Im interim director of the galvin in journalism ethics and democracy. And im excited to welcome you all to the 2023 red smith lecture. Its great. See everybody here tonight. I want to start by thanking our speaker Carlos Lozada and, the Notre Dame Institute for advanced study, which is the reason why this event is possible tonight. Carlos is here this year as a faculty fellow and they very generously made this event possible as part of his very busy schedule. So very grateful for that. So that the lecture tonight had a timely element. This morning when i woke up this morning, there was a notification, my phone from the New York Times that said Carlos Lozada latest. And so i dont normally click through the notifications but i went to that one right away and the headline said this is his new column just today in the New York Times i the mueller ukraine and jan six reports as though they were one long book that didnt have to say so. You dont have to. So Carlos Lozada has been doing reading on our behalf since 2015, when he became Nonfiction Book critic for the Washington Post. That was right around the time that Donald Trumps first president ial campaign started when carlos the New York Times last year, the paper celebrated his arrival by saying he had revolutionized the form of Nonfiction Book criticism, bringing ambition, rigor and brilliant writing to his consideration. The ideas, arguments, dynamic mix and politics that animates societies and shape human condition. A few years before that, the Pulitzer Prize committee lauded much the same characteristics they presented him with journalisms highest. Much of his work up to and including todays column has necessarily focused donald trump and all volumes written about him and his presidency. Carlos even wrote his own book about all the trump books. Its called what we were thinking and youre invited to pick up a copy afterwards tonight. And he will be there to sign copies as well. Among the things that make his approach so revolutionary are that he doesnt read and review only books as todays column showed. He also reads government reports Supreme Court decisions, and he also treats them all not as standard works, but in conversation with each other, providing his readers a more complete picture of our time and the public figures who shape it Carlos Lozada his career is a testament to the value of deep and wide reading. Sometimes a mind numbing amount of reading as todays column also showed, and putting his own assumptions to the test by engaging in good with the full spectrum of ideas and points of view before drawing his own conclusions. So thats a great example, not only for journalists, but also for all of us citizens. And were fortunate be able to learn from him tonight. So join me in welcoming our 2023 red smiths lecture Carlos Lozada. I want to just play that on repeat and i that was a thank you, jason. It is an to be back in notre dame to deliver the 2023 read smith lecture thank you to the Gallivan Program for inviting me here tonight to the Notre Dame Institute for advanced study for hosting me this week. Any notre graduate who dares enter journalism is laboring under the legacy and the shadow and the exquisite or choices of red smith. And when i look back on the luminaries of my profession who have given this lecture over the decades, starting Scotty Reston 40 years ago. I feel that same combination of exhilaration, insecurity that i often felt in class at notre dame, i was not active in student journalism at notre dame. I not even thought of journalism as a career option for me, but it was a professor here who told me that i might have some ability to write and it here that i first began to truly read with a purpose and and thats what i want to talk about when i talk about reading and writing. Thats the sort of journalism that i do. I dont cover wars. I dont interview politicians, i dont dig up classified documents or meet, you know, sources and parking garages in arlington, virginia ive edited great teams of reporters, but ive never been a reporter myself. Instead, i read i read histories and memoirs and manifestos. I read, you know, centuries old and decades old, Commission Reports and Supreme Court decisions and congressional investigations. I read many books about politics, and i have to i read many books by polity since i read tell us by former white house aides. I read those Campaign Biographies that every politician writes when they, you know, aspire to high office. And then i read, you know, revisionist memoir. They write when they leave office trying to justify that they did. I read books by president s and Vice President s and senators and fbi director and chiefs of staff. Theres lots of books by chiefs of staff the way because everyone in washington either to be a chief of staff or have a chief of staff. I spent a decade or so doing this first as a book critic for the post and now as a columnist for, the New York Times. And sometimes when hear that ive spent all these years a book critic reading political rather than, you know, discovering the next Great American novel, right . I get a few recurring reactions. Theres Something Like