David Gergen and Presidential Politics.

DATE September 7, 2000 ACCOUNT NUMBER N/A
TIME 12:00 Noon-1:00 PM AUDIENCE N/A
NETWORK NPR
PROGRAM Fresh Air

Interview: David Gergen discusses his new book and talks about
his experiences while working in the Nixon-to-Clinton White Houses
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. David Gergen has helped create
presidential politics as we know it today. And he's crossed over to
journalism to analyze and comment on politics. In his work as a White House
adviser, he has helped presidents with their image, spin control and putting
their policies across to the public and the press. He started his political
career as a speechwriter for President Nixon, eventually heading the speech
writing department. He went on to advise Presidents Ford, Reagan and Clinton.
He's now a political analyst for "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS and
ABC's "Nightline." And he's editor at large for US News & World Report.

Crossing over from the Republican to the Democratic side and from White House
adviser to journalist has given Gergen the reputation for flexibility and
open-mindedness in some circles. But some people think of him as a traitor.
Gergen has written a new book called "Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of
Leadership, Nixon to Clinton." I asked him if he sees the work he's done as a
presidential adviser as being more about statecraft or stagecraft.

Mr. DAVID GERGEN: Well, they're inextricably linked, aren't they, these days?
I would like to think it's mostly about leadership. That's the essence of
it. And, obviously, leadership requires statecraft, but is--since time
immemorial, it's also required a degree of stagecraft. We like to think
that, you know, this is something new in the modern age.

Well, In fact, George Washington, our first president, was very, very
theatrical and understood--he loved going to the theater. And one of the most
famous scenes out of the--Washington's life was at Newburg, New York, just
after the war had ended. And his soldiers were quite restless. They hadn't
been paid by the Continental Congress. And he was trying to put down a
mutiny. And he appeared before his officers and took out a piece of paper.
And then he took out his glasses. The officers had never seen him wear
glasses before. And Washington said, `I have grown old in the service of my
country.' And the officers all began crying. And he turned back the
rebellion at that point. And everyone has understood since then--historians
have pointed out that was bit of stagecraft on Washington's part. He was a
terrific statesman, but he also understood stagecraft. So, yes, it is partly
about stagecraft.

GROSS: I think that there's some skepticism or even cynicism on the part of
many people in the American public about political stagecraft now, because
there's a fine line between using stagecraft to help a politician put across
his message and using stagecraft to sell the public on sizzle when there's no
steak. I'd like you to just comment about that--where you see that line as
being and if you feel that you've seen examples or participated in examples
of both.

Mr. GERGEN: Well, it's--again, it's a very good question, Terry. Let me just
say this. We have had stagecrafts from the beginning of the Republic and,
indeed in ancient Rome and in ancient Greece there were stagecraft. I do
think it's quite legitimate to have anybody in public life, especially in a
democracy, become an advocate to promote their programs; to promote their
ideas; indeed, to promote their personalities, and particularly today, when,
you know, personalities seem to be such an important part of our national
life.

At the same time there is something called excess. There is--I think, spin,
for example, has gone way beyond what is appropriate for serious dialogue.
And it's something that I--because I was involved at one stage in the Reagan
administration back in the early '80s with what was called the `spin patrol.'
This was something that--it wasn't the beginning of spin nor was it--certainly
it wasn't the end of it. But I was involved in trying to promote Reagan's
programs to the networks, for example, and to the national newspapers. So I
became associated with what was called spin.

And it's been--one of my greatest regrets in public life is the degree to
which--while I thought what we did in the early '80s was appropriate, I think
it did help to open the door to what has become very, very excessive, so that
now spin is no longer something that's associated just with programs, but it'd
become almost an art form of manipulation. And, as Ben Bradlee said, spin has
become a polite way of saying `lying.' So I think it's in that sense that
it's become excessive. And it needs to be curbed. And, you know, what
Americans are looking for far more than they--than we're having in our
national dialogue is straight talk.

GROSS: Well, while we're talking about your work in the Reagan White House,
Sidney Blumenthal had written a piece about you for The New Yorker in 1993.
And he described you as making the president's hard-line positions more
palatable and less harsh. And then he quoted a former Reagan aide as saying,
`If you hadn't had David Gergen there, you would've had a harsh image of
Reagan--angry, in-your-face conservatism instead of the smiley face.' What
are your thoughts about that? Would you agree that Reagan's policies were
hard-line and it was part of your job to make them more appealing?

