there is no betterng ending. the next one has to have a few different things and that'ss pat of mystery that he made a deal with an upper publisher. i made a deal with the bigger companies simon & schuster which is ahe better company for this d the next book. >> have you gotten started on it? >> it's a my head. okay. the book is called "chasing the light" and it's a fantastic book. mr. oliver stone.

today we have jason bradley as a guest who has written a phenomenal new book on the progress of african-americans to the trump administration. welcome jason. >> guest: thank you for having me. husband jason would have been unusual perspective and i'm wondering if you can get the viewers here sorted i feel for one in your past brought you to be one of the well-known conservative commentators in "the wall street journal" and how you got there. >> willhite joined the college newspaper back in the early90 1990s when i was in school and that's where i got the political bug. i discovered writers thinkers

and intellectuals alike thomas sowell and shelby steele and they had a huge impact on my intellectual development in my thinking about race in particular as well as economics and politics and some other issues. so that's where i got my start. i did turned "usa today" during college and after graduation i joined "the wall street journal" and i've been writing for that newspaper ever since. >> host:ad jason i think many viewers and readers of the wall street journal were impressed with the journal editorial page separating the issues of some people talking about trump's personality on the issue if you don't trust policies and before we get into the premise ofou yor buck can you give us a little bit of insight of behind-the-scenes on how that

emerged? >> what you saw there on the editorial page editor were journalists who are doing their job. they are jobless to coverr this president they way they covered previous presidents in terms of analyzing his policies and what he set out to do and what kind of impact it had. and there's plenty of criticizing president trump's character on twitter feed and all thees rest. they did not let that get in the way and i think that's where a lot of other mainstream journalists aired and went wrong. i think subsequently they have lost the trust of a lot of their viewers and readers and what have you. theyru decided donald trump shod be coveredif differently and not so much covered as resisted.

this is something new. republican presidents are used to a left-leaning washington press corps. that's nothing. that press corps went much further with donald trump and i think it was journalistic malpractice in thinking their job was to take down this president not just nearly -- merely cover him. >> we'll get to the substance of the book very briefly but the book the main message of the book got buried in the mainstream media because people didn't want to talk about positive policy successes. my view and i don't know from the journalistic side if you have a different you view. my view, obvious thing they were

upset with his personality. and i don't know if you agree but i also think going on twitter and communicating with directly with voters on twitter he broke up the monopoly of the press and communicating with voters if you are a republican president in the past with reagan or bush in basically have to go through the press to communicate with voters but it i passed the press with twitter widget that was very useful. do you think that's a monopoly breakup an additional reason why it was so often? >> is use of social media go with trump it was especially important. as you said a lotai of democratc residents depend on the press

for the good news coming out of administration and republican presidents not so much. with donald trump they were extremely reluctant to cover his political victories in this political whims or everything was doing to paint it in a positive way. again this was ideologically motivated. presenting president trump's a and a racist and someone whose policies would harm low income minority groups in the country and as i write in the book his policies were not doing that in press refused to tell that story. they played it down or they ignoredre it entirely and that's one of the reasons i wanted to write the book. it's a very and reported story that i'm telling you. what was going on in terms of

economic gains of disadvantaged groups in this country which was quite remarkable. the objective is not to score partisan points. it isto to tell a story about wt types of policies the types of outcomes we all like to see. less unemployment, less poverty more economic growth less income inequality. that's what we were sitting under donald trump and i think it had a lot to do with the policies he put in place and a story that the press by and large refused to tell because they were so opposed to this president and did t not want to present anything in a positive light. >> let me get to the substance of the book and you have alluded to the main punchline of it. the team at the white house is very isolated and we didn't see

in result because we introduced a lot of them throughout the administration's term. in particular in the transcript there's something called an annual report of the economic reporter: the president that outlines a lot of the facts that jasonly has discussed in which e basically gets two in a clearer way. it has the underlying facts of people are interested. the book a fair summary area of your buck is that the progress of african-americans from 17 to 19 before corona hit was mainly due to the economic policies in place and not to immigration policies so the federal economic policies enacted as opposed to immigration policies and

minimum-wage policies which you spend a couple of chapters discussing. that's correct. that's her main message? >> guest: i think so. i'm arguing that the trump measures and policies prior to covid strengthen economic growth and that economic growth is something we were up to take advantages of. the book is entitled "the black boom." what we saw in that reed the first three years of the trump presidency prior to that pandemic what we saw was economic growth mainly to the benefit of the working class of this country the less educated and less experienced people who had often been left on the sidelines in previous economic booms so that's what i'm getting at here.

my argument basically is economic growth does a better job of lifting those groups and their redistribution policies and the racial preference policies and so forth which is what we saw under president trump'' predecessor and now what we are seeing under the current administration. >> host: if you look at the international system that itsteadily been the case. economic growth through u.s. policy for economic growth in those countries was what really reduced poverty. >> host: you have an interesting discussion in the book about. and post-civil rights. can you elaborate on that?

