tv Michael Koncewicz They Said No to Nixon CSPAN December 30, 2018 8:00pm-9:02pm EST
in the archives. >> thank you peter. . >> good afternoon thank you for coming i'm a bookseller at politics and prose welcome to all of you to your favorite bookstore for this afternoon's event you may already know we host hundreds of events throughout the year and this new one we are doing is a book
talk how to get rid of our president. first turn off or silent your cell phone for q&a please remember to step up and that everyone in the room can hear you there are copies right behind the cash register and we would appreciate if you keep the chairs in place as we will have another event after this one. i would like to introduce you mike ware - - michael is the
specialist from the archives at new york university and also previously worked for the national archives for the richard nixon presidential library. this afternoon he will talk about his new book republicans who stood up to the president abuse of power going from recently released materials his new book uncovers those who oppose nixon to punish those who oppose him. the book reveals the civil servant in his own party who takes the abusive power of the nixon presidency in the assessment of the great book has excruciatingly timely please welcome mike.
[applause] . >> thank you to everyone here at politics and prose i will begin with a selection that opens up on the very first page of the introduction this is taken from a conversation aud 1972 with nixon's secret white house tapes we will talk about that later but roughly six or seven weeks after the watergate break-in this is richard nixon voicing his concerns i think the trouble is we have too many nice guys
who just want to do the right thing sitting in the oval office with the chief of staff the president invented about the outrage over those unwilling to bend the rules and earlier in the conversation you have all this power and we are not using it who is running the irs? all the agencies of the government what in the name of god? halderman responded nothing. nixon retorted part of the problem is our own fault. there must be something we can do. and for those individuals during the discussion they
simply blame the secretary of the treasury george schultz and then the commissioner of the irs resisted the white house effort to view the agency to harass and punish their opponents they are not being political i don't care how nice of a guy or how good of an economist we cannot have this bs the conversation was not isolated nixon brought up his frustration these are not tantrums but a prolonged struggle of bureaucracy. those tirades were not just of the inner demons but representative of those views of governance nixon's white house recordings are extremely valuable artifacts with the
president behind closed doors on a wide range of topics taken together they are much more than a collection of entertaining soundbites although they do not capture the totalitarian one - - the totality but it has a strident and culture of you one that led to watergate. the main substance in the main care one - - profile of the character are those that clash with that character of loyalty those that were loyal to a culture of nonpartisan civil servant. so one short collection. taken together the individuals that said no to nixon provided a valuable reminder power was not based on partisan politics those that refuse to carry out his orders came from another brand of republicanism a higher value of analytical thinking in an ethical approach to governance.
watergate was not an extension but a very real test of the nation's democracy these are not entirely new but a deeper insight for the constitutional crisis for those who said no to nixon. first it focuses on george schultz, irs the commissioner and next to the watergate break-in i think it's safe to say that the enemies list is just a famous name attached to the watergate era. even somebody was born why after his resignation you are vaguely aware that comes up in pop culture people know about it. fewer people know the enemies list of five or 600
individuals of antiwar activists, actors, journalist democratic contributors that project was never carried out. yes there were individual audits and operatives embedded in the irs to could get things done. i do not want to romanticize the history of the irs and its willingness to bend the rules, but this larger project of individuals the only flaw was to oppose the president that was never carried out. y-letter? september 19725 or 6 weeks after the conversation george schultz and the commissioner of the irs walters a republican from south carolina
who took civil service very seriously they stood united in their opposition to the enemies list project counselor to the president deliver the enemies list to walters and he told him no. he told them he would talk to his boss schultz and he previously that summer caved to some of the white house demands when it came to bring larry brian in for an interview on finances but the enemies list was a step too far. 1972 election is weeks away so she also identifies this order is incredibly dangerous social ten waters were not the best of friends coming from backgrounds stood united and they said no and you can hear nixon on the tapes rant and
rave about schultz and walters he doesn't want to have another walters and the irs he is very determined that if he wins a second term which is incredibly likely he will have a loyalist in the irs. so this order was not just something that the originator was nixon that is important to know because often nixon biographers try to give a new take of the president focused the blame but i show that he is often at the center of these more devious plots and also shows that the nixon white house is not a moderate institution. sometimes we hear arguments he was the last moderator of the last liberal but what that
means that can be fuzzy sometimes but what i show here the actual moderate inside the nixon administration are resisting his dark side. that can include like george schultz and how they respond to the enemies list schultz and walters talk about the enemies list they refused at first in 73 once investigators find out and walters who kept the list locked in a vault took it out handed it to investigators and came out clean but because watergate was such a large story this was lost in the shuffle and over the years and increasingly cynical american public assumed it was carried out. but it wasn't an importantly why. schultz in an interview talked