Mr. GERGEN: I--well, I don't know if I agree with that. Sidney and I have
our differences. He's been working in the Clinton White House, as you know,
and promoting Mr. Clinton's--in the last few years. And we've had some
differences from time to time. What I do think is I very much agree with the
thesis that Dick Darman--Richard Darman put forward in the book he wrote
about the Reagan presidency. And it sort of--and the title of the book was
"Who's in Control?" And he made the argument that, essentially, Reagan's
rhetoric was more conservative than the way he governed. The way Ronald
Reagan governed, frequently, was to present his conservative position. Of
course he was conservative. But then he negotiated with Democrats. And he
often came more toward the center in the way he actually governed.

And, you know, I think one of the reasons that Reagan was so popular--and
indeed, I think he was the best leader we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I
don't agree with all of his policies. I'm not as conservative as Ronald
Reagan. But I do think he was the best leader we've had since Franklin
Roosevelt--was that he did have a contagious optimism about him. He did
enjoy--he had a great faith in the future. He was part of that generation
that Tom Brokaw has called the greatest generation. The people who came
through the Depression, came through the Second World War and were enormously
optimistic about this country's future. And I think that shaped his
perspective and made him seem--and, indeed, he was, I think, a person that
people related to very well. And that's an important part of who he was.

What I think is wrong-headed, Terry, are the people who believe that somehow
Reagan was, you know, just reading a script; that he was a dummy, he didn't
know anything, and people were just scripting him from the outside. That's
not what his leadership was about. His leadership came because he was a
person of convictions. He believed these things. You might not agree with
him on what he believed. But he'd held these beliefs for a long time. And he
was very consistent. And he lived his message. He embodied his message.
That's an important part of leadership.

GROSS: Well, you say he had, you know, strongly held beliefs. But you also
write in your book that, `Goodness knows, Reagan wasn't perfect. He could be
so dreamy and inattentive to detail that he allowed dramatic mistakes to
occur. He had less curiosity about public policy than any president since,
perhaps, the 1920s.' I think it was part of your job to prep President
Reagan for press conferences. What was it like to prep him, knowing that he
didn't have much interest or much of a mind for policy? And that's part of
what he was going to be grilled about at a press conference.

Mr. GERGEN: Well, he could be dreamy. And I wanted to be sure in this book
to recognize that Reagan, like our other presidents, had great strengths, and
he had weaknesses. And, you know, what I've tried to do here, as someone who
had the privilege of working alongside four presidents, including one
Democrat and three Republicans--I wanted to have a three-dimensional
portrait. And I thought it was only fair to the reader to sort of say,
`Here's the way I saw it. And others can disagree, but this is what I saw.'

And what I found, to go to your question about--in prepping him, there were
some areas in which he had an enormous amount of curiosity--for example,
taxation and the level of taxation or military preparedness. There were other
areas in which he did not. There's a famous, you know, moment in the Reagan
presidency when you saw his secretary, Sam Pierce, secretary of Housing and
Urban Affairs. And he said, `Good morning, Mr. Mayor.' So there were times
when he could be a little bit removed. And I think that's why Reagan was a
very good leader, but is not a model in every respect.

In preparing him for press conferences--what he was interested in, Terry, was
getting to the essence of issues and not so much all the details. He did not
think that a president should be sort of the commander in chief of all
details. He rather thought his job was to present the big picture and to
make that the persuasive argument. And there were many instances in which
that served him well. There were other instances in which it did not.

Then, in fact, I think that he paid a price himself when he allowed Jim Baker,
his first chief of staff, to leave and swap jobs with Don Regan, who came
over from Treasury. Don Regan had been president--head of Merrill Lynch; was
a first-rate individual. But he was not cut out to be chief of staff. And so
that there were, essentially--the whole Reagan presidency changed, and he was
not as effective in the beginning of his second term and also had the scandal
of Iran-Contra because he wasn't paying sufficient attention to exactly who
ought to be right there with him.

GROSS: I think a lot of people wonder how can the same person work for
President Reagan and President Clinton in trying to put their policies across
to the American public when their policies and what they stood for,
politically, is so different? So I'm wondering what is it like to serve
presidents who are so different in the policies that they represent? Do
you--I mean, do you feel as a presidential adviser or a communication--the
White House communications director that it's your job to believe in the
policies that you're putting forward or only to do your best in representing
the president of the United States?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, I think it's a combination of those two things. But there
were times, I must admit, after serving in three Republican White Houses, when
coming into the Clinton White House I began to realize what it was like to be
a liver transplant. And the--you know, the body takes sometimes, and
sometimes it does not, this strange entity coming in. Let me just put it this
way. I had worked and was proud to have served in the Reagan administration.
I worked for him for three years. I thought when I left the Reagan
administration that was the last I would do of public service. I entered
journalism; became editor of US News & World Report and had some other
wonderful experiences. I've been very privileged in my life.