>> have >> guest: i wanted to show what happened under trump is not unprecedented insofar as when the economy is growing in this country that is when blacks and other minorities have been able to take advantage of that growth and move themselves forward and prospered. if you look at the fastest period of growth for black americans economists put it in the post-war period in the early 1970s. so you're talking about it time period in this country when there was legal discrimination we are talking about jim crow in the. civil rights period by and large in the period when black said no political clout in this country. black mayorsor of cities and so

forth which he began to sing the 80s and the 90s. and yet this was a period when blacks were increasing their income and increasing their homeownership rate. they were taking middle-class perp oceans at an unprecedented rate and speak as the economy was growingngth up at post-war period at time of tremendous economic prosperity and the argument is that's primarily what these groups see and they will be able to take advantage overha from there. that's what they need much more so than someone putting into place racial r preferences group preferences and picking and choosing winners and in terms of government policies. the distribution programs which we have seen in the posole rights era and so forth that is

not good as good a job as uplifting low income groups as economic prosperity does. what we need are policies that economic growth. in the trump years it's another example of this. we have seen in the past before and we saw it again during those first three years of donald trump. >> they are was a very judged in comparison. i thought it was useful in relation to the trump years but can you talk about the book and the voting patterns of blacks and essential in counteracting the mainstream media even though you have a bombardment of information about the president from the media and the quieting kor nonreporting of a positive

policy development. you see a shift towards the president by minorities. can you talk about that heart of the book? >> sure. w when trump is elected in 2016 he did not do particularly well among blacksck in particular an. and he did that are then traditional presidential candidates have done. at the recent present a can of spray to trump o you had mitt romney and -- running against obama. we can cut them some slack with how they did that this was the. obama area. traditional republican presidents going back to gerald ford in the 1970s. we startedee from a lower point than 2016 but what we did see in 2020 was a -- and i think that

has a lot to do with how those groups fared economically during the trump years and prior to covid. we saw a record low unemployment rates for blacks and in record low poverty rates for blacks and and more partly we saw black with wagesfa rising at a faster rate than wages during the three-year stretch prior to covid. you also have to remember how bad blacks have it economically for the majority of obama's presidency. black unemployment did not fall below double digits until the seventh year of the obama presidency. blacks had a very bad economically and are president obama. they support them overwhelmingly and he was well-liked among and

still is. he still pulls very well in terms of popularity but is economic policies and his stewardship the by connie for blacks or. i think blacks are over how bad things were in under trump when they saw how plentiful the job market was they gave trump credit for that and that's part of the reason i believe he did better in 2020. he was focused on reopening the economy quickly after covid hit and service workers can workm from home during the lockdown and they wanted to get back towo work. they were in favor of reopening the economy and when it came to 2020 that's why although he lost the election he did much better among blacks and particularly among men.

>> host: i've written on the total c damage of covid both the disease itself in the relative morbidity that the cost of foregone economic activity. if you look at the data during 2020 the vast majority of covid was in prevention and 20% traditionally government accounting was to the disease itself in terms of mortality. trump shows up internationally in the u.s. shows up as much better than europe even though many people held up europe as a role model. in termser of total damage he ws at a local -- lower total damage because he was able toic open up

the economy will much quicker than the europeans. coming back to obama's policies that led him to trump. i want to talk about how we got to trump them in the future. talk about the slow recovery that you talk about in the book. traditionally economists have found when you have a steeper session you have an enormous boom afterwards. it's like a pendulum if it swings one way it will go quicker to the other side. talk a little bit about that and the slow recovery. >> well you are right. peopleit say well obama inheritd a recession which of course is true and it was ap. global recession. as you pointed out the deeper the recession the more robust the recovering under obama we had a slower economic recovery in the post-war period.

