|
Tevi Troy - Fight House, Rivalries in the White - Dr and Author Tevi Troy joins Pete A Turner and Scott Huesing on the Break It Down Show to discuss his new book Fight House. Dr. Troy examines how fighting in the White House impacts presidencies.
Get Fight House or any of Tevi's marvelous books here https://amzn.to/2XRkfpf Tevi is a bestselling Regnery author and former senior white house staffer has the insider knowledge and PhD pedigree to evaluate how combative or collaborative white houses operate. Haiku In presidencies Egos, crisis and Pressure Means there’s Hella fights Similar episodes: Scott Huesing https://youtu.be/2ZbXWgbNlFw Dr. David Priess https://youtu.be/WMaqPxuCv6M Bing West https://youtu.be/O9TcDVcypsQ Join us in supporting Save the Brave as we battle PTSD. Executive Producer: Pete A. Turner https://youtu.be/mYoUxRJzXcA Producer: Damjan Gjorgjiev |
The Break It Down Show is your favorite best, new podcast, featuring 5 episodes a week with great interviews highlighting world-class guests from a wide array of topics. Get in contact with Pete at www.peteaturner.com www.breakitdownshow.com
Transcription
Pete Turner 0:00
Troy is a best selling author. He's also a PhD from Texas. His latest book is called fight house chronicling the history of conflict in the White House from the presidencies of Truman all the way through to the modern times of President Trump. Now, Tevye is a best selling author from the Regnery publishing house right near enough so we're all partnered up pretty closely and we enjoy hanging out with one another. So that means that we have Scott Husing producing and hosting this episode with me.
Troy is a best selling author. He's also a PhD from Texas. His latest book is called fight house chronicling the history of conflict in the White House from the presidencies of Truman all the way through to the modern times of President Trump. Now, Tevye is a best selling author from the Regnery publishing house right near enough so we're all partnered up pretty closely and we enjoy hanging out with one another. So that means that we have Scott Husing producing and hosting this episode with me.
Pete Turner 0:00
Troy is a best selling author. He's also a PhD from Texas. His latest book is called fight house chronicling the history of conflict in the White House from the presidencies of Truman all the way through to the modern times of President Trump. Now, Tevye is a best selling author from the Regnery publishing house right near enough so we're all partnered up pretty closely and we enjoy hanging out with one another. So that means that we have Scott Husing producing and hosting this episode with me. He also was a best selling author of the book echo and Ramadi By the way, one of the great ways to support the show is to click on the links because that takes you to the Amazon link where you can buy and we get a little bit of that sale so that always helps out. But also, when you are on and you're buying books, it's the best way to support the show and support the authors is to buy the book through our link, and then leave a little review and five star rating. These things like once you get past a certain number of reviews, the author is is forever going to make money on that book. It'll always be ranked a bug bump above other books so that's a big help hate Tevye is super super knowledgeable about the White House. He's been the assistant secretary to Health and Human Services at a bunch of other high level White House positions. You can look him up at Tempe Troy, that org I almost said his name wrong. Terry troy.org and you can always look up Scott at echo and Ramadi calm, and you can look me up at PJ Turner calm cash, my website needs a desperate updating. But I will tell you this though, this is a cool episode, you're going to learn about how conflict in the White House either helps or hurts the presidencies, especially once you mix in the conflicts that happen outside of the White House, and then how all that exacerbates it. We love talking about presidencies, we love talking about the history of it. We actually have a really cool show coming up this week. You're going to enjoy about that. So I've given you an idea how to support the show. I know you're gonna like Terry Troy's episode. And then one last thing that I'm going to say and that is to support save the brave. That's our charity for the Show save the brave save the brave org go there click on the donate tab put a small amount of money in each month. Just that I'm out you won't even miss would you buy me lunch? Would you buy john lunch? Would you buy Scott lunch? Okay 25 bucks a month. That's it. That's all we're asking for that will make such a difference in how we help veterans with PTSD. So things things on our list of things to do. Stay safe. Stay healthy. In droid Tabby Troy, lions rock productions
Unknown Speaker 2:31
This is Jay
Unknown Speaker 2:31
Morrison. This is Jordan. Dexter from the offspring
Unknown Speaker 2:34
naked nice Sebastian yo this is Rick Mirage
Unknown Speaker 2:36
Stewart COPPA this is Mitch Alexis
Unknown Speaker 2:38
handy somebody there's a skunk Baxter Gabby Reese is Rob bell. This is john Leon
Pete Turner 2:42
gray and this is Pete a Turner
Tevi Troy 2:47
hey this is Tevi Troy you're listening down to the break it down show with people Scott on white house.
Niko Leon Guerrero 2:53
And now the break it down show with john Leon Guerrero and Pete a Turner.
Pete Turner 3:00
We're talking to a Regnery author named Toby, Troy and Scott, like, hey, let's get this guy on and talk about his book. I wanted to before we get too much into that, talk about your previous book, because it's super topical right now Wait, the president. And you know, what happens with disasters with presidents? How was it to have an older book that you wrote a couple years ago all of a sudden become super mainstream and important?
Unknown Speaker 3:26
Well, it's kind of fun. I read this book, shall we make the president in 2016? It said indicate it tells you something about it that the book was written without either Hillary or Trump mentioned in it, both of them became the presidential candidates that you're obviously Trump was the winner. But the book just came out in paperback this week, and it's actually available on Costco. Somebody sent me a picture of seeing a big stack from Costco. So, the book is a hot topic right now people are worried about Coronavirus actually had specific ideas and suggestions inside Chadwick, the president of what people should do when you have some kind of disease outbreak and unfamiliar disease outbreak and they know their specific actionable steps that I suggest everybody take,
scott huesing 4:05
well, hey, I first want to say that how this network is connected again blows my mind because and I'm up in the office at Red Green says, I said, hey, what books are great right now? And he grabs the first one off he goes, you got to read this one from me. And so that's how Tevye comes on the show with us today. And I think that, you know, we get a ton of authors on the show. And the question I have for you to be the first one is not just Shall we wake the president, which is is extremely topical right now you never know the impact is going to have when you write something a month or two months or two years later, but this book and your job as a, as a journalist and presidential historian, I'd like to have you tell everybody your career path that led you into this and then talk a little bit more about fight house and going back and doing all the research for this book specifically.
Unknown Speaker 4:58
Sure. I'm happy to do that, Scott. Enough. Great question and it is really great that Alex plugged the book to you. Alex is not only a fantastic publisher, but he's also the son of the famous columnist bob novak and Bob Novak's columns were very helpful in rossler love to write. For years he would talk about fighting inside White Houses that I got such a early picture early on in my career of finding inside write houses from Bob's columns. And Alex even wrote the preface is a little unusual for a publisher. But I really encouraged him to do it. He wrote the preface of fight house, because he was touched that I use so much of his father's work in the book. My career started. After college, my first job I moved down to Washington works at the American Enterprise Institute. I looked at all those cool people there who were nerds, they're cool. But all those cool people there who were advising senators, President's Cabinet members, and going on TV and writing books, and I said, Wow, that's a cool way to live. I want to do that. How do I get to do that? But I realize you're not going to do that as a 22 year old so I try to figure out what they have. done before, they got to have those cool purchases as advisors to presidents and Cabinet members, etc. And I saw three things. Number one was they all had some kind of advanced degree. So I recommend people go to graduate school if you want to. Number two is they had some kind of government experience. They worked in government. So they knew how government worked and operated, what government's limitations were, what government's capabilities were. And that informed what they had to say. And then the third, and this led to my writing career is they had some kind of well received book or article that kind of made their name Jean Kirkpatrick for example, that he when I was there, she became UN ambassador, in part because ronald reagan wrote a famous commentary article that she wrote called dictatorship and double standards. Reagan was taken by the argument that said, communist dictatorships never make the migration to become democracies without obviously some kind of revolution. They don't they don't migrate to rebel to free status, whereas authoritarian nations can make that migration. And what she argued in effect was you have to take a heart line on communist and totalitarian countries and authoritarian countries, you can encourage them and make them move in the right direction. And that was read by Ronald Reagan, she became UN Ambassador as a result. So those three things, again, graduate degree, some kind of government service, and some kind of well received book or article that helps make your name I thought would get me into that think tank space. And so I actually went and did those things. I went to University of Texas, got a PhD. I wrote a dissertation when I thought I could publish a book that was on intellectuals, the American presidency became my first book. And then I started working in government. I worked in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and then I was in the bush administration in the White House, and became Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is where I learned all that stuff about disaster preparedness. And after the Bush administration ended, I went to a think tank like I had long planned I went to the Hudson Institute, and I started writing books. I wrote a book about presidents in pop culture. With Jefferson read, I watched the Obama tweeted, I wrote that book about disaster prep, shall we wake the president and now We're here to talk about my new book fight house rivalries in the White House for trauma to Trump.
Pete Turner 8:04
When you look at the rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump, why was Truman the starting point?
Unknown Speaker 8:09
Yeah, it's a great question. Obviously, there were rivalries in American politics and in all politics through time immemorial. But what happened in the US was during the Roosevelt administration, government was getting bigger and bigger. And there was a commission called the brownlow. commission. This Commission had a famous four word conclusion, the conclusion was, the president needs help. And it's suggested that you create a series of administrative assistants to the president White House aides with a, quote, passion for anonymity. And these folks would then go and do the bidding of the President, they would report him on what's going on in government, but they would also take the President's direction for the orders and go out there and make them happen. And so Truman is the first president after this commission to enter with a White House style. And what I argue in fight house is that all kinds of dynamic changes take place. Once you have White House staff when you have people who are advising the president or next to him, or different than the cabinet members who think they should be the primary advisors on all sorts of things. Also this passion for anonymity goes away. And these White House aides aren't actually anonymous, but they become famous in their own right. And that brings with it journalistic relationships, the ability to leak to the press, sometimes big egos big jobs at stake afterwards. And so suddenly, the stakes get higher, the profile and the spotlight gets bigger, and the tension for the cabinet get greater and all those lead to the mix of increased rivalries and increased fighting that I highlight my book fight house.
scott huesing 9:35
This is fascinating to me, because we've done a lot of work. I've been to the reagan ranch center and to Nixon library and getting a really behind the scenes look at some of the great leaders of our country and even some of the more controversial ones. And I think in in your book, the chapter about the Clinton administration is probably when we came to the media Where everything about the President was really blasted on mainstream media. And I think the American public had access to every detail and facet of what the President was doing, not only on the world stage, but also in their private lives. Do you think there was a specific era? Or do you think that the Clinton administration was probably where the fuse was lit with this as
Unknown Speaker 10:28
well? I think that's a really good point about Clinton. Fox News starts in the clinton era, the internet really takes off in the clinton era. The Clinton advisors had this rule during the campaign of 1992, which is never let a charge go unanswered in a new cycle, so they were constantly responding to the new cycle. It was everything was just much more in your face, and you're much more aware of things. There's a Reagan Administration aid, I quote, the book, Peter Robinson, and obviously that was not that long before Clinton, but it was it was obviously before it. And the reagan aide Peter Robinson said course we had fighting in the reagan White House, we just didn't have Twitter, Tweeter, Twitter talking about it all the time. And so the rise of 24 hour cable, the rise of the Internet, the rise of social media, all these factors contributed. And then you add on top of that, reporters, I think in the Kennedy administration were kind of burned. They didn't talk about Kennedy's dalliances, even though every one of them knew about it. And suddenly the new attitude after Watergate after Nixon was, we're going to talk about this stuff, we're going to get it all out there. And we're going to win Pulitzer Prizes and journalistic awards for being the first ones out there to talk about this stuff. And so there's no more holding back from the media, the media became a player in a way that they had not before. And so whereas the Reagan administration, some of the youth could go under radar, that was no longer the case. Once he gets to Clinton and subsequent ministration.
scott huesing 11:47
Do you think that you say, yeah, we're gonna win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on sex scandal. Do you think that that was also as many people assert, kind of the downfall of journalism like it's circling the drain Drain when we start reporting on this, not that it's not important, but you use the word like like tabloid a lot, it becomes this tabloid like reporting where we're steering away from, I guess for lack of a better term, more important issues of what the President is doing vice, the things that kind of all presidents and all people have done since the beginning of man.