And when Bill Clinton was in trouble early in his presidency--when his, as
you remember--his presidency seemed to almost be derailed, he called me
personally. I'd known him 10 years. I was not looking for a job. He said,
`Oh, look. I'm in trouble. I need help. Can you come in?' And I said,
`Look, I'm happy to help you get your presidency back on track, if I can. I
can't stay. I don't want to be here for an election against Republicans.
That would make me entirely uncomfortable.' But there is a long and, I think,
honorable tradition in this country of people from the other party helping
presidents when they're in trouble. In many instances, the people who did
that were far more prestigious and had far more stature than I did. But
I--and I didn't model myself on them, but I hoped I was acting in that same
tradition. And that is we only have one president at a time. And if that
individual is having real problems governing and reaches out and asks you for
personal help, I think you try to help him if you can.

And I told him when I came in there were going to be things in which we
disagree. And I will not be able to stay if I find that I'm in total
disagreement on philosophy. But if I'm in general agreement--and he--after
all, when he called me said, `I'm too far off to the left. I want to govern
in a more bipartisan way. And one of the things I think you can help me with
is not only forging better bonds with the press, but forging bonds with
Republicans so I can work across the aisle with Republicans. And you can be
helpful in that regard.'

I'm not sure how helpful I was, in the long run, but I thought that that was
the right thing to do. And if he were to ask me again, I might, you know,
insist upon different circumstances and a different way of going about it.
But I still think it's the right thing to do. I think that tradition ought to
be a viable and a part of our American political tradition. I would hate that
we'd ever see the day that, say--John Kennedy, when he was elected, asked a
Republican to serve as his secretary of Treasury. He asked a Republican to
serve as his secretary of Defense. He asked a Republican to serve as his head
of CIA. And he asked a Republican to serve as his national security adviser.
In all four cases, Republicans agreed to take those jobs. And they came in
and helped a Democratic president. And I believe that is a good and valuable
tradition in American public life. And I hope it's one that continues.

GROSS: My guest is political analyst and former White House adviser David
Gergen. He has a new book called "Eyewitness to Power." We'll talk more
after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is David Gergen. His new book is
called "Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership from Nixon to
Clinton."

In your new book, "Eyewitness to Power," you share your impressions of the
presidents that you've worked for, which is everyone from Nixon to Clinton.
You started your political career as a speechwriter for Nixon when you were
still in your 20s. And then you were promoted to running the writing and
research team for the president. And you mentioned this really interesting
exercise that President Nixon gave you when you were writing speeches--for
you. You say that each time you sent him a final draft of a speech, he asked
you to underline the three sentences in the speech that you thought the press
would quote. What was the point of the exercise?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, President Nixon--I don't think as a--he was not very good
at educating the country, sometimes, at what he was doing, for example, in
Vietnam. I think he should have been far more straightforward about what was
happening there. But he did take members of his staff in hand and try to
help them understand how to do their jobs. And he tended to like--he liked
to teach his speechwriters what to do. And so when I, at a fairly young and,
perhaps, naive age, became head of his writing and research team, he did take
me aside and say, `Look, you know, in your speeches, underline the three
sentences you think the press will quote. And then we'll compare notes the
next day to see what The New York Times or The Washington Post or whatever
or--you know, may be quoting to see what they've picked up.'

And the reason for that exercise was that you began to understand through
doing that, you know, time and again--and I made a lot of mistakes in the
beginning--that the way the press covers a story is--it's more like a
narrative. They're not necessarily looking for what the president or governor
or Cabinet secretary may say. They're looking for something which is going to
advance the story that's been in the press the day before. All of our, you
know, great controversies in public life tend to have a beginning. Then they
have a middle. And then they have a denouement. And then we move on to
something else. That's the way narrative consists.

And a lot of what we do in the press is a narrative--this big debate about the
debates with George Bush and Al Gore. There's a narrative. So each day Gore
says something or Bush says something, and they advance that story. And when
you're inside government you have to realize what is it that they're going to
pick up? What is it they're going to run? Because that--in effect, it
becomes your communication with the American people that day. And so you want
to focus in and learn how to make a statement that can reach the public.
After all, when you're elected president, you--governing is not something you
just hand out in diktats from the top. You have to persuade people. You
have to bring them along. You have to inform them if you're going to have a
civilized democracy. And so it's important to realize, because the press is
the medium through which you communicate, how one can communicate most
effectively. And I learned through that, you know, what the instincts of the
press are; what kind of thing are they going to go for. And then you begin to
hone in on those and try to make your point as effectively as possible.

