>> coming up, your calls and comments. infrastructure security expert at northeastern university stephen flynn on how to mitigate risk and build resilience and author and political scientist lee drutman on the potential impact of third-party end independent candidates this election year. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. it's thursday, april 4. on this day in 1949, 12 countries founded nato.

at the time, president truman called the new alliance a "field against aggression." today, there are 32 members, with sweden enjoyed and last month. today, we would like to know your thoughts on nato. do you think the u.s. should increase its financial commitment, maintain current levels, or decrease it? if you say increase, call us on (202) 748-8000. maintain current levels, it's (202) 748-8001. and if you say decrease, it is (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. include your first name and city and state. we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span and x, @cspanwj.

welcome to today's washington journal. we will start with a gallup poll on nato taken at the end of february with the headline "americans remain committed to nato." and here's what the article says. 47% plurality of americans want to see the u.s. keep its current commitment to nato with 20% feeling support for the alliance should increase. meanwhile, 16% think the u.s. should decrease its nato commitment. 12% would prefer the u.s. withdraw from nato entirely. and you can see here the graph. you can see those same things visually. this top line is to keep it what it is now. this blue line is to decrease. and the green is to increase. you can see that going up slightly. and then the red dashed is to withdraw entirely. you can see that going up a

little bit but back down towards the end. yesterday, before the start of a nato ministers meeting in brussels, secretary of state antony blinken spoke about the importance of the alliance. here he is at the nato headquarters. [video clip] >> the work today, the work tomorrow, the work of the summit is about the next 75 and everything we need to do now to ensure that this alliance remains what it has been, the most successful in history, a defense alliance with no designs on the territory of any other country but with a determination to protect the territory of each of its members, and to do it in a way that's been unique inhuman history -- unique in human history, based on the principle that we have each other's backs, that if one of us is the victim of aggression, all of us will be in the help. that's the best way to prevent

aggression from happening in the first place and to create an environment in each of our countries where people don't have to worry about security in that sense and they can make the most of their lives and reach their full potential. that's what this alliance is all about. but it requires constant renewal, constant effort. it does not just happen by itself. and so the work we are doing today to prepare for the summit to ensure that everyone is picking up their share of the burden, to make sure that the alliance has the capabilities, the capacity, to contend not just with the problems we have had to face over the last 75 years but new challenges, some of which the secretary journal alluded to -- secretary-general alluded to. all of these things are front and center. host: secretary blinken from yesterday. also on that screen is nato

secretary-general jens stoltenberg. he will be stepping down at the end of this year. we go to calls on nato. first to jim in muskegon, wisconsin. good morning. caller: i think we need to focus -- [no audio] host: we will go to darrell in caldwell, idaho. good morning, darrell. caller: good morning. i honestly think there's a big problem with human beings. you know, russia wanted to join nato when bill clinton was the president, and bill clinton said he would look into it and came back and said no. obviously, he said no because there's no reason to have a military structure like we have got now pouring tons of money. here we are, a nation that is now in gaza using our bombs. and they are just regular bombs.

killing all kinds of people. we have a war going on in ukraine. we are not there and everybody is proud of that. yet thousands of ukrainians are dead. the russians are losing their men too and russia is a nuclear power. for some reason or another, there's a scripture. revelation 12:9, satan has deceived the whole world. there's another that says there's a way that seems right to man by the end thereof is the way of death. you look at what human beings are doing and how people are squatting in homes now. human beings are made to do this. that's why you have to have police day one. the way the world is going now, an organization building mansions for people in military areas, the rest of us are forking it out. so i don't think the united

states -- i don't think the world is headed in the right direction. host: let's talk to ruben in philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, mimi. what i'm trying to understand here is i believe we should maintain nato but what i don't understand is how canada and the united states, which is part of north america, is part of nato. why isn't mexico included in there? it's basically european nations. host: it is north atlantic so it includes the u.s. and canada. so here is an article from the washington -- the wall street journal, and it says this. "nato turns 75, an old foe and new squabbles. nato now strains to unify 32 members.