this, wow you read that book so we dont have to. Aw, man, you really took one for the team there. You know, ive also gotten better. You than me, and that was from a fellow critic who couldnt believe the book i had reviewed for the Washington Post. Now, why do i get those responses . I get those responses. These books are generally assumed to be bad, right theyre selfserving, theyre ghostwritten theyre propaganda. Write the book by politicians. Why should you believe them . And reading them is thought to be bore and a chore. In fact, when i wrote my own book about the books of the trump presidency, i read about 150 political books about about that period when the New York Times reviewed my book, they fortunately give it a very nice review. They liked it, but even the reviewers felt compelled to that. My reading all those other books was, quote, an act, transcendent masochism, transcendent. So so thats what thats what even the times thinks about reading political books. Some people say this book shouldnt exist the Washington Post, my former employer published an op ed a few weeks ago titled does anyone actually read president ial Campaign Books . The question totally rhetorical, of course, because columnist said that these books were ranged from mediocre, spectacularly bad, and that no one should buy them, let alone them a years ago, the political pundit Chris Matthews wrote a piece admitting that a lot of washingtonians even dont really read these books. I mean, they have them on their but but they dont they dont actually read them instead they give this these books what he calls the washington read there are a few versions of the washington read right. One is to actually read the book right from beginning to end, like most humans. But why would you do that when can just go through the book . Right. Which means skim it and hopefully absorb some of that way. Another option is to read the opening and then pretend youve read the full book. And if were a real washington power player, you start in the back with the index, you look for your own name, you go to those pages, see how well youre treated, and depending on that, you may or may not continue reading the book. About a decade ago, the journalist leibovich wrote a really insider read dc Washington Book called this town and. He purposely published it without an index because wanted to force people to at least go through the book to find their names, to see they were treated. So i was an editor at post at the time and i tasked all interns to like, you know, divide up the book. You know the chapters and construct an index. We then published online with all the boldface names. Now i heard that the author not pleased. So yes, of course there are some real duds among political books. Right. But thats the case with any any genre of of of fiction or nonfiction i im here to make the case for the Washington Book believe in the washington. And i think that the relentlessly negative perception of washington misses the point completely of reading them. First, this disdain for Washington Books pretty hypocritical after all, even those very serious readers would never pick up, you know, memoir by trump. Second secretary of state or his third press secretary. They still want to know whats in those books, right . They want to know who these people criticize, who they suck up to, what scores they settle. When people ask me about these books, they dont say it good. They say, whats the news right. Theyre giving it the washington read. Worse yet, they want me to do the washington beat for them. I also they love nothing than seeing someone like me give a really harsh takedown of a book by a politician. They hate or to you bestow rapturous praise upon the book of a politician they admire. These books only matter them as sources of political ammunition. They rarely come to them with an open mind. But heres the real reason to read these books. And that is that no matter how carefully the politicians sanitize experiences and their positions and their no matter how diligently they present themselves in the best and the safest, the most electable light, they almost always end up revealing themselves in. These books, whether they to or not. They tell us who they really are. They can help it. Politicians love talking about themselves and eventually in these books they will share something, Say Something, or do something that is or enlightening or. Surprising something that helps us understand in a new way. They on themselves and when they tell them themselves, they often end up telling us Something Else about the state of our politics or the state of our civic life. Its rarely the sort of sexy, newsy material that is most revelatory. It might be a throwaway line here, a recurring phrase that they always use maybe something they randomly said to a low level aide who then wrote about it in their book book. Its sometimes the acknowledgment sections of these books. Its somewhere in there. And that means even these supposedly bad books can be enormously enlightening and illuminate and therefore exciting to read. Despite themselves. You dont need to do the washington read except to know how