GROSS: Can you think of an example of a line that you wrote thinking that it
would be quoted from the press and you were right?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, in 1980--and that was only one of three architects of this.
But in 1980, you remember, that in the debate with Jimmy Carter, Ronald
Reagan asked, `Are you better off today than you were four years ago?' Well,
that was a line that we worked out for--Dick Wirthlin, who is one of his
chief strategists and a very, very good political adviser, and the president
and I sort of between us--and I try to explain this in the book--inserted into
his closing statement in that famous debate with Carter, knowing that the
press would pick that up and knowing that rhetorical questions have great
power. You know that from the--your capacity to ask questions here, Terry,
because, you know, you know how to--by framing a question in a certain way,
you can expect a certain kind of response. Well, that's true of political
leaders, too. So when Reagan asked, `Are you better off than you were four
years ago?', he knew that most Americans would say, no, they're not. And
that helped to solidify his support in that election. And he went on to win
the election, of course.

GROSS: One of the things that you did after temporarily leaving politics was
to become the editor at US News & World Report. You've also, of course, been
news analyst for "MacNeil-Lehrer" and for "Nightline." And I'm wondering
in your capacity as a journalist, what it looks like to you when you--when
you're listening to a speech and you know that somebody wrote this line
expecting the press to pick up on that. Are you any more or less likely, as a
member of the press, to pick up on that line that you know you're supposed to
be picking up on?

Mr. GERGEN: I think that one has to be sensitive to whether you're being
manipulated, in one sense. And that is if you think the line is misleading
or if you think it's wrong-headed or you think it's somehow distorting the
truth, then I think it's very important to either not run it or to run it
with a big qualifier and say, you know, this is where--here's a reality
check, just as newspapers do so--like The New York Times now runs a real
reality check on advertising--about political advertising. And they say, you
know, `Here's what the facts are that goes with the--go with the ad.' I
think that's extremely important to do.

But do I feel that when a political figure uses a catchy line that somehow I
shouldn't quote that? No, I don't. When Jack Kennedy asked--or John Kennedy
asked when he was being inaugurated, `Ask not what you can do for yourself,
but ask what you can do for your country.' That was an enormously quotable
line. I think the press was totally proper in picking it up. It's one of
those memorable lines that lives on through history. And that's what
political argument is. And we shouldn't be so scared of political figures
using political argument to open our hearts or minds to the proposition they
are putting forward.

Listen, speechwriting has a long and honorable tradition in this country.
Richard Brookhiser points out in his biography of George Washington that when
Washington was trying to give a--when he was getting ready to give a public
speech, he could turn to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for suggestions.
He then had Alexander Hamilton draft up a speech for him. And he could send
it back to Jamie Madison for a rewrite. That's a great team, by the way.
We've never seen anything like it since. But I think it emphasizes that right
from the beginning of the Republic, presidents from Washington forward have
understood that in a democracy, it's very important that leaders communicate
persuasively, effectively, candidly, truthfully with the public.

GROSS: David Gergen has written a new book called "Eyewitness to Power: The
Essence of Leadership, Nixon to Clinton." Gergen will be back in the second
half of the show. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

(Announcements)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with David Gergen. He's
been an adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, specializing in
communications and spin control. He's now a political analyst for "The
Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS and ABC's "Nightline." His new book is
called "Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership, Nixon to Clinton."

You write in your book that Nixon, who you worked for, had no compunction
about lying to the press. Of course, Watergate is a good example of that.
What was it like for you to, you know, be--was it communications director?

Mr. GERGEN: No. At that time, I was in speechwriting.

GROSS: Head of speechwriting? Right, OK.

Mr. GERGEN: I had very little contact with the press. And I must tell you,
it was a real shock for me and for many of my colleagues and friends in the
Nixon White House when the cover-up came apart, when it fell apart, because
there were many of us who believed what Nixon was saying was the truth. We
had no reason not to believe him, and we were told every day by Bob Haldeman
and others that, `What the president is saying is true,' and that `Kay Graham
is just out to hang him.' And, of course, you learned later that Kay Graham
was not out to hang him and she's indeed a very, very honorable woman at The
Washington Post, and that the people we were working for were lying to us.
That was a great shock to a lot of us.

GROSS: When did you figure out that you were being lied to?

Mr. GERGEN: That's a good question. There were--well, I write in the book
that the cover-up worked better inside the White House than almost any place
else I can think of because there were a number of us there who were young,
who idealized public life, you know, who wanted to believe, even as the
signals, even as the evidence started to pile up. We knew there was something
rotten in Denmark, but we wanted to believe it did not extend to the top. And
so, you know, gradually, the noose got tighter and people around the president
increasingly were caught up in it, it became obvious that people in the White
House at first were involved. And then it became obvious that higher-ups in
the White House were involved. But it didn't become clear until right toward
the end that Richard Nixon himself was at the center of the cover-up.

