Discussion with julian, id like to share a little bit about the history of the strand. The strand was founded in 1927 on book row. Stretching from union square, book row gradually dwindled from 48 bookstores until, after 93 years, the strand is the sole survivor. Now run by Third Generation owner nancy bass. We want to thank all for our support because without all of you, we wouldnt be where we are today. And also an update on the store in case youre curious, the physical store in union square is open, weve been open for about two weeks. So wear a mask and stop by if youre in the area. Tonight were excited to have Julian Zelizer who is celebrating the release of his book, burning down the house. Julian is a class of 1941 professor of history of Public Affairs at Princeton University and a cnn political analyst. His most recent book coauthored by our moderator, kevin kruse and the fierce urgency of now. Zelizer has been awarded fellowships with the New York Historical society, the russell sage foundation, the ghoulen heym Foundation Guggenheim foundation and new america. Tonight hell be joined by cell phone kruse, a political kevin kruse suburban history in 20th century america. He is particularly interested in segregation and the Civil Rights Movement as well as the [inaudible] excuse me, the rise of religious naturalism and the making of modern conservativism. His books include atlanta and the making of modern conservativism, under one nation, one nation under god, how Corporate America [inaudible] and the recently published fault lines. Professor kruse was honored as one of americas top young innovators in the arts and sciences by the Smithsonian Magazine and listed as one of the top historians in history by the history news network. He has recently been named distinguished lecturer by the organization of american historians and by John Simon Guggenheim fellowship. Without further ado, Julian Zelizer and kevin kruse. Hi there. Hey there, everybody. How you doing . So well have a little chat there and pretend hundreds of people arent lurking in the background. Its good to see you. You know, as we just heard, we worked together on a book called fault lines which hoveredded u. S. History from 1974 to the present, and Newt Gingrich was a big part of that. So im excited to dig into his career and your terrific book about him. You know, a lot of people, i think a lot of americans, probably a lot of the audience which i see is worldwide probably only know gingrich from his time as speak or. He kind of, i think for a lot of americans, burst on the scene in 1994. But, of course, he had about two decades of political activism and a career in congress before that. Tell everyone about young Newt Gingrich, a youngish Newt Gingrich, when he started in congress, that first run for office, what he was like, what he was all about and where he was coming from. Yeah. This is [inaudible] welcome to everyone, thanks for joining us. It is nice to see people from all over. Gingrich was quite a character. He had been an army brat, kind of grew up living in different parts of europe. Family was originally from right outside harrisburg, pennsylvania, a working class area that was republican. And he ended up in georgia. He went to emory, he married a High School Math teacher x and he then went to tulane where he got a ph. D. In history and studied colonialism, colonial policy. And then he moved to his first job, just as we did, to west georgia college, and he never really liked academia. Within a year he wants to be the president of the college and the head of the department, and he runs for congress. Hes one of the first republicans in the area youve studied, in a democratic area, and hes part of that cohort of republicans who want to make the south red instead of blue. To use our modern color scheme. Hes elected in 1978. Its husband third try, and his third try, and he conducts a pretty Vicious Campaign that gives a taste of what hes going to do. His opponent, someone named virginia shaffer. And at one point she says in a statement the, if she win, shes going to move to d. C. , her husband her family will still in the district so they can have their lives, he can have his business. And gingrich jumps on it and says, look, she wants to break up her family. Shes a radical, puts everything above moral values. It was really a low blow. And hes in congress, and we can talk about it, but by the early 1980s he is basically saying republicans need to do whatever necessary to finally regain power after being the Minority Party since 1954. And he starts to do these outlandish and pretty vicious things as part of his partisanship. And he catches peoples attention. So one of the ways he does that, of course, is through this group hes the ringleader of, the conservative opportunity society. I dont think a lot of people know about it. Tell us about that. He organizes hes not really an organizationer, its funny. He doesnt want to be on committees, he just wants to get his message out. But he is strategic enough to organize basically a caucus of likeminded conservatives who thought he was a visionary and who were willing to do what he did. Someone named david weber who is another fellow republican who is pretty eager to take on the democrats, stop listening to all these calls for civility and bipartisanship. So he has this small cohort. The numbers change over time, starts at about 12 people, and it grow. And theyre like a team on the house. And when gunning rich has this idea gingrich has this idea that hes going to introduce, their part of that theyre a part of that team. In some ways theyre boot soldiers for the reagan revolution. They are the most aggressive bunch, and theyre trying to shape up their own shake up their own party and say we have to do things in ways that are out of the washington box if were going to win. Right. Theres a staying only two things stand in our way, the democrats and the republicans . Thats right. And the tension was in much of this period that i write about the House Minority leader, this guy named bob michael. Hes from illinois. Hes a get along kind of republican. Hes been there for a while, doesnt