you see what a good chief of staff would do. you have it consecutively in every administration. it doesn't mean that there aren't problems. it does not get as long nearly as well. at one point he hangs up. and jim baker who was the previous shooter. that's not just a firing offense is a hanging offense. sometimes they get involved. if i ask you to give advice to an incoming president especially with respect to how you deal with kong flicked in the white house. is it a thing that's necessary. what would you say to that. what is your big advice for a president to run a white house while knowing that there are potentially these very strong conflicts that you detail in the book. some examples from the book would be great? they find out that there is a continuum. on one side you have absolutely no conflict that is in the johnson administration. he did not want to hear opposing voices on vietnam. and in fact there were some people at the state department who are uncomfortable with the vietnam policy and they formed a little group. they were so nervous that johnson might find out about this that they called themselves the nongroup and they met secretly so the jobs it would not would not be aware of it. that is way too much conflict. you have a wild uncontrolled white house and you have people into the press. it is odd that it was like this because everybody thinks that he was a nice guy. i think his niceness. specifically there was a guy named robert hardin. a very thin-skinned and egocentric follow. sweet old bob. and for it there were very reluctant. they would control the presidential inbox. he even shared a bathroom with him. the usual breach of protocol. what you do is if you saw something go in the presidential inbox that you didn't like you'd pull out and if he wrote something he would go into the residential inbox. this is really untenable. they try to head something do something about it. the chief of staff was a name the chief of staff. but he was assigned with figuring out the way for the problem. he knew he couldn't go forward and say can we get rid of your friend. they agreed and then they made that the concentration room. and he found he was out of office. he no longer head that office from where he was being so problematic. they are not necessarily what the president is willing to articulate that he was. from groupthink to extreme chaos somewhere in the middle engender a little chaos. he loses the midterm election in 1994 because it was too far to the left. he knows he needs alternative voices. he was a long-standing political consultant. in charlie brings in these memos that are trying to direct clinton back towards the center. they eventually find out who charlie is. and people like george stephanopoulos. they are going at it. his memoir he talks about how much he dislikes morris. clinton by bringing in the outside force. there are benefits to fostering a little bit of chaos in order to get better. i think you have given a pretty good sense of some of what is in the book. there is a lot more for the audience. more reason to go out and buy that book. in one second. but at first i want to remind you that would be coming to you later for questions. you can do so in that youtube chat function. tyrant, all sort of experience and scholarly work in the area. then if you want to share some of your experiences we would love to hear that. for the work that you do. it is a great demonstration. it's looking at democrats and republicans and the white in the white house and how they interact. i would like to ask heavy and the model that he sets up for his analysis. he talks about three big factors that govern his work as he looks at the white house. when he one he talks about the ideological fighting and also second in administrative and decision-making process and then finally he talks about the broader category of infighting. i'm interested if you can take a higher altitude and say which variable do you think with the republican policy. i would like to start there. i think that is fascinating way of looking and framing what goes on in the white house. i'm interested. many of us are old enough to remember. we waited for what they were to say next. but what you think about. do they do something that is important for outcome. or are they just a nuisance and do they corrupt and corrode the democratic process. those are two big areas i would like to have a conversation about. see mac mick thank you for your scholarship and information i've have over the years. they head in their purview. the ideological comity. if you have a team that gets along. your argument see less fighting. if you have a process. and get their voices heard and have their thoughts expressed to the president. they are more likely to unlock arms at the end of the discussion we will work with them. presidential power. if the president is tolerant of infighting then than you have more of it. they made it clear that they do not want to see infighting in the white house didn't like something that was written about her. she wrote a blistering e-mail to one of those. obama called her into the oval office. she doesn't know why. that was quite an e-mail you sent. they were shocked that they even knew about that. those three are the levers that they have to control. in terms of which one has the best policy results. i think it's hard to say. ideological alignment is helpful. because then you know the president and where they will go with them. even though they were's fighting in the white house. the idea of reagan ruled. people knew generally what reagan wanted to and where he wanted to go. the fact of