I remember very, very clearly just a few days before he resigned, Al Haig, who
was chief of staff, called a group of us in who were department heads and
revealed to us then the existence of the so-called smoking gun tape and the
contents of that tape. And that's when it first hit all of us, `My God, he
actually did this.' You know, it was a really--a stunning moment. There
was, I think--in all of us, there was a sense of shock and a sense of
betrayal. And then it was over. And it was obvious that he then had to leave
and he left a few days later.

GROSS: Were you relieved when it was over and he resigned?

Mr. GERGEN: I was--I went through just a really awful set of emotions. It
was--I was relieved. I thought it was right that he left. I welcomed Gerry
Ford and his wife Betty to the White House. I felt a deep set of anger--a
sense of anger about what President Nixon had done to the country by dragging
us through that long period of Watergate because I knew him and knew his
vulnerabilities. I also felt very deeply sympathetic, sorry for him. I felt
there was a real sense of tragedy about this. It was very Shakespearean. And
so there was a mixture of emotions. And it took me a long time to recover
from that, but I did come back. You know, I don't think Richard Nixon can
ever be forgiven for Watergate, I did come back to respect him for the rest of
who he was. And Richard Nixon was a very complicated man.

And I think it's important to understand people as three-dimensional.
Sometimes we on the outside like to see people as all good or all bad or, you
know, this person wears a white hat or that one wears a black hat. My
experience on the inside has been that people are a mixture of a lot of very
good things and some bad things. And Richard Nixon had demons in him that
took control of him, and he couldn't control them. And, you know, that's
what--they knocked him out. And that's what the tragedy is, but I think from
that experience, it's important to understand and that's why in the book I try
to stress so much that in choosing leaders, we shouldn't be looking just for
the most talented man or the brainiest man. Richard Nixon was very talented
and he was very smart, but there was this serious problem in his personality.
And that's why it's important to understand the character and the integrity
and the way people--are people well-centered? You know, do they have a real
sense of a democratic tradition? I think that, as I write in the book, to a
large degree, I think Nixon confused power and leadership, and power was some
sort of a European sense. He would have been a great Meternich in a society
in which he didn't have to answer to the people. But in a democracy, you have
to answer to the people. And I think Richard Nixon did not fully appreciate
the democratic tradition.

GROSS: For a while, it was--some people suspected that you were the Deep
Throat who spoke to Woodward and Bernstein. I know you did share some
information with Woodward.

Mr. GERGEN: I did.

GROSS: You write that in your book. Were you flattered or insulted during
that period when some people thought you might be Deep Throat?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, I was--you--I guess a lot depends on what you think about
Deep Throat. I am no fan of Deep Throat. I did not think that Deep Throat
acted in an honorable way. I think if you have information that there has
been wrongdoing or skullduggery or criminal activity in the government, rather
than going to the press, it's best to take it to the Justice Department and to
the authorities. And so I felt that--I did not think Deep Throat acted in an
honorable way. So when I was accused of being Deep Throat or people suggested
I was Deep Throat, I was not flattered. I was rather horrified by the
prospect of it. But, you know, that's the way it is. And Len Garment has
just written a book, of course, making an argument it's someone else. He
considered me a candidate, and he considered a number of other--about 20 other
people. And when I sat down and talked to Len and we went through it and I
think he came to the conclusion that I was not in a position to know those
facts.

I had gone to school with Bob Woodward. We went to Yale together. He was
behind me. I was a little ahead of him in classes. And I've--but I first met
him in Washington, and he did call me in 1973 and 1974, and he records this in
his--the books he wrote with Carl Bernstein that he would call me
periodically. When he was being stonewalled at the White House by everyone,
he would call and say, `Look, here's the story we're working on. Can you help
to find someone we can talk to?' And when I first got that call, I went to
Len Garment and to Ron Ziegler and said, `You know, Bob Woodward's calling.
Here's what his issue is. Here's his problem. What do we do? Is there
somebody here who will talk to him?' And I then, with their understanding,
brought Bob in a back door at night to see Len Garment in his office to talk.
And Len, I think, gave him a White House perspective, and Bob went on his way.

I happen to think, Terry, that that's the way government should operate; that
when government is being accused of wrongdoing, that people inside have a
responsibility to be accountable. And all of their public life should be a
matter of public record. I think we go way too far today in invading the
private lives of individuals. But in government life, I think it's really,
really important that there be full accountability and that everything be out
in the open, as far--and we insist upon that, especially when there are
accusations of wrongdoing.