like to shake the boat, believes in working with democrats. He Still Believes in bipartisanship. And gingrich hated him in many ways as much as he hated speaker tip oneill and speaker jim wright. So when gingrich get what kid kiddied he do to what did he do to get that message out . The media, right . How did he learn to use the media in the 1980s to get that message out . Thats a big part of the book. This is really before the conservative media world that we know exists. There is conservative talk radio, and its expanding during my story. Fox news doesnt exist yet. Theres no internet web sites like breitbart. So he uses the Mainstream Media as its called today, networks, newspapers, Cable Television as his tool. And so one of the stories i tell in the book which i used to tell for everyone listening, kevin and i taught this class that became fault lines, and i would always tell this story. And its actually when i tell the story, i realize theres probably a good book here. It was in 1984, and he and his group, the conservative opportunity society, they realized at the end of the day anyones allowed to go to the front of the House Chamber and make a speech. Theyre called one minute speeches, special order speeches. Theyre not reserved just for people with power, and anyone can do it. So he and his cabal started going to the floor, and they a made these speeches. They were blistering. They started to say democrats are weak on defense, democrats dont support reagans war against communism. And with the tv cameras rolling with this new station cspan covering the proceedings, they even named specific democrats like eddie boland of massachusetts and said how do you respond to . Whats your answer . And the chamber was silent, and if you were watching on cspan, it looked like the democrats had no response. But what people couldnt see was no one was in the chamber because the rules only leapt you put the cam let you put the camera on the speaker. So it was political theater at its finest, or worst depending on your opinion. Tip oneill gets so so mad, the speaker of the house, he bursts in, he orders the camera to show the chamber to show no ones there, and each then he turns it against him. Look, he broke the rules, hes part of the corrupt democratic establishment. And then oneillgets each angrier, and he says its the lowest thing hes said in husband career, what gingrich was going today democrats. And then the republicans have his words struck from the record saying the speaker spoke improperly and its an embarrassment to kneel. And the to oneill. And the story culminateses with all three networks covered this, nbc, cbs and abc on the nightly news all had stories about gingrich and about what these young mavericks were doing. And that was what gingrich ultimately wanted, and he couldnt be more pleased. So theres many stories where he uses the institutions of the media as a way around his own Party Leaders and to really kind of smear what the democrats are about. Comment. Excellent. You mentioned tip oneill who is, of course, a figure who loom ares large and kind of reagans sparring partner in the 80s. This is this i guess somewhat of a myth of the kind of relationship they had. They were two old irish politicians who kind of got along after hours. Gingrich blows all that up, right . So how does gingrich and the people around him really impact that relationship that grain and oneill that reagan and oneill had . Yeah. I mean, theres a lot of fiction to that. Oneill really didnt like what reagan was doing to the country and thought he was much too far to the right in terms of Economic Policy and social policy. But it was true that i think leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, the tip oneills, they balanced the partisanship with the need for government. And they always were making this tradeup, and that helped them understand when are you going too far. They didnt want to go so far that thaw start to destroy the procedures and the relationships that were simply necessary to govern. Gingrich said throw all that out the window. He was writing memos to other republics saying enough with bipartisanship, enough with civility. All that means is were going to keep losing, and democrats are going to keep flouting their power. And he said you have to teach republicans to be more aggressive, to be more confrontational, to stop negotiating with the republicans. And this, you know, it starts as a, hes seen as a mccarthyite really. Thats how people talk about him. What happens in the 80s, its kind of interesting, gradually, more and more republicans start listening to him, and the more success he has with these tactics, the more intrigue they are with him because they want to have power. And they start to think of that tradeoff which can be costly in american politics. Do i want power so much i enter into alliances with people i know can be dangerous to the institution . Gingrichs rise and the rise of lee atwater, right, as a political strategist in 88. Whats their relationship like . Its a very important relationship. And they directly come into contact. So the heart of the book that i hope everyone buys and enjoys from the strand, but the heart of the book revolves around gingrich after some other conflicts with the democrats, in 1987 tip oneill has retired, and theres a new speaker in town, jim wright, who had been the majority leader. He was from texas. He was an old school democrat, and, you know, he was a liberal, and he believed he was defending against this reagan revolution,s that that the house was the last bastion of democratic politics. But wright was a good target for gingrich who wanted to focus on this theme that democrats were a corrupt establishment. That was his consistent theme. And wright had, there were stories about him in the press about questionable relations with people in the district, and wright sold this book that he published of his speeches and groups that he spoke to, and there were these big, odd stories or they didnt sit quite right. So gingrich uses all of these, and he whips washington up into a frenzy saying that jim wright is the most corrupt speaker ever in