about once again he thought that even if it was done in previous administrations that nixon had believed it didn't matter it was a misuse of the federal government and would cross a very dangerous line. schultz is one of many republicans sometimes i have students ask me what does that mean? that the government could be used for a force of good. that is a broad definition but mostly what we refer to as moderate republicans but what they shared was they were shaped by the postwar new deal liberal order. instead they engage with and argued against it whenever necessary but they do not see that as a force from the 19
sixties and seventies all of those adopt a technocratic approach to their work and they were not political creatures they come from different backgrounds but they all share this nonpartisan approach to the federal government. the civil service crashed his own cutthroat approach so once again an argument you use to hear increasingly during the trump administration nixon was a liberal that he passed it accomplished and granted i do have some sympathy based on that argument but if you look at the record and listen to the tapes yes his domestic record is complicated his foreign-policy is quite complicated he is not traditional by any means he is
an opportunist in most cases but when push comes to shove when he's engaged in politics he aligns himself with conservatives in the administration. i highlight a quote in my introduction that first appeared in an article as part of the trilogy from nixon land of the history of the conservative movement but in that book he features the quote from a conservative activist from young americans for freedom someone who did not particularly like richard nixon but he said i was never for him until watergate. think about that. combined that he does resign in disgrace.
he still has 25 or 28 percent of the country behind his back i worked at the presidential library and museum for nearly four years but i think those numbers matter especially looking at the current political moment. schultz who played an important role also plays a role to block another of his order starting in 1970 after the invasion of cambodia nixon comes up with a plan to punish m.i.t. and other universities that have rampant antiwar demonstrations he's mad at university presidents that allow them to happen or give students a week off to go to washington d.c. to protest the war in vietnam.
so starting with spring of 70 nixon comes up with a plan to cut defense funds to universities who are on the same side of the antiwar protesters to kick the military off campuses so what nixon does is wants to de- militarize the education and move funds to what he thinks are pro- nixon schools in the midwest his advisor tells him these are good schools so what starts off as a rant doesn't go anywhere but picks up steam in the year of 1972 after the bombings in a new wave of antiwar protest even coming from university presidents of the ivy league nixon is determined to carry out the order spring of 72. schultz the head of omb says
no. so he moves to the treasury department and nixon may 72 after he just concluded yelling at kissinger to invite university presidents into the white house he calls hr holderman in a conversation you get a hold of caspar weinberger who will replace schultz i want those funds and i want them now. get it done. he said that and unlike his previous rants, weinberger moves forward. it provides detailed reports in the summer and fall and early 73 on how this could be done starting with hew grants
and then cut the funds to m.i.t.. nixon was defense department funds cut they have roughly $100 million he wants to use them as a test case you have $100 million per year than after that trial see if there is a backlash than they would target other universities like harvard or yale university of california. stanford is on the list. one by one they try to redistribute the funds why is it not carried out? in early 73 as weinberger is working on the order goes through three omb directors paul o'neill should be familiar secretary of treasury during the bush administration
so when given this order they threatened to resign and take the story to the press. before they do so they meet with their former boss schultz who they identified as an independent figure in the white house to support them. they meet with schultz and according to this order has said schultz said don't worry i will take care of it. no one is on the record to participate other than weinberger it's a story and then the order fades away one page and 73 where nixon jokes about it in front of scholz during a cabinet meeting scholz lets it go and you never see it again in the record. twenty years later after a transcript leaks out to the press, people find out nixon
at least wanted this to happen. that weinberger was asked about the conversation that i write about where he said you say i want the funds and i want them now he said i have no idea what he is talking about he was known to rant so he essentially lied. he did slow walk and he wasn't thrilled but he never stood up and said no to the president and that is important and also that he lied about it in 1983. since then of records i have had access to show this project was much closer to happening than anyone had thought in the seventies or eighties or nineties so that
captures his own brand of conservativism as described , it was based on a fuzzy cultural conservative over a traditional economic conservative that cultural conservativism can be powerful enough when it comes to organizing your administration. so the m.i.t. order does represent his own cultural resentment to provide another connection to the president. the final section of the book focuses on richardson who is most famous for his decision to resign in protest over the massacre. almost a stereo typical cartoonish establishment figure from a bygone era if anyone has seen a video of
ellie richardson he seems like an alien to anyone in 2018 but that was part of the moderate republican party. and richardson really represented that which had a home and part of the republican party in the early seventies. during the nixon administration he was appointed to be attorney general serving as under secretary of state where he defended richard nixon's decision to invade cambodia some of the advisors actually resigned. even though he had his own private reservations he decided to defend the president and was head of health education and welfare and he also has serious disagreements with the white house pushing toward more progressive programs and was
shot down while there were some reports in the media that publicly he aligned himself with the president late 71 actively supporting those pretty progressive federal health care centers richard nixon shut it down he was getting a lot of complaints from members of the administration who were concerned this would bring the united states march the path of the soviet union the first step toward communism of a federal childcare center so that plan is rejected. so that describes why he chose richardson that spraying of 73 to become the attorney general of the united states.