and that is the economy that trump inherited. there people out there who want to say we did have good economic growth under trump and he simply inherited this from his predecessor. no matter whotu exceeded obama things turned out the way they did ins the first reactors under trump. in 2015 the economy the second to last year at the obama present the economy grew. the last year the obama presidency 2016 a grew 1.6%, about half of the growth was about half so that is the economy that donald trump inherited and that's an economy that was slowing down dramatically to the point where you had leading economists like

the former treasury secretary under president clinton saying there's a 50% chance that we are going into a recession and you had the federal reserve and the congressional budget office saying unemployment can't go any lower and growth can't be any stronger.y they were talking about a soft landing. that was the economy that trump inherited in what happened? unemployment did in fact go lower, dramatically lower than the congressional budget office and the federal reserve have predicted. dgrowth was stronger in the federal reserve than predicted. trump exceeded those expectations so wasn't merely a continuation of what was going on under obama. this was an acceleration.

one thing i point to is where the lowest earners in the lowest income bracket. under the first three years of the trump presidency their incomes grew at double the rate than they did in the second term of obama. this was an acceleration in people who are making this continuation argument or making heads i win, tails you lose argument.e if things had gone sideways is first for years under trump i doubt they would have blamed presidentec obama. because they went well they want to give obama credit. >> i agree and in fact there's a body in the legislature that you are for two the congressional budget office. the congressional budget office

is charged with looking at the economic outlook under current law meaning obama policies. they d did that in 2016 that was their prediction of what a continuation of obama policies look like or they were legally charged with forecasting that under current law which were obama policies. roand people turn around and i agree with you they turn around after-the-fact and say that's not what we meant even though we have a legal mandate to provide the prediction. here's what we really meant and it was would trump accomplish and i couldn't agree more. the president tweeted they were. that'sin a strong term and they are trying to be someone they are not by having one set of

definitions of obama in 2016 and another in 19. >> host: getting into the slow recovery what is your take on the exact policies and that obama instituted? >> guest: fees these were policies that harm to growth. for example there was a tremendous expansion of the welfare state. he used the recession as an excuse to extend unemployment benefits in the food stamp program and so forth. a lot of this is courage people from returning to the labor force and without workers you are less productive country which is one of the problems i have with the biden build back better proposals. they are going to disincentivized people to work to return to the workforce.e

banding the welfare state come expanding government programs not to just to help up poor but to help people with six-figure incomes. this is harmful to economic growth and this is what we saw under obama. an expansion of a welfare state and the expansion of government programs and what we also sought in texas and regulations, regulation after regulation after regulation. that harm businesses and harm hiring. a lot of what happened under trump is a reversal of those policies and corporate tax cuts which gave us this is the incentive to bring money back from overseas and they did that and they hired and we saw the growth that occurred.

we saw them play may go down and we saw incomes rise. the problem under obama in the policies that harm the expansion of the economy. the expanded at a faster rate and that's why we had such slow growth for so long. i think he was holding the economy back and trump at least his animals. >> you talk about corporate taxes and that drives demand for labor and that's a zero-sum game. if can youse talk about the debe and how many obama economists favored corporate tax cuts? >> guest: it's going to be passed on to workers.

in terms of their pay and what they receive in benefits. to the extent that you are raising taxes on corporations you are harming workers. and it doesn't spread evil in -- evenly across all sectors of the economy particularly and again trump proved we could still get something out of the executive sector that a lot of people had given upth on. we are going to have the manufacturing sector we had in the 50s, 60s and 70s. there's still something there and those corporate tax cuts in particular show that they are still something there and we also cut individual taxes as well. people can spend it how they want and this is not rocket science here. when kennedy cut taxes in the 60s and when reagan cut them

in the 80s this happened and when bush cut them in the 2000ap that happened and when donald trump cocamack happen. this is not something unique to the trump administration. he's simply doing things here that reduce are dissimilar results in what other presidents have done. let's go also i think there's a lot of evidence that half of americans are shareholders and owners of these companies and benefiting on how much people's pensions were increasing during the trump administration. they may not be the of the workers that they are workers in the economy and there's a big debate i want to hear your take on this on the buybacks and if he could talk a little bit about that. >> guest: i don't think i get into that in the book.