Unknown Speaker 12:28
Yeah, look at journalists or people to I think what we've happened now and what's happened now in the internet age, is that the journalists are revealed for who they are, right? You keep reading this thing's about there's just an ABC News journalists suspended because he admitted that he's a socialist and can't stay in the president, all this stuff. With social media, these journalists are tweeting, and you see that they're not necessarily the neutral, non partisan arbiters of what's important, but they actually have their own perspectives, their own opinions, and you know, it's great, everyone's allowed to have their own opinion. But once it comes into your journalism, then you start West journalistic enterprise and I think you're right, that journalists were looking for the salacious rather than the substantive because that's what sells papers. And obviously there's more competition today, you've got the electronic media, you don't necessarily sell as many hard copies of a paper today, you've got to get clicks online. And you have instant gratification. If you put a piece out there, you can see how many clicks that pieces getting. And that drives you to write more pieces like the one that gets the clicks, as opposed to the one that might be on the substance of a tax bill. But that doesn't get so many clicks.
Pete Turner 13:29
When you look at the history of presidential organizations and administrations, who stands out as being particularly combative, and who's particularly consensus driven,
Unknown Speaker 13:42
it's a good question. The Ford administration was very combative, combative, there was a lot of infighting, the Ford ministration kind of surprising in some ways because you think Jerry Ford is a nice guy. But there are two interesting things that happened in the Ford miseration number one is the very fact that Ford is a nice guy. I think he was unable to control the infighting especially Who are close to him? Again, Bob Hartman, who was a former journalist nuke Ford, for a long time, was a very problematic actor inside the Ford White House. But Ford really wasn't willing to rein him in because they were personal friends. The second thing is Ford is the only person to become president without running on a national ticket. Right? He didn't articulate the vision. And so all the A's are fighting over what the Ford vision is, because the the President has never gotten out there and articulate. So I think that is a challenge. When you talk about consensus, I think some of the recent presidents like Bush and Obama, Bush 43, and Obama tried to have consensus driven process run White Houses, and they really didn't want to see in fighting and they talked about how they were against in fighting bush was the first NBA press. A President didn't want the process to the White House. Obama had the famous no drama Obama, but even there, as I lay out in fight house, there were plenty of fighting fights that took place in those administrations. What you find is it's a little like whack a mole where you try and control it in one place and it pops out elsewhere. So when the Bush administration breaks I thought bush did a really good job on domestic policy and trying to maintain that density and collegiality. But on foreign policy, you had Cheney, Rumsfeld, rice, and they were at each other's throats. And you read all kinds of stuff about during the administration more since the administration that I talked about in fight house, in the Obama White House, I think he again had this idea of no drama, Obama, he limited fighting to some degree. But at the same time, fighting definitely emerged, and I talked about a gender based divide that that came out in the Obama White House said, we've not seen the previous White Houses.
Pete Turner 15:34
The follow up to that did is, you know, one of the I'm a bit of a presidential historian myself, you know, you start to understand that presidents don't control timing. They don't really understand the job bow enough to pick their best people to you know, like you get the NSC, you're get, but you're not the one you need. You know, there's all these outside factors that take you out of you don't get to manage the problem the way you you would think you do. So what does work I mean, it Is it person specific? Or is there a specific style that seems to rise to the top like this tends to work less shitty than this other form, which always works? You know, to be honest, it's hard to get things reliably right as president and get people to agree that you've done it reliably. Right?
Unknown Speaker 16:17
Well, I'm so glad you asked that question. Because in fight house, I actually lay out the three levers that a president has in their control in order to limit infighting in the white house again, if they so choose, President may not want to limit in fighting for them. I like in fighting as I see that it builds some creative tensions and gets the juices flowing and all that. But if they so choose, here are the three levers and I will lay them out in brief, get them in more detailed fight house. Number one is ideological alignments I mentioned in Ford, you didn't really know where the President stood. So the aides were fighting over what the ideology the administration was. So if you have ideological alignment people on the same page, you're gonna see less fight Number two is a strict process I mentioned bush was very process driven if you have a process and that means the way in which paper gets to the President, the way in which decisions are made, the way in which meetings are organized, if you have a fair process in which people get to sit around the table, and all the people with equities get to have their say, even if they lose at the end of the day, they feel like they got to say their piece, then you're going to have less infighting, less leaking and less backbiting. And the third thing is presidential tolerance. If a president says, I don't want to see this stuff, you're going to see less of it. That doesn't mean you're going to see none of it. But it is a fact. And so Obama made it very clear he didn't want to see fighting and I tell a story in the book and fight House of olestra of Alyssa muster. Monaco, who was a deputy chief of staff, who did not like the way she was portrayed in the New York Times article. It wasn't even critical. It was just insufficiently glowing about her. And she sent an email blistering the entire senior staff about leaking against her and people who, who did stuff to her in that way. And Obama calls her into the oval. The next day, she doesn't know why she's the Deputy Chief of Staff, there's a million reasons, you can be called to the Oval Office to talk to the president in that position. And he looks at her and he says, that was quite the email you sent yesterday making it very clear that he didn't want to see this kind of stuff take place in his white house. So those three levers, ideological alignment, strong, strict process, and presidential intolerance for fighting are the ways a president can control it if they so choose. But does it work? You know, work is an interesting question. So you can have less infighting in the White House and we see the LBJ one white house in the Johnson White House. There. There was in some ways less fighting, because Johnson didn't want to see it because he didn't want to have anybody with views different than his own. Now, I talked about in the same book in fight house in the previous chapter in Kennedy ministration. Johnson was fighting hammer and tongs Bobby Kennedy and they hate each other. But inside the Johnson White House, he didn't really Brooke dissent. He tried to clamp down on leaking he actually had the White House operators report back to him on who people were calling and the White House motor pool report back to him on where people were going. So he didn't want to hear dissent. He didn't. He tried to clamp down on leaks. And what he ended up with was groupthink over Vietnam because nobody was really able to question the policy. And there was even a group of staffers at the State Department who were worried about the direction of Vietnam. And they were scared to come together to discuss it. They called they brought themselves together in a group they called the non group because they were so afraid that Johnson would find out about it and they had secret meetings so that Johnson would know that there were people within his administration are questioning the policy. You can you know, have a, I guess, maybe a Stalinist atmosphere, cut down on infighting but it doesn't necessarily improve the results.
scott huesing 19:45
Just listening to that. It makes me wonder if there was or maybe if you viewed this just popped into my head to be reviewed and came up with this with all of the access you have to the stories and everything if there was it if there was a way to measure to things on the scale, the incidence of scandalous behavior and infighting in the White House, tied to the effectiveness of the presidency and also a presidential approval rating in the public. I wonder, have you ever thought about that?
Unknown Speaker 20:17
So I did think of a version of that. If you look in fight house, it is and I know you've got a copy there. If you look at page 266, read the appendix. I have three scales, where I talk about ideological discord low to high process tight to loose and tolerance for infighting low to high. And I measure each administration on those scales, which are really measuring those three levers I talked about. And then I talked at the end, in the last column about the result, what kind of white house you had in basically one set. And so I didn't exactly do it the way you did it with terms of scandals and approval rating, but there are ways of measuring White Houses again, it's a subjective measurement. For me as a historian, I don't know anybody who's looked at this stuff more closely White House the White House than I have on this particular sun. And so I think you can try and have cross comparisons. But obviously there are external factors and questions about how the media covers one administration or another, that may skew the results. But the fact is, I think you can try and do a cross administration comparison. And that's what I tried to do in fight house.
scott huesing 21:16
Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. It's a really real cool layout. And I noticed one thing, I'll just throw this out there, there's a lot of asterisks in your book with words that start with F and then have three asterisks or D. And then three has, like, I don't know, Alex, he let me I think there's, I think last count 66 f bombs in my book, but you know, it's marine speak. It's kind of our lexicon. So
Unknown Speaker 21:43
was that a conscious decision? Like, I'm not gonna use the actual swear word in my book. It was actually a conscious decision. And I did a search before I submitted the book of all the bad words in there, and I put in the stars. I know, I noticed one of you guys use the word shitty before. Yeah, I try not to curse I for kids. under the age of 18, just try not to curse around them because I don't want them to pick up the habit. And I also wanted them to be able to read this book and not see their father writing those words. Now, I will tell you something interesting, which is I happen to be listening to the audio version of the book, which is great. And I'm only listening to it because I wanted to hear how the voice actor did it. And the voice actor he when it comes to those asteroids words, he says the actual word choice by him
scott huesing 22:27
that's interesting
Tevi Troy 22:29
to ask me about that. So I really appreciate
scott huesing 22:31
Well, yeah, it just Yeah, well, Tevye I don't have a doctor in front of my name. So it quickly devolves to this high school mentality every time with me so yeah, don't don't give me too much credit. Pete's the smart guy in the room. He always is. He always lets me know it. And now so I'm getting you know, two sided ambush from you and P. But, you know, one of the things I've always said and I'll go back to Clinton because
I find his presidency fascinating and I've always asserted to a degree that Amidst all the scandal and everything, you know, and he gets bashed for not being a good president, I always, I always thought that it made President Clinton. So, I mean, they called him you know, he was made of Teflon, nothing stuck to him, I think around the world as people view our president in a certain way through a certain lens. Clinton to me, always seemed to be this guy that was untouchable, but you never knew what he was going to do. And you know, it could have been a policy decision, or parking tomahawks in North Africa, to a scandal with Monica Lewinsky, or flowers or whatever it was, and around the world. I think everyone kind of took a step back because they said, This guy is pretty capable of doing anything. Is he one of the better examples of being able to come through the mire? squeaky clean.