to read the Washington Book. Now ill start with the books by a politician who probably could have made his living as a writer. In fact, now he kind of does make his living as a writer. And thats barack obama, his 1995 memoir, dreams from my father is in my a wonderful written book and so much so that i think all the subsequent books kind of suffer and of obamas books have been vastly overanalyzed and discussed length, including by me. And so i just want to focus on a few specific lines. Theres a moment in dreams for my father when obama, in his early postcollege years, talks his aspirations for Community Organizing in chicago and he writes, because this community imagined was still in the making, built on the promise that the larger american community, black and brown, could somehow redefine. I believe that it might over time admit the uniqueness of my life. Hes writing about the challenge of fitting in in america and how america might change so that he who combines like hawaii and kansas, kenya and indonesia and chicago, you know, could feel a greater sense of belonging right now. You might about that line until you reread or rewatch his. Famous 2004 keynoted dress at the democratic invention in boston, where he held the promise of an america that not, you know, red or blue but united. And when he said that in no other country on earth is my even possible. All right. So now is less about fitting in than about embracing an america that made his life a reality. Right . Its a celebratory line and a celebratory speech. You might forget about that line into. Your read his 2006 campaign book, the audacity of hope, where obama writes that as a black man in america with what he calls mixed heritage, sometimes he feels like, quote, a prisoner. My own biography. So now obamas view of his life story changed again. Its not celebratory. Its confining. When i think about these three disparate lines in these three disparate texts, i start to understand why obama throughout, his presidency, constantly defaulted to discussing his own life as a symbol, a symbol of national aspiration, a symbol of national selfimprovement, a symbol of a nations unfulfilled promise. It was there, in his own words, before he ever got to the oval office. Now, if you happen, read the memoir by reggie love, who was obamas personal aide, his man during that eight campaign and during his first term. Youll see how obama tries to sort of refine Public Perceptions of his story. Reggie love recalls the timing. Obamas briefcase when were getting on a flight to go to a primary debate. And i mean, thats a big no no for the man. And so was going was get fired. But obama forgave and it was just a nice of little anecdote. But reggie love mentions one thing that obama said to him about why he was so kind of annoyed at the missing bag. Obama liked to be seen carrying things off the plane, he said to reggie, jfk carried his own bags. Now that one moment, that one little line, jfk carried his own bags is the thing i will ever remember from reading reggie loves memoir. But it says so much about how carefully obama cultivated, his selfimage, how wanted people to think about him in his story how maybe he thought about it himself. Youd never know that unless you were there, which i gather none of us, you know, had the chance to be there or unless you read. Reggie memoir. Now some politicians are a little less subtle when they when tell them themselves. When donald trump launched his 2016 his his campaign for the presidency in 2015. I decided read his various books or at least sampling of them. If read along with me, if you read the art of the deal and at the top and the art of the comeback and so many more. You would not have surprised by his presidency. You wouldve been shocked, but you would not have been that surprised. Heres what i wrote in july of 2015, and i, for the sort of selfreferential nature. Sitting down with the collected of donald j. Trump is unlike any literary experience ive ever had. Over the course of 2212 pages, i encountered. A world where bragging is breathing and insulting is talking, where repetition and contradiction come standard. Where vengefulness and insecurity erupt at random. Elsewhere such qualities might get in the way of the story. With trump, they are the story. Now, im not myself for like seeing it all coming. You know, i didnt i didnt think he would win. But i did read the books. And even though theyre not particularly truthful, even the ghostwriter of the art of the deal has disowned it in public now. You know, these books still reveal trump. For all his unpredictability hes nothing if not consistent. Trump wrote another book published another book in 2004 called how to get rich, which i also read. And there he drops one sort of bizarre passage that i think says a lot about him. Weirdly, its about his hair. The reason my looks so neat all the time is because i dont have to deal with elements. I live in building where i work. I take an elevator from my bedroom to my. The rest of the time, either my stretch limousine, my private jet, my helicopter, or my private club in, palm beach. If i happen to be outside, im probably one of