tv Book Discussion on The President and the Apprentice CSPAN October 30, 2016 9:15am-10:01am EDT
fiction. so here is richard nixon charging up towards washington on its trade in turn are getting nailed for having the secret fund and at the same time, here is dwight eisenhower traveling on history and in the midwest. as nixon is going up the spine of the west coast, there are people standing out there. and again i know you'll be underwhelmed, but they were democrats who are saying get rid of him. where is the money, richard? what are you doing? how are you living with this kind of taint on your life? now, for some reason during this story, adlai stevenson who is running again dwight eisenhower doesn't say anything.
people start to wonder, why is it adlai stevenson attacking richard nixon for being this guy with a secret fund? and again, this may surprise you, but adlai stevenson had a fun. not only did he have a fund, that he had a fund 10 times the size of richard nixon. now i read the authorized biography and how she used this fund on really important things like one of his sons birthday parties. does that sound a little strange to you read this ban will be using a trust fund for his son's birthday party.
richard nixon had to explain in detail that this fund wasn't meant for anything. either way, $18,235. he couldn't even write a check on the fund. it was in somebody else's name. the only thing that richard nixon could do was send invoices and to dana smith who was the trustee and dana smith wrote the check. again, i know this may be somewhat surprising, but none of them added to nixon's salary. none of them helped nixon have been made. none of them brought close for richard nixon for neiman marcus. all of the things that were done under this fund was by the way a very, very detailed fiduciary
which means if he did wrong, he went to the pokey. all of those funds were accounted for. would you be surprised to know that at least even since fund was never revealed? i tried to find the records for the file and somehow they had disappeared. so nobody knows to this day for the records are for adlai stevenson. but everybody knows the details of what happened with richard nixon's fund. well the short end of the story is that richard nixon had to make sure that price waterhouse at that time the huge accounting firm went through the fund and then said it's clean. there's nothing wrong with it. in addition, a big los angeles
law firm was to go through the spending and say didn't nixon do anything wrong and get the god and said this is his peers for driven snow. so all of a sudden there is no controversy, but in spite of that richard nixon is forced to make sure that is not only a year as the driven snow, he's purer than the driven snow. he has to give a speech on television and that speech was called the checkers speech. if you read about the checkers speech and just about every book, you will find out a word that is used most often as
mahmood. for those of you who don't know what it means, it doesn't sound good and isn't good. it is a speech based on schmaltz that really doesn't mean anything. it is just a whitewash. richard nixon gave the speech and because there was such an awful speech that is interpreted as various people, you would think that most of the people that wrote in about the speech and they're only 3 million people that wrote in about the speech. thank goodness for the lady sitting over there, beverly lindsay catalog 25,000 letters. up to 25,000 letters, eight were negative. eight were negative. and yet the speech was a
failure. now again, i know that this probably won't surprise you. richard nixon remained on the ticket. so if the speech was as bad as it was an nixon was as evil as he was, how in the world did he survive that question are nobody answers that question is the reason why nobody answers the question is because it never happened. it just sounded the way people wanted to sound. when i wrote this book, the introduction of the book, i try to make as impartial and as antiseptic as i could. but people simply applied. some of my friends who wrote blurbs for various books i wrote simply were disingenuous. they simply did not tell the story the way it should've been told and not was that nixon has
the largest tv audience up to that time for a political speech and it was gangbusters. do any of you have weaker moments where you say wow, that is really sad and wonderful. i've been historian looking at a few million documents, you very seldom have a eureka moment. if i could figure out how to use this, this is a letter in november 9th 256. you're all familiar with the term. if you aren't, giving somebody the background to some important event that is occurring. in a letter for those of you who can't read it, is as dear vice president nixon, this is a copy
of seven pages of notes that dwight eisenhower took as he watched your speech at the cleveland art torreon on september 23rd 1952. eisenhower watched the speech in the manager's room. he made no now. once more the story and again this is the story as dwight eisenhower was watching the speech, he was so angry that he took his pencil and stabbed it into the patty was lucky not in toward the paper and wrote awful
things about richard nixon. any of you see any? any? maybe even many tears? sounds really good, doesn't it? only i found that document. the reason nobody else did as it comes from a series that nixon library here called the free 20 series. the 320 series is 847 boxes. who's counting on a two about a
million and a half pages. you'll never guess who's the only one to go through every page. i stumbled across this and i went whoa. i can't believe this. do you know why nobody else ever saw that? because what they did in historical terms is what is called cherry-picking. they looked at those documents that they thought would give nixon the worst possible position. rather than go from box one dvd box 847, and they went to box sherman adam's, bought speed, so and so, box deep dwight eisenhower and nelson rockefeller. box whatever. to show you how bad this is, i