where they wanted to go. in a general policy direction. the administration and the process. extremely important. it was committed as a process. at someone and that that went around the process. and then presidential powers also set the tone. i think if you force me to rank them i would put the process first note with respect to your second question i think the press played an important role. i think we needed to have a press that will let us know what's going on. we know more about fighting in the white house today. with each one that i looked at in the white house i went and looked up to see if they wrote any columns on that particular fight. it was a great source. i thought they were very helpful. and indeed the publisher of this book is this guy name alex novak. i think he liked the fact that i was looking at his followers --dash mike father's columns. i think there are people to take advantage of the press. especially if there is a court process. i don't think that kind of approach is helpful. not only was it a relatively leakfree administration. the reporters complained that they were not doing that with administration. i think that can lead to people operating together. can i maybe get you to ask some more. teddy has written about both. the book doesn't cover as much about trump. some of your thoughts about it. maybe they can interact with what you are thinking along those lines. see mccue talk about we understood that reagan was in charge. from the policy standpoint but you also know that they have numerous national security advisors. there was a turn in the white house. every 14 months. over an eight year time there was a new national security advisor. there was attention they knew what the north star was. i studied and found that fascinating. i've often wondered they have that many national security advisors and they have the historic breakthrough in the cold --dash mike cold -- cold war that he did. they lived to the first nuclear treaty of what was that the forty-year cold war. in the midst of having new faces not just a natural -- national security advisor. coming in and coming out. how did that happen from the work that he did. >> there was stability at the secretary of state. and he was definitely the chief of staff. they tried to keep them off of motorcades. and an out of the president. he complained about the gorillas in the white house. the deputy chief of staff. goes in a gorilla costume. i cannot imagine an era of cell phones in twitter like that. they go relatively quickly. excellent secretary of state. i know he is a colleague of years. i think that stability there the idea of a reagan rule. if you have a scent of what the president was. you are more likely to have it. to know the president. and if you succeeded george hw bush. with the more conservative avenues. a little less clear about his position. when there was a president. ear really not clear on where you go. related to that i would like to say that sometimes it's difficult that you've already referred to this. it's often difficult for a white house that is largely cohesive with the three big variables that you mentioned when there is chaos in agency. and related to that they happen to disagree with the president i think we've seen that in the trump administration. can you give us some historical examples that may be a correcting to what the trump administration has experienced. it is certainly clear they are between the national security adviser and the secretary of state the national security adviser. advisor. it's hard to remember now. with the giver and the starting wisdom. he was very young and very aggressive. he was constantly threatened by william rogers. they also you next that. they were close personal friends. and then kissinger ran wings around him. they recognize the brilliance. where as roger really have nothing to teach which was quite the strategist. sometimes you have a situation where the national security advisor can kind of draw rings around the secretary of state. there was constantly fighting. .. .. yank it out, and saying i work for the president, not for them. to the administration he was already laying out markers. then sometimes you can have a relationship that works better so in the nixon administration, i talk about how -- he wouldn't putin up with king -- kiss kissinger and shenanigans and he was kind of scared you've kissinger. king kings was a bureaucratic bully and couldn't bully schlesinger. people were pushing to see the hims of what they can accomplish and you can stand your ground and not be a jerk but you show you bring value to process and won't be cowed by someone, you could perform the process. that would be my advice. >> i think we want to go to the questions -- in case some more come in you can mitt them on the comment section of facebook, you can use the youtube chat function or at twitter with #bpc live. we have a number of questions and i'll start with from grandmother ej. that question is, what role do vice presidents play in creating or disarming conflict? has that role changed since the vice-presidenty has taken on more of an active roll, beginning with al gore. >> thank you for the question and for you excellent baseball podcast. the vice-president plays an important role but doesn't necessarily have the play an important role. the vice president really act in some ways at the pleasure of the president. he gets as much power as the president grants him and we have a very interesting circumstance in the lbj and jfk mad meteorologist. line don johnson this he vice president under john f. kennedy. the attorney general is kennedy's