Heffner: I'm Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind, and I'm delighted to welcome our guest today, author of the new book, Dinner with the President: Food, Politics, and a History of Breaking Bread at the White House.

Alex Prud'homme, thank you for joining me today.

Prud'homme: My pleasure.

Thanks for having me.

Heffner: Alex, what is the most persuasive example of food diplomacy in the history?

Your book navigates from the founding of our union through the present of all those decades and centuries.

What was the most persuasive use of food as a diplomatic tool?

Prud'homme: Well, there are many examples.

One of my favorites I opened the book with, which is where Thomas Jefferson held a secret dinner at his place here in New York for James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

And over this delicious dinner that his slave cook James Hemings prepared, they brokered a deal that essentially saved the republic.

But I think if you're talking about in the context of modern dinners, US Grant held the very first state dinner for a foreign dignitary, and he didn't invite the king of England or the czar of Russia.

He invited King Kalakaua of the Sandwich Islands, which we now call Hawaii, which was an independent kingdom which had a lot of sugar and they wanted to export their sugar to the states, but we had very high tariffs.

And so he came to Washington and was given a big parade and had a wonderful 30 odd course meal cooked by Valentino Mela, who was a wonderful chef from Sicily with the grants.

And lo and behold, over dinner and during their meetings, they brokered this deal where the US agreed to lower sugar tariffs in return for the use of Pearl Harbor as a Navy base and as many Hawaiians feared, that ultimately led to us taking over Hawaii.

But at the time, it kind of saved the kingdom and it was this kind of remarkable dinner, which set the pattern for what we now think of as modern state dinners.

Heffner: When I ask about food as diplomacy, there is the venue and then there is the hardware, the ingredients, and the ultimate dishes that are being performed or served.

So in the examples of negotiation or using barbecue or other food as a negotiation, and you refer to the Cold War era negotiations as well as the civil rights legislation negotiations.

In your mind, was it more about the presence or pretense omnipotence of the White House or actually about the quality, the delectableness, the satisfaction of the diners from the food that they were eating?

Prud'homme: I think it's hard to separate those things.

I mean, you're picking up on the right points, but first of all, the White House, there's no other place like it in the world.

It is the nerve center of America and it's domestic and foreign policy.

It's a very busy office, but it's also a functioning home.

And as Jackie Kennedy put it, it's the symbol of the American Republic.

And so it works on a lot of different levels.

So even just walking in there becomes a kind of an emotional experience for people.

I felt this myself when I went to visit that if something you've seen your whole life where images of the White House and you walk in and something happens to you psychologically, and I talked to one of the guards and he said, oh yeah, I mean people come in and they break down in tears or sometimes they pass out and one guy got sick in the plant over there.

So it's a remarkable experience.

If you combine that with the pomp and circumstance of a state dinner or even a cabinet meeting or even the Easter egg roll on the lawn, it takes on a special flavor.

It's not just a meal.

There's a lot going on there.

There's signs and symbols for various audiences.

And then of course you have the wonderful food as you were talking about.

And even if it's a breakfast meeting, they do a bang up job on producing wonderful things to eat and things to drink.

And the tradition is at the end of a state dinner, you get the menu and everybody at the table signs the menu and you take it home.

Because very often people are so overwhelmed by the experience of eating there.

First of all, they forget what they ate, and second of all, they forget who they sat with and talked about what they talked about.

So the little memento reminds you of what you ate and who you were with, and it's something that people treasure, and then there's a reason for that.

Heffner: Right?

Of course, we have the M&Ms with the seal of the President on Air Force One that the trappings of both Air Force One and the White House do reinforce that stature are intimidating once in lifetime experiences.

For many of us, there's actually been work at Ohio State by several scholars.

You alluded to the Jefferson Meals, but there has been documented research and proof points about dinners that he hosted and his capacity for statecraft and the passage of legislation.

As we have advanced to the present era, things have become more and more homogeneous.

And who is dialoguing?

It's Democrats having barbecues with Democrats or Republicans having barbecues with Republicans, not so in the era of LBJ or even Clinton.

Prud'homme: Absolutely right.

One of the things I found fascinating in my research was when I talked to academics and they say, go back to the very beginning.

Humans are essentially designed to enjoy breaking bread together.

We love to sit down and eat even if we disagree with each other, which I thought was fascinating.

And they compared it to the way primates groom each other because that as with eating together, releases endorphins, which are the feel good chemicals that we have.

And so it becomes a self-reinforcing practice.