looked at the last 50 boxes no one else had ever looked at. i don't know how many of you ever swim, but i worst winter goggles. i wore a face mask. i had a smock in front of me and i had something to clean them off because nobody had looked at those boxes ever. nobody was in the room that i was then because nobody could stand being in the room that i was then because of all the dust. i had to leave the room every 30 minutes because i couldn't stand the smell. but think about it. the obligation that i have standing in front of you is to be the best i can be. the only way i know how to be the best i can be is doing work. if you're going to have a preconceived notion of what goes on, why bother? some of the people that i have
written about not in regard to this, but in regard to other things. i hope none of you are upset or embarrassed or whatever. stephen ambrose wrote a big fee of dwight eisenhower. the debate biography of richard nixon, three volumes. and it, dwight eisenhower is sad and one of legislative leaders, tallying a bobby jones series of nigger jokes. sitting in front of a whole series of people giving derogatory comments on why people. you know, i have some skill at this. i was away team and a black university, so i think i'm
pretty sensitive to this kind of stuff. and i said, you know, i looked at all those legislative leaders things. i don't remember that. so i called up the eisenhower library and they said were you guys do me a favor and scan those meetings? you'll never guess what came back. and never happened. there wasn't any notes. so i decided to take the next step and send to the eisenhower people, are you clear. i buried a ancillary files to this? it came back no. is that the end of the story? maybe not. taylor branch wrote a book called parting the waters. the first in a series on the burger king junior.
won the pulitzer prize. and in that, he takes stephen ambrose story that ever happened in changes that. i mean, he couldn't even copy well. so that's the kind of thing that i am dealing with on a regular basis. and it's sad. it does not make me happy stitch hand in front of you and say some of my colleagues are not doing what they should. but they aren't. for some reason fred nixon, to think that it's one thing to criticize your brother for real things, but for things that never happen and not only never happened, dover made to ever happen, that is insane. i don't know how they do it.
well, the fact is eisenhower writes a speech after he seized nixon gave the checkers speech on television. he goes and gives a speech in the cleveland auditorium and he says, you know, i've seen some really fine man do some really wonderful things. the richard nixon is the man that i want to be my vice president. scratching your head and singing doesn't sound like eisenhower hate the guy, does that? not to me it doesn't. from there, eisenhower sends nixon a letter. in the latter, eisenhower writes nixon saying i will meet you in west virginia. graduations on your speech.
i cannot make a decision of what's going on, but i will to the best of my ability to give you that she will remain on the ticket. eisenhower meets nixon and west virginia. nixon's plane lands. eisenhower rushes up to the plane, walks in and says you're my boy. as richard nixon breaks down and cries. i know that all of you are historians. i'm not telling anything you didn't know. eisenhower and richard nixon won the presidency and vice presidency in 1982. the people that didn't like eisenhower as president of columbia university because she was a military guide not only
were unhappy with eisenhower at columbia, but were even more than happy when he beat stevenson badly in 1952. they not only were unhappy with that, but in 1956, eisenhower won by a landslide, so they were really unhappy. so what did they do? they wrote history books based on one of the history. now what happened, but the way they wanted it to happen. i read one manuscript by james macgregor burns who ran the democratic ticket in it in 58 that said eisenhower barely beat stevenson in 1956. i wrote to jimmy's manuscript s. at 9.7 million votes is not nearly. i wrote them also in saint
jimmy, please don't publish this. she may never talk to me again. the name alone he did put down a very pleasant acknowledgment to me. irwin gellman read this. boom, that was the end of it. so when you don't tell the story based on what really happened you get this stuff. i want to lead with one small little thing which gives you some additional story. one of the big problems the checkers in the checkers speech and the reaction is dwight eisenhower because he was responsible for millions of lives looked at something and once that was done, it was over. when he writes about the checkers speech in his memoirs, he spends four or five pages on it. richard nixon spends a whole
chapter on it. and he's very upset. and what happened with what eisenhower did. the problem with much of the stuff written by both of these guys is they may cross in the night, but they are never together. so when i tried to do in the book is put what eisenhower was doing, with stevenson was doing, what tremendous doing and all the rest of them. so you found out how the story and are locked. in the nature of just the checkers story that i'm telling you is repeated time after time after time. i just want to do one last thing. you all know especially that his brothers sought a psychiatrist. during the vice presidency, he
signed eight times. for any of you in the audience that are either crazy and/or psychiatrist may also be crazy, eight times i don't think makes for a psychotherapist. in addition to that, a passionate card went before congress in 1973 and was asked the same two questions in the house and senate under the pain of perjury. the question were did you ever treat nixon for psychiatric albums? the answer was no. the same question was asked in the house. the other question was asked, did you ever treat richard nixon for psychological problems? the answer was no. i'm not sure.