brother, robert f. kennedy, who hates johnson from the days they were in the senate. kennedy is a staffer and johnson as a senator. and robert f. kennedy is constantly trying to demean lyndon johnson and weaken his role and robert. ken was the most pardon person in the ken. then you have the tragic circumstance where kennedy is assassinates and the vice president is elevated to the presidency, and now rfk is working for a president who hates him and there's a big screaming fight they have in the oval office shortly after johnson is inaugurated right of the first cabinet meeting and they don't talk for two months after that. i'm sure everybody has a relative they haven't talked to for two months but rfk was the sitting attorney general at the time he wasn't talking to the president. that's unusual. sometimes you have presidents giving certain powers to a vice president that they didn't have in one administration and don't in another and it's interesting the book i pound out that hubert humphrey what lbjs vice-president and you think lbj might have learn from the experience to be more nicer of his vice president, and in fact he opposite was the case. even as belittling of humphrey as the kennedy people were of johnson. then in later years as he in the vice presidents have become more powerful and you look at my chapter on the busch 43 affidavits, mr., dick cheney is very involved in the clash of the titans between secretary rice,, and then the colin powell at the state department and don rumsfeld at defense and cheney and the president. the bush domestic team got long ready will but the bush foreign policy team had infighting and the vice president was an important part of that. so i think the vice president -- i must really seem in the relation to ej's theory, situation where the vice president was able to tamp down conflict this the vice presidents sometimes are involved. >> we have a lot of questions so i'll try to get through them. maybe we can keep it short so we can get so more of them. also i would like -- weigh in if you -- an the question, we're happy to have you share your wisdom as well. so i have another question from gabby g. which is which white house had the biggest fights that actually impacted it execution of policy? >> i like to go if the ford administration on that. the ford administration was paralyzees by the infighting, i mentioned the instances with-hartman but you hat presidential addresses, including state of the union that would not get solved because of infighting. one instance the night before the state of the union and ford is yelling at his staff because they have not resolved al the conflicts in state of the union and also a great story with rabbit hartman they're thinking of ways to celebrate the buy tenettal, and hartman is afraid that the other staffers working against hem and so they get into a butch of ideas from the out world, and by various intellectuals, click herb by crystal. and hartman comes up with a code so that you don't know the name of the individual person who made the recommendation, and he would ask people, do you like person a or person b or c. and then in these precomputer era, hartman loses the code so he tricks himself interest not knowing whose paper belongs to which scholar. so sometimeses these things can paralyzous because 'er fighting with other and the tactics you use to protect yourself can rebound against yourself. >> i actually would like to jump in with a question before you move on. this is a little bit of a different question but it relates to he issue of leaking. when you think of -- that was -- they were at the highwater mark of -- [inaudible] -- but in this era, we have technology and social media where many people are weighing in who have limited, if any, journalistic background. but we have also government officials going to these various individuals and leaking important information. what do you think but that, tevi, you're seeing it especially in the trump administration, where the attempt to really mere and destroy people who are serving honorably, and it's leading to a lot of turnover. >> it's a good question about leaking. what i found in the book is there's a constant -- as the technologies inprom the leaking so do the technology improper for chasing down the leaks. in the johnson administration for example, hundred don johnson asked the white house operators to report to him on who white house staffers were calling so he could try to identify leakers, he asked the white house motor pool to report to him on where white house staffers were being taken by the army drivers who drive around white house staffers; so, presidents are always trying to get a happen on leaks inch the nixon administration, the famous plumbers union, that led to watergate and nixon's eventually resignation. they were called the plumbers because they were designed to stop leaks and ended up breaking into the watergate hotel to get the papers but the reason they had the nick name is because they were supposed to stop leaks. there's a bit of a cat and mouse game between administrations and staffers on the leaking issue, and i think that there's always going to be tech until for leaking and technology for identifying who the leakers are and i think the best way to address it is to have the president set a standard and make it clear he doesn't tolerate certain type of behavior and bring in people who are willing to not be leaking against one another. that said issue don't want to suggest that all leaking is evil, because sometimes the president or his administration will put out a trial balloon. talk but a certain policy