nato, fresh from a fight over sweden's accession, turns 75 thursday," today," amid a new spad over who should lead the alliance." nato leaders had hoped to resolve the question of who would succeed secretary-general jens stoltenberg when his term ends september 30. stoltenberg has led the alliance since 2014 and has had his initial four-year term extended four times. we will hear from the secretary-general now. this was from yesterday. about nato's goals leading to the summit in washington happening this fall. [video clip] >> when nato made the pitch to invest 2% of gdp on defense back in 2014, only three allies made that target. today, two thirds of nato allies

are spending 2% of gdp on defense. that's significant progress but of course we want all allies to get to 2%. 2% is the minimum. this is the message we convey strongly. tomorrow, we will also meet with our asia-pacific partners and i think the war in ukraine demonstrates how intertwined the security of europe is with the security of asia and the pacific. north korea, china, iran are supporting russia's war of aggression. so this demonstrates that security is truly global and it's important to work together with our asia-pacific partners. thank you for the strong u.s. leadership on this issue. lastly, tomorrow, we will celebrate nato's 75th anniversary. we actually meet tonight, but also tomorrow, we will market there at the nato headquarters.

and then we will also mark the 75th anniversary of the nato summit in washington in july. thank you for hosting the summit and it will be a great summit to celebrate the alliance and ensure we continue to adapt and nato continues to be the most successful alliance in history. host: that summit will be in july in washington and we will be sure to bring you news about that. he did mention that 2% of gdp to be spent on a nation's defense, so here is an abc article about defense spending of nato members and there's a chart here that shows this -- that shows who is doing that. so you see here this is the 2%. the line is 2% of gdp spent on a nation's defense. poland actually has the highest level at 3.9% followed by the

united states at 3.49%. so here are all of the countries that are meeting that goal. below this line are the countries that are not. for instance, france is at 1.9%. at the bottom is luxembourg at .72%. now, this 2% requirement was instituted in 2014 by the nato members. incidentally, 2014 is also when russia invaded the crimean peninsula. let's talk to ed next, carlisle, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. i am opposed to any funding for nato. when the soviet union started coming apart in the 1990's, they received assurances that nato would not expand. however, during the clinton administration, and also the george w. bush administration,

nato started to expand. in 2008, vladimir putin warned that you guys are expanding nato and if you try to expand into ukraine, that's the redline. so in 2022, when the war in ukraine started, this is a result of the expansion -- continued expansion of nato. and when the war started, every american politician cap saying that this war in ukraine was unprovoked. let me just say that this war is a provocation. the russians have been threatened by the expansion of nato. and i think it is time for the american public to stop knowing and start learning about how this war started. host: who do you think should

not have joined nato, then? when you say the problem with native expansion. caller: i don't think they should have tried to include georgia. i don't think we even need nato. this is the nato. now we want to expand nato to ukraine. we are trying to include japan and korea. host: yeah. japan and korea are not joining nato but let me show people at nato.int, you can go and there's an interactive map you can look at. if you press on any of these, say, france, it will tell you what the contributions are, when they joined, all that kind of information here. there is spain. spain joined in 1982. the united kingdom was one of

the original members in 1949. so you can take a look at that and get some information on each specific country. and sal is in bayonne, new jersey. good morning. caller: i strongly believe we should decrease our involvement with nato. we should have a good presence in nato, financial and military support, but let the europeans step up to the forefront. and of the reason i say that is the french, the germans, the italians, the british, they have excellent weapons, excellent tanks, excellent ammunition, excellent aircraft, great ships. let them supply the ukrainians and other nato allies with equipment. we have our own problems in this country, our own financial problems. we should help our own people. we cannot keep finding all these alliances in europe and around the world. we have to take care of our own people and let the europeans fight for their own defense. host: and michael is in

warrensburg, vermont. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it's wise to maintain if not increase our support our -- support for nato because if the u.s. pulls out of nato it's going to be like a domino effect. it will eventually fall apart. it's a symptom -- this idea of even debating this issue is a symptom of, you know, the maga world putting it into doubt. it's a flawed idea. the united states needs to support these alliances. it's a way to contain somebody like putin, who murders and butchers his opposition, puts people in jail, you know. the country is basically run by a criminal organization which he sits at the top of. and he's a terrorist and a murderer and should be -- he

should be toppled at all costs because he's a threat to world security, a big threat, and he's got a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons that he is constantly threatening to use. nato needs to be a strong organization to stop him and keep europe safe and also the united states as well. thank you. host: all right, michael. and back to that poll from gallup from the end of february. it says that republicans are least supportive of nato. it says 53% of democrats and pluralities of republicans, 46%, and independents, 43%, say we should remain in nato. 23% of democrats want to increase our commitment but only