GROSS: Now I'm forgetting the name that Leonard Garment says was really Deep
Throat.

Mr. GERGEN: Well, Leonard Garment accuses or says that Deep Throat is John
Sears...

GROSS: That's right.

Mr. GERGEN: ...who was Reagan's campaign manager in 1980 for a period of
time. John Sears has vehemently denied that, and notably, both Carl Bernstein
and Bob Woodward have said it was not John Sears.

GROSS: And your opinion is?

Mr. GERGEN: I don't know who it is. I think it was someone--I do think
there was a Deep Throat. I know enough about Woodward and Bernstein and their
reporting to know that they would not simply make that up. I just don't
believe that. But I think it was likely to have been someone who was either
in the intelligence field or in the investigatory field because someone had to
have access to an awful lot of FBI records and be privy to the investigation
that was going on to be able to pass on that kind of really very, very
sensitive investigatory information.

GROSS: But you don't think it's John Sears?

Mr. GERGEN: I do not think it was John Sears. I think it was someone who had
a motive. I don't know what the motive was. As you remember back in those
days, there was a lot of tension between some people in the intelligence field
and the White House over Vietnam. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if the
whole Deep Throat story is somehow tied to the Vietnam War.

GROSS: My guest is political analyst and former White House adviser David
Gergen. He has a new book called "Eyewitness to Power." We'll talk more
after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: David Gergen is my guest. His new book is called "Eyewitness to
Power: The Essence of Leadership, Nixon to Clinton."

You worked briefly for the Clinton administration and the president called you
in when he was getting a lot of negative coverage and having trouble putting
across his policies. This was actually one example of the kind of trouble he
was in. He had that haircut on the airplane...

Mr. GERGEN: Yes, right.

GROSS: ...that held up traffic at the LA Airport.

Mr. GERGEN: The $200 airport--$200 haircut.

GROSS: Right, an example of the kind of bad coverage he was getting.
Anyway, so, yeah, you were called in. You write in your book that when you
left the Clinton White House, you felt used. In what way did you feel used?

Mr. GERGEN: Well, I felt that--this is a sensitive subject. I felt that I
was brought in to help get the team back on track and that when the team did
get back on track--and by the way, the person who's really responsible for
getting the team back on track was not me; it was Bill Clinton--our effort on
the team was to help provide a safe environment in which he could recover his
self-confidence and rediscover his own strengths, and that's what he did. But
once he was back up on top, that there was--the younger members of the staff
who resented my presence there as someone who obviously had worked for three
Republicans in the past turned on me with some venom, and while, you know, I'm
old enough now to appreciate why these things happen, it was no fun. And I
felt I got very little protection during that time from the president, and,
you know, that I got knocked around more than I really thought was fair. And
so I felt, you know, `Listen, I came in and I gave up a lot. I took a lot of
risks to come in here to do what I thought was right.' And again, I continue
to think it was right and would do it again, if asked, under the right
circumstances, if a president were in deep, deep trouble.

But having done that, having put a lot at risk, having given up a wonderful
partnership with Mark Shields on "MacNeil/Lehrer," having left my magazine, US
News, having given up, you know, and sort of burned some bridges back in
journalism, I thought, frankly, I deserved a little more protection. And so
be it. That's politics. You know, you live by the sword, you die by the
sword. So I was bitter for a while, but, you know, I think you have to grow
up and be appreciated. As you get older, Terry, as you know, you have to
realize if you're going to step into turbulent waters, you're likely to get
wet.

GROSS: And one of the great ironies, you know, when you were brought into the
Clinton White House, it coincided with the demotion of George Stephanopoulos,
and now you and Stephanopoulos are kind of partners or counterparts on
"Nightline."

Mr. GERGEN: Yes.

GROSS: You're on all the time together...

Mr. GERGEN: Yeah.

GROSS: ...weighing in on the latest political events.

Mr. GERGEN: Right.

GROSS: So I'm wondering what it's like for you and he to sit opposite the
table from each other all the time now.

Mr. GERGEN: Well, it's good to be on the same side. We were on opposite
sides a lot during the Clinton years. One of the things and one of the
reasons I felt burned about going into the Clinton administration the way it
happened was that I very, very much did not--when they asked me to come in and
they told me that George was going to be changing jobs, I said, `Would you
please get George's change made before I get there because if I'm associated
with his change,' he has dozens and dozens of people on that staff who love
him, who looked up to him, they worshipped him, `and if I'm associated with
that change, they're going to automatically see me as the enemy. It's going
to really make my job much more difficult.' Well, of course, the two of us
got squeezed into the same announcement. And I think as we've pieced the
facts together since then, we both were told a different story about what was
happening and why that happened, so that he naturally, I think, literally, I
think he was gentlemanly about it, but I'm sure he was bitterly resentful of
my coming in there. So when we were thrown together like that, it just was
hard. It was hard to be as effective as I wanted to be under those difficult
circumstances.