watergate is a national story and in that particular moment he cannot get away. heed to meet my - - debates over the secretary of state or someone that he knows to be an absolute loyalist he picks richardson as someone who has credibility provides to the administration but is also proven to be loyal behind the scenes he has had these debates but when push comes to shove he will side with the president. so that's why he pick richardson to be the attorney general so he says this i suppose we have to keep one person in the government that
is sort of interested in the people. he has that so the scariest thing is that yes the president is being a little facetious that maybe 25 or 50 percent he is a cynical statement there is no laughter and it captures why nixon has the establishment republican like richardson in the administration he felt like he had to especially that spring. as many of you already kno know, richardson becomes attorney general and then six months later he resigns during the massacre. why does this happen? the simple explanations that nixon was never interested in
an independent investigation. he could not be. that he was actively engaged not only in a cover-up that many crimes coming out of the white house. this is very obvious but richardson did not know much about watergate and was not part of the fbi and did not have access to the reports. he wasn't even interested to follow the coverage serving as secretary of defense so he comes into the post not knowing too much about watergate and then has a healthy respect he is willing to assume the president is innocent. the same day as the swearing in ceremony richard nixon dangled the supreme court appointment in front of richardson's face.
this is from a conversation may 25, 1973. nixon at first was talking about personnel issues in the justice department and said it's important on this appointment you never know when somebody will die. and to that i mean i was thinking of the supreme court have a very close relationship with the chief justice if you have any problems he is a very shrewd politician i would hope you could spend some time with him i mean in a proper way. >> this is not the first time nixon has used his way to bring richardson closer it comes out on the tapes several times this is just the most dramatic the same day as his
theory - - swearing in ceremony. we are united to support a real investigation. this is happening behind the scenes. later that day nixon calls the staff to complain there were so many weak people in his cabinet targeting richardson and scholz and richardson is in the spot he has to prove he is the white knight so he and archie cox who was just sworn in as the new watergate special prosecutor how do you handle that? so that is also the same day as richardson swearing in ceremony. richardson soon discover the president will stop any attempt to make this a real independent investigation.
they try to find ways to get rid of archibald cox initially they did not think much of him he was actually eight or nine on the list of opposition which takes the wind out of the sails of the conspiracy theorist that there is an av league establishment coup to bring him down but it was the harvard law professor or during the kennedy years. but what doesn't get publicized as they were scrambling to find someone to take this position may 73. lawyers and scholars turn this position down nobody knows where this will go. nobody knows of this will help out their career. that is the unknown entity may 73. in the summer of 1973 the nation finds out the secret
white house taping system. in the final year of the saga they find out about the tapes. but what causes the saturday night massacre? there are some details that have been glossed over in the quick retelling, that week nixon came up with a plan. . . . . askedask the justice department. the problem with this is he is a
pro- nixon democrat in his 70s and granted people in their 70s can have good hearings that he did not. he was actually mugged outside of his home and was by most accounts still recovering from that vicious attack. not the ideal person to be the one individual that has access to the tapes. and so, archibald cox does not accept this compromise however it shows how much of a moderate to both of them were that fall especially richardson. they didn't want to give up on negotiations. they were willing to continue to talk and come up with some kind of compromise. but once he rejected the senate compromise, nixon said enough is enough and that is when he demand the firing of archibald cox. elliot richardson remember he had been a loyal soldier for the four years, more than four years he'd been in the administration.