the buybacks debate so i don't get into thatay now. let's go i think most of that was misguided because buybacks are just a reallocation of capitol from not investing in the company new payout to shareholders and shareholders can invest it somewhere else and less productive ways for the company to invest it. if you have ipaqs it doesn't necessarily go into investment. i thought that debate was kind of misguided as well. there a was a lot of coming in s we talked about the obama years coming into the past inauguration and trump one and a lot of naysayers who say we are

having a dramatic recession because of trump. can you talk about that? >> guest: he was not the only one. i was conventional wisdom that we were at the bend of -- the end of the business cycle and we couldn't squeeze it anymore out of the current administration but the federal reserve said growth would be basically 2.1% they were predicting for 2017, 2018 and 2018 and 2019 and trump exceeded that. in it fell well below that, four percentage points. and i think it's important to point that out because it there is this argument that it will all happen anyway and in fact well into 2018 you still had president obama out there taking credit for the trump economy.

you head joe biden taking credit for the trump economy and saying the obama administration started all that you are seeing today and again that's what i wanted to point out what those expectations were when trump took office the slowing economy and a prediction that we might be heading to another recession. it's also important to note the job growth that we saw under trump occurred when we were near full employment and for an economist to get that kind of job growth when there were so few people looking for work at timei is pretty remarkable. he when you have allow people out of work in a high employment rate and youre get tremendous bounce out -- amounts of job growth that's one thing but to

do so at the time in and the business cycle that trump did is remarkable in and of itself. >> i agree and they were more dramatic. paul krugman thought we'd have a crash when trump came into office essentially at the same time we saw complete spike in business optimism when trump won the election. and that's the policy have on the economy. >> guest: you are absolutelyy right. it was conventional wisdom of the trump policies and the tax cuts would just' be for the wealthy. tax cuts would be just for the wealthy and in fact what we saw again if is the corporate tax cuts benefit of workers which is what the economic literature

said. a couple of economic advisers had done research on this and corporate tax cut benefit are workers. and again and this is what i tried to describe in the book. because this working -- was a working-class boom in dover representative of working-class economic growth meant less income inequality. we saw shrinking under donald trump during the first three years of his administration prior to covid. wages rising at a faster rate than wages and this is something that the naysayers said when trump was elected. he does with the these tax cuts

cuts -- the exact opposite happened and that's a story that he told that if you care about economic equality of these are types of policies that can shrink it and that's why the story needs to be told. >> host: it was driven by research on usingg the literatue to look at what text of former bnp were ridiculed at the time and obvious who itxa happened to was exactly what we said would happen but it o shows you political economists. they used to be more neutral and the example is a good one where krugman isit the economists who people turned into a political pundit for having such biased

views on everything on every particulart topic. but even larry summers and people argue to get that tax cut even though they argued for them under obama. it's kind of a strange thing like the society was divided into political end that gets in the way. we put out that report led by large part of research and we use the literature to say here's what the literature says will happen.ap it was and what we thought would happen. here's what the scientific literature says and it was completely dismissed. can you talk about how you see that from a journalistic point of view and did anything change when i that occurred? >> guest: was getting at earlier that they would put away

their traditional -- and went into this mode and thought theik job was to stand up at press briefings every day and parade the president are buried the press secretary. you saw the same people like krugman and in the "washington post" and major news networks they decided they were going to cover this president differently and they did. and as a result stories like the ones i'm trying to be telling the book were told. it wasn't the narrative that they were pushing and they didn'tts care if it did not support that narrative. they were going to run with that narrative anyway. and there's ultimately an uninformed public.

it deservess a press that will e somewhat objective in their news coverage of an administration that's not what we got under donald trump. i blame my own profession and i don't know when or if journalism will be able to win back the trust of the public given its behavior under the trump administration. you are seeing the fallout from that now. just dismiss trust of what people read and you saw with covid and the coverage should we trust was coming out of the white house and should we trusts what the president is telling us? journalism brought this on itself. wein didn't have the highest approval rating to begin with prayer to trump but we certainly didn't do ourselves any favors by the way we covered this a administration and there were someik exceptions.