If you sit down and you eat together, you converse, you laugh, you cry, you broker deals, you keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

These are very primal human drives.

So you're absolutely right.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the, he was considered our greatest epicurean president in history.

I would say the Kennedys are a close second, and FDR was a close third, although that's a complicated story which we could get to.

But there are certain presidents and first families who understand the political and diplomatic utility of breaking bread together.

And there are many more who don't get that.

And my pet theory, after spending several years researching this subject is that those that get it end up being better legislators than those that don't.

And of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

And the most notable one would be Abraham Lincoln, who's considered our greatest president.

And he basically, at least during the Civil War, he survived on cornbread and apples and coffee and lost considerable amounts of weight.

But for the most part, the presidents who understood the value of what people call commensality, meaning sharing a meal together at a communal table, they are more effective in office than those who don't.

And there are plenty of examples of people who do this, and I mean, the Kennedys are prime example of that.

But even more recently, you have the evolution of the state dinner from US Grant's days.

It continues to be relevant in the latest century.

And you know, you have Joe Biden just had Macron.

He's about to host the president of South Korea.

They've recently announced Prime Minister Modi of India.

He understands this.

He's not a foodie.

Jill is a foodie, but Biden understands the political value of state dinners and in breaking bread in general.

Heffner: So as an intermission here at the risk of diluting the intellectual exchange, I would love to just hear the food that you most associate with each of our presidents.

And if you will permit me, I would go from the present, President Biden to President Washington, reverse chronological order, but- Prud'homme: Just, okay, this is a tricky one.

All right, let's go for it.

Heffner: And by the way, I found the very interesting trivia about which president most enjoyed possum, roasted possum.

We'll get to that.

Yes.

That will be one of our presidents.

Right.

So Biden.

Prud'homme: Well, Biden is famous for his love of ice cream and pasta with red sauce.

And the backstory to that is that Jill Biden grew up with Italian grandparents who made homemade pastas and braciola and meatballs and bread at home.

And she's a wonderful cook.

So he's been kind of spoiled by that.

Heffner: Trump.

Prud'homme: Trump.

McBurgers and steak.

Heffner: Big Mac.

Well done steak with- did he like Heinz ketchup?

I mean.

Prud'homme: He liked ketchup all over it.

Yeah, he would dry the steak out so much- Heffner: I could imagine him someone bringing him a particular, and I would actually, I prefer Heinz too, bringing some kind of non-Heinz ketchup and saying, “Get that out of here.

” Wouldn't surprise me.

President Obama.

Prud'homme: Obama had a really global palate, and he was not only raised in Hawaii, he was also raised in Indonesia.

And so he liked spicy Asian food.

And there's a famous episode of Anthony Bourdain's show where they had spicy bun cha noodles in a Hanoi shop and drank a couple of beers.

And I think that's his favorite kind of meal.

Heffner: The second President Bush, Prud'homme: Second President Bush, well, he was a man of basic taste.

He liked nachos, he liked grilled cheese sandwich, anything- Heffner: I hear he liked egg salad on Air Force 1.

Prud'homme: That's probably, right.

That sounds about right.

And he liked ballpark hotdogs, which were steamed, not grilled.

He got mad at the chefs when they grilled them one time.

Heffner: Well, you know that from the Texas Rangers days.

Prud'homme: There you go.

Exactly.

I'm sorry, what?

Heffner: Clinton.

Prud'homme: Oh, Bill Clinton.

Well, you'd have to start with mc burgers, right.

And then you'd evolve through his heart troubles into much healthier food, so steamed vegetables, a little bit of salmon.

Ultimately after leaving office, he became not only a vegetarian, but a full-blown vegan, although I've heard that he's slipped back a little bit on that.

But he's a very healthy eater now, and he's lucky to be alive because his heart was a mess.

Heffner: And if we took this all the way back to Washington, we might finish the rest of the program.

I'll interrupt this to just ask you the last bona fide food compromise.

You can cite the meal, you can cite the moment of unification or catharsis or whatever deal, in the deal making.

Would that be some of President Clinton's negotiations when there was true bipartisan breaking of bread?

Or do you really think you have to go further back either maybe to President Reagan or President Johnson or President Kennedy?

Prud'homme: I would actually say Obama.

He was famous for having lunches with people like Boehner who he disagreed with strongly.

But they were, and I have a photograph in the book of them having a bipartisan lunch together.

And they respected each other even though they disagreed politically.

But they were able to work out some deals.

Mitch McConnell and Boehner and Nancy Pelosi and Obama would sit around and have lunch and broker a deal.