they're thinking or're personnel. a leak isn't necessarily designed to destroy. sometimes rate designed to get a policy some sunshine and air so you can assess whether the policy would be treated well by the american people. so, the leak -- the word leak has these negative connotations and many indication it is but not always the case. >> we are going to take another audience question. note if you look carefully at tevi's screen, you can see the other books. so feel the need to buy more than one of these books. i'll turn to a question from russell. that question begins with a comment i agree with. fight house atruly great become but the modern presidency. the book -- i'd like to hear the author discuss who these rivalries emanate more from personality or policy? >> it's a great question. a form are white house staff sore he knows where of the speaks of personality is obviously an issue. kissinger is a sharp skin fellow who is going to get in fights with people in matter what. a person like robert hartman, a guy who i can't imagine being in an environment where he is not getting in fights with people. sometimes people try to put policy above the fightle. in the reagan administration you had ed meese and he was the true conservative aid advisor to reagan but didn't didn't chief of staff because he is disorganized and hi briefcase is known as a mace where paperers go in and never come out and they called it the black hole or the only -- i have a lot of nicknamed but the object to get a nickname is ed meese's case, called it the meese case. meese stepped out of the fighting in that he said i'm not going to leak because leaking against baker was not only hurt baker and also hurt the president. so, sometimes people have kind of a higher sight of what they're trying to publish from a policy perspective and say i'm going to -- not necessarily leak to advance myself but i will do what i can to kind of help the administration by being silent or. so i think personality really drives it. you can't have these without personalities, but then on the policy side, if you have strong disagreements about the policy or the policy direction you are going to fight. personality is a constant whereas policy is a variable. >> great. we have another question, and actually i think certainly tevi should answer this. this is from herbert and the question is: what are factors that have contributed to successful relationships between a given chief of staff and cabinet certificates. -- cabinet secretaries. >> it's a good question. the chief of staff on one level views him as a private -- above everybody else and he's not a cabinet and doesn't have cabinet rank, although most presidents have chief of staff go to cabinet meetings. sometimes to chief of staff get a little built ahead of themselves, so don regan who i mentioned, nancy reagan said she's pretty good at the chief part but he doesn't get the of staff "part. to make sure they get along is to try to inculcate a sense they're all on the president's team and they're equi with lent ability to access the president. one reason that don regan wanted to become chief hoff staff because when help was treasury secretary he never had a one-on-one time alone with president reagan and if you keep the cabinet secretaries isolated that will hurt you as a chef of staff. they don't get the face time to get a president of the -- sense of the president. the chief of staff needs to be an inclusive player. i saw this with andy card when i was in the bausch white house. he recognized the importance of cabinet secretaries and the need to pull them into the process and i think that's good model for how to have the chief of staff get along with the cabinet secretaries. probably helps secretary card was a cabinet member and he enough about that. >> let speak on that question from the standpoint of the trump administration. again, an administration that is had a lot of churn in the white house not just at the national security council and also in the role of chief of staff. what i have been able to observe is that on both in the chief of staff role, which has back to critical for the modern american presidency, i don't see how a president could survive without a chief of staff. given the sheer amount of operational activity that the white house is responsible for in any given day, but the common factor i think that leads to a great chief of staff that may have been missing in the trump administration, and has been on the prior relationship-if any, that individual had with the commander-in-chief. and a lot of what we're seeing in the trump administration is that it's a collection of people who really didn't know donald trump. when they came to serve him. either in the cabinet or as chief of staff or as national security adviser. that's a hard place to be. it's hard to build a relationship in real-time. and often when you're that close to the president, the more that you have some prior history, the more i think the trust is there, and you -- if you have been in the trenches before, either the campaign or in some other phase of life, and so we're seeing in this period a collection of people who are erving a president where they really don't know him very well and he doesn't in the them very well. tevi i don't know if you want to respond to that. >> i think that's a really important point which is the sense that the president has the most trust in the people that are with him and often have this -- mafia -- reagan had the california mafia or carter halls the georgia mafia. it's not mafia in the mob sense but people who have been with them before. anybody you