american history. It was really pretty small stories about misbehavior or questionable behavior. So thats the heart of the story. And then in 1988, this is another time that the Party Establishment sees the value of beginning gingrich. Whos running for president . George h. W. Bush, reagans vice president. And in may his opponent, mike dukakis the governor of massachusetts is attacking bush and saying that hes sleazy, that hes part of the Reagan Administration that had iran contra, ited had scandal after scandal and that bush was part of it. He a all called it the sleaze factor. So his campaign person was lee atwater. Lee atwater was putting together a pretty Vicious Campaign that played on racial backlash and is was very much a character assassination kind of campaign. And in may when bush is struggling in the polls, he picks up on this story, and he convinces bush to talk about jim wright all the time and to take this story that had really still been on the fringes and mainstream it into the campaign. So atwater saw politics just like gunning rich. It was a blood gingrich. It was a blood sport. Character assassination was totally fine, and it was about storytelling. Gingrich was a historian who understood what storytelling was about. Lee atwater was a professional athlete, and he he thought politics should be run accordingly. Absolutely. Jim wright looms large in this, and again, i think for people who dont follow the story, the thought in the lathe 80s the fought that there was a House Speaker who was a liberal texan, democrat, is going to seem inaccurate. Tell us more about jim wright and how he can came into this story. Yeah, yeah. Hes this texan, born in 1922, gingrich born in 1943, so hes older. Hes very much a democrat who is subscribed to what the new deal represented, pretty much onboard with the great society. He did have spotty moments on civil rights issues, votes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he believes its going to cost him his seat, later apolo apologetic about thd thought it was one of the great mistakes of his career. But by the 70s and 80s, hes pretty liberal. Hes a little hawkish on foreign policy, but he accepts most of what lyndon fdr through Lyndon Johnson had put together. So, yeah, its hard to imagine a Texas Democrat like that, but thats who he was. And he very much saw Ronald Reagan as a danger. And this is a counterpoint to some of the mythology of the 1980. He really, he thought reagan was pretty right wing and really was taking steps that were dangerous to the fabric of the country. And oversees seas he overseas he thought reagans support of the contras, for example, was really misguided and that there was opportunities to negotiate peace, that he actually pursued on his own that reagan didnt care about. He wasnt someone well liked personally. Even democrats didnt like him. He was cold, he was removed and that hurt him. And if he was old school, prewatergate politics meaning he didnt think about how some of the things he did might look in the eyes of the media ask in the eyes of and in the eyes of washington. He wasnt corrupting, but he operated in that area of gray that many politicians did which could be used against him and actually was. Now, of course the irony of Newt Gingrich of all people lobbing ethics charges at somebody is that gingrichs own life was, shall we say, riddled with some adult problems. Talk about that. How did gingrichs own character issues surface here . Yeah. He had lots of character issues and not only did he have them, they were public. They were written about in the media. So id say theres two streams of problems that by the time he goes after jim wright are known problems. One, his relationships. He had, for example, a pretty difficult divorce with his High School Math teach, and there was a story about it in mother jones in 1984 which was trying to capture what gingrich was like personally. And one of the stories that really caught peoples eye was that while his wife was in the hospital for cancer surgery, he came to discuss divorce with her. And in the article, actually kind of whipped out the papers which wasnt exactly true, although he did have these discussions in the hospital. And he also was known to be someone with a roving eye and who had an affair. And this was known in washington, and it mattered given he was part of this new conservative movement with the moral majority as its basement and he also had ethics problems. At the time he is going after speaker wright for the charge of unethically selling his books to make money, he himself is being charged with having raised must be from Interest Groups to promote a book that he wrote. And story actually in the papers at the climactic moments of this story where hes bringing wright down. But he doesnt care. I mean, its a remarkable part of his psychology. When these emerge, he bulldozes right through them and just says its different, not the same, and he keeps moving forward. Whereas you see with the democrats its much more damaging. Back to democratic character issues, i think one of the greatest gifts gingrich ever got was finally not having a republican president in office and being able to run against, basically, a democratic president in bill clinton. So how does gingrich make hay out of the early years of the Clinton Presidency . Well, thats a good, i think its a good connection with the two decades. In some ways jim wright comes first and bill clinton comes second. And, again, one of the most remarkable parts of the book, just to move backwards even, was to realize how consistent and strategic gingrich was in how he was going to attack the democrats. He really doesnt focus that much on liberal versus conservatives all the time, left versus right. What he really loves is in this postwatergate america when theres a lot of distrust in government and a lot of just anger in the electorate, he turns the watergate story against democrats. He makes them the establishment, and he keeps coming back to the scene because he thinks it will resonate. It will be his populist message. And wright is his first takedown. Wright becomes the embodiment of everything, in