7% of republicans sure that you. one in six republicans and a similar proportion of independents want the u.s. to withdraw from nato. you can see here. the red is republican. the increase is at 7%. keep it what it is now is 46%. decrease is 26% and withdraw 16%. this is in relation to democrats here who say that increasing should be -- the percentage that said we should increase our commitment is 27 percent and withdraw entirely is at 5% compared to 16% of republicans. let's talk to caleb in gastonia, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah. i think it's a little bit of a misnomer of how we should

increase or decrease or maintain. i am definitely for nato. i mean, if we look at the past 100 years of history, we have had to fight two world wars and the cold war in europe and the only reason we had a cold war instead of a hot war was because we were there. the u.s. built and led the nato alliance to defend europe and its allies, to keep the peace. it was a defensive organization to keep the peace. and the only time that nato has actually been used to defend one of the member nations was in afghanistan. our nato allies went with us to afghanistan and fought with us in afghanistan. lots of their soldiers actually died in afghanistan defending our mission. so it's kind of crazy that we should back out or drop out or decrease when we are the ones

who have actually benefited the most from it. but like i said, to go back to the first point, we are not paying into a community fund or anything. we are paying for our own military. their own military is what, actually, we bring to nato. that's how it's set up. all these other countries are paying for their own military. but i think right now, if we are looking at the incidence in ukraine, it's kind of separate from ukraine funding. i think we should definitely fund ukraine. another caller said that they invaded because it was an expansion of nato. well, i remember, before the invasion, most of the european allies, including our own administration, were ready to say that ukraine would never be part of nato. they were willing to give that to putin, that that was not going to be part -- that was

going to be part of a deal, from what i understood, to keep them from actually going to war. so the fact that they went to war when they had that in their pocket, that ukraine would be independent, is kind of against the wind -- but european countries now are paying a lot more in consequences for the war in ukraine as far as that is concerned on defense spending. they are not independent -- not energy independent like the u.s. is. they have i don't know how many millions of ukrainian refugees. we have a problem on our southern border with refugees coming up from south america but we are able to maintain that. in europe, they are having millions of ukrainian refugees living in their countries all while trying to become energy independent from russian oil and

dealing with shocks like that that the u.s. has not been part of. i have heard a lot of people talk about that. that's all i wanted to say. host: got it, caleb. and a few facts about nato put on your screen. it was created by 12 countries from europe and north america on april 4, so today, 1949, 75 years ago. there are 32 member countries. membership is open to any european state in a position to further the principles of the north atlantic treaty. in 2014, nato countries agreed to commit to percent of their national gross domestic product, their gdp, to defense spending. and constance is in chesapeake, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, honey. i wanted to say that i strongly support nato. my father fought in world war ii. i'm 71 years old and i have watched the republicans in action.

and they have been trying to ruin our country. and it's all because of misogyny and race and it's disgusting to me and i support our jewish friends but i do not support netanyahu. host: so, constance, sticking with nato, why do you support nato? why do you think we should increase our involvement with native? caller: well, the old saying, together we stand, divided we fall. they seem to have forgotten that. they have forgotten it. and, you know, i stand by our european friends. i appreciate all they do and they do well and good for others. i'd use -- i do not support killing people. they are the ones that are attacking ukraine, attacking. they are the ones attacking. putin is organizing all of these attacks. he is the disgruntled person in