he writes note after note playing out the pros and cons of re-signing or staying on board to figure out what to do. his deputy who previously served in the administration sees it as a simple decision and says if it gets down to me he's going to resign in protest. it's interesting to contrast the two figures. elliot richardson in the end decides for the good of the country he's going to resign. rocco also refines and technically is fired before he can sign over the official letter of resignation but it doesn't really matter to the petty act by the nixon white house and then the third person who didn't even know he was third in line until that week was robert bork ps general carried out the order and archibald cox inspired. it sparks a wave of outrage across the country for the first
time and nixon resigns, the only president to resign in history so the massacre is an important moment. it gets the coverage that it should get but it's also seen as an extension of all these other behind the scenes battles involving moderate civil service clashing the approach to politics and so i started this project in 2011 granted further chrism wasn't an issue then but i wasn't particularly thinking about just donald trump in 2011. but over the last seven years, this project has become a little more relevant. i've gotten more interest and that is of course because of everything that's happened over
the last two years. you can go from donald trump's actual relationship with richard nixon in the 1980s they were not close friends that they were acquaintances they would go to the games in new york city in the mid-to late 1980s. while people are justifiably focused on the parallels between the nixon era and everything that has happened in 2017 and 2018. what i argue because i know we need to save time for q-and-a richard and trump are connected in meaningful ways through their shared views of politics and the presidency. sure they have policy differences that both are ultimately defined by what they oppose. so it is nixon's own kind of approach and his link is trump even if the ideology might be a little different so that is why the trump presidency is very connected to the ongoing battle
over nixon's legacy. he still has pretty well pin numbers. when somebody asks about richard nixon asked fourth and fifth graders unschooled worse what do you know about richard nixon and they would say watergate and he did something bad so that is still there and lingering in terms of the memory of richard nixon but you've seen this in the last several months in an attempt to defend donald trump in the middle of the russia investigation you are seeing some people reevaluate the nixon years and it's not just figures like pat buchanan who during a taltalk and 2017 i still to this day think he was right to do what he did during the massacre of hundreds of people in the crowd and it was very awkward you can watch the video online at first as a handful of people that class and then a few dozen
people join. maybe i'm reading too much into this that people ar but people e whether it's appropriate to clap. the author of the best-selling book that seeks to defend donald trump and say that the russia investigation is a hoax is a fox news anchor on the sean hannity show in september and since nixon's dishes did the decision to fire archibald cox he basically told sean hannity that is what donald trump should do with rob rosenstein so these things that i said or that i saw on the ground at the nixon library is becoming more of a public thing in the last year or two and i think that's significant because even though the numbers are still low i feel like the american public hasn't fully confronted what happened or what did happen during the watergate era.
i played a little mor hope to pe insight into that. let me conclude with one final passage from the last page of the book. it's worth noting a fe. few in 1972 would have expected resistance from republicans in the administration. with new archival records we know the full scope of their actions george shultz, william burroughs, paul o'neill, elliot richardson and many others said no to the president because they were fiercely dedicated to preserving the strong culture of nonpartisan civil service and the government, the culture that shaped their career and it's one that they felt was necessary to protect while nixon didn't see any strength in the man who resisted his orders their collective stand was powerful enough to block and institutionalized abuses of power. they chose integrity over loyalty and as a result, nixon was prevented from dramatically expanding his presidential powers. nixon often complained there
were too many principled man ind his administration but there were just enough nice guys stopping him from dramatically undermining constitutional democracy. thank you. [applause] it looks like we have about 25 minutes or so for questions. and if you could use the microphone right over there. >> let me thank you for interesting conversation i had to stop and say i'm not from the united states and from the canadians. i think your talk provokes obviously provokes the question [inaudible] he can decide to preemptively and unilaterally to pardon
himself. what happens with the republican party if all is under tremendous pressure and he brings a lot of pressure to bear with the republican party at this point would they stand up and decide enough is enough or is the republican party that that is the first question. the second question and even more problematic is the question to promote a. it seems to me it suffers from a problem at this point in time to be honest, namely an imbalance between the so-called checks and balances. we see what is happening with checks and balances it's neither balancing the check etc. it seems to me that at this point in time you have a presidency that is becoming extremely --
the other thing you could talk about on president reagan basically he should have been or could have been impeached but the big problem nothing came about. it didn't happen before, the increasing presidency is becoming apparent with little or no backing from the congress, so my question to you is don't you think that the time has come now these executive orders for them to pass and become somewhat
enforceable debt they should have 56 or 57 or 58 senators to agree with this kind of thing and then we stepped forth and say i'm against that type of thing. that executive order cannot go any faster so that there is a way to tie it into some type of thing if you have tax breaks on this type of thing comes up with the congress and show that you have an understanding of what you are doing. it is a bigger thing, the most powerful position in the world but how do you see playing out this point in time and do you believe there's any hope that they will be pushed back in a different direction or do you
see it more and more becoming polarized what do you see? thank you very much. spinnaker going to start by apologizing preemptively because i will not be able to fully answer all of those questions because there's a lot of big questions of course. i'm not naïve. i don't have much hope in terms of a response from the republican party that granted herthey are two different arease are talking about. there's a reason republicans hopefully decided to stand up to nixon at the evidence and the tapes but also the political culture of the era. that is just something that cannot be ignored i cannot predict the future. we will see. i know that it's not a great
answer but it is the ultimate answer in terms of what's going to happen next in the trump presidency. and the administration to offer up any significant act of resistance i don't believe in the op-ed while it is certain to an extent we should expect more from the civil service. we need more and i am not going to fully answer all the questions i will say one thing though.