husband mind, of everything hes been saying since 1974. He draws a picture, creates a character and then brings him down. And i think fast forward after bill clinton is elected, he very much does or attempts to do is the same with bill clinton. He made bill clinton the embodiment not so much of a corrupt democratic establishment, he had moved on to a kind of morally corrupt establishment or a culturally too far left establishment. Whatever he wanted to focus on, i think he then tried to do the same. And im sure the experience with wright emboldened him to say we can move forward with an impeachment, and it might very well work. The big moment for gingrich was in 1994, right . So talk about how that Campaign Takes shape. Was it really a National Election . How big of a role does the contract with america play . How did gingrich spin that [inaudible] yeah, no, it is an important election, and one of the things that gingrich does is he nationalizes the Midterm Campaign very effectively, and he uses the things he learned in the 80s about why the media is useful to husband advantage to his advantage. So the most famous element of that campaign for everyone who remembers it or studied it as a contract with america which is really something of a media gimmick. It was a set of promises that republicans were making, that if they won, they would then enact them. That was their first hundred days, so to speak, as a legislative body. Its published as a tearout sheet in readers guide meant to be put on peoples refrigerators. He has a rally on the steps of the capitol with other republicans to talk about the contract with america. So stylistically you see him continuing to put together this conservative politics with a very mediacentric form of politics with a politics that placed great weight on the stories republicans were going to tell about their opponents, the language they were going to use. And its successful. And when republicans take over in 94, its a big deal this washington. In washington. It is the First Time Since 1954 when eisenhower is in office that democrats control both chambers of republicans control both chambers of congress. And its almost the second step of the reagan revolution in their minds. And for conservatives, its a big moment. And finally thats when gingrich can do, bring all the little jewels and all the strategies and all the reto have can call weapons he had been rhetorical weapons he had been working on since the 80s into the very top places of political power as speaker of the house. You mentioned language in the 1994 campaign, and that, of course, is one of the really important things, i think, as we talk about. Talk a bit about [inaudible] memo, a key mechanism of control. How does that influence not just 1994, but the Republican Party going forward. Thats really, its a fascinating memo to see, and i think you can still google it if you want to look at it yourself. Before that memo comes out in 1990. Gingrichs language through the 80s had been pretty remarkable. He called democrats the loony left, he, you know, basically accused them of unpatriotic behavior. Jim wright was furious. He said later in life he made me a criminal. He didnt say id done shady things, he basically presented me as someone who should go to jail. And he really believed in using blistering language. I mean, he wanted to shape how people saw the democrats in a particular way, and he knew by using language like that, the media could not resist covering what he had to say. He used to say that the media liked more Indiana Jones than philharmonic. And i think he really believed that, and words were the way he gave them Indiana Jones. He gave them the adventure and the thrill. So this memo comes occupant in 1990, gave control of something called go pac which he took over in 1984. It was a defunct Political Action committee, essentially, and he rebuilt it ask used it to distribute audiocassettes to republicans teaching them what to do and memos. And this memo in 1990, or it was written and it said to republican candidates if you want to speak like newt, these are the kinds of words you need to use when talking about democrats. And its a list of words like sick, traitor, you know, slime, radical. Really words that even today you kind of step back. But it was very important. And i think through gingrich and through his use of those words not as a bombthrower politically, but as a leader, it legitimated this form of talking about your opponents. And just look at a certain twitter feed, and youll see he won out, and his style still resonates. So gingrich legitimizes that language. He also legitimizes, george h. W. Bush had as well, people like rush limbaugh. Gingrichs manipulations of media [inaudible] in the 90s when limbaugh is at his peak [inaudible] whats gingrichs relationship with this new conservative media . Very close. And so he, the wright scandals taking place when conservative talk radio is flourishing in 87, 88, 89 after the fairness doctrine is dismantled. And gingrich relies on what hosts are saying about people like jim wright. Theyre very tough on wright, and they amplify his message. Its an effort to raise congressional salaries in 1989, and so jim wright is in the mid of this, and muddle of this, and conservative talk radio has a revolt. They call it a tea party revolt, by the way. And all over hosts are lashing out, and it helps gingrich in this cause. And gingrich in those years very tied in to conservative talk radio. He had, in the 80s, guest hosted on a local d. C. Radio show called confrontation which was the origins of crossfire on cnn. But then as a speaker, hes very close to people like rush. Hillly they coordinate literally, they coordinate messages for the day. He depends on conservative talk radio and then fox at the tail end of his speakership, especially in 1998 during his battle against bill clinton. But whats interesting is he comes first. I say we often think as the conservative media that the origins of this very smashmouth form of rhetoric. But, in fact, i think roger ailes and some of the founders were already looking at what republicans had done before they came on the scene