my golf courses where i protect my hair from overexposure. Wearing a golf hat. Now, what does that passage tell us . Aside Donald Trumps sort of vanity about his main, they say that the white puts president s in a bubble. But judging from that passage, donald lived in the bubble of his own making long before he ever got to washington. And those words, trump reveals his his and very deliberately constructed isolation. And its the kind of isolation lets you spin and believe whatever story create about yourself. Sometimes a book reveals the central tension of, a politicians ambitions. And here im thinking of Hillary Clintons 1996 manifesto. It takes a village. In this book, which is published right in the middle of her eight year tenure as as first lady, you see to Hillary Clintons doing battle with each other. She combines very progressive tendencies, big social policy issues such as health care with surprising moderate or even conservative views on on cultural and family issues. This was a time, remember, when bill clinton was declaring the area era of Big Government to be over. And you see Hillary Clinton tracing her own line through the center in the book declares that she says, let us stop stereotype government or individuals as absolute or absolute saviors and recognize each must be part of the solution. She even writes that, quote of us would describe ourselves as middle of the road liberal some areas conservative, conservative in others, moderate in most. This was a tension clinton never seemed to fully resolve. Some of you may remember the 2016 democratic primary in a debate with bernie sanders, Anderson Cooper asked her so, are you a progressive or a moderate . Right. And what was her answer . Im a progressive, but a progressive likes to get things done right. There are many reasons Hillary Clinton did not become president of the united states, which some of which have nothing to do with their values or her qualifications. But that combination of and expediency of this kind of semi reluctance, perhaps the weight of unreasonable expectations, they help explain why she was always perceived as being too cautious and centrist for the left and is being too much of a Big Government progressive for the right. If you want to see that tension in her own words, you just have to read. It takes a village now, sometimes these books are notable not for the words that politicians write, but for the ones they omit. In his recent memoir, help me god, mike pence covers his life, his political career, especially his time in the trump white house. Now, i feel compelled to note for this particular audience that there are two notre dame references in. So help me god. First, it turns out that mike pence listened to the soundtrack of rudy to psych himself up when he was writing his 2016 Republican Convention speech. I guess its inspiring. Heres a second thing. Mike pence, the former governor, indiana, commits the mortal sin of referring to this school as notre dame university. I know i. Know who, mike now . His book covers the drama of january six when pence stood his ground as the presiding of the senate and did not attempt to decertify the results of the election. And if you saw any of his book tour appearances, you saw how pence has been creating distance himself and trump maybe with an eye 2024. Yet when describes the events of that day of january six, a day when rioters calling for his hanging, a day when trump did very little to protect him and still runs interference for trump in his book still minimizes his transgressions in book, pence quotes trumps video message that afternoon of january six. The video in which the president called on the rioters to the capitol. And heres how pence quotes trumps message i know your pain. I know youre hurt. Dot, dot, dot. But you have to home now. We have to have peace. Right . Trump did say that. Thats accurate. But its not all said. I was wondering what pence cut out when he put in that ellipses. So i went to the video and i watched. Heres what trump said in the middle of that passage. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election. And everyone knows it, especially the other. Then he goes on to say, but you have to go home. We have to have peace. Right. So even telling his supporters to stand down, he was still affirming the lie about the election. And in his memoir, which is written for pence, is still covering for him right. So much of pences vice presidency captured in those three little dots. When youre reading a Washington Book, its useful to look out for what they omit. Yes. Also, the recurring go to lines, the rhetorical crutches that politicians use in a 2019 memoir, the truths hold. These titles are all wretched, by the way. Kamala harris repeatedly brings up the idea of false choices. For instance, she writes, quote, it is a false choice that you must either be for the police or for police accountability. I am for both. And she recalls a town hall meeting in sacramento where a constituent complains that she cares more about undocumented immigrants than about american citizens. And she said that was another false choice. I care deeply about both