partisanship wasn't just created out of thin air in the last two years. even the final months of the administration there's new history on this it isn't inevitable richard nixon wasn't going to be fine. it seems like it. without the tapes or perhaps without these specific moments that richard nixon maybe could have been impeached or could have survived and got him enough support in the senate and survived and served me a better second term only .-full-stop in turn. there are very significant differences and little incentive for the republicans of today to
stand up to the current president. and in your thoughtful points that is where i stand. >> do you think that nixon did suffer from some type of a personality disorder and in reading about and just observing him over the years one could make that assumption. what do you think? >> it's hard not to cycle analyzed the president. this ipresident. this is technically not a nixon biography, so i don't see that as the mission of this book but there is a little bit of that and it's hard to avoid when you have access to the tapes. they capture the 3700 hours of conversations.
roughly about 3,000 or successful in the public. the tape collections are 700 hours o, sizable pales in comparison to richard nixon. so because we have access to richard nixon and there was a fairly unique personality compared to other presidents, you can't help but try to guess what is the state of mind. what i will say is richar richan did in fact well during moments of the crisis. you could see this during the days following the invasion of cambodia you could see it in hr haldeman's thigh areas when he's concerned for the president's well-being, and you can see it later on. i'm going to talk about a few moments but there are some are usually nixon is having some kind of a breakdown. the other that comes to mind is
here. it's quite concerning that it's dangerously close to what you read from woodward and bernstein in the mid-70s in terms of having a breakdown and the loyalists say that they are basing it on nothing. they were in fact strong and displaying integrity and that made me think that our current president just described jeff sessions every week attorney general and i was wondering if you had observed any other
linguistic parallels. as many of you know they are not carbon copies, they have different personalities there are important similarities and you have identified one of them. in addition to saying someone like elliot richardson is the evil here the terms soft. he never fully defines what it is it's vaguely conservative but largely defined by toughness and masculinity. and it is once again largely by what he opposes.
he believes that his enemies are not masculine enough. the ivy league establishments is not masculine enough, it is too permissive and you don't have to be a gender historian to find that he's kind of protecting hear of it. throughout his life in the campaign in 1960 he dealt with the fact that he wasn't seen as masculine enough as a character of john f. kennedy so without going down the road to analyze nixon, something that comes up over and over again on the tapes is a crude sense of masculinity he believed his administration was defined by that and a key part of his loyalty. loyalty is a key component of what it takes to be a man. so this is where nixon does have an important connection to the
current president. donald trump is describing someone that is loyal to his administration and jeff sessions i wouldn't think they would describe as kind of a resistor of the trump presidency but because he recused himself from the russia investigation, that is enough and it shows it doesn't really matter, what matters is loyalty so what i try to show is that the clashed with that very basic understanding of loyalty and masculinity. >> what is your judgment of the documentary watergate? i apologize i haven't had time to watch it. i've watched it and i thought it was pretty good. do you go into some detail in your book about it? >> the enemies list initially
started off as a list of people to not invite to the white house in 1971 and over the next 18 months or so, chuck colson, john dean and a few others get involved in this project and overtime turn into a notch or dangerous list. it's not just people that go to these different white house social functions in east room. but it becomes is a list that you then give to the irs and that's something that you hear on the tapes. it's coming straight from the oval office and whether it is his personal notes for the tapes or their own very good memory, it is clear that the enemies list was coming straight from the oval office.