Unknown Speaker 23:51
Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. Especially because today when you hear people talk about the 90s, they say, Oh, the 90s or an idyllic time, peace in prosperity. Look, I lived through the 90s. Nobody was walking around saying, hey, it's peaceful prosperity. They were saying, Oh my gosh, did you see what the President's doing the oval office? Or or can you see what the republicans are trying to do for him for you know, just having some extra marital dalliances? I mean, it was not a time where you thought, oh, wow, this is just the most peaceful, wonderful time on earth. And so sometimes you look back on an error differently than it was experienced by the people who lived it. I think Clinton does get a lot of credit. I think I've been his, you know, I'm Republican. I worked in the George W. Bush White House. But I think I've been very nice to Clinton in all four of my books now, because I think he was very talented person. I think he did care about the direction of the country. I think. I wouldn't say he was less partisan, because he was obviously a partisan, but I think he was willing to do stuff like triangulation where he tried to get the best ideas from both parties. I think he was willing to read stuff on the other side of the aisle that you don't see from from from recent presidents. I mean, if you look at Obama's reading, he did read a lot of books but never ever read a book by a conservative just almost never saw it. And I think that kind of one sided alignment where you're not reading what the other side saying I think is is damaging. And I think it, I think we'd be better off if we read I try to read a lot of liberal books and a lot of conservative books because I think we're just better off by hearing what everybody say.
scott huesing 25:18
That's a rare skill to have. And I think in this day and age where I personally am very hopeful that there'll be more people saying things like that and admitting that, yes, I went to a democratic rally just to see that it wasn't a bunch of raving lunatics and get their message and really balanced that with your own views of policy and culture and how to adapt that and to hear that there's, you know, world leaders that you rise to the most powerful position on the planet. In this case when you sit in the White House, and that you're not willing to read outside of your own comfort zone or be educated outside of your own comfort zone. I think speaks volumes about The type of people we really need in there and what I mean, what do you think about that? How do we how do we move forward to bring those two sides closer together?
Unknown Speaker 26:09
Yeah, look, when I served in the bush, White House, President Bush read a lot. He had 60 to 90 books a year. And he read serious books. And if you look at the list, he was reading books by conservative authors, liberal authors and reading presidential biographies. He read 14 biographies about Lincoln, while he was president, a lot of Lincoln biographies. And you would have these meetings where he just there was no publicity about them. He would just bring in some professors and academics, to talk to them about books and ideas. And they were always amazed at how well read bush was. So I think that is a definitely a useful skill. Clinton was also a wide and varied reader, Harry Truman was a huge reader. He used to say, the only history The only thing that's new in this world is the history you haven't read yet. And I think that and you know, Truman is also the last president not to go to college. So Truman is was an autodidact, but he really took it seriously and he was constantly reading on stuff and it helps shape some of his policies in a positive direction. You're in fight house, I tell the story about big fight about the recognition of the State of Israel. And national security establishment was opposed to recognizing Israel, especially Secretary of State George Marshall. Clark Clifford was a White House aide who was charged with making the case for the State of Israel. And he did it in a meeting in the White House in front of Truman in front of Marshall. And, Marshall is I rate that this pipsqueak Clifford is challenging his brilliance. And he even kind of tries to put him down in the meeting. What's Clifford doing here? And Truman says well, General, in general Marshall, he's here because I asked him to be here. And he lets Clifford make the case. And Clifford makes it an effective case. But it's also coupled with the fact that Truman was a big reader used to read this book as a kid called great men and famous women that talked about it. The Great King who left the Jews leave the Babylonian exile and go back to Israel to rebuild the holy temple. And as a result of Clifford strong argument, and Truman's reading, they do decide to recognize the State of Israel, which is a great idea since Israel's a staunch allies of ours and the only democracy in the Middle East today. And Marshall is so mad that he loses this argument that he never again speaks to Clifford or others his name for the rest of his life. Wow. I was embroiled in a grudge.
Pete Turner 28:29
Yeah, yeah. And I like that. You pointed out the fact that george bush these, the younger is such a powerful reader. I mean, that that's, we have these perceptions that he's an idiot, right. But he does have two Ivy League degrees. He does have a stack of books that you will walk down the street and read 1000 people look at their book stack. He's gonna have more books in that stack than anybody else. And it did inform how he administrated and how he made decisions. And yet it still didn't work out very good.
Unknown Speaker 28:58
Yes, sir. Your car right? have said that in the 40 years, he knows George W. Bush. He's never seen him without a book in hand. So yeah, he was a big reader and I talked about this a lot in my second book, but Jefferson read, I've watched Obama tweeted, and and I say that bush is not blameless. In this regard. There's a reason there's a perception of him as kind of a cowboy and not sharp, smart guy is because he lost a congressional race in 1978, to a guy named Ken tans, who derided him as a pointy headed Northeastern intellectual with those two Ivy League degrees. And just mercilessly mocked him in West Texas about that kind of background that he had. And he lost the race and bush promised I'll never be out cowboy again. So from then on, he wore the leather jacket, the cowboy hat, the boots, and he didn't talk publicly about his reading. And he just showed himself to be a regular guy successfully one governor twice, then wins the presidency as this regular guy, and then he realizes that people are pretty From as this guy who's not so smart, not so well educated, and he tries to change it, he does do all that reading. And he does try and bring intellectuals and academics in the White House. And he does have an Office of Strategic Initiatives that's specifically designed to reach out to intellectuals. But it's too late, we don't really get a second chance to make a first impression with American people.
scott huesing 30:19
The the book is I want to talk about the access in your access, specifically, not only being in the White House under the Bush administration, but going back through time pulling all of the information, how do you how do you gain access to some of the more juicy parts of this book and some of the stories you tell and that obviously, you can't even put in 300 pages. I mean, there's so there's got to be volumes of great stories about these presidents and not just the infighting but the great things too. So talk to me about the access and then talk about some of the things that you wish you could have put in this book that didn't make the cut?
Unknown Speaker 31:02
Yeah, that's a really good question. And every time you write a book every single time, wherever you are, whatever kind of book you are writing, you have to make some strategic decisions about what you're going to include and how you're going to approach it. And what's going to be the information based on what you choose to your material. And even in fiction, you know, there are areas your head you may not want to explore, but but in nonfiction, especially, how am I going to go about doing this book? And the question I got while I was writing before anything else is are you doing interviewing who you're in? And I specifically decided for this book not to do interviews, and I'll tell you why. Number one is, I feel like people lie to interviewers, they'll say, Oh, well, you know, it's all hunky dory, my white house, this guy was an sob. I mean, maybe he wasn't, but they give their perception enough, the actual reality. Number two is, I didn't want to have a whole bunch of interviews that only I had access to. And then I selectively pick selectively pick from those interviews and said, here's the stuff you don't get to see it, but I'm gonna, you know, I'm going to choose from these interviews and say something that's different. The entire historical record. So I very consciously said, Everything in this book is going to be in the historical record that people have seen or can see or at can access, if they so on and go to presidential libraries. They can go to the oral histories in the Miller center. They can read the journalistic accounts or the historical accounts. And I'm bringing it together, stringing together my own interpretation, but I'm really not using any secret material. I will say there's one counterexample of this. There's one story that somebody told me that I included in the book that was so good that I couldn't not include it. And I actually put a footnote in there explaining how this guy told me the story. I used it it is so to start quickly was about Bill Kristol. In the george HW Bush White House had a perception there was a reputation being a leaker. And there was one meeting in which he goes into the press secretary's office, and the meeting is going on, while crystal walks in. And the press secretary just stops and crystal walks in the room, folds his arms and won't say another word until crystal leaves the room because But like crystal was a leaker. And this guy who was in the meeting told me that story and I felt it was just too good not to use. I will say that I'll set a parallel in the historical record on that story because when Arthur Schlesinger writes his book about the Kennedy administration called 1000 days, he has a very harsh portrait of Dean Rusk, who was the secretary of state under Kennedy. And he described Rusk as Buddha like sitting there silently in meetings. And Rusk later said after the book came out, he said, the only reason I was silent in meetings when Schlesinger was there is because he was such a blabber mouth and he would talk about everything that was said in Georgetown cocktail party. So that's why it's silent direct in the silence other times.
scott huesing 33:42
You talk about crystal being a leaguer? And then I'm looking in the appendix to you've got this great section here about all these nicknames, which I mean from what you just said. This all historical record and then you reference. Dave Gergen is Professor Leakey in Reagan's administration. The The nicknames are hilarious. I mean, so I'm bringing this up because we're talking about the access you have and where the information comes from. But then some really notable figures who are journalists and senior White House cabinet members and administrators. But this this book is it's not just I'm, I'm dying to get more out of it, because it's not just a historical recantation of what goes on on a day to day basis. There's a lot of funny stuff in here, too, that is just not just humorous, but extremely interesting. And there's a backstory to every one of these nicknames that you have. How did you make the decision throw this in the book as well.
Tevi Troy 34:41
But you know, so much of it is colored by what's going on at the time. So you'd read these articles about nicknames in the Trump administration and actually read in the book where Steve Bannon talked about how Trump liked the book by Carl young and young talks about nicknames is something having to do with Jungian archetypes. I don't know if it's all made up or not. But I just thought, Wow, that's really interesting. And I realized that I had a lot of nicknames in the book. So I just started to make a running list of all the nicknames that I found in every ministration, pretty much from Kennedy on, because when the nicknames start, and at the end, I said this would be a great appendix. So that's why I put it all together. And actually, the Washington Examiner ran a little piece about all the nicknames that I have in the book. So it's worth looking at as well.
Pete Turner 35:24
When you start digging into the archives, you know, you start to realize there's a book there's a book, gosh, there's a volume of books. I mean, I can't think of the guy's name off top my head, but he's written a multi volume, just complete biography of Johnson and he's still doing it to the state's become his life's work, you know, because you go and he's like, super detailed, like you go through every single paper in the archive. Then you write, you write the book and you put these things together. Do you find yourself just overwhelmed with ideas for what to write next? It doesn't seem like there's any shortage of interesting ways to request To all of this history into something that we didn't know before, hey, this is Pete Turner from lions rock productions, we create podcasts around here. And if you your brand or your company want to figure out how to do a podcast, just talk to me. I'll give you the advice on the right gear, the best plan and show you how to take a podcast that makes sense for you. That's sustainable. That's scalable and fun. Hit me up at Pete at breakdown, show calm. Let me help. I want to hear about it. Do you find yourself just overwhelmed with ideas for what to write next is it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of interesting ways to reconstitute all of this history into something that we didn't know before.
Tevi Troy 36:37
Yeah, it's a great question. You're Robert care of him saying, who wrote the Johnson books, my husband's motto, which is turnover every paper every day? I can't claim to do that. I try and be as comprehensive as I can. I'm trying to tell a story. And I go, I start looking at administration. And I say, Okay, this is the story. I want to tell there was a fight between, let's say, tick Morris in the Clinton administration, and George Stephanopoulos and Harold ickes and actually started it as just Stephanopoulos versus Morris. And then the more I looked into it, I realized that Harold ickes, who knew Morris for 30 years and hated in New York politics, they were rivals back there was an important part of the story as well. So the story I want to tell can change based on what the historical record tells me. But I go in saying, I want to tell this story, the story of how these two people hate each other in the White House, and then I try and find every stoical record every document every interview on that subject, and weave it together in a way that keeps people interested in turning the pages
Pete Turner 37:34
who stands out like when you look at different administration's some people end up staying, you know, like jack Brennan has been a adviser to other chiefs of staff and everything, who, who stands out as being someone who's able to just sort of hang around the White House and always be useful regardless of which party occupies the house.