maybe you all can help me, but it doesn't seem like he served as nixon's psychiatrist. and the story goes on and on and on, where people have made all kinds of assumptions and all kinds of stories about the eisenhower presidency and the next and vice presidency that are just foolish. so i hope that those of you who agreed my book will get some kind of at least the idea of of what really happened according to the fact pattern. thank you for listening. i hope that you enjoy the work and if you have any questions i would be more than happy to take them. [applause] our first question is in the back room. >> you mentioned that you were writing a new book regarding jfk
and richard nixon. i was curious if you might feel that tell us advisor research you have on the first presidential debate between the two of them if you had any thoughts regarding not. >> question if any of you didn't hear it as what am i doing on my next vote and what information do i have on the first of eight? the answer is yes and verity working on the next book of nixon versus kennedy and my agent and editor have called me up and said where are my upgrade in the next volume. i said i'm in yorba linda giving us beach. they said i don't care. the answer to your question is my father-in-law who did the private side of the ratings. a ratings. the corporation was called ser. one of the things i'm going to be stating about the debates is
not a kennedy won the debates are nixon lost the debates. the debates had a certain ability to draw all things being equal closer together piece of the nature of what happened in the days is not the one guy was better than the other, but by kennedy being there and being out of the contest somewhat because he had the same kind of media exposure. >> before we get to write next question, how a good policy role did vice president nixon had within the eisenhower administration? >> either way, for you this is john at standing in the back who has been a jewel for me and very helpful and has been great. the real story to god is this.
the problem is eisenhower to the position. the only person that made the ultimate decision was the president. so what nixon and that doing this being a trusted the time it will have all kinds of authorities given to him. one of the authorities is giving to richard nixon and i hope you don't repeat this because it will ruin nixon damage and you don't want to see that happen. u.s. and the most single advocate on promoting civil rights in the 1950s. no one did more to end segregation everywhere and especially in foreign affairs because if you could not preach democracy at home by ending segregation, you could not preach freedom in the developing countries because you have to treat all people equally. richard nixon was one of the great proponents in the 1950s
of leveling the playing field. and so, what happened with nixon was a series of things. the better he did from 1953 to 1954, et cetera, et cetera, the more authority the president gave them. the problem was eisenhower was really difficult to read. he didn't get out there and say i'm doing this and so and so is answerable for that or i am doing this in so-and-so's response will for that. what he says was if anything happened bad, i'm responsible. if anything happens good, the team is responsible. you don't get dwight eisenhower getting out and usually giving anybody prays. i will tell you this. one of the things in the book when nixon comes back with his first foreign policy trip in 1953 as they had with minor white house stationery.