now. Its very thoughtful, sage, to say that, you know, you dont believe false choices, but politics is in all about making difficult choices, about picking among priorities. Harriss eagerness to sort of stay on to side of a difficult question is captured in that use of false which she has continued use as as Vice President. And i think that may Say Something about how shes had difficulty carving out a very distinctive role as Vice President. Her memoir helps me understand that she rejects zero sum choices so she says they arent real right now. Speaking of zero sum choices when joe biden had to pick a Vice President ial nominee, it was reported the two finalists were Kamala Harris and susan rice, who used to be president Obamas National Security adviser. I had harriss ready and. I had susan rices book ready, and i promised my editor that as soon as he picked one, i would read the book really quickly and a piece about it right away. Susan rice memoir was 544 pages as Kamala Harriss memoir was 336 pages. So i have to confess, on that day. I was seriously rooting for Kamala Harris to get the job, and she did. Now, as i mentioned, when youre reading the Washington Book, you always always, always read the acknowledgments section. That is, politicians, their debts they engage in back, sometimes snubbing sucking up in snubbing department. Mike pence does not mention his boss, donald trump, in the acknowledgments his white house memoir. And i think maybe thats a little sign that hes trying to kind of show he is his own man. But my favorite acknowledgments moment in a political book is in florida. Senator marco rubios memoir american dreams. Another another sort of lousy title, which he published in 2015. Now, the first person that rubio thinks by name in the acknowledgments of his book is, is is a big deal. And many of you hear it in early in particular will recognize the name. He says, i think my lord jesus christ, whose willingness to suffer and die for my sins will allow me to enjoy eternal. Its a wonderful sentiment. A person of faith. Whos the second person . Marco rubio. Thanks my very wise lawyer. Bob barnett. Now thats even funnier if you know that bob barnett is, a seriously big time lawyer in d. C. , he helps candidates prepare for president ial. His clients are like major and media figures for whom really lucrative book deals. It does not get more establishment than bob barnett and i just love so much that rubio wrote this. Im so grateful to him because it tells you so much about the inside outside the game that politicians play right like you know beating your chest about jesus in one sentence and hiring like the biggest power lawyer in town in the next. Right. Like its like the washington of pascals wager for like the philosophy majors here. Its like believe in god, but like a good lawyer, you know, just in case. Now theres another kind of washington, or at least a kind of washington text that often becomes a book. And these are not written by individuals, but by institutions, by committee. Congressional blue ribbon commissions, special counsel investigations, even Supreme Court decisions reading washington also means reading these documents. Theres been much debate lately, for instance, about whether the Supreme Court has become too politicized. Right. People are trying to figure out who leaked the Dobbs Decision to the press. The New York Times has done stories about how donors to the Supreme Court society kind of gain access to justices. And those are very legitimate journalistic avenues to to pursue. Now, if you if you want to know, and see how the court has grown politicized, you can also just read their decisions. So last year, when the dobbs ruling was formally issued, i read it including the dissent in the concurrences. And i also went back and read roe versus wade and planned parenthood. Casey, the two biggest abortion decisions of of the last 50 years before dobbs the recrimination and accusations that the justices at each other and these documents reveals institution that was politicized long before anyone handed anything to political. You can see that the trends you can see the transformation across the decades in these different decisions. For example in roe v wade, William Rehnquist who had yet yet to become the chief justice, acknowledged even though he disagreed with that, with the decision. He acknowledged the you know, the deep historical inquiry and legal scholarship of the majoritys. Despite his agreement he said quote the opinion commands my respect. That kind of politeness gone from subsequent. From the subsequent two cases. Casey and dobbs the opinion that decided casey warned that overruling roe would constitute quote a surrender to pressure. One of the justices even wrote of his fear for, the darkness. If his four colleagues opposing ever found one more vote. Of course, one of those four justices, you know, disparaged other sides what he called almost tsarist arrogance in the dobbs case. Even those characterizations seem just genteel. Different factions of the court accused each other of incompetence of duplicity, of hypocrisy. The majority opinion overturning, roe said roe had