Tevi Troy 37:53
Well, number one is guy we've already mentioned Professor Leakey himself. And Gergen, david gergen. gergan served in the Nixon White House poured by Reagan White House and the Clinton White House. And he was always involved in some kind of backstabbing, leaking sharp elbowed behavior. And you know, you looked at him on TV and I've actually met him and it seems like such a genial guy, but man, this guy knew how to fight and you know, there's a famous scene in the White House situation room when reagan is shot, and Al Haig is told not to go upstairs and say I'm in charge here, but he doesn't in any way. And in that scene gergan excused himself a number of times from the room and some people were speculating that he was doing it in order to leak to the store system the press so it was leaving the room for a variety of reasons, you know, as either actually to leak or or to take a leak. I don't know which was but but it is interesting that that was his perception. Every time I left the room, it was probably leaking somewhere.
scott huesing 38:52
So So yeah. Yeah, the whole etymology of these nicknames could be a whole book in and of itself, and Right, I tell you that I love this appendix to it, Trump's could be an appendix in of itself, because he's the master giving nicknames everybody knows, but let's, let's shift to the current presidency and all the material that's out there and some of your I always like to get your perspective as a guy that's on the inside. And, you know, Pete and I are both veterans. So we view things through a certain lens and, you know, the the outset of this administration 2016 I was pleased to see what what Trump was doing, surrounding himself and kind of bolstering his decision making ability about what he didn't know, similar to what we were talking about George W. Bush and surrounding himself with great people because he was a master. He knew what he didn't do and he was going to bring those people in for their counsel for their Sage guidance, and I thought that was really wise of President Trump to do that with guys like john Kelly. And Jim Mattis and zenki and all of these other veterans who are kind of giving us counsel not to be warmongering, but to give him perspective of what the military leadership model can can provide for it. His type of leadership, which I think is different on this on a scale of balance, what do you what are your thoughts on that and how he's, he's moved past it and the quick turnover within this administration.
Unknown Speaker 40:28
But I think a president, especially a president, who's new to the game, needs to figure out what works for him. And I think some of the turnover is reflected the fact they start to figure out what works for him. I also think that I don't know the full story of this administration. I was loath to do too much about this and efficient because whenever you write about an ongoing administration get stated very quickly. And also, I feel like we have some journalistic accounts, and we have some Memoirs of people who were there for 20 minutes and then left, but I don't think we have full picture yet. And so in fight house What I try and do is provide a full picture of administration's after they are over. Once we have access to a lot of these historical records, once we have access to some of the memoirs from more serious people who work there, and then you then you can tell the real story. I think the Trump story remains to be written and even in Obama, I have a lot more information about the Obama administration than I would have had I written the book while the administration was ongoing. But I think more is going to come out. Obama's book still is supposed to be coming. They're going to be the oral histories aren't going to come out for another 10 years or so. So it takes a while for this stuff to happen. And I'll be continuing to white right, because a no house is a never ending business proposition. Right. I can always talk about fighting in the White House, no matter who's president in 2015.
Pete Turner 41:46
Yeah, that's a great point like the current presidency, whatever it is, it's always hard to evaluate what's happening. I do want to ask you want to back up and that thing to do you have a sense for when a president sort of figures it out like they all struggle initially because it's just such a big job. And it's so impossible and you're trying to balance so many things who transitioned the most quickly what's like the basic timeline? It takes a good two and a half years to get to where you're competent, and you're not, you know, other than the current president right now, not doing unforced errors that cause your administration even more problems?
Unknown Speaker 42:24
And that's a really good question. I think sometimes the people who are the most experienced come in with the most knowledge of how government operates. So LBJ, for example, nobody wanted and pretty quickly, he told the Kennedy aides to stay, but he pretty quick pretty quickly created his own parallel organization within the White House. So we kept the skinny around, AIDS around but didn't actually use that. And we brought in this own people the way he wants it. Again, I'm not saying it all work because we had the group thing, Vietnam problems, but I think he knew what he was. He was burning to be president every minute, including those three painful years and he was vice president and Minister So I think he's one who kind of hit the ground running. I think george HW Bush knew a lot about the operation of government had been vice president previously. Nixon also was vice president previously, and had been a senator and kind of knew the way that government operated and what they wanted to do going and that doesn't mean everything worked out great for people in their, in their administrations, you know, Johnson famously did run for re election in 68. Because the Vietnam and mixing got impeached and, and didn't do and resigned. And then george HW Bush lost after one term. But I think in terms of quickly hitting the ground running and knowing what they wanted to do, I think all those presidents were good on that front.
Pete Turner 43:43
And Truman was vice vice president also before he jumped in.
Unknown Speaker 43:47
Yeah, but Truman was not written in or read into any anything. He was not aware of what was going on. he famously didn't know about the atom bomb project at all. So Truman really had to learn After he kind of had to learn by doing,
Pete Turner 44:02
the other thing I wanted to ask you about these things is, you know, like Scott was saying, there's a lot of military guys in the Trump White House. And for I don't know, for our perspective, we've had so many commanders, you know, we have a lot of tolerance for the commander, just decide how they want to run their stuff. You may not disagree with it, but your job is to get behind the plow and start pushing, you know, like, get this thing going forward. So, yeah, though, I don't really care for how the President does things, whoever it is, you know, it is their call, you know, like they are left with the policy, they've got to decide if it works, or if they're going to change it. And there are so many policies You know, I think we've we've developed some thin skin for what how we perceive the president and then also what they're actually allowed to do like it is, it is their call, they are hired to do this job and whether or not they do it poorly. That's a good conversation, but how they do it the how really belongs to them, or am I wrong about that?
Unknown Speaker 44:58
No, I think you're totally right. Truman's favorite, famous saying was the buck stops here, right? And it's the president who gets inside bush called himself the decider. People made fun of a syntax for that. But that's ultimately what the decision is. What you get to do as president is even, you don't get to write legislation yourself. You don't get to move mountains or rescue people or fight for yourself, you get to make decisions. They are difficult decisions. And, and you're the one who has to make them and Colin Powell has actually talked about this, that the easiest decisions in government are made by career officials with the manual in the field manual out at the local level. And the harder the decision gets the closer it migrates to the Oval Office. So the 9010 decisions are being made by the people out in the field with that manual. Whereas the 50.5 to 49.5 decisions are really ones that are on that kind of on the edge on the knife's edge are the ones that have to go to the Oval Office to get made by the President himself. And so that's why there's no easy decisions as president only the toughest ones made. to your desk,
scott huesing 46:00
the nameplate on your desk says presidential historian so I could see where the Trump administration is really something that time will tell. And I'm curious to know, and you as a presidential historian, the balance of volumes that will be written about this president, and how he leveraged things like social media and is catering to the everyday American and really being a master at the game. Because I think that that's one of the things whether you love him or hate him. Trump is all about winning, and he understands the rules of the game. And the way to win the game is to know the rules and he plays by those rules. And I think that the public doesn't really understand that from a political from the political perspective. As a historian, are you one of those guys that you wait, you wake up the mornings like, Man when this is all over? I can't wait to write about this in all and then the second part of that question is how long after In terms over, should you wait to start writing about it? What makes the best story?
Unknown Speaker 47:05
And it's a great question your George George W. Bush for whom I work used to say, I don't worry about my historical reputation because they're still writing books about the first George W. George Washington, he was president two years ago. And you still have books that come out and bring out new material about you believe it's like Washington was dead for hundreds of years. So I think that the historians job is to get the maximum amount of information available at the time and write the right interpretation. Given that information with Eisenhower. He was seen as kind of a buffoon by the mainstream media at the time. And then it was only in the early 70s when Fred Greenstein writes the Hidden Hand presidency that he actually talked about Eisenhower's brilliant maneuvers behind the scenes. So I don't think we know the full story with any president at the time. And I think the more time goes by the more Learn about it. I obviously I think one of the key things and one one source that I used heavily in fight house are the oral histories that the more the Miller center makes available. They're not available till 10 years after administrations over so we don't have access to them for Obama and we won't have access to them for Trump, 2031 or 2035. But the more that information comes out, the more you can actually know about what was happening at the time. I like to look so let's say you said you mentioned the Trump administration. I'd like to see the first wave of memoirs from people who were there for a long time and then more from the president, although I think memoirs and presidents don't always tell the full story. I think that the the Trump library or even the Obama library that their materials aren't gonna be available for a while. I think you've got a lot of forgettable books about this current administration have already been written. And I think some serious historians will take a deeper dive look more serious look at the administration. I think that will also be a useful source. So Again, the story has to end before you can write the story of what happens. And that's how I look at it.
Pete Turner 49:04
Look at the comeback that Truman had in his presidency. You know, you wonder also, if george w will have a similar comeback over time in some of these things, you have to see the outcomes, you know, you can't, you can't write them in the moment, as you said, the first George W is still being evaluated, and we're still trying to decide if we can did the right thing. And all of these things evolve so dramatically over time. It's, it makes me laugh when people say the x, you know, this is the worst thing ever of presidents and they can't even name 20 presidents let alone 40 Plus,
Unknown Speaker 49:39
hello, let's say in 2050. Iraq at that point is a, let's say, is a democracy for 50 years. New Orleans is a better city than it was in 25. And the economy has had no major recession since the 29 bailouts. You might look back and say, Hey, you know, maybe George W. Bush was a pretty good president. But we don't know.
scott huesing 50:01
That's, that's great.
Unknown Speaker 50:03
Yeah, just have to do and wait and play it out.
scott huesing 50:05
I think that, again, I've written about this. And I've said it about America being this fast food society. We want fast cash to the ATM. We want fast food at McDonald's. We want fast democracy. And democracy isn't something that happens overnight. And I think you mentioned something that's near and dear to Pete Nye is is iraq specifically, and how that country is developing after it's been around 4000 years. We expect even after this four year war, that it's just going to automatically start growing flowers and commerce and democracy, like we've grown in this country for 244 years, which is pale in comparison to the history of that region. And I think that you really, really bring up a great point to emphasize I think from from your perspective on How the American public can can really judge presidents in the future and how much time needs to go by. What do you tell the average American when when we live in a society like this on being patient?
Unknown Speaker 51:16
Well, as you suggest, it's not a society that's known for patience. And I once had an idea for a book that I didn't pursue, but I have lots of ideas for books is called impatient nation. We want everything all the time right away. And he's just don't get that. It's just not the way life works. Like, please get up in the morning and go to work and you do your best. And you see how this day plays out. And you say, oh, Tuesday goes, and I just don't think you can get all the information you want about everything all the time. You know, we do have access to more information than any other generation in human history, which is an amazing thing. However, McDonald's likes to say that young people today have at their fingertips with what Faust sold his soul for which is knowledge. It's a great formula. So we do know so much more than we ever did. But you can't know everything you can't know the future. So I think that that's why I counsel patients and all this stuff.
scott huesing 52:10
So what are the what are the what are the great ideas besides in patient nation for the neck? Next thing coming for you, Debbie, what are you dying to write about?
Unknown Speaker 52:19
I actually have a great idea for a book. I'm not yet sharing what the idea is. Three to four ideas, three to four years to write a book and I don't want somebody to jump in in the interim period. But I will give you a hint. It is a three word concept and the first two words are presidents and
Pete Turner 52:37
passes presidents and pets.
scott huesing 52:40
Now that's Robert that's Robin Hutton. That's Robin residence in pet. She's the animal author at Regnery. She's a dear friend of mine. I love Robin Robin. She's gonna be on the show here real soon as well. But what you've given in this book fight house is a is such a really fascinating look at What you've seen growing up and and not only from a historical perspective too heavy, but some of the more lighter hearted anecdotes that you seem to have captured in fight house as well. If people want to find out more about this book I know it's it's on Amazon right now it's doing great. I mean, if there's people listening to the show you like loved learning about president's US government politics, definitely go on Amazon. Type in fight house TVs name will pop right up as TVI Don't forget when you buy the book, read it. Leave a review on Amazon. tell everybody what you thought of the book. But where else can people find you TV?