they may be four or five of these and patted richard nixon out one of them. [inaudible] >> the question was how did eisenhower's relationship with nixon and change after eisenhower's heart attack? i have a whole chapter on not. in addition to the whole chapter on not, not only do i have eisenhower's problems, but nixon had problems because nixon was being treated for insomnia and for attention. nixon was taking a bunch of barbiturates. by the way, i really thought this was really great. this is really cool. i have been both teams got her
feel good. there are precursors to elvis presley. i talked to two doctors who missed the 1956 and the farmer says in 1956 and they both said to me, no, this wasn't a big deal. this is the way we treated people in the 1950s. but it did bust my bubble. >> a question in the fourth row. >> i was a student of yours in the contender came out and he brought us here as students to the archive. it was a great experience. i wrote a paper in your last on kennedy and nixon looking forward to that. is it going to be another 15 years before we get the next book? and when writing, workers change which he says research versus actual writing putting pen to
paper? >> the first part of the question i can answer pretty easy. alexander c. hoyt i have a great editor by the name of william fox. both of these guys are really miserable human use. they have a publishing and 2018. if you don't think i've got scars on my back already to get the next book out, you're wrong. the other part of the question you asked, and i very strangely. i memorize document and then i put them in order and when i see them again in order and they happen to be topical things, i.e. a chapter on religion. so i will pull all of that out of my head, rewrite in my head, rated up and show it to my wife who is my first reader. so i don't know if that's kind of strange, but that's the way i do it. >> thank you for doing this and for doing the contender.
as far as i know, none of your books on richard nixon have ever been challenged for a fact are for accuracy, so congratulations on not. you are one of a series of new books on richard nixon. what you attribute is the world ready to look favorably and more positively all these years. >> is then acquitted by the race way started working for richard nixon in the team 62. he walks around with a series of dogs. at one end time he put a collar on me and walked me around also as one of his dogs. i thought when he wanted me to eat the dog food. the answer to the question, one of my friends is having comments. he has a new book out which is partly i agree with partly i don't agree with. jack fairless coming out with doubleday next year on this.
the picture in douglas brinkley are doing the tapes and there's a pretty ugly book by a guy named tim called one man against the world. i think nixon is becoming more and more acceptable from the standpoint that he was sent over that he is made out to be, that more and more people are understanding he was a complicated complex person with a whole series of positives in a series of negatives. but some people just between us and c-span and 100 billion people, some people just hate this guy. example at an attenuator book which i normally don't comment on so don't tell anybody idea. he's got a section in their
brief says sean ehrlichman ensign he refused to work in the 1960 election unless he promised he wouldn't dream. this is the first time he ever worked for richard nixon. so i called up general donald hughes. the appointment secretary during the election and appointment secretary for 57-61. how often did he see nixon in the 1960 election? he said maybe five minutes. maybe you have a better understanding of a guy running for president than i do. but a guy who sees you for five minutes and somebody says is given an ultimatum that he will not work for him unless he stay
sober this kind of nutty. by the way, i also checked the guide but no. it never happened. >> where the question in the third row. >> talking about the checkers speech and the interaction between eisenhower and nixon. i believe in his biography, nixon had stated he had a conversation with eisenhower when he felt that eisenhower hadn't made a decision and he allegedly sent something. is this fact or fiction? >> he said or get off the pot. that is what you are pleasantly sane. eisenhower caused richard nixon and evening he is getting ready to return to seattle to l.a. to prepare his speech.
at one point in time, eisenhower says you're really having a hard time. this is a problem and your brother says sometimes you've got to get off the pot. they've cleaned it up a number of ways. as the real story. >> a question in the back row. >> former chief justice, i understand he ran in 48. i understand there is animosity between nixon and eisenhower over the 52 convention outbidding the convention in chicago. would you speak to that? >> sure i can.