But coming together with him now on "Nightline," we have a lot of fun
together. We've put aside our differences, I think. You know, we still
disagree on policy. We disagree on a lot of philosophy, political philosophy.
But I have enormous respect for George Stephanopoulos and I would like to
think that he respects me.

GROSS: So much has changed in the press since you were in your 20s and
started working for the Nixon White House. It's particularly changed in the
world of television, where now it's not just the three TV networks who are
covering the news. You've got, you know, CNN, you've got C-SPAN, who is like
recording a whole speech, not just the soundbites.

Mr. GERGEN: Thank goodness. Thank goodness for C-SPAN.

GROSS: Well, I'm wondering how you think--if it's gotten--the job of
communications director or speechwriter has gotten any more or less difficult
now that the TV press has changed as it has?

Mr. GERGEN: I think the whole process of governing is much more difficult
today than it was 30 years ago.

GROSS: Oh, and did we mention the 24-hour news cycle?

Mr. GERGEN: We didn't, but we should. The--I remember so well, Terry, when
I left the Reagan administration, I could go out on the West Lawn of the White
House--this was in the mid-'80s--and you could count maybe five or six cameras
out there. And then leaving the Clinton White House one night and going out
on the West Lawn, there were 24 different cameras out there, you know, all
whirring at the same time. So it's changed dramatically, and I think it's
made it much, much more demanding for those who work inside. And frankly,
it's harder for a president to communicate well. What's happened is that we
don't have as many communal experiences as we once did as a people.
Everything gets chopped up and soundbited and, you know, it's sliced and
diced. So we see bits and pieces of things on various places, but we don't
sort of have an experience together as a people in the same way. And I think
it's harder for our presidents to reach us or to reach into our hearts.

What Bill Clinton has done to offset this--and Michael Waldman has just
written a new book; he was his chief of speechwriting--called "POTUS Speaks."
Michael Waldman was--first-rate book. And what Bill Clinton has done is to
give far more speeches than anybody else in history. He gives over 500
speeches a year now in order to, you know, blanket the airwaves. The problem
with that is that if a president speaks that much, people get tired of it all.
They start checking out. They don't listen to him at all. I think that in
public communication, less can be more; that someone who speaks infrequently,
say Alan Greenspan. He doesn't speak very often, but when he speaks,
everybody listens. It's like E.F. Hutton, you know. So I think that there
is--it's important in this new age of massive information but very little
wisdom that our presidents learn to speak carefully, honestly and not very
often and make their words count for more.

GROSS: Well, David Gergen, thank you so much for talking with us.

Mr. GERGEN: Thank you.

GROSS: David Gergen has written a new book called "Eyewitness to Power."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Profile: Song by Kurt Weill, featuring his widow, Lotte Lenya
TERRY GROSS, host:

This year is the centenary of the birth of the German-born composer Kurt
Weill. The original American cast recording of his most famous musical, "The
Threepenny Opera," has just been reissued on CD. For this 1954 production,
Marc Blitzstein translated Berthold Brecht's lyrics. The cast featured
Weill's widow and greatest interpreter, Lotte Lenya. The new CD has a bonus
track featuring Lenya singing "Mack the Knife," accompanied at the piano by
Blitzstein. Let's give it a listen.

(Soundbite of "Mack the Knife")

Ms. LOTTE LENYA: (Singing) Oh, the shark has pretty teeth, dear, and he
shows them, pearly white. Just a jackknife has old MacHeath, dear, and he
keeps it out of sight. When the shark bites with his teeth, dear, scarlet
billows start to spread. Fancy gloves, though, wears MacHeath, dear, so
there's not a trace of red.

On the sidewalk, Sunday morning, lies a body oozing life. Someone's sneaking
around the corner. Is that someone Mack the Knife?

From a tugboat by the river a cement bag dropping down. The cement's just for
the weight, dear. Bet you Mackie's back in town. Louie Miller disappeared,
dear, after drawing out his cash. Have you noted Mackie's loaded? Did our
boy do something rash?

Oh, the shark has pretty teeth, dear, and he shows them, pearly white. Just a
jackknife, has MacHeath, dear, and he keeps it out of sight. Just a
jackknife, has MacHeath, dear, and he keeps it out of sight.