Unknown Speaker 53:40
Well, I mentioned earlier that there's some audio versions you can get on Audible and there's an audio CD. You can get it wherever fine books are sold. You can get it at your local bookstore, I hope and, and you can also go to Regnery the
Unknown Speaker 53:53
publisher directly from regularly published
Unknown Speaker 53:55
by white house is a great read. I recommend it highly.
Pete Turner 53:59
Thanks for coming on the show. Man, it's really cool. It's a brief conversation. I love presidential conversations I just kick out
Unknown Speaker 54:05
all right, well let's do it for my for my next book but
Unknown Speaker 54:07
it comes up a couple years.
Unknown Speaker 54:08
You got it.
Troy is a best selling author. He's also a PhD from Texas. His latest book is called fight house chronicling the history of conflict in the White House from the presidencies of Truman all the way through to the modern times of President Trump. Now, Tevye is a best selling author from the Regnery publishing house right near enough so we're all partnered up pretty closely and we enjoy hanging out with one another. So that means that we have Scott Husing producing and hosting this episode with me. He also was a best selling author of the book echo and Ramadi By the way, one of the great ways to support the show is to click on the links because that takes you to the Amazon link where you can buy and we get a little bit of that sale so that always helps out. But also, when you are on and you're buying books, it's the best way to support the show and support the authors is to buy the book through our link, and then leave a little review and five star rating. These things like once you get past a certain number of reviews, the author is is forever going to make money on that book. It'll always be ranked a bug bump above other books so that's a big help hate Tevye is super super knowledgeable about the White House. He's been the assistant secretary to Health and Human Services at a bunch of other high level White House positions. You can look him up at Tempe Troy, that org I almost said his name wrong. Terry troy.org and you can always look up Scott at echo and Ramadi calm, and you can look me up at PJ Turner calm cash, my website needs a desperate updating. But I will tell you this though, this is a cool episode, you're going to learn about how conflict in the White House either helps or hurts the presidencies, especially once you mix in the conflicts that happen outside of the White House, and then how all that exacerbates it. We love talking about presidencies, we love talking about the history of it. We actually have a really cool show coming up this week. You're going to enjoy about that. So I've given you an idea how to support the show. I know you're gonna like Terry Troy's episode. And then one last thing that I'm going to say and that is to support save the brave. That's our charity for the Show save the brave save the brave org go there click on the donate tab put a small amount of money in each month. Just that I'm out you won't even miss would you buy me lunch? Would you buy john lunch? Would you buy Scott lunch? Okay 25 bucks a month. That's it. That's all we're asking for that will make such a difference in how we help veterans with PTSD. So things things on our list of things to do. Stay safe. Stay healthy. In droid Tabby Troy, lions rock productions
Unknown Speaker 2:31
This is Jay
Unknown Speaker 2:31
Morrison. This is Jordan. Dexter from the offspring
Unknown Speaker 2:34
naked nice Sebastian yo this is Rick Mirage
Unknown Speaker 2:36
Stewart COPPA this is Mitch Alexis
Unknown Speaker 2:38
handy somebody there's a skunk Baxter Gabby Reese is Rob bell. This is john Leon
Pete Turner 2:42
gray and this is Pete a Turner
Tevi Troy 2:47
hey this is Tevi Troy you're listening down to the break it down show with people Scott on white house.
Niko Leon Guerrero 2:53
And now the break it down show with john Leon Guerrero and Pete a Turner.
Pete Turner 3:00
We're talking to a Regnery author named Toby, Troy and Scott, like, hey, let's get this guy on and talk about his book. I wanted to before we get too much into that, talk about your previous book, because it's super topical right now Wait, the president. And you know, what happens with disasters with presidents? How was it to have an older book that you wrote a couple years ago all of a sudden become super mainstream and important?
Unknown Speaker 3:26
Well, it's kind of fun. I read this book, shall we make the president in 2016? It said indicate it tells you something about it that the book was written without either Hillary or Trump mentioned in it, both of them became the presidential candidates that you're obviously Trump was the winner. But the book just came out in paperback this week, and it's actually available on Costco. Somebody sent me a picture of seeing a big stack from Costco. So, the book is a hot topic right now people are worried about Coronavirus actually had specific ideas and suggestions inside Chadwick, the president of what people should do when you have some kind of disease outbreak and unfamiliar disease outbreak and they know their specific actionable steps that I suggest everybody take,
scott huesing 4:05
well, hey, I first want to say that how this network is connected again blows my mind because and I'm up in the office at Red Green says, I said, hey, what books are great right now? And he grabs the first one off he goes, you got to read this one from me. And so that's how Tevye comes on the show with us today. And I think that, you know, we get a ton of authors on the show. And the question I have for you to be the first one is not just Shall we wake the president, which is is extremely topical right now you never know the impact is going to have when you write something a month or two months or two years later, but this book and your job as a, as a journalist and presidential historian, I'd like to have you tell everybody your career path that led you into this and then talk a little bit more about fight house and going back and doing all the research for this book specifically.
Unknown Speaker 4:58
Sure. I'm happy to do that, Scott. Enough. Great question and it is really great that Alex plugged the book to you. Alex is not only a fantastic publisher, but he's also the son of the famous columnist bob novak and Bob Novak's columns were very helpful in rossler love to write. For years he would talk about fighting inside White Houses that I got such a early picture early on in my career of finding inside write houses from Bob's columns. And Alex even wrote the preface is a little unusual for a publisher. But I really encouraged him to do it. He wrote the preface of fight house, because he was touched that I use so much of his father's work in the book. My career started. After college, my first job I moved down to Washington works at the American Enterprise Institute. I looked at all those cool people there who were nerds, they're cool. But all those cool people there who were advising senators, President's Cabinet members, and going on TV and writing books, and I said, Wow, that's a cool way to live. I want to do that. How do I get to do that? But I realize you're not going to do that as a 22 year old so I try to figure out what they have. done before, they got to have those cool purchases as advisors to presidents and Cabinet members, etc. And I saw three things. Number one was they all had some kind of advanced degree. So I recommend people go to graduate school if you want to. Number two is they had some kind of government experience. They worked in government. So they knew how government worked and operated, what government's limitations were, what government's capabilities were. And that informed what they had to say. And then the third, and this led to my writing career is they had some kind of well received book or article that kind of made their name Jean Kirkpatrick for example, that he when I was there, she became UN ambassador, in part because ronald reagan wrote a famous commentary article that she wrote called dictatorship and double standards. Reagan was taken by the argument that said, communist dictatorships never make the migration to become democracies without obviously some kind of revolution. They don't they don't migrate to rebel to free status, whereas authoritarian nations can make that migration. And what she argued in effect was you have to take a heart line on communist and totalitarian countries and authoritarian countries, you can encourage them and make them move in the right direction. And that was read by Ronald Reagan, she became UN Ambassador as a result. So those three things, again, graduate degree, some kind of government service, and some kind of well received book or article that helps make your name I thought would get me into that think tank space. And so I actually went and did those things. I went to University of Texas, got a PhD. I wrote a dissertation when I thought I could publish a book that was on intellectuals, the American presidency became my first book. And then I started working in government. I worked in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and then I was in the bush administration in the White House, and became Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is where I learned all that stuff about disaster preparedness. And after the Bush administration ended, I went to a think tank like I had long planned I went to the Hudson Institute, and I started writing books. I wrote a book about presidents in pop culture. With Jefferson read, I watched the Obama tweeted, I wrote that book about disaster prep, shall we wake the president and now We're here to talk about my new book fight house rivalries in the White House for trauma to Trump.
Pete Turner 8:04
When you look at the rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump, why was Truman the starting point?
Unknown Speaker 8:09
Yeah, it's a great question. Obviously, there were rivalries in American politics and in all politics through time immemorial. But what happened in the US was during the Roosevelt administration, government was getting bigger and bigger. And there was a commission called the brownlow. commission. This Commission had a famous four word conclusion, the conclusion was, the president needs help. And it's suggested that you create a series of administrative assistants to the president White House aides with a, quote, passion for anonymity. And these folks would then go and do the bidding of the President, they would report him on what's going on in government, but they would also take the President's direction for the orders and go out there and make them happen. And so Truman is the first president after this commission to enter with a White House style. And what I argue in fight house is that all kinds of dynamic changes take place. Once you have White House staff when you have people who are advising the president or next to him, or different than the cabinet members who think they should be the primary advisors on all sorts of things. Also this passion for anonymity goes away. And these White House aides aren't actually anonymous, but they become famous in their own right. And that brings with it journalistic relationships, the ability to leak to the press, sometimes big egos big jobs at stake afterwards. And so suddenly, the stakes get higher, the profile and the spotlight gets bigger, and the tension for the cabinet get greater and all those lead to the mix of increased rivalries and increased fighting that I highlight my book fight house.
scott huesing 9:35
This is fascinating to me, because we've done a lot of work. I've been to the reagan ranch center and to Nixon library and getting a really behind the scenes look at some of the great leaders of our country and even some of the more controversial ones. And I think in in your book, the chapter about the Clinton administration is probably when we came to the media Where everything about the President was really blasted on mainstream media. And I think the American public had access to every detail and facet of what the President was doing, not only on the world stage, but also in their private lives. Do you think there was a specific era? Or do you think that the Clinton administration was probably where the fuse was lit with this as
Unknown Speaker 10:28
well? I think that's a really good point about Clinton. Fox News starts in the clinton era, the internet really takes off in the clinton era. The Clinton advisors had this rule during the campaign of 1992, which is never let a charge go unanswered in a new cycle, so they were constantly responding to the new cycle. It was everything was just much more in your face, and you're much more aware of things. There's a Reagan Administration aid, I quote, the book, Peter Robinson, and obviously that was not that long before Clinton, but it was it was obviously before it. And the reagan aide Peter Robinson said course we had fighting in the reagan White House, we just didn't have Twitter, Tweeter, Twitter talking about it all the time. And so the rise of 24 hour cable, the rise of the Internet, the rise of social media, all these factors contributed. And then you add on top of that, reporters, I think in the Kennedy administration were kind of burned. They didn't talk about Kennedy's dalliances, even though every one of them knew about it. And suddenly the new attitude after Watergate after Nixon was, we're going to talk about this stuff, we're going to get it all out there. And we're going to win Pulitzer Prizes and journalistic awards for being the first ones out there to talk about this stuff. And so there's no more holding back from the media, the media became a player in a way that they had not before. And so whereas the Reagan administration, some of the youth could go under radar, that was no longer the case. Once he gets to Clinton and subsequent ministration.
scott huesing 11:47
Do you think that you say, yeah, we're gonna win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on sex scandal. Do you think that that was also as many people assert, kind of the downfall of journalism like it's circling the drain Drain when we start reporting on this, not that it's not important, but you use the word like like tabloid a lot, it becomes this tabloid like reporting where we're steering away from, I guess for lack of a better term, more important issues of what the President is doing vice, the things that kind of all presidents and all people have done since the beginning of man.