it's untrue. what happened was nixon went to the convention where they were doing the platform. nixon went on the train and said it's going to be a contest between eisenhower and taft and told warren that. the story is war and felt that nixon was trying to work him over for the nomination. i don't know how many lawyers they have in the audience are things like that, but the primary law in 1952 said until the sun releases the delegation had to vote for the favorite son. just for your information, he never released the california delegation. it never was a unanimous vote for eisenhower because he didn't
>> down on booktv want to introduce you to paul marino, professor of constitutional history at hillsdale college and he is the author of this book, the bureaucratic games, the origins and underpinnings of america has bureaucratic state. professor, on page one of your boat, the united states is wrote in establishment were mentioned in the constitution. what does that mean? >> this is the so-called combination of the other three branches at the heart of the constitutional problem. the original constitution was
meant to be on the separation of powers, the most important structural feature of the constitution. in the 20th century we develop an apparatus, all these agencies. the federal communications commission, most of us really started with the new deal. they combined legislative executive and judicial powers and that is what madison called the essence of tyranny. that's the kind of problem we face. >> congress passes a law. president signs it. what happened? >> congress passed a law is a problem. they don't legislate. they delegate. they love these administrators, nobody's voted for not in any way countable. congress tells them you read the rules. you make the laws. they give them a very vague aspiration we want clean air or no discrimination or a fair railroad race and it allows
those people who are supposed to be the experts to make the rules to make the laws. congress what they do for the most part is sit back and intervene in individual cases where their constituents get in trouble with these agencies and constituent service coach is much more helpful to them in getting elected and it's a lot easier than the hard job of making policy choices on legislating. congress doesn't legislate. it's not doing a fundamental constitutional job. >> has to creep for the increase in the bureaucratic state that explicit, implicit, has that been slow? >> it's come in waves the scientists will call it. the first of this was in the progressive era about 100 years ago. woodrow wilson who was a political scientist before he was president had a hold. but given america a new style administrative state. the biggest came up a new deal
with fdr after the great depression. there's periodically reaction after these great increases in government the power. americans have second thoughts initially a conservative reaction. the next was a great society in the 1960s with randy johnson and the obama administration has brought in the fourth wave, the affordable care that especially. the.frank at for these monuments really are quantitatively a new step in the development of an american stage with the europeans have had a state or much longer. >> professor marino, how has this affected you and i and anyone else on an individual basis? >> people don't need a bureaucrat face-to-face. but everything that you do in life is the fact that by rules that these people make. anything that involves your
house carries increasingly to tainted by the department of health and human services. if you want to apply for a job, there's all kinds of requirements and regulations faced and employers especially have to comply with all kinds of red tape. the compliance cost of satisfied that the regulators are growing exponentially. education, schools increasingly be managed. schools used to be the quintessential local institutions where americans govern themselves in schoolhouse is an these are now being dictated to by washington. every aspect of life now is being shaped by rules, effectively laws that are made and enforced by people who nobody knows. people they don't vote for, people accountable to them, people who think they know how to manage the lives of ordinary americans better than return americans themselves.
>> use the 1927 radioactive as an example. >> herbert hoover has gone down as sort of a laissez-faire 19th century american conservative is actually progressive. the radio act which gave initially the federal radio commission the power to issue licenses to people if you want to operate a radio. according to their sense of public convenience and necessity. these people, these commissioners got to decide whether the public really needed a radio outlet in a certain locality. that's a tremendously powerful power they have. previously newspapers are relatively unregulated. video you did. radio ended up being a more politically manipulable form of media. there is no accident that newspapers are critical to the new deal to the radio because
radio operators are now pitcher license renewal is going to be contingent on whether you play ball the way the administration wants it to appear in it's a perfect example of some of the political dangers of the administrative discretion of licensing. >> so given what you've been describing, has the size of the federal government road? >> done as much as you think. the number of personnel they have employed at the run much since world war ii. mostly because the federal government gets the states to do most of his regulating. almost all federal regulatory programs from the federal government gives money to the states and the states have to comply with federal regulations of the states are the ones administering these programs. people haven't noticed the growth in terms of personnel because it's been carried out through the agencies and by getting pregnant tuitions to higher officers whose full-time
job is making sure we are in compliance with regulations. the government has made the enforcement of this through both state and private parties. >> what is the role of the federal registry? >> so the compilation of these regulations. wasn't started until 1935 that you want central place where people go see what regulations are. and the old days of the 19th century, congress passed a statute that's tremendously important i would be three or four paragraphs, three or four pages. the federal register is tens of thousands of pages every year. the record was 80,000 pages in one year back in the 1980s and recently broke a record in 2015. 100,000 pages of federal regulations. the important thing about that is even though several that the formerly published regulations.
the federal regulators do so much just type in formal memorandum of understanding that are not published sort of subtle ways that don't leave any official footprints in the record. the federal register is just the tip of the ice berg and nobody could possibly keep up with all of it. big companies have to hire people whose specialty is to do with regulations is some specific aspect of their business. >> in your view, professor, the growth of bureaucratic status you call it, could it be attributed to congress? >> congress is fundamentally responsible. they are dereliction of duty, unwillingness to make the hard choices i think. they've taken the easy way out because their fundamental interest is in getting rid of that good and they find the current system increases their power even though it would appear to people that the delegation of legislative power