GROSS: Lotte Lenya with Marc Blitzstein at the piano. A bonus track from the
new reissue of the 1954 production of "The Threepenny Opera."

Coming up, rock critic Ken Tucker reviews the Waco Brothers' new CD. This
is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Review: Chicago-based Waco Brothers' new CD, "Electric Waco Chair"
TERRY GROSS, host:

The Waco Brothers are not brothers, but a Chicago-based band that likes to
slip sharp social observations into its unique variation on citified country
rock. The group's new collection is called "Electric Waco Chair," and rock
critic Ken Tucker says it continues the band's interest in simultaneously
enjoying and critiquing its chosen form.

(Soundbite of music)

WACO BROTHERS: (Singing) The Fox River flows about a thousand miles or so,
past all the Ann Maries and Uncle Joes. They've built their homes so near, it
floods most every year. You have to learn to live with your fear.

KEN TUCKER reporting:

Listening to the tuneful, jangly, often quite chipper songs on the Waco
Brothers' "Electric Waco Chair," it's almost hard to believe that one of this
band's leaders is a once and future Marxist Dadaist proto-punk. That's Jon
Langford, once a key member of the Mekons, a music collector from Leeds,
England. Langford has always had his comic side, and he seems especially
playful here, even when he's critiquing whatever they call yuppies these days
in a song called "Nothing To Say."

(Soundbite of "Nothing To Say")

WACO BROTHERS: (Singing) Here they come buying up the street, this
neighborhood got too fat to run. Buck and a half to pull the old shop down,
broken teeth, get a new white crown. Thank God, it's boom or bust. I can't
think past Friday. New tires and new chains, spend a million dollars, got
nothin' to say.

TUCKER: But you may say inveighing against the Internet millionaire nouveau
riche is like shooting fish in a barrel, and I hope that the second verse with
its swipe at 15-year-old singers with nothing to say isn't aimed at that nice
Britney Spears who, anyway, is at least a few years older than that and whose
bellybutton alone has much to say to millions of people. Langford and the
Wacos understand this, as is made clear by the entertainment analysis provided
on "It's Not Enough" which, among other things, locates the death of rock 'n'
roll on the wreck of the Mary Celeste.

(Soundbite of "It's Not Enough")

WACO BROTHERS: (Singing) You can be the last one standing as the surface of
the Earth melts, like a chocolate bar. Throw me out with the garbage, I'll
never get that far. Better than in the streets, scatter me like beets
(unintelligible). Help me; stuck just like Trigger, a pickle for a souvenir.
My pain is peeling, my nails all rust. At the peak of my popularity I'm
crumbling into dust. It's not enough. It's not enough. It's not enough.
It's not enough. I...

TUCKER: Like most smart English musicians, Langford approaches American
country and roots rock as alien territory. He doesn't feel comfortable
personalizing his songs. You'll never hear him crying in his beer the way a
hero like George Jones does, or pushing the formal boundaries of the music the
way Willie Nelson does. Instead, Langford and his Chicago home boys use the
genre to tell stories, to make social observations and to call attention to
country music's commercial populist dichotomy. Remember, this album's called
"Electric Waco Chair" and their aim is to fry someone now and again.

(Soundbite of music)

WACO BROTHERS: (Singing) History is written by the winner. This is a loser's
song. I took this job in a summer, never saw the winter rolling on. Never
thought it would end in a second, a burnt-out, smoking wreck. Expectations
and ambitions were just a rope around my neck. Broke my back to utter crust,
saw my dreams die into dust. Now I'm walking on hell's roof looking at the
flowers.

TUCKER: If you hear despair in lines likes, `Expectations and ambitions were
just a rope around my neck,' I'm here to direct you to a book of cartoons that
Jon Langford drew and wrote with Colin Morton called "Great Pop Things: The
Real History of Rock and Roll From Elvis to Oasis," a fractured, hilarious,
ruthless collection that joyfully messes with chronology, forcing Bob Dylan to
lie down with Judas Priest. Go buy it and read it while listening to the Waco
Brothers' musical but similar deconstruction of country rock.

GROSS: Ken Tucker is critic at-large for Entertainment Weekly. He reviewed
the Waco Brothers' new CD "Electric Waco Chair."

(Credits)

GROSS: I'm Terry Gross.

(Soundbite from song)

WACO BROTHERS: (Singing) Pack up your things, you know you can't stay here.
The building will be razed in less than a year. And everything that it
contains, the faucets, the stoppers and the drains, will all seem like they
were never real. Turn out the lights, you know you need sleep now...
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.