Unknown Speaker 12:28
Yeah, look at journalists or people to I think what we've happened now and what's happened now in the internet age, is that the journalists are revealed for who they are, right? You keep reading this thing's about there's just an ABC News journalists suspended because he admitted that he's a socialist and can't stay in the president, all this stuff. With social media, these journalists are tweeting, and you see that they're not necessarily the neutral, non partisan arbiters of what's important, but they actually have their own perspectives, their own opinions, and you know, it's great, everyone's allowed to have their own opinion. But once it comes into your journalism, then you start West journalistic enterprise and I think you're right, that journalists were looking for the salacious rather than the substantive because that's what sells papers. And obviously there's more competition today, you've got the electronic media, you don't necessarily sell as many hard copies of a paper today, you've got to get clicks online. And you have instant gratification. If you put a piece out there, you can see how many clicks that pieces getting. And that drives you to write more pieces like the one that gets the clicks, as opposed to the one that might be on the substance of a tax bill. But that doesn't get so many clicks.
Pete Turner 13:29
When you look at the history of presidential organizations and administrations, who stands out as being particularly combative, and who's particularly consensus driven,
Unknown Speaker 13:42
it's a good question. The Ford administration was very combative, combative, there was a lot of infighting, the Ford ministration kind of surprising in some ways because you think Jerry Ford is a nice guy. But there are two interesting things that happened in the Ford miseration number one is the very fact that Ford is a nice guy. I think he was unable to control the infighting especially Who are close to him? Again, Bob Hartman, who was a former journalist nuke Ford, for a long time, was a very problematic actor inside the Ford White House. But Ford really wasn't willing to rein him in because they were personal friends. The second thing is Ford is the only person to become president without running on a national ticket. Right? He didn't articulate the vision. And so all the A's are fighting over what the Ford vision is, because the the President has never gotten out there and articulate. So I think that is a challenge. When you talk about consensus, I think some of the recent presidents like Bush and Obama, Bush 43, and Obama tried to have consensus driven process run White Houses, and they really didn't want to see in fighting and they talked about how they were against in fighting bush was the first NBA press. A President didn't want the process to the White House. Obama had the famous no drama Obama, but even there, as I lay out in fight house, there were plenty of fighting fights that took place in those administrations. What you find is it's a little like whack a mole where you try and control it in one place and it pops out elsewhere. So when the Bush administration breaks I thought bush did a really good job on domestic policy and trying to maintain that density and collegiality. But on foreign policy, you had Cheney, Rumsfeld, rice, and they were at each other's throats. And you read all kinds of stuff about during the administration more since the administration that I talked about in fight house, in the Obama White House, I think he again had this idea of no drama, Obama, he limited fighting to some degree. But at the same time, fighting definitely emerged, and I talked about a gender based divide that that came out in the Obama White House said, we've not seen the previous White Houses.
Pete Turner 15:34
The follow up to that did is, you know, one of the I'm a bit of a presidential historian myself, you know, you start to understand that presidents don't control timing. They don't really understand the job bow enough to pick their best people to you know, like you get the NSC, you're get, but you're not the one you need. You know, there's all these outside factors that take you out of you don't get to manage the problem the way you you would think you do. So what does work I mean, it Is it person specific? Or is there a specific style that seems to rise to the top like this tends to work less shitty than this other form, which always works? You know, to be honest, it's hard to get things reliably right as president and get people to agree that you've done it reliably. Right?
Unknown Speaker 16:17
Well, I'm so glad you asked that question. Because in fight house, I actually lay out the three levers that a president has in their control in order to limit infighting in the white house again, if they so choose, President may not want to limit in fighting for them. I like in fighting as I see that it builds some creative tensions and gets the juices flowing and all that. But if they so choose, here are the three levers and I will lay them out in brief, get them in more detailed fight house. Number one is ideological alignments I mentioned in Ford, you didn't really know where the President stood. So the aides were fighting over what the ideology the administration was. So if you have ideological alignment people on the same page, you're gonna see less fight Number two is a strict process I mentioned bush was very process driven if you have a process and that means the way in which paper gets to the President, the way in which decisions are made, the way in which meetings are organized, if you have a fair process in which people get to sit around the table, and all the people with equities get to have their say, even if they lose at the end of the day, they feel like they got to say their piece, then you're going to have less infighting, less leaking and less backbiting. And the third thing is presidential tolerance. If a president says, I don't want to see this stuff, you're going to see less of it. That doesn't mean you're going to see none of it. But it is a fact. And so Obama made it very clear he didn't want to see fighting and I tell a story in the book and fight House of olestra of Alyssa muster. Monaco, who was a deputy chief of staff, who did not like the way she was portrayed in the New York Times article. It wasn't even critical. It was just insufficiently glowing about her. And she sent an email blistering the entire senior staff about leaking against her and people who, who did stuff to her in that way. And Obama calls her into the oval. The next day, she doesn't know why she's the Deputy Chief of Staff, there's a million reasons, you can be called to the Oval Office to talk to the president in that position. And he looks at her and he says, that was quite the email you sent yesterday making it very clear that he didn't want to see this kind of stuff take place in his white house. So those three levers, ideological alignment, strong, strict process, and presidential intolerance for fighting are the ways a president can control it if they so choose. But does it work? You know, work is an interesting question. So you can have less infighting in the White House and we see the LBJ one white house in the Johnson White House. There. There was in some ways less fighting, because Johnson didn't want to see it because he didn't want to have anybody with views different than his own. Now, I talked about in the same book in fight house in the previous chapter in Kennedy ministration. Johnson was fighting hammer and tongs Bobby Kennedy and they hate each other. But inside the Johnson White House, he didn't really Brooke dissent. He tried to clamp down on leaking he actually had the White House operators report back to him on who people were calling and the White House motor pool report back to him on where people were going. So he didn't want to hear dissent. He didn't. He tried to clamp down on leaks. And what he ended up with was groupthink over Vietnam because nobody was really able to question the policy. And there was even a group of staffers at the State Department who were worried about the direction of Vietnam. And they were scared to come together to discuss it. They called they brought themselves together in a group they called the non group because they were so afraid that Johnson would find out about it and they had secret meetings so that Johnson would know that there were people within his administration are questioning the policy. You can you know, have a, I guess, maybe a Stalinist atmosphere, cut down on infighting but it doesn't necessarily improve the results.
scott huesing 19:45
Just listening to that. It makes me wonder if there was or maybe if you viewed this just popped into my head to be reviewed and came up with this with all of the access you have to the stories and everything if there was it if there was a way to measure to things on the scale, the incidence of scandalous behavior and infighting in the White House, tied to the effectiveness of the presidency and also a presidential approval rating in the public. I wonder, have you ever thought about that?
Unknown Speaker 20:17
So I did think of a version of that. If you look in fight house, it is and I know you've got a copy there. If you look at page 266, read the appendix. I have three scales, where I talk about ideological discord low to high process tight to loose and tolerance for infighting low to high. And I measure each administration on those scales, which are really measuring those three levers I talked about. And then I talked at the end, in the last column about the result, what kind of white house you had in basically one set. And so I didn't exactly do it the way you did it with terms of scandals and approval rating, but there are ways of measuring White Houses again, it's a subjective measurement. For me as a historian, I don't know anybody who's looked at this stuff more closely White House the White House than I have on this particular sun. And so I think you can try and have cross comparisons. But obviously there are external factors and questions about how the media covers one administration or another, that may skew the results. But the fact is, I think you can try and do a cross administration comparison. And that's what I tried to do in fight house.
scott huesing 21:16
Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. It's a really real cool layout. And I noticed one thing, I'll just throw this out there, there's a lot of asterisks in your book with words that start with F and then have three asterisks or D. And then three has, like, I don't know, Alex, he let me I think there's, I think last count 66 f bombs in my book, but you know, it's marine speak. It's kind of our lexicon. So
Unknown Speaker 21:43
was that a conscious decision? Like, I'm not gonna use the actual swear word in my book. It was actually a conscious decision. And I did a search before I submitted the book of all the bad words in there, and I put in the stars. I know, I noticed one of you guys use the word shitty before. Yeah, I try not to curse I for kids. under the age of 18, just try not to curse around them because I don't want them to pick up the habit. And I also wanted them to be able to read this book and not see their father writing those words. Now, I will tell you something interesting, which is I happen to be listening to the audio version of the book, which is great. And I'm only listening to it because I wanted to hear how the voice actor did it. And the voice actor he when it comes to those asteroids words, he says the actual word choice by him
scott huesing 22:27
that's interesting
Tevi Troy 22:29
to ask me about that. So I really appreciate
scott huesing 22:31
Well, yeah, it just Yeah, well, Tevye I don't have a doctor in front of my name. So it quickly devolves to this high school mentality every time with me so yeah, don't don't give me too much credit. Pete's the smart guy in the room. He always is. He always lets me know it. And now so I'm getting you know, two sided ambush from you and P. But, you know, one of the things I've always said and I'll go back to Clinton because
I find his presidency fascinating and I've always asserted to a degree that Amidst all the scandal and everything, you know, and he gets bashed for not being a good president, I always, I always thought that it made President Clinton. So, I mean, they called him you know, he was made of Teflon, nothing stuck to him, I think around the world as people view our president in a certain way through a certain lens. Clinton to me, always seemed to be this guy that was untouchable, but you never knew what he was going to do. And you know, it could have been a policy decision, or parking tomahawks in North Africa, to a scandal with Monica Lewinsky, or flowers or whatever it was, and around the world. I think everyone kind of took a step back because they said, This guy is pretty capable of doing anything. Is he one of the better examples of being able to come through the mire? squeaky clean.
Unknown Speaker 23:51
Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. Especially because today when you hear people talk about the 90s, they say, Oh, the 90s or an idyllic time, peace in prosperity. Look, I lived through the 90s. Nobody was walking around saying, hey, it's peaceful prosperity. They were saying, Oh my gosh, did you see what the President's doing the oval office? Or or can you see what the republicans are trying to do for him for you know, just having some extra marital dalliances? I mean, it was not a time where you thought, oh, wow, this is just the most peaceful, wonderful time on earth. And so sometimes you look back on an error differently than it was experienced by the people who lived it. I think Clinton does get a lot of credit. I think I've been his, you know, I'm Republican. I worked in the George W. Bush White House. But I think I've been very nice to Clinton in all four of my books now, because I think he was very talented person. I think he did care about the direction of the country. I think. I wouldn't say he was less partisan, because he was obviously a partisan, but I think he was willing to do stuff like triangulation where he tried to get the best ideas from both parties. I think he was willing to read stuff on the other side of the aisle that you don't see from from from recent presidents. I mean, if you look at Obama's reading, he did read a lot of books but never ever read a book by a conservative just almost never saw it. And I think that kind of one sided alignment where you're not reading what the other side saying I think is is damaging. And I think it, I think we'd be better off if we read I try to read a lot of liberal books and a lot of conservative books because I think we're just better off by hearing what everybody say.
scott huesing 25:18
That's a rare skill to have. And I think in this day and age where I personally am very hopeful that there'll be more people saying things like that and admitting that, yes, I went to a democratic rally just to see that it wasn't a bunch of raving lunatics and get their message and really balanced that with your own views of policy and culture and how to adapt that and to hear that there's, you know, world leaders that you rise to the most powerful position on the planet. In this case when you sit in the White House, and that you're not willing to read outside of your own comfort zone or be educated outside of your own comfort zone. I think speaks volumes about The type of people we really need in there and what I mean, what do you think about that? How do we how do we move forward to bring those two sides closer together?