i believe "the wall street journal" the editorial page of particular to their wits about them. they wanted to give him credit where they thought it was due but they were the exception. >> host: we saw that from inside the white house. it was much more neutral coverage by "the wall street journal"ot especially the editorial page. erthey were critical of certain aspects such as tariff policies etc. and then you laid out the positive expects of a particular impact on the population what we used to call in c the white houe of blue koller boom and i thought that was refreshing in terms of having criticize where he thought it was due. i thought you guys were alone in that phase of trying to keep

your head cool. >> host: the journal had issues with some of trump's economic policies in particular is trade policies and also the immigration policies. he wanted to reduce illegal immigration in this country to "the wall street journal" editorial page has long supported legal immigration and argued they benefit the economic -- the economy particularly with less educated immigrants and so f forth that n balance they have arguedat immigration is a net benefit to the country. we really did look at trump's efforts to reduce illegal immigration and also on the enforcement only policy when it comes to illegal immigration we have long argued the most effective immigration policy

would be more border enforcement and giving people more legal ways to come and that would be the right combination to reduce pressure on the border. in the book as you mentioned earlier i did get into some of the immigration and the argument i take on the book one make by a lot of trump supporters which ii using crackdowns on illegal immigration would benefit blacks and i argue blacks historically have not needed less competition from immigrant in order to prosper in this country and to the extent that they did prosper the first three years under donald trump i did not see the evidence in the data that was due to a crackdown on illegal immigration and that's the argument i take on in the book. the book is not a defense of all

of donald trump's policies. not a defense of his character or personality isli twitter fee. defensive free market economic rents of both which are a better way of advancing upward mobility then redistributiond of wealth and that's the argument i make in the book. >> in defense of the president don't think he's against legal immigration. i think what he was mostly against is that it's not merit a standards based on families and genetic makeup essentially whether you are allowed into the country and there is a big push in the white house bid by kushner and economic advisers that tried to push a package that was merit-based immigration that got completely squashed because of covid coming in and

everything else but the main issue with legal immigration was that it wasn't married days. the u.s. is unique in that way and are northern neighbor -- vapor canada. the u.s. is unique in having such a high priority. on family members coming in and how much you'll or contribute to the economy pick this comes back to milton friedman essentially who famously argued they could have had the open border policy we had in 1910 let's say when a lot of the immigrants came in because s of the welfare state. once you have a while for state immigration policy is completely different and people can't just come in with the government transfer as opposed to before

welfare states when people emigrated into mutual benefit. there is only mutual gain of the person coming and the people hiring him. that's w not necessarily the cae in the welfare state which isur obviously the pressure a lot of people are concerned with what health care etc. the people come in and they don't't kuchar. that is the real crux of the issue and they think the merit-based part of the immigration package could be pushed forward but it's an important component in how the president saw the immigration wepolicy overall. plus though i don't think there was any doubt that the system as it is currently is broken and badly broken.

it was built for different society in a different economy in a different century and it clearly needs updating. there's a debate to be had over whether we should move away from family-based immigration and more merit skills-based-based immigration said just as flawed -- described by canada has. i would welcome that debate are the argument i make in the book however is whether immigrants harm job prospects for americans particularly black americans and their again i do not read literature that is the case. there is evidence most skilled immigrants in particular can put downward pressure on americans without a high school degree. it's a very small percentage of americans and radically

shrinking percentage of americans that there is some evidence particularly by research that has shown 45 or send downward pressure on wages of the lowest skilled americans. there is no evidence that these immigrants are displacing workers in the u.s., displacing native served pushing them out of jobs. again my focus in the book is the impact on a black workers in particular and no matter how many millions of illegal immigrants you think in this country the official numbers around 11 or 12% in some people say0 it's 20 million are higher. the point is the economic gain that i'd describe among lax in the first year the trump administration occurred in this

country. however many million illegals you thought were in this country didn't stop unemployment from falling to record lows under donald trump for black americans or poverty rates falling to record lows among blacks in his first year as president. blacks and low skill workers that are harmed the most by immigrants and illegal immigrants in particular. the wages of the lowest skilled workers in the us were rising at a faster rate even with all of these illegal immigrants in the country but does not an argument for illegal immigration. what i'm saying is people point to immigrants or illegal immigrants in particular as uniquely harmful to the book job prospects of the blacks or the wages of blacks. i think they are often based, based on my reading of this

literature in based on my experience of economic growth under donald trump. >> host: i agree and there were many other recent obviously and he made it very clear in the book that the main rationale was the drug trade comes to the southern border and that was part of it. 90%oi of heroin comes through te air and the u.s. and china goes to the southern border to the us. there's a lot of other reasons, the labor market. guess who we a sovereign country. i think americans are rightly outraged with the chaos we see on the border. they don't want the border raised. if you have a party out there there shouldn't be a order at all. anyone should just build a walk