meet as presidents someone you have to have some level of distrust of because they want to talk to you and kiss up to you because your president and what they thought of you before you were president and the people who knew you when have a closest view that has value and that's why i talked about bob hartman. he was close to ford before ford was not only president and vice president so the hospitale that comes in that -- the honesty that comes in that relationship is extremely important. >> okay. i'm going to remind the audience we have a little more time and so if you would like to submit a question you can do so in the comment section of facebook, on the youtube chat function or on twitter. another question here, coming from peter and that is proper structure and process usually provides the outcomes desired. when a president does not care but either, whatter the alternatives for better outcomes. >> process and structure are extremely important. it's hard to beat that. don't have the process, don't have the structure you'll have problematache outcomes. if you have a clear direction, you can overcome some process problems potentially by everybody knowing where you're trying to go. the question is, if you dent have good process and you don't have clarity and direction, that is really what can lead to -- that's when you see problemment it's a really good question. it's boring. process is boring and dull but incredibly important for getting things done and it's not a partisan. the the white house policy process is a honored, tried and true tradition that guess from administration to administration. it's perfectly in line with the theme of the theory of the bipartisan policy center. there are certain struck tours of government that we should maintain and adhere to regardless of the ideal or the partisan nature of the administration that is in power. so, let me just in the most kind thing -- >> can i follow up with maybe get you to talk a little more but the ray rag -- reagan administration. reagan administration fame newsily had a triumvirate, three people at the top and as described it seems like it could have been very chaotic. wasn't necessarily something you would recommend just that model on paper but there was a way in which it settled in and even though there was conflict. maybe say a little more bet he reagan tie. >> the reason it worked and so people know it's jim baker, chief of staff, and then you have ed meese as counselor to the present and then mike deaver as deputy chief of staff and each have specific roles. jim baker what's operator, made the white house trains run on time divvied up the role in the house when meese and baker, baker took all of the logistic tall pieces that sound less sexy but helped run the white house effectively. meese was the kind of keeper of the ideology plain, the outreach to the conservative groups groud made sure they didn't go off the rails. disease ever -- deaver was analogy and we was good at making reagan look good. so each had a specific role and didn't step on each other's toes in their specific areas and that's important. the other thing but at the at the step to which they distrusted the other so they always stuck together as a group and the other staffer knew they could get a lot done without these senior people bothering them because nobody wanted to have meeting with reagan without the other two because ray cuckoo do something detrimental to the missing members. so when reagan was in the hospital with three of them have to visit him at the hospital altogether, but they couldn't visit him individually and reagan kind of joked when they showed up gee, fellas, i don't know we were going to have a staff meeting here. that is one instance in which a -- reagan's management station, gave people a little slang slack and because of reagan's clear ideology guidance and also because the three of them eached a their -- >> i could add to that, that it wasn't clear coming into the white house that these three men would eas the ones that could really work together and help organize the president. so what made the critical difference in the first couple of months of the administration was the fact that reagan was shot and how they performed during that presidential crisis. remember, al haig ended up being outside of the community surrounding the president because of his performance-especially before the press when he said i'm in charge. but these men comported themselves in a way that get reported back to the president that they were respectful and dignified and collaborative and i think that presidential crisis also helped the framework of the administration and also made george h.w. bush a trusted aide in the way i think may not have happened with the speed it did. but on the other side, even with him in place, he cooperate stop the chaos around the national security council which ultimately got us the iran contra scandal which almost toppled the reagan presidency. if think that sometimes leaders are great with a vision and that was reagan. but even nancy reagan said that her husband was no manager, and you really need the president to have both, i think, the ideological or policy direction with some ability not complete ability but some serious ability to manage. reagan was better at one than the other. >> that initial crisis of reagan being shot was very interesting and informative. you mentioned george h.w. bush, and one thing he did was he was effectively acting president but refused to have his helicopter land on the white house lawn during that period and i thought that was an important symbolic step that reagan