Unknown Speaker 26:09
Yeah, look, when I served in the bush, White House, President Bush read a lot. He had 60 to 90 books a year. And he read serious books. And if you look at the list, he was reading books by conservative authors, liberal authors and reading presidential biographies. He read 14 biographies about Lincoln, while he was president, a lot of Lincoln biographies. And you would have these meetings where he just there was no publicity about them. He would just bring in some professors and academics, to talk to them about books and ideas. And they were always amazed at how well read bush was. So I think that is a definitely a useful skill. Clinton was also a wide and varied reader, Harry Truman was a huge reader. He used to say, the only history The only thing that's new in this world is the history you haven't read yet. And I think that and you know, Truman is also the last president not to go to college. So Truman is was an autodidact, but he really took it seriously and he was constantly reading on stuff and it helps shape some of his policies in a positive direction. You're in fight house, I tell the story about big fight about the recognition of the State of Israel. And national security establishment was opposed to recognizing Israel, especially Secretary of State George Marshall. Clark Clifford was a White House aide who was charged with making the case for the State of Israel. And he did it in a meeting in the White House in front of Truman in front of Marshall. And, Marshall is I rate that this pipsqueak Clifford is challenging his brilliance. And he even kind of tries to put him down in the meeting. What's Clifford doing here? And Truman says well, General, in general Marshall, he's here because I asked him to be here. And he lets Clifford make the case. And Clifford makes it an effective case. But it's also coupled with the fact that Truman was a big reader used to read this book as a kid called great men and famous women that talked about it. The Great King who left the Jews leave the Babylonian exile and go back to Israel to rebuild the holy temple. And as a result of Clifford strong argument, and Truman's reading, they do decide to recognize the State of Israel, which is a great idea since Israel's a staunch allies of ours and the only democracy in the Middle East today. And Marshall is so mad that he loses this argument that he never again speaks to Clifford or others his name for the rest of his life. Wow. I was embroiled in a grudge.
Pete Turner 28:29
Yeah, yeah. And I like that. You pointed out the fact that george bush these, the younger is such a powerful reader. I mean, that that's, we have these perceptions that he's an idiot, right. But he does have two Ivy League degrees. He does have a stack of books that you will walk down the street and read 1000 people look at their book stack. He's gonna have more books in that stack than anybody else. And it did inform how he administrated and how he made decisions. And yet it still didn't work out very good.
Unknown Speaker 28:58
Yes, sir. Your car right? have said that in the 40 years, he knows George W. Bush. He's never seen him without a book in hand. So yeah, he was a big reader and I talked about this a lot in my second book, but Jefferson read, I've watched Obama tweeted, and and I say that bush is not blameless. In this regard. There's a reason there's a perception of him as kind of a cowboy and not sharp, smart guy is because he lost a congressional race in 1978, to a guy named Ken tans, who derided him as a pointy headed Northeastern intellectual with those two Ivy League degrees. And just mercilessly mocked him in West Texas about that kind of background that he had. And he lost the race and bush promised I'll never be out cowboy again. So from then on, he wore the leather jacket, the cowboy hat, the boots, and he didn't talk publicly about his reading. And he just showed himself to be a regular guy successfully one governor twice, then wins the presidency as this regular guy, and then he realizes that people are pretty From as this guy who's not so smart, not so well educated, and he tries to change it, he does do all that reading. And he does try and bring intellectuals and academics in the White House. And he does have an Office of Strategic Initiatives that's specifically designed to reach out to intellectuals. But it's too late, we don't really get a second chance to make a first impression with American people.
scott huesing 30:19
The the book is I want to talk about the access in your access, specifically, not only being in the White House under the Bush administration, but going back through time pulling all of the information, how do you how do you gain access to some of the more juicy parts of this book and some of the stories you tell and that obviously, you can't even put in 300 pages. I mean, there's so there's got to be volumes of great stories about these presidents and not just the infighting but the great things too. So talk to me about the access and then talk about some of the things that you wish you could have put in this book that didn't make the cut?
Unknown Speaker 31:02
Yeah, that's a really good question. And every time you write a book every single time, wherever you are, whatever kind of book you are writing, you have to make some strategic decisions about what you're going to include and how you're going to approach it. And what's going to be the information based on what you choose to your material. And even in fiction, you know, there are areas your head you may not want to explore, but but in nonfiction, especially, how am I going to go about doing this book? And the question I got while I was writing before anything else is are you doing interviewing who you're in? And I specifically decided for this book not to do interviews, and I'll tell you why. Number one is, I feel like people lie to interviewers, they'll say, Oh, well, you know, it's all hunky dory, my white house, this guy was an sob. I mean, maybe he wasn't, but they give their perception enough, the actual reality. Number two is, I didn't want to have a whole bunch of interviews that only I had access to. And then I selectively pick selectively pick from those interviews and said, here's the stuff you don't get to see it, but I'm gonna, you know, I'm going to choose from these interviews and say something that's different. The entire historical record. So I very consciously said, Everything in this book is going to be in the historical record that people have seen or can see or at can access, if they so on and go to presidential libraries. They can go to the oral histories in the Miller center. They can read the journalistic accounts or the historical accounts. And I'm bringing it together, stringing together my own interpretation, but I'm really not using any secret material. I will say there's one counterexample of this. There's one story that somebody told me that I included in the book that was so good that I couldn't not include it. And I actually put a footnote in there explaining how this guy told me the story. I used it it is so to start quickly was about Bill Kristol. In the george HW Bush White House had a perception there was a reputation being a leaker. And there was one meeting in which he goes into the press secretary's office, and the meeting is going on, while crystal walks in. And the press secretary just stops and crystal walks in the room, folds his arms and won't say another word until crystal leaves the room because But like crystal was a leaker. And this guy who was in the meeting told me that story and I felt it was just too good not to use. I will say that I'll set a parallel in the historical record on that story because when Arthur Schlesinger writes his book about the Kennedy administration called 1000 days, he has a very harsh portrait of Dean Rusk, who was the secretary of state under Kennedy. And he described Rusk as Buddha like sitting there silently in meetings. And Rusk later said after the book came out, he said, the only reason I was silent in meetings when Schlesinger was there is because he was such a blabber mouth and he would talk about everything that was said in Georgetown cocktail party. So that's why it's silent direct in the silence other times.
scott huesing 33:42
You talk about crystal being a leaguer? And then I'm looking in the appendix to you've got this great section here about all these nicknames, which I mean from what you just said. This all historical record and then you reference. Dave Gergen is Professor Leakey in Reagan's administration. The The nicknames are hilarious. I mean, so I'm bringing this up because we're talking about the access you have and where the information comes from. But then some really notable figures who are journalists and senior White House cabinet members and administrators. But this this book is it's not just I'm, I'm dying to get more out of it, because it's not just a historical recantation of what goes on on a day to day basis. There's a lot of funny stuff in here, too, that is just not just humorous, but extremely interesting. And there's a backstory to every one of these nicknames that you have. How did you make the decision throw this in the book as well.
Tevi Troy 34:41
But you know, so much of it is colored by what's going on at the time. So you'd read these articles about nicknames in the Trump administration and actually read in the book where Steve Bannon talked about how Trump liked the book by Carl young and young talks about nicknames is something having to do with Jungian archetypes. I don't know if it's all made up or not. But I just thought, Wow, that's really interesting. And I realized that I had a lot of nicknames in the book. So I just started to make a running list of all the nicknames that I found in every ministration, pretty much from Kennedy on, because when the nicknames start, and at the end, I said this would be a great appendix. So that's why I put it all together. And actually, the Washington Examiner ran a little piece about all the nicknames that I have in the book. So it's worth looking at as well.
Pete Turner 35:24
When you start digging into the archives, you know, you start to realize there's a book there's a book, gosh, there's a volume of books. I mean, I can't think of the guy's name off top my head, but he's written a multi volume, just complete biography of Johnson and he's still doing it to the state's become his life's work, you know, because you go and he's like, super detailed, like you go through every single paper in the archive. Then you write, you write the book and you put these things together. Do you find yourself just overwhelmed with ideas for what to write next? It doesn't seem like there's any shortage of interesting ways to request To all of this history into something that we didn't know before, hey, this is Pete Turner from lions rock productions, we create podcasts around here. And if you your brand or your company want to figure out how to do a podcast, just talk to me. I'll give you the advice on the right gear, the best plan and show you how to take a podcast that makes sense for you. That's sustainable. That's scalable and fun. Hit me up at Pete at breakdown, show calm. Let me help. I want to hear about it. Do you find yourself just overwhelmed with ideas for what to write next is it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of interesting ways to reconstitute all of this history into something that we didn't know before.
Tevi Troy 36:37
Yeah, it's a great question. You're Robert care of him saying, who wrote the Johnson books, my husband's motto, which is turnover every paper every day? I can't claim to do that. I try and be as comprehensive as I can. I'm trying to tell a story. And I go, I start looking at administration. And I say, Okay, this is the story. I want to tell there was a fight between, let's say, tick Morris in the Clinton administration, and George Stephanopoulos and Harold ickes and actually started it as just Stephanopoulos versus Morris. And then the more I looked into it, I realized that Harold ickes, who knew Morris for 30 years and hated in New York politics, they were rivals back there was an important part of the story as well. So the story I want to tell can change based on what the historical record tells me. But I go in saying, I want to tell this story, the story of how these two people hate each other in the White House, and then I try and find every stoical record every document every interview on that subject, and weave it together in a way that keeps people interested in turning the pages
Pete Turner 37:34
who stands out like when you look at different administration's some people end up staying, you know, like jack Brennan has been a adviser to other chiefs of staff and everything, who, who stands out as being someone who's able to just sort of hang around the White House and always be useful regardless of which party occupies the house.
Tevi Troy 37:53
Well, number one is guy we've already mentioned Professor Leakey himself. And Gergen, david gergen. gergan served in the Nixon White House poured by Reagan White House and the Clinton White House. And he was always involved in some kind of backstabbing, leaking sharp elbowed behavior. And you know, you looked at him on TV and I've actually met him and it seems like such a genial guy, but man, this guy knew how to fight and you know, there's a famous scene in the White House situation room when reagan is shot, and Al Haig is told not to go upstairs and say I'm in charge here, but he doesn't in any way. And in that scene gergan excused himself a number of times from the room and some people were speculating that he was doing it in order to leak to the store system the press so it was leaving the room for a variety of reasons, you know, as either actually to leak or or to take a leak. I don't know which was but but it is interesting that that was his perception. Every time I left the room, it was probably leaking somewhere.
scott huesing 38:52
So So yeah. Yeah, the whole etymology of these nicknames could be a whole book in and of itself, and Right, I tell you that I love this appendix to it, Trump's could be an appendix in of itself, because he's the master giving nicknames everybody knows, but let's, let's shift to the current presidency and all the material that's out there and some of your I always like to get your perspective as a guy that's on the inside. And, you know, Pete and I are both veterans. So we view things through a certain lens and, you know, the the outset of this administration 2016 I was pleased to see what what Trump was doing, surrounding himself and kind of bolstering his decision making ability about what he didn't know, similar to what we were talking about George W. Bush and surrounding himself with great people because he was a master. He knew what he didn't do and he was going to bring those people in for their counsel for their Sage guidance, and I thought that was really wise of President Trump to do that with guys like john Kelly. And Jim Mattis and zenki and all of these other veterans who are kind of giving us counsel not to be warmongering, but to give him perspective of what the military leadership model can can provide for it. His type of leadership, which I think is different on this on a scale of balance, what do you what are your thoughts on that and how he's, he's moved past it and the quick turnover within this administration.