been an elaborate scheme concocted to make up a constitutional right. The dissenters in dobbs denounced the majority for letting their personal get in the way of their duty. They say that with dobbs the Court Departments obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law. Basically the justices are all accusing each of giving in to insidious political impulses and pressures while they alone remain uncorrupted. It sounds a lot like the rest of our political class. This notion that the court was immune. These kind of of of impulses is is is gone. And you can glimpse courts politicization in news coverage. You can also just roe casey and dobbs. Finally love reading Commission Reports or reports by special of congress. I know that sounds weird, but these reports are often of america in moments of enormous stress and trauma. Think about it. The 911 commission report, the Warren Commission report on kennedy on the kennedy assassination, the kerner report in 68 on on the riots, the january Six Committee report and the assault on our capitol together they form an unofficial historical of america in its most broken moments. And they deserve scrutiny. They deserve to be read not just discussed. So i recently read the houses january six report, for example. Its almost journalistic in its style, unlike the very dry, sort of legalistic of, say, the mueller report, its more than hundred pages in length. If you include the executive summary, which showed and it offers a very assessment of president trumps actions, not just on january six, but in the weeks leading up to it. But theres one particular passage that i just cant stop thinking about. You may recall if watched any of the hearings, the testimony by cassidy hutchinson, this young former white house aide who described the president s behavior on the morning of january six before his big speech at the ellipse in washington. She said that trump was annoyed that the magnetometers the weapons detectors were inhibiting some of his supporters who who were armed from entering the area where he was giving the speech. As always, we know trump wanted a big crowd. He the space to be full. And hutchinson says in her testimony, she said that she heard the president say Something Like this pardon, the language, i dont care that they have weapons. Theyre not here to hurt me. Take the fing mags away. The maximum examiners. Let my people in. I want you to think about one of those sentences. Theyre not here. Hurt me. I. I kept wondering which word did the president emphasize when he said out loud. If its the verb hurt, then the sentiment is somewhat benign. Im not here to hurt me. I could be saying theyre here to me to support me, to cheer for me. If the stress falls on the word me. It is far more sinister. Turn out here to hurt me. The is. Theyre here to hurt somebody else. Mike pence. Nancy pelosi, the capitol police. Any member of Congress Voting to certify the election. So which was it . The january report confuses matters by citing that quote twice in the report in the final chapter, the me is italicized. Theyre not here to hurt me. And the executive summary. Its not not. So you go to the videotape, right . I watched the video. Hutchinson. Hutchinson. Many, many times. And she says line quickly, sort of neutrally with maybe a tiny emphasis on hurt rather than me. But you can watch and listen for yourself now with a document that surpasses 100 pages, it might seem bit much to linger on, like the typeface of a single to were to letter pronoun you know but i linger. In fact i wrote it in the New York Times today. Now, these purport to serve as historical records. So every word, every quote, every framing every implication is a choice that merits scrutiny. And as the result is sometimes ambiguous, like this particular case, sometimes unclear. Thats okay, because history and reality, theyre ambiguous to. Now, i know i know this kind of journalism, you know, like journalism by reading is a unconventional like i said, i dont interview politicians or follow them through every every step of the news cycle. But their books, i think i, hope that i can still help explain and help reveal them. I have not found next Great American novel, but i think that reading these texts helps me fill in a tiny little bit of. The Great American story. After all, what have we covered tonight . Right. We talked about personal identity and selfinvention. We talked about isolation, about expectations, about subservience, about posturing, about ambiguity, about the conflict, stripping washington and america. These are the great themes of literature, the great struggles of life, whether in the life of individuals, in the life of nations. So for reading is an act of journalism. But i also kind of think of it as a civic. When people tell me, oh, you read these books so we dont have to. I just sort of smiled to myself little bit. Theyre missing out on so much. It would be a real loss if these books went away. The more i read washington, the more we read washington, the thicker the connections we can between different volumes and different ideas different battlefields, different visions of our politics. I