Heffner: Would you say though that then it's an unfair characterization of the Obama presidency, that it was rather insular in that President Obama was more introverted as a speaker and a charismatic president?

He was extroverted, but behind closed doors, there was at least the whispers on the hill that it was not the most compromise-inducing presidency.

Prud'homme: Well, he's an intellectual really at heart and a deep thoughtful man and a wonderful writer.

And so you have to have that ability to be charismatic in public, but you also have to have that ability to give yourself some distance to the world and be introspective and observant, which takes some quietude.

He would stay up late at night after dinner with the family and work on whatever it was.

And I've heard those same whispers.

I wasn't there.

I wasn't able to interview them, so I couldn't make my own judgment.

Heffner: To my earlier question, when you think of landmark legislation and food inspire or landmark treaties, what is in modern memory, what meal or food do you most associate with that breaking of bread?

So whether that's dating all the way back to Reagan or earlier?

Prud'homme: Well, yeah, it's a question of degrees.

I would just point out about Obama that don't forget, Mitch McConnell vowed that Obama would be a one-term president, and he was up against a very tough opposition.

And so I think part of his reluctance to engage was that he felt burned.

I mean, he tried, and I talk about this a bit in the book when he's trying to negotiate food policy, and he just got tremendous pushback and was very bitter and partisan.

And it was not in the spirit of cooperation in terms of a landmark deal consummated over a meal.

I mean, you know, could say Reagan brokering piece with Gorbachev.

This was after the Reagans had a dinner for Lady Di and Prince Charles, which was considered kind of their ultimate social coup.

But in terms of diplomatic and political brokering, I think that that Gorbachev State Dinner, which essentially marked the end of the Cold War, that was a monumental moment.

And it's actually one of the reasons that Putin rose to power because he felt that Gorbachev was weak and had given into the West.

And I believe that's a misreading of history, but it's a powerful motivator for someone like Putin.

So when you look at that dinner where the Russian delegation, they were serenated at the end of the evening with Russian songs, the unofficial Russian anthem, they were all in tears.

They understood the value of that.

And the Reagans were also quite emotional, and they're not known for being an emotional couple.

So I thought that was sort of the last real landmark.

Heffner: And when we go back, I mean, you say that the formation of the union or the preservation of the union at times has been contingent upon successful meals, just presidents who didn't get tired of their daily fare.

But if you were to go back even further, is there another example?

I'm asking this in the spirit of the conflict that has been underway for well over a year now, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the idea that any major superpower had a potential opportunity or still has a potential opportunity to bring peace.

Is there some sort of analogy we can look at in history to this moment now where ingenious imaginative leaders who believed in the power of food could help us bring peace to that region?

Prud'homme: Well, you could go to FDR during the second World War.

He wasn't engaged with Hitler or the Japanese directly, but he was engaged very much with Winston Churchill and also the leaders of Western Europe, and to a certain extent Chinese.

And he was a gourmet, and Churchill was a gourmet.

And when the Germans were threatening to invade Britain and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Churchill understood immediately that Roosevelt would be tempted to go into the Pacific Theater first since the Japanese had attacked us.

And so he flew over to Washington, which was incredibly risky on, actually, he came over by the naval ship and he was incredibly risky because there were U-boats and there were storms.

But he made it and he camped out at the White House for a couple of weeks and they would get together every night and eat copiously and drink and smoke cigars and stay up late, which annoyed their wives to no end.

But they basically hashed out a plan for us involvement in the European Theater.

And that was a decisive moment.

I've wondered if Biden would ever have a state dinner with Putin or President Xi of China.

And at this point, I don't see it happening.

I think it's just the tension is too severe right now, especially with Putin.

But even with China, things are pretty tense.

I could see him ultimately having a dinner with Xi, but that's going to take some work, especially since she is currently hosting or is visiting Putin.

And so when it gets to these kind of crux moments in history, it's very difficult to sit down and break bread together because there's not goodwill on both sides.

And that's part of what we need, is we need at least the pretense of goodwill.

Heffner: Right.

And technology and the pandemic have been forces to further debilitate that natural interaction that would have taken place years earlier.

And it almost feels like inaccessible, like you and I are being naive and dreaming up, or at least I am, concocting some great pierogis that are going to heal wounds.

Maybe it's just not going to happen.

Did you feel in writing the book nostalgic for those eras and feeling however depressing this realization may be that this is just not really in the cards.