saw that bush wasn't trying to give power to himself and some other people maybe didn't acquit themselves. david -- right-hand allen what's national security adviser and didn't trust governor again and kennedy leaving the room to leak to professor and was named professor of leaking. >> we're coming to owned the hour, if you have a last thought that you want to put on the table about the book and then i'll ask tevi to close out with a final summation of whatever else has not been said. >> what i like about he book in particular is that it is fills the void in presidential history. we often think of infighting in the cop text of just scandal after scandal, and we read these books looking for some information about a particular person that we didn't know. but that's not what tevi did. he took it seriously as an intellectual exercise and also i said to him the other day that's is a book ill will use with the students as i teach american politics. it really helps us understood the american form of government, and what in the federalist papers they were concerned about and predicting. much of its occurs the pages of tevi's book. always have to work but factionalism, worry about even particular individuals who can corrupt the process. but tevi's book gives us hope because even though we have to worry about the potential to destroy the democratic process, somehow in the american system of government, we keep recovering, we keep course-correcting, and get really big policy outcomes. remember, over the time that tevi writes, the united states is the predominant power on earth and has-for each president, increasing amounts of responsibility for the globe and for domestic policy, as more people push for rights, for racial rights, gender, disability, that's a lot to do in a relatively small white house with a relatively small staff, and despite the leaking, despite the infighting and the ideological battles and varying levels of presidential tolerance for all of this, we still get the outcomes that make us the world's most fully functioning multiethnic democracy. thank you, tevi, for this important work. >> thank you. >>ure final thoughts. >> thank you for participating in this and for your kind words. i so admire your scholarship and service to this great nation. think you captured what i'm trying get not in the book, because these people are human. you may lock at that time are democratics or republicans toy like them it but these are humans and they've got families and spouses and they've got challenges challenges and career concerns and wore what's going happen after the arizona mission and i was trying to capture the human element because you have so many instances where people -- you think of them as this all-palm person you read in the "new york times" or the "washington post" but they're actual real people with real lives and just a great story i want to mention in the become in the reagan campaign in 1980, there's a lot of tumult in the campaign, guy john sears the campaign mappinger who was going after the californians and getting rid of system talked in the book about a confront addition that ronald reagan had that led to mike deaver being accuse odd financial improprieties. very close to reagans and jim baker to him i'm able to go to bedroom to greet the reagans and he is allowed to go into the bathroom with them. and deaver when he is accused he getsing dignity and stormed oft the house and says if you don't want me i quit and runs out the next minute he is sheepishly walked back into the house and says, i forgot my wife dropped me off here. i need to borrow nancy's station wagon. a very human moment. indig anyonely resigns from the campaign and yet at the same moment recognizes his friendship with nancy would allow him to borrow her station wagon and comes back. so, i have all kinds of human moment nets book because again it's important that these personalities really shape policy, shape the direction of the great country and i recognize each president has ideological predilections and knows the ware and help shape the direction you're going and who the people and are what they're trying to accomplish and what their own concerns or in the obama administration there's a story about the deputy chief of staff and she is frustrated there aren't sufficient feminine productness white house oval office in the west wing bathroom and she is fix it and makes a big announce i've gotten this fixed and talks bowled the blank stairs from -- blank tears from the obama administration and that was the reality somehow brought to role. the human element is incredibly important. i appreciate everybody calling in, i appreciate the bpc dog this if hope people will purchase the book and this law second for john. >> thank you to audience, thank you to skinner and the university, thank you presidential historian, testifiy troy and author of the great book we have been successing, fight house, rivalries in white house from truman to trump. can >> can booktv, television for serious reads. now downing us i author and political activist, ralph reid, hi newest

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arizona , Georgia , Washington , Vietnam , Republic Of , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , Californians , American , George Marshall , John Sears , William Rogers , Jack Lawson , Ralph Reid , Robin Hood , Don Regan , Ronald Reagan , Mike Deaver , Robert Hardin , Mac Mick , Jim Baker , Robert Ken , Robert F Kennedy , Hubert Humphrey , Al Haig , Don Johnson , Dick Cheney , Bob Hartman , Robert Hartman , Al Gore , Karen Skinner , Nancy Reagan , Morris Clinton ,