embarked on this path almost accidentally, and now i cant bring myself to stop. There is so much more to lead. I invite you to read along with me and i assure you the experi is rarely masochistic and is occasionally transcendent. Thank so much. Yeah. I have been told that we can take questions is sort of terrifying. Anybody, sir. When i was in college heard a lecture like this, but i have stone. Oh, well, and i have you just stressed me out. I dont explained that when he went down he had to cover part. Externally. Oh he had to read and none of his colleagues. So he covered congress by reading the congressional congressional record read the documents. And i wonder if can what what you think about my students i mean theres a wonderful biography ive ive studied im blanking on on the author i apologize i didnt know what just told me and i love i love that story because it didnt diminish the power of his journalism. Right. Its a its we fall in love with like the thing that we do and the way that we do it. I, i have revealed that myself tonight. I wouldnt know how to start interviewing any. Of these people that i read about, but thats actually very inspiring because. He was exemplary as a journalist in many different forms and and i just thats all ill say. Ill just say thank you. Thank you for for for that. Because it also its a reminder to kind of get out of, you know, always your particular comfort zone as a as a journalist or as a professional. Yeah, i hadnt thought about this. So you tell to your time. Thank you. Thank you. There was someone over there. Yes. Oh, in that crowd are also for selfdefense. Any guns . Crowd at the capitol. Jane six. The answer is no. No. Hillary book came out in 1995. Six. Now, bill clinton started out with monica in 1995 and went for 18 months until 1997. Do you think she knew she about that in so she wrote two books or actually three books subsequent to it takes village and in her book called living history she talks about what it was like to find out about i dont recall when exactly. She knew even. And it takes a village she hints at how she knew that bill was a sort of force of nature and i think she writes that i didnt know id be able to withstand his seasons and so i think she knew whether she knew specifics thats thats beyond me. Yes track the Political Polarization and a growing partizan partizan divide in reading these texts as theyve been developed. Time yeah, thats a good the i think the the Court Decisions is an example of how you know seeing way the Supreme Court talks about abortion over the course of 50 years there are political books in cycles. You know there were like you know the whole death of democracy books were really hot for a while and and then it was the polarization books. And like, you know, as ezra klein wrote, one are very people to judge wrote one, you know, called trust while here at the irs plug and and and now there, you know, theres. Theres always kind of new new versions those so there was like a oh, now theres like the coming civil war, right. Are the super hot books right now. And so i think that a lot of people have have studied that. One thing that is useful to consider is that like we talk about polarization and partizanship like like their dirty words. Some of polarization is actually really useful in in a democracy because you need have competing perspectives. You need to have, you know, clashing views on on issues. You it would be sort of bizarre. There were none, right. And so know polarization is some degree it is is healthy. And i think the challenge is to sort of get to a sort of healthy as opposed to a paralyzing polarization. Its easy think it started with trump but it absolutely did not some of the best works on on the growing polarization and what they call asymmetric polarization like. Yes both parties are moving to extremes. That one is moving much further than the other. As he asymmetry. You know some of the best books on that were published years before donald trump even when he was still on the apprentice apprentice. Sir, i know you mentioned the washington read methods, you know, skimming or whatever. And i mean, to suggest that you do that, i just have to think the amount of selfserve garbage that is. And so many of these books i just picture it is overwhelming. And so im just kind. Wondering if you, you know, have you kind of have techniques or if youre just, you know, youve just got a tell. I was like, okay, thats thats wrong. Thats false. You know, all kind of as youre coming down. Yes. And i have very. Nonfamily acronyms that use in the margins of books, which i am not going to share tonight, that one is. A paper white afghan. And i can tell you what it is. Itll be culturally its a moment of exasperate. Its almost like so. Yes, that happens a lot. Right. But but as i said, its its in those moments when you. You know, when theres on this draft, youre kind of swimming or, suddenly you find something very revealing and its worth it. I wish could have been reading a lot pardon memoirs lately and he talks about how when he came to the white house that was in which papers were starting to read that he and roslyn and all