It's more likely that people would be satisfied 3D printing their Big Macs than breaking bread and learning each other's recipes and having those days of beer or wine drinking?

Prud'homme: I do lament that although I am a political realist, and again, FDR wasn't having dinner with Hitler.

I mean, he was very pragmatic about it.

On the other hand, I more resent or miss, I should say, the domestic breaking of bread, meaning for years deals were worked out in the Congressional dining room, people would argue and then they'd go have a bourbon together.

I mean, Harry Truman was famous for taking on the steel workers and the Supreme Court ruled against him, and he was so mad.

And then he went and had a bourbon with the Chief Justice and they calmed down and they were able to have a dialogue.

The Washington party scene has famously held the city together, this fractious city with all these partisans, and yet the cocktail parties, the dinner parties, the things like the Correspondents Dinner, these ritualistic gatherings of the tribe, as it were, really was the glue that kept Washington together.

And that's gone by the wayside, I think, much to our detriment.

I mean, to go back to what I originally said, we humans are designed essentially to want to eat together.

And I think ultimately we'll come back to that, but it's going to take a while because there's so much ill will in the wind.

And one of the great first ladies was Dolly Madison, James Madison's wife.

Now James Madison was a conservative slave holder from Virginia, didn't have much interest in food, but his wife, Dolly was a former Quaker who had kind of rediscovered herself, would dress in these outrageous outfits and she'd throw these Wednesday night parties, which they called Mrs. Madison's “Squeezes ” because they were so popular, you had to squeeze into the room.

And they were very important because there were all these bachelor congressmen from all over the country, some of them from the frontier who barely knew how to use a fork, literally.

And they would get together for these dinners, or there was more kind of a party really.

They'd have canapes and so on.

And they got to know each other as human beings as opposed to kind of stick figures and representatives of their politics.

And she used these to gather intelligence.

She found out what the, their concerns were, what their constituents were saying, what they thought of her husband, the president.

And if you displeased her enough, she would disinvite you to the Squeeze.

And that was a real problem for you because that's where all the action was.

And it had the effect of making the White House the place to be in Washington.

It's sort of the center of the action and was very smart.

And then the funny little anecdote is that when tempers got flaring, she'd pull out her snuff box and give people a little snuff to snort and that would calm them down.

And so she was kind of a genius, and she was the prototypical modern first lady, and she kind of set the pattern.

Heffner: We're running out of time, but I think it's fair, based on your answer to say that we are less likely to loosen up from whatever liquor we're consuming, we're less likely to be malleable as a result of delicious meal.

And that's something to work on.

It's a sociological project and psychological project as much as it is a political project.

But I hear- that's what I hear you saying that then and now is different.

And if we can inch our way back to being more intellectually curious and malleable around meals where we can be laughing, right?

I mean, why do we- Prud'homme: Absolutely.

Heffner: The chemical reaction of laughter is irreplaceable and... Prud'homme: Absolutely.

Heffner: The jury is out on whether laughter can make folks more understanding or tolerant of a different viewpoint.

But we used to be more in proximity to each other on a spectrum.

It's really a novel approach, a wonderful, wonderful insight into today and with modern application, because please read Dinner with the President and also read the Ohio State Scholars Study socializing statecraft, because this is not just pie in the sky.

This is accessible, there is science behind it.

And then finally, in the seconds we have left, it was President Taft who liked the roasted possum?

Prud'homme: That's right.

William Howard Taft, who at 350 pounds was our heaviest president.

He liked to eat steak three times a day, but when he wasn't eating steak, he would inhale possum, and people across the country would send him possums, sometimes alive, and he'd have them roasted up and he'd say, “Oh, that I like that possum.

And that possum liked me.

” And that's why he was the three 50 pounds.

Heffner: Alex, have you ever seen a possum on a menu in your lifetime?

Prud'homme: I have not.

And I actually was interested in trying it, but I'd have to go down south and do it surreptitiously, I think.

But because you can't really order a possum over the internet, I discovered, Heffner: Yeah.

Like what Mayor Koch used to say, I remember from my grandfather, they would serve squab and he would say, “I hope that's not one of our pigeons.

” A funny story from the predecessor of The Open Mind.

I think we are about out of time, so I want to thank you again, Alex Prud'homme, for your insight and storytelling here today.

So much appreciated.

Prud'homme: My pleasure.

Thanks so much.

Heffner: Please visit The Open Mind website at thirteen.org/openmind to view this program online or to access over 1500 other interviews.

And do check us out on Twitter and Facebook at @OpenMindTV for updates on future programming.