Unknown Speaker 40:28
But I think a president, especially a president, who's new to the game, needs to figure out what works for him. And I think some of the turnover is reflected the fact they start to figure out what works for him. I also think that I don't know the full story of this administration. I was loath to do too much about this and efficient because whenever you write about an ongoing administration get stated very quickly. And also, I feel like we have some journalistic accounts, and we have some Memoirs of people who were there for 20 minutes and then left, but I don't think we have full picture yet. And so in fight house What I try and do is provide a full picture of administration's after they are over. Once we have access to a lot of these historical records, once we have access to some of the memoirs from more serious people who work there, and then you then you can tell the real story. I think the Trump story remains to be written and even in Obama, I have a lot more information about the Obama administration than I would have had I written the book while the administration was ongoing. But I think more is going to come out. Obama's book still is supposed to be coming. They're going to be the oral histories aren't going to come out for another 10 years or so. So it takes a while for this stuff to happen. And I'll be continuing to white right, because a no house is a never ending business proposition. Right. I can always talk about fighting in the White House, no matter who's president in 2015.
Pete Turner 41:46
Yeah, that's a great point like the current presidency, whatever it is, it's always hard to evaluate what's happening. I do want to ask you want to back up and that thing to do you have a sense for when a president sort of figures it out like they all struggle initially because it's just such a big job. And it's so impossible and you're trying to balance so many things who transitioned the most quickly what's like the basic timeline? It takes a good two and a half years to get to where you're competent, and you're not, you know, other than the current president right now, not doing unforced errors that cause your administration even more problems?
Unknown Speaker 42:24
And that's a really good question. I think sometimes the people who are the most experienced come in with the most knowledge of how government operates. So LBJ, for example, nobody wanted and pretty quickly, he told the Kennedy aides to stay, but he pretty quick pretty quickly created his own parallel organization within the White House. So we kept the skinny around, AIDS around but didn't actually use that. And we brought in this own people the way he wants it. Again, I'm not saying it all work because we had the group thing, Vietnam problems, but I think he knew what he was. He was burning to be president every minute, including those three painful years and he was vice president and Minister So I think he's one who kind of hit the ground running. I think george HW Bush knew a lot about the operation of government had been vice president previously. Nixon also was vice president previously, and had been a senator and kind of knew the way that government operated and what they wanted to do going and that doesn't mean everything worked out great for people in their, in their administrations, you know, Johnson famously did run for re election in 68. Because the Vietnam and mixing got impeached and, and didn't do and resigned. And then george HW Bush lost after one term. But I think in terms of quickly hitting the ground running and knowing what they wanted to do, I think all those presidents were good on that front.
Pete Turner 43:43
And Truman was vice vice president also before he jumped in.
Unknown Speaker 43:47
Yeah, but Truman was not written in or read into any anything. He was not aware of what was going on. he famously didn't know about the atom bomb project at all. So Truman really had to learn After he kind of had to learn by doing,
Pete Turner 44:02
the other thing I wanted to ask you about these things is, you know, like Scott was saying, there's a lot of military guys in the Trump White House. And for I don't know, for our perspective, we've had so many commanders, you know, we have a lot of tolerance for the commander, just decide how they want to run their stuff. You may not disagree with it, but your job is to get behind the plow and start pushing, you know, like, get this thing going forward. So, yeah, though, I don't really care for how the President does things, whoever it is, you know, it is their call, you know, like they are left with the policy, they've got to decide if it works, or if they're going to change it. And there are so many policies You know, I think we've we've developed some thin skin for what how we perceive the president and then also what they're actually allowed to do like it is, it is their call, they are hired to do this job and whether or not they do it poorly. That's a good conversation, but how they do it the how really belongs to them, or am I wrong about that?
Unknown Speaker 44:58
No, I think you're totally right. Truman's favorite, famous saying was the buck stops here, right? And it's the president who gets inside bush called himself the decider. People made fun of a syntax for that. But that's ultimately what the decision is. What you get to do as president is even, you don't get to write legislation yourself. You don't get to move mountains or rescue people or fight for yourself, you get to make decisions. They are difficult decisions. And, and you're the one who has to make them and Colin Powell has actually talked about this, that the easiest decisions in government are made by career officials with the manual in the field manual out at the local level. And the harder the decision gets the closer it migrates to the Oval Office. So the 9010 decisions are being made by the people out in the field with that manual. Whereas the 50.5 to 49.5 decisions are really ones that are on that kind of on the edge on the knife's edge are the ones that have to go to the Oval Office to get made by the President himself. And so that's why there's no easy decisions as president only the toughest ones made. to your desk,
scott huesing 46:00
the nameplate on your desk says presidential historian so I could see where the Trump administration is really something that time will tell. And I'm curious to know, and you as a presidential historian, the balance of volumes that will be written about this president, and how he leveraged things like social media and is catering to the everyday American and really being a master at the game. Because I think that that's one of the things whether you love him or hate him. Trump is all about winning, and he understands the rules of the game. And the way to win the game is to know the rules and he plays by those rules. And I think that the public doesn't really understand that from a political from the political perspective. As a historian, are you one of those guys that you wait, you wake up the mornings like, Man when this is all over? I can't wait to write about this in all and then the second part of that question is how long after In terms over, should you wait to start writing about it? What makes the best story?
Unknown Speaker 47:05
And it's a great question your George George W. Bush for whom I work used to say, I don't worry about my historical reputation because they're still writing books about the first George W. George Washington, he was president two years ago. And you still have books that come out and bring out new material about you believe it's like Washington was dead for hundreds of years. So I think that the historians job is to get the maximum amount of information available at the time and write the right interpretation. Given that information with Eisenhower. He was seen as kind of a buffoon by the mainstream media at the time. And then it was only in the early 70s when Fred Greenstein writes the Hidden Hand presidency that he actually talked about Eisenhower's brilliant maneuvers behind the scenes. So I don't think we know the full story with any president at the time. And I think the more time goes by the more Learn about it. I obviously I think one of the key things and one one source that I used heavily in fight house are the oral histories that the more the Miller center makes available. They're not available till 10 years after administrations over so we don't have access to them for Obama and we won't have access to them for Trump, 2031 or 2035. But the more that information comes out, the more you can actually know about what was happening at the time. I like to look so let's say you said you mentioned the Trump administration. I'd like to see the first wave of memoirs from people who were there for a long time and then more from the president, although I think memoirs and presidents don't always tell the full story. I think that the the Trump library or even the Obama library that their materials aren't gonna be available for a while. I think you've got a lot of forgettable books about this current administration have already been written. And I think some serious historians will take a deeper dive look more serious look at the administration. I think that will also be a useful source. So Again, the story has to end before you can write the story of what happens. And that's how I look at it.
Pete Turner 49:04
Look at the comeback that Truman had in his presidency. You know, you wonder also, if george w will have a similar comeback over time in some of these things, you have to see the outcomes, you know, you can't, you can't write them in the moment, as you said, the first George W is still being evaluated, and we're still trying to decide if we can did the right thing. And all of these things evolve so dramatically over time. It's, it makes me laugh when people say the x, you know, this is the worst thing ever of presidents and they can't even name 20 presidents let alone 40 Plus,
Unknown Speaker 49:39
hello, let's say in 2050. Iraq at that point is a, let's say, is a democracy for 50 years. New Orleans is a better city than it was in 25. And the economy has had no major recession since the 29 bailouts. You might look back and say, Hey, you know, maybe George W. Bush was a pretty good president. But we don't know.
scott huesing 50:01
That's, that's great.
Unknown Speaker 50:03
Yeah, just have to do and wait and play it out.
scott huesing 50:05
I think that, again, I've written about this. And I've said it about America being this fast food society. We want fast cash to the ATM. We want fast food at McDonald's. We want fast democracy. And democracy isn't something that happens overnight. And I think you mentioned something that's near and dear to Pete Nye is is iraq specifically, and how that country is developing after it's been around 4000 years. We expect even after this four year war, that it's just going to automatically start growing flowers and commerce and democracy, like we've grown in this country for 244 years, which is pale in comparison to the history of that region. And I think that you really, really bring up a great point to emphasize I think from from your perspective on How the American public can can really judge presidents in the future and how much time needs to go by. What do you tell the average American when when we live in a society like this on being patient?
Unknown Speaker 51:16
Well, as you suggest, it's not a society that's known for patience. And I once had an idea for a book that I didn't pursue, but I have lots of ideas for books is called impatient nation. We want everything all the time right away. And he's just don't get that. It's just not the way life works. Like, please get up in the morning and go to work and you do your best. And you see how this day plays out. And you say, oh, Tuesday goes, and I just don't think you can get all the information you want about everything all the time. You know, we do have access to more information than any other generation in human history, which is an amazing thing. However, McDonald's likes to say that young people today have at their fingertips with what Faust sold his soul for which is knowledge. It's a great formula. So we do know so much more than we ever did. But you can't know everything you can't know the future. So I think that that's why I counsel patients and all this stuff.
scott huesing 52:10
So what are the what are the what are the great ideas besides in patient nation for the neck? Next thing coming for you, Debbie, what are you dying to write about?
Unknown Speaker 52:19
I actually have a great idea for a book. I'm not yet sharing what the idea is. Three to four ideas, three to four years to write a book and I don't want somebody to jump in in the interim period. But I will give you a hint. It is a three word concept and the first two words are presidents and
Pete Turner 52:37
passes presidents and pets.
scott huesing 52:40
Now that's Robert that's Robin Hutton. That's Robin residence in pet. She's the animal author at Regnery. She's a dear friend of mine. I love Robin Robin. She's gonna be on the show here real soon as well. But what you've given in this book fight house is a is such a really fascinating look at What you've seen growing up and and not only from a historical perspective too heavy, but some of the more lighter hearted anecdotes that you seem to have captured in fight house as well. If people want to find out more about this book I know it's it's on Amazon right now it's doing great. I mean, if there's people listening to the show you like loved learning about president's US government politics, definitely go on Amazon. Type in fight house TVs name will pop right up as TVI Don't forget when you buy the book, read it. Leave a review on Amazon. tell everybody what you thought of the book. But where else can people find you TV?
Unknown Speaker 53:40
Well, I mentioned earlier that there's some audio versions you can get on Audible and there's an audio CD. You can get it wherever fine books are sold. You can get it at your local bookstore, I hope and, and you can also go to Regnery the
Unknown Speaker 53:53
publisher directly from regularly published
Unknown Speaker 53:55
by white house is a great read. I recommend it highly.
Pete Turner 53:59
Thanks for coming on the show. Man, it's really cool. It's a brief conversation. I love presidential conversations I just kick out
Unknown Speaker 54:05
all right, well let's do it for my for my next book but
Unknown Speaker 54:07
it comes up a couple years.
Unknown Speaker 54:08
You got it.