the staff took like seed reading courses because you had to Read Everything and to a fault and and so ive seen slowly its a real curse and Read Everything multiple times before i feel writing about it that ive been sort of absorbed it so much by that point that then writing doesnt take all that long. Its the reading and the note taking and like putting ideas together like a file before i ever start writing piece. That part is the painful part, arduous part. But then its done and. So im thinking about the hutch in testimony where you know you want to know where gm decides and or which word truck and sized and im wondering if you often come to of impasses in the text that you wish you could ask a real person about and then you actually tip off a reporter and say, hey, can you figure this out for me . Like, does that happen to you . It will now. I usually try to find like, you know, i, i on cspan again. No, no but yeah, a lot i you i, i check i check original video of things when its ambiguous like that or unclear it its hard to reporters, obviously. Its hard to ask them to do work for me, it was easier for the Washington Post would often rely on reporters to post to help me out to know to i had a vague idea but like i dont cover that. And so is space. Thats right. Now thats because at the post i was technically on the news of things now the times im an opinion and theres, you know, a church state of mind. So i cant like go chatter of all the other the News Reporters and give them ideas stuff. But but yeah, i mean theres about i realized that you know i sit here ill say as you say i did mine on call things by reading but its you know its sort of just one lens right . Its one you and im not all like i have stolen from can both right but but but reporters have much immediacy in what theyre able to to filter out so i think if theyre trying to. Catch you into journalism, if you did study that that the other day, how what spurred you to want to get into. Yeah, yeah. So most journalists that ive ever worked with, i think thats all they can do. They came out the womb with like a notebook, you know, and they broke news on their middle school principal, just like they all came out of the newsroom and they shrivel up in the dark like this is when. They were meant to be. I didnt do that. I didnt comes with that way. I had a whole other kind of career aspiration, wanted to be an economist and used to work with a reserve. And i was just really unhappy, you know, in that life, you can go, how could it be . Its what i wanted to do, right . So got a midlife crisis out of the way early in my in my midtolate teens and basically begged for a job in journalism. I figured that would be exciting interesting to me. And the nice thing is even though i wanted to get away from economics, i used it to get jobs in journalism. First job of the Washington Post was as economics. And i dont know why. I didnt know why, how its it was desperation. And i believed foolishly that like you know the writer i could write you know and i was fortunate enough that my very first job as a journalist was a place where they they time i spent five years Foreign Policy magazine, wonderful editors who taught me about and the way i persuaded my parents like i was doing the right thing by leaving this comfortable in the Federal Reserve to go a journalist was that if it didnt work out, i could always go back that kind of work and thats still the case. It doesnt work. Im going to go back to banking, but so far im im hanging on maybe one more. I was wondering in the next few months if there are any books out that youre really eagerly anticipate. Its its amazing at time especially as well eagerly anticipating kind of the eye of the beholder. But there are books coming out by republican wannabe president ial and the being . I think ron desantis coming out well, not the first like my Campaign Already had one of them haley already had one. Ron desantis coming out soon and what i think i might do is not tackle them one at a time, but sort of just grab a bunch, read them all together and see what it says about the field are. The process may be arduous and painful, but i, i cant. Im excited. I am eagerly anticipating kind of like what Little Things i will be able to pull out of those books because as i said, they always they always reveal themselves. So hopefully ill be there to catch those revelations. Thanks everybody, for coming. Ill just remind you that there are copies of what we were thinking what were we what were we thinking. Yeah, i messed that up available outside and i will plug it with a line from your talk that if you think you know everything about the trump era, if youve read some trump books, books about the presidency, all that kind of stuff. Ive read this book and its revealing and, informative and fascinating. Read where you learn a lot about what in this time that we all experienced and like you said, it deserves to be. Ill say this about book you wouldnt it deserves to be read not just discussed so hell be out there with the books to sell and sign with anybody whos interested. Thank you, charlotte. Welcome to the Richard Nixon president ial lib a