the world that wants to ruin everything for nato, for the united states, for the united states, and for freedom in general. and we are not going to stand by and let him push his autocracy or his religion down our throats. they use religion to make people hate each other and kill each other. that's not of god at all. host: all right. caller: and, you know, i support freedom, i support freedom, support women's rights. host: we got that, constance. i wanted to show you this article from axios. it says this. "trump says he will keep u.s. and nato as long as everyone pays their fair share." it says that "former president trump would 100% keep the u.s. and nato -- the u.s. in nato if he returns to the presidency so long as the europeans pay their share." it says the nominee has long

been critical of the alliance, leading to questions about whether he would try to pull the u.s. out if reelected. he says the united states should. -- should pay its fair share, not everybody else's fair share. this was in an interview with nigel faraj, a former u.k. politician -- nigel farage, a former u.k. politician, and we have a portion of the interview to show you now. poll why should -- [video clip] >> why should we guard these countries? i went there and had it out with them and now they have stopped paying again. but now they are paying because of those comments you saw. a lot of money has come in since those comets were made. so nato was not paying. i said, well, they take advantage of the u.s. on trade like crazy, as bad as almost anybody, and on top of it, nato,

largely the same countries, they were not paying their bills. i went to the first meeting and i saw that. i did not want to do it my first meeting. i just got there. i went to the first meeting early in my administration and saw what was going on and so you will have to pay your bills come everybody. the second meeting, i hit them hard. the question was asked by the head of a major country, 20 countries at the time, including us, are you going to protect us from russia if we don't pay our bills? i said, you mean you are delinquent? they said, yes. nope, i'm not going to defend you. if you are not paying her bills, we are not going to defend you. it's very simple. and hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in. if i say i am, they are not going to pay their bills. obama would make a speech, bush would make a speech, and frankly -- i don't know if that's still true, i would hope -- the secretary-general, stoltenberg,

could not believe it. he said, i cannot believe it. he got people to pay up. hundreds of billions of dollars. and nato became strong because of me. now, nato has to treat the u.s. fairly, because it's not for the united states -- if not for the united states, nato does not exist, but they took advantage of us, like most countries do. >> this is being used in brussels as we have got to have a european defense force, even talk of brussels having a nuclear weapon. let's try and get somewhere on this. if they start to pay their bills properly and the club is fair, are places like: defendant? will america be there? >> the united states should pay its fair share, not everybody else's. >> fair enough. >> i believe the united states was paying 90% of nato. it could be 100%. it was the most unfair thing. and don't forget, it's more important to them than it is to us. we have an ocean between some

problems. we have a nice, big, beautiful ocean. it's more important to them. and they took advantage of us on trade and -- >> if they start to play fair, america is there. >> yes, 100%. >> thank you. host: that was the former president talking to u.k. politician nigel farage. we have this on facebook from gary, who says i was stationed on a neato in greece during the cold war. i support the u.s. being in nato but the alliance has its faults and is in need of reform. not really an alliance if the u.s. is doing all the defending. the europeans have to step up and do their part. also, nato should not be a one-way street. if the russians were to invade alaska, how many nato allies would cross the atlantic and help us? again, i am not for us withdrawing, but nato needs to become a true mutual

defense alliance in reality, not just on paper. by the way, gary, there was only one time article five was invoked, and that was in response to the attack of 9/11, so it was in defense of the united states for that. earl in california, good morning. caller: yes. i support nato. because the russians have been trying to build an empire since peter the great, which was a long, long time ago, and they desperately want warm water ports. they would love it if we let them keep their ships in san francisco or any warm water port but we find they are a little too aggressive to have them visit san francisco. host: and mike in butte, montana, good morning. caller: good morning, mimi.

i think antony blinken is embarrassing. i mean, the problem we have in this country, and that very limp wristed speech he gave with the european leader there was pathetic. nato needs to go. russia is now almost 100% christian --i will say mother russia -- and this is bald-faced and designed to extract every last dollar available for middle-class americans. host: mike, getting back to nido, you said -- 10 nato, you said mother russia? caller: i love russia. it is christian. they have no designed to further their so-called aggression, everybody says. they just want ukraine back. they own it. president obama went there and overthrew the existing president

and put in this puppet and zelenskyy is just a total