and mimicked some of them, they mimicked that memo in how they broadcast the news. Talk a little bit about what happens with clintons impeachment, which i think everyone sees as kind of, you know, hes finally caught the whale. And the way [inaudible] on ahab. Probably gingrichs own downfall. Well, its a shakespearean story, i guess, at some level in this that here he is the speaker, here he is bringing together all these tactics, and now he has a cohort of republicans much greater than that congressional opportunity, the conservative opportunity society. The its now the majority behind him, and he thinks he has the president. He goes after him, we know what the impeachment is about, it stems from the affair that the president had with Monica Lewinsky and then when he perjures himself thinking about it. But in the end, it will bring him down rather than bill clinton. At one level a lot of the politics and the battles explosioned that exposed that gingrich wasnt a particularly likable person. But more importantly, in 1998 in the midterms, right in the middle of the impeachment, republicans a lot of republicans are unhappy with gingrich because of this. And just as important he is yet in another romance, another affair as the republicans are going after bill clinton for the same sort of issue. So the republicans get rid of him. So on the one hand, its his downfall. On the other hand, its kind of fitting because he was the one that showed that leaders were not going to have their power very long and that leaders could be brought down. So it was almost predictable that at some point hed have the same fate. So where does he stand in the range of speakers . We talk about oneill, wright, gingrich, the ones that have come after him, where do you rank if you all wanted to rank them, what to you rank Newt Gingrich in, say, the postworld war ii speakers . This. In that particular position, hes not one of the most influential speakers. I think, certainly, if you compare him with democrats like sam rayburn who was the speaker for much of the late new deal for the early 1960s, he was much more consequential in terms of legislation and in terms of some of the big debates of the period. You could argue nancy pelosi also has been more consequential. You could argue in some ways john boehner in transforming the nature of the caucus was pretty important in checking what obama was doing. I dont think that was husband high point. His high point. I really think the period before becoming speaker in some ways is when gingrichs legacy set. He already had transformed the party before he becomes speaker. Hes already popularized, legitimated this new form of republican partisanship. And speaker is kind of the icing on the cake of what he had already done. Expect most important part of the speakership is he institutionalizes all these ideas, and he legitimates them. I mean, his being speaker is is in itself what would put him at a high place in terms of the ranking because it signaled there was a new Republican Party in town, and gingrich was the voice, he was the new establishment itself. So more for that would i say he was very consequential than the legislative battle he fought with clinton. One last question and then well open it up to the q a. So if you have a question, please type it in, and ill ask julian for you. And this may preempt some of the early questions, but its one i i know youre going to get and is on everyones mind. Whats gingrichs connection to the Republican Party and the Trump Administration today . His wife is the ambassador, third wife is the ambassador to the vatican. He is certainly kind of a surrogate for trump on fox news and conservative radio. How much of a connection do you see between them . Is he glomming onto a movement he has nothing to do with, or is this really the result of what he did . No, i think the latter. I do think just a broad level President Trump has found room in this Republican Party because its the gingrich party. So i think a lot of the way trump approaches his politics, a lot of the verial verbal kind of record that we have seen from this president , his willingness to just totally break institutions and break procedures and use things that were normal in pretty aggressively alabama normal ways, that all comes from the logic of a party that gingrich helped to build. So at that level theres a lot of connection between them. And even this whole the mat you can focus, constantly you hear from the president on an establishment thats out against conservatives and against him is something that gingrich really centered his relate rubbing on. But then theres personal connections such as his wife. Gingrich was one of the final possible selections for vice president. I start the book with that story where hes being considered, hes in indiana meeting with all the top trump people, family members and advisers, and in the end gingrich goes on Fox Television while hes still being considered and tells sean hannity in an interview, he says i dont know if im going to get picked because he says im a pirate, President Trumps a pirate and two pirates on a ticket might be too much. And he almost says too much, which is gingrich, thats not in his own interest to say. And then so theres that connection. Kellyanne conway, this i didnt know, was one of gingrichs top add a visors when he advisers when he ran for president in 2012. She tried to sell gingrich in the same theme of messages as trump, but gingrich is actually harder to contain if to stay disciplined than trump turned out to be. More than donald trump, thats amazing. Right. And as you said, he is on Fox Television all the time speaking in favor of the president and trying to articulate why this presidencys important. Hes written, i think, five books now about trump and about understanding trump, about why trumps america is great for the nation and now a book about why his reelection is so important to our future. He just was praising the monument speech on fox, as really a milestone speech in the countrys history. So the two are very, very close, and im not surprised, but im hoping itll explain why this connection is so tight. Awesome. Lets