what i try to show in this book is not only the resistance part of the story, but how in certain instances it was micromanaged by richard nixon and his key advisers. i hope you had a chance to interview pat buchanan about this book. i was in a program of the national archives a couple weeks ago about the 1968 election and it was like yesterday for him he remembers everything. they ended up showing movies of the campaign and pat took over the whole program and talked about his role in the event. my question is where was he in all of this and had he left the staff so nixon had a bunch of enablers around.
buchanan is a pretty important player in nixon memory so as i said even though there is a kind of collective mess that nixon wasn't a good president, we are talking about people who don't have enough time today to do research or think about mixing beyond headline, i think it is nixon did something bad about pat buchanan is often featured in the documentary is on the nixon era and watergate and i've noticed he usuall usually has tl say in a lot of them. i don't know why, but he is and continues to be a quite aggressive supporter and is part of the rehabilitation project to try to make people think that nixon wasn't just the president of watergate is something of a nation should be proud of. daniel patrick moynihan is one
of many establishment figures who are brought in a 1969. i think this is part of a half sincere effort to bring in the moderates and liberals into the administration, but by the end of 1969 especially by the end of 1970 a lot of those moderate liberals including daniel patrick moynihan, who was kind of one of the presidents favorites loses a lot of them implements pretty quickly. i would be happy to talk with you afterwards that there may be one more question. >> in the nixon library, i've always had a feeling that it was part of the extended coverups that it was tilted towards nixon that belittled his crimes i will
try to control myself here we have a library system in this country that was created by fdr from over hoover to barack obama and will most likely include the current president. and what you have is a public-private partnership in betweebetween the national archs and presidential foundations to build these things and keep them operated. that is the short version. i'm glossing over the details. because of richard nixon's own relationship in the federal government which was not good in the 70s and 80s, his library existed outside of the federal
system. it was built in 1990 and its first director hugh hewitt claimed he was joking but he said that anti-nixon scholars like bob woodward would not be welcome. he says that in 1990 u. can look it up. but for 17 years that stood as a private facility. a deal with and made t was theng the library into the federal presidential library system and that is what happened in 2007 and because nixon's library had this on history there was a bit of momentum to introduce some history and nonpartisan programming. i was a graduate student at the university california irvine and that is when i decided to become an intern and then eventually i was hired to be the assistant director and i get a lot of research work and i helped out in the final stages of a nonpartisan watergate exhibit
that fortunately is still fair in yorba linda, so that, along with many different programs, we had a real academic conference that had both pro and nixon scholars and everyone in between, so we did a lot of good work there. i don't have time to talk about what happened afterwards, but the national archives have kind of backed away from that project and since then, the administration has gained more control over the exhibit site of the library. however if showcases some of the stories and that is when i decided to tackle the project is when i was working with my supervisors on the watergate exhibit, so there was a lot of good work done but still fair in yorba linda california. when you go through the library, you can actually listen to tapes
where nixon is talking about counting the number that worked at the bureau of labor statistics. they can now listen to that tape in spite of the watergate exhibit and that is just one of many examples that sho showed it wasn't just about watergate. there was a reason t reason thep happened and that is one of the main goals in that exhibit. and i believe we succeeded and the exhibit is still around even though the library has been updated and renovated and a lot of the kind of partisanship is still there and still has a defensive tone in terms of offering students and people in the community but at least there is some real history so i'm happy that it's there. once again i would be more than happy to talk with you after the program, but thank you for the question. >> that is a nice place to end so can we get one more round of applause. [applause] >> if you haven't purchased the book and he would like to, they are available at the register
of the trump administration. he is interviewed by a senior research fellow at george mason university's center. "after words" is a weekly interview program with relevant guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest works. >> host: it is my pleasure to be here today with stephen moore to talk about his new book, trumponomics. it's a book that he co-authored. steve, i don't think you need introduction to anyone that has worked in washington, d.c. but since the audience, you are a distinguished fellow at the heritage foundation that you have been pretty much everywhere. you cannot do cato institute and which year was that? that?guest co. around 1999. >> host: in 2004 committee were on the eri