into this sovereign nation no questions asked. i don't think that's what the american people want. we do need border security and we do need to protect the border. terrorists are out there and they can exploit that and drug traffickers are out there and they can exploit that. human smugglers are t out there and they are all kinds of reasons to protect the border. this is not an argument for illegal immigration to the question is what impact immigrantsct have on job prospes in the economic prosperity of aamericans and as i read the literature they are not having an impact onbl the economic prosperity of lax. >> host: and i made it very clear about the angle you're taking. i'm not saying you're taking any other angle but the push of purge illegal immigration should be separated from legal

immigration which is a model for self-serving purposes. let me go to the last or which kind of discusses some people argued that state policies gacontributed to this and you negate that and could you talk about that? >> i wanted to take an argument on immigration that trump supporter's were putting forward is a reason for the economic growth that we saw. then i wanted to take on argument that the left put forward as a a reason. the wages of the lowest income workers are rising because states were raising m their minimum wages and that explains the economic gains we saw in the working-class under trump of course this started under obama. that's when states began racing their minimum wage.

again i don't find the literature supporting that claim. first the minimum wage is a very blunt instrument when it comes to addressing poverty. most people who make minimum wage are poor and most people who are poor make more than minimum wage but what poor families need our jobs rate your typical family living in poverty the problem is not that they have workers only making minimum wage they have no workers. math. .. larly at states that did raise their minimum wage and raising the minimum wage involves trade-offs if you make the minimum wage and it goes up by law. you will make more money. obviously if you keep your job and if you keep working the same number of hours that you were

working before the wage went up, but those are two hours you were working before the wage went s up. those are two big gifts. the studies that have been put out there, particular places like seattle put in place a higher minimum wage in recent years, is that people in fact were given fewer hours to h wor. or were not hired at all. when it came to income these studies show these workers were ultimately or soffit. they were making less money because even that they were making more per our they were working fewer hours due to the minimum wage hikes. again these are trade-offs that are involved v here. and don't talk about the downside of liftingng a wage but in fact there is a quite significant downside. we mention congressional budgetm office earlier, they also put out a study on minimum wages. in pointing this out.

some will get o higher pay other will lose their jobs or have to work fewer hours because of the wages. this is not evidence or this is not the reason was how the economic gains we saw under trump prior to t covid. there is nothing at that minimum state level. >> a price control market which is what a minimum wage at market. that's a number of workers. because you did not allow allow people to trade at lower prices what's are mandated by the floor at this case and minimum wage. what was particularly troublesome with that explanation is that was a huge growth and employment at the same time a so wage increases. that does not lend itself very well to minimumim wages. you see wage increases

potentially will also a drop in employment from it. >> is also a race unchecked they tend to harm the job prospects of the least skilled, least educatedna workers. you're just partially harming those groups can get to the first flat wrong if you connect to the entry-level job. what these wage hikes often do is price people out of work. and so the not know the minimum wage laws in the country

southern black workers unions in the northem and in the north did not want the competition of politicians and the north were filling these jobs. to price blasts i'm not arguing that his wife at the intense there disproportionally harmful if you're going to play that game have a tarnished history.

>> we are coming up in the last few minutes here. first of all, congratulations on a fantastic book. i also think it is a sign which you talk about in the book that this is an interesting book even though these facts were out there, right? so how do you see this progressing in the future we have the immediate so divided. both sides are trying to potentially suppress beneficial news to the other side and highlight harmful news of the other side. how do you see that progressing in the future? >> i think it could get worse before it gets better. i think social media is one reason why. it allows people to only watch or listen to a read exactly what

they want. something that's going to reinforce their own biases. and so we end up talking past one another in our national conversations to the extent that we have them. and that, is a problem. i am not sure how that is going to play out what it could get worse before it gets better. the nice thing about the internet and social media is the access to information. the downside is if we are not sharing a source of j informatin we could often end up talking right past each other but that is what we see a lot of today unfortunately. >> that is a very important message i think to conclude with. thank you for a really powerful book and taken the time today to talk with us. >> thank you i enjoyed it. ♪ the up-to-date and the latest in publishing with both tvs

podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases. plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app. or wherever you get your podcast. we can't on are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for it cspan2 comes from these television companies and more including charter communication. ♪ broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us