go to the questions. Weve got a bunch rolling in, both in the chat and in the q a, so ill read them off. Our first one, dean has a question. Is it safe to say roger ailes drew much from gingrichs [inaudible] or does that give gingrich too much credit . No, it doesnt. Thats a very clear argument. Roger ailes is a republican consultant in the 1980s before he does folk, so hes watching very closely, hes verying cognizant of the kind of politics thats working for beginning are rich. Hes there throughout everything i write about, and i think this is very much on his mind. I mean, ailes was interested both in producing information that would help the gop but also producing conservative information that would attract viewers. I mean, this was important to him. And what he understood was the kind of language he had seen from gunning rich and his allies was functional. So i dont think thats a stretch at all. And, again, its interesting the sequence, because the politicians come first, and the media came second. And now they were together in the current period. Our next question comes from actually two different people asking basically the same question, patty barnes and steve asking to compare and contrast gingrichs policies to mc. Connells poll mcconnells politics. Whats their relationship like . Are they on the same page . Their personal relationship i dont know much about, but in terms of how mcconnell practices both when he was minority and majority leader, i think its very gingrichlike meaning the basic premise of gingrich partisanship is that partisanship takes precedence over everything, over everything. And this was a big step. I know it today sounds obvious, but the idea of putting aside the concerns of governance and putting aside the concerns over whether our institutions will work, that was a big deal to do. And i think mcconnell, if you want to understand anything about mcconnell, he thinks about partisan power foremost all the time, and people are always surprised at what he does. Whether its not allowing a Supreme Court nominee to even meet with senators as we saw during the Obama Presidency or using government shutdowns simply as tools for the gop. Thats right out of the gingrich playbook. I mean, that is the logic of what gingrich was saying. I think mcconnells a perfect example not with the rhetoric. Hes quiet, doesnt like to be the person blasting the words on the floor. But in terms of the procedure, this is the kind of stuff gingrich was calling for. Right. On the flip side, were there any democratic members who had a good strategy to combat gingrich . If so, what was it . Well, thats an important question. My books as much about democrats as gingrich. And one of the interesting elements of the book is that a lot of democrats in the 80s didnt really see where this was all going, including jim wright. He didnt totally understand what gingrich was up to, how far hed go. When gingrich was lobbing rhetorical bombs at him saying hes the most corrupt person ever, wright would answer with technical, legal explanations, what he did didnt violate any laws, and he just didnt understand reporters liked hearing gingrich saying most corrupt ever. And finally its a kind of climactic moment of the wright story. He didnt have to resign, but what happens is Many Democrats are scared, and they basically start to pressure him privately to step down, and they start to tell the media maybe he should go. And that was the strategy they thought would work, wright thought it would work, and it didnt work because the whole point was the republicans werent going to stop when this was done, and thaw kept going. There were a few democrats who urged their party to be tougher. There were, there was one democrat, Bill Alexander and [inaudible] and they wrote an oped at the high point of this scandal saying we have to hit back. We have to tell the public what gingrich is about. We dont have to have speaker wright resign, we have to really fight fire with fire. So the party i dont think they were willing to do that en masse, and i think thats part of the challenge they a faced ever since. Okay. That leads into a another question by chris martin here. Is it likely the Democratic Party will have a speaker like gingrich or a majority leader like mcconnell in the near future . At some level, no, because i think the parties are different. And people often ask me why you have republicans and why is the party, why are they so much fiercer in what theyre willing to do. And i think theres an answer that goes to what the parties are about. Not a moral answer. Meaning democrats believe in government. Governments essential to their platform, to their policy policies, to their whole world view. So a partisanship thats so fierce, it undermines the ability of government to work, it undermines the ability of politicians to craft policies, that doesnt work well for democrats. Theyre always going to be checked by that fear of destroying whats so important to them. Republicans have at least presented themselves as an antigovernment party. In general theyre much more comfortable with a government thats not growing and even disfunctional because it fits in an antigovernment i ethos. And dysfunctional government makes sense, thats what theyre saying it always is. So i think republicans and future republicans are much more willing to go there and to take those risks because theyre not dependent on washington working. I mean, we see that right now in the middle of this pandemic. So therell probably be look, i do think you can still be a tough partisan. Being a tough partisan doesnt mean being a destructive partisan, and i imagine younger democrats both the aoc types and even some of the tate hunter types from 2018 they have now come of age watching this new Republican Party. So i do think therell be more inclined to be tougher, to use the media more effectively. But they will never go to the same place, think the parties are just imbalanced that way. Well, that leads into another question weve got here from anonymous attendee, but its a good question. The book is about gunning retch the gunning rich the person, the politician, but can we speak to some of the structural factors that aided his run . Yeah. Theres lots of structural factors. For example, republicans are doing well in the 1980s, theyre starting to gain steam on capitol hill because a lot of the corporate world has set up shop in washington during the 1970s, and theyre starting to redirect Campaign Funds to the gop which is much more sympathetic to what they were looking for, to deregulation, supplyside tax cuts. And that money is very important to the Republican Party. The democrats are not pristine. I mean, one of the arguments in my book is because they dont go far enough in the 70s in responding to watergate, the Democratic Party is structurally filled with problems. I mean, they too are taking a lot of money. They do have relationship with lobbyists, and thats what gingrich exploits. And you can almost pick any number and say, well, within this system, this person must be wholly corrupt. And that also stems from a structural problem. And since then, since his rise to power and in the years that followed, theres orr key structural elements other key structural elements such as the perfection of jerry mapperring combined with a Huge National investment by the gop and state politics to make sure that states like in 2010 were able the really craft districts that would solidify, you know, republicans for the foreseeable future. So structural issues matter, but i did want to tell a story that focused on people and turning points. It was important to me. I mean, i spend a lot of my time talking about the big factors behind partisanship, how the media changes. We did this in our book. How parties realign, all of which are crucial but its also about individual leaders who push politics in a certain direction. Its about moments when jim wright a fews from power, that legitimates this new style of politics which might not have been legitimate if the story turned out differently. Thats why i wanted to tell this in a more human way and really hone in on the santorums who mattered at this appointment moment. Speaking of partisanship, we have a question here, could too much partisanship eventually break both parties . Sure. Of course. I mean, partisanship unrestrained is dangerous thing. Some partisanships good, its clearly good to have cohereunder ideas. I think a lot of people want parties to stand for something rather than just a muddle of watereddown ideas. But if partisanship is always the priority e and if both parties go fully in that direction, they really double down, if the democrats finally say everythings eligible, so be it, were going home, all out. Youll just destroy the ability of the institution to work. Any semblance we have now of policy making in the muddle of the pack demick pandemic, that will be gone. All you have is totally manipulate sized responses to every crisis we face whether its big crises like pandemic and criminal Justice Reform or small crises like just passing a budget so that the government could actually paw for what it said they were going to pay for. Ands that is destructive. I dont believe theres no cost to allout partisanship. Theres a great question here from vanessa valdez. Who do you think republicans are grooming to become the next gingrich . It sounds like Tucker Carlsons going to run for president , so maybe thats your answer. There are figures like ted cruz who still remains even though theyve been somewhat isolated big voices in the party, kind of cleanedup versions of what donald trump is triedinged to do. Trying to do. But with a little more gravitas. So i think those are still some of the figures i look to. But i dont know, if this continues, i think they are also looking outside traditional politics for the people who are the future. And i say Tucker Carlson kind of as a joke. But our president really came out of the Reality Television world, and i wouldnt be surprised if some of these outlets are also grounding where theyre trying to find new voices for the party and then, you know, there are younger members like tim scott who, im sure, some republicans are looking for new voices who dont simply replicate kind of everything that has been done. But then theres also, and i know im giving a lot of answers, but tom cotton who, like cruz, are just, theyre trumpian. They just do it in a more polished way. And right now i think those are the voices that are being groomed, although im sure the party is going to look broadly. We have time for one more, im going to glom on my own question to the end of it because i know the answer to this. Did you interview Newt Gingrich yourself . And my question is are you bracing for Newt Gingrichs response to the book . So on the first question, i didnt. I tried many times, and each time i had a meeting it was through his secretary, postponed or canceled. And so after several years i finally gave up. I did have lunch with him many years ago when he was at princeton but before i was writing this book with a group of people. But, i dont think, more porn, i did get his lawyer grant me access to his professional archives which for historians still the heart and soul of what we do. And his papers were unbelievable. They are, they are the best professional papers ive ever used. They have strategy memos, they have handwritten notes from him, they have communication within the party that is the kind of material i usually am searching for and dont find, and it was all there in front of me. Finish so i didnt get to speak with him about the book, but i actually got firsthand all the documentation from the period. I met with jim wright. His archives were very good as well. I dont know, i mean, i write about people who are awe live, and so i understand that theyll have different interpretations, and im sure, i can suspect what his view is. I mean, i think at some level he wont disagree we what i wrote, but he will think he did the right thing. And im sure he said this at the time, he believes jim wright was corrupt, and he will hold to that argument. Im not surprising myself, but im certainly curious about how and if he responds, although right now hes very focused on 220 and his book. I have no doubt youll hear from him in time. I want to thank everyone for coming out. Again, the book is terrific, burning down the house. It is not actually a collection of julian reciting talking head stories, its about Newt Gingrich, but its a great title, a great book. Andrea put a link for it, lets try to buy it from the strand. Its in the chat room there. You can get it, and ill turn it back over to andrea. Thank you all for coming out, and thank you, julian. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So much information in an hour, i love it. Julian, do you have any final i know youre just beginning to start sharing your book, it was just published. Is there anything youd like to send out before we sign off . Just thank you to the strand and thanks to kevin and thanks to you, andrea, and everyone who put it together. And obviously, thanks every book, you write a book, has a team behind it. I have a great team of ed editors and publicists and, obviously, thank you to my family which has been instrumental in allowing me and helping me do this. Perfectly said. Yeah, thank you again so much for this evening. Its been really wonderful. Thankthank you everyone watching either here to or on facebook. Youve been really participatory and its been really fun. So thank you for that. I just bush you all are a great evening. Thank you, you too. Take cower, everybody. Here are some of the current best selling nonfiction books according to the new york times. Tops the list topping the list, sean hannity argues that a Democratic Victory in 2020 will lead to economic strife in live free or dad. After that in too much and never enough, President Trumps niece mary trump takes a critical look at the president and husband family. His family. Then author Isabel Wilkerson explores what she calls a hidden casteverything system in the United States. That caste system. Finding freedom, on the significance of prince harry and Meghan Markles marriage. And wrapping up our look is how to be an antiracist in which its argued america must choose to be antiracist and work towards building a more equitable society. Most of these authors have appeared on booktv, and you can watch them on line at booktv. Org. During an Author Program host9 by haymarket books, City University of new york professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore offered her thoughts on ending mass incarceration in the u. S. Heres a portion of her talk. In Los Angeles County decades ago, the aclu brought a conditions of confinement case against the county for the horrendous conditions in the jails. Over the years the aclu was in in charge of keeping an eye on what the county did to remedy the horrific conditions. About 18 years ago, the aclu invited a few abolitionists to come and talk to them about something they had never imagined which was perhaps the way to remedy the problem with the l. A. County jails was not to have a jail at all rather than to build a better jail. Showily but surely slowly but surely, this way of understanding became central to the struggle in the Los Angeles County over those jails. Sixteen years later, abolitionists who joined forces with the forces of reform managed to persuade the Los Angeles County board of supervisors one of the biggest governments by number of people in the United States not to build new jails; but, rather, to put the billions of dollars that would have gone into that into housing, health care and other lifeaffirming projects. So ab lugsist abolition is how we connect with form, grow from and mull ply organize multiply organizations that have the capacity to lift the movement. I learned many years ago that our mean work we who are talking heads on skype our main work is to lift the movement. Not to lead it, to lift it. To lift it by showing how antidomestic violence people are central to the formation of abolition. As a movement. That mutual aid organizations which are now flourishing everywhere because of the emergency of covid19, that unions, food, health care, nurses, building trades, all of these organizations is have become in one way or another connected with the movement and the direction of abolition because abolition is about awe bollishing the conditions abolishing the conditions under which prison became the solution to problems rather than abolishing the building we call prison. To watch the rest of this program, visit our web site, booktv. Org, and search Ruth Wilson Gilmore. Heres a look at some Publishing Industry news. Michael cohen, former personal attorney for President Trump, announced he will release a memoir about his relationship with the president. The book titled disallow e yall will be released on september 8th with an initial print run of 500,000 copies. Investigative Journalist Bob Woodward has released some specifics about his forthcoming book about the president. The book that publishes on september 15th are will be entitled rage and will include details about President Trumps, quote, Early National security decisions and operations as well as personal correspondences between the president and north Korean Leader kim jong un. President trump has discuss missed the book as, quote with, fake. In other news, in recognition of the 25th anniversary of britains womens prize for fiction, 25 books written by women under male pseudonyms will be released for the first time under their real names. The list are includes middle march written by Mary Ann Evans under the pen name george elliot, the ebook versions of all the books on the list will be available for free download. Also in the news, npd book scan reports that print book sales were up nearly 25 for the week ending august 8th. Adult nonfiction sales saw another positive week, up 23 and were led by Sean Hannitys latest book, live free or die. And yet another upcoming book festival has decided to go virtual. The Los Angeles Times festival of books original hi scheduled for april originally scheduled for april and then rescheduled for the fall will take place online starting october 18th. Booktv will continue to bring you new programs and publishing news. You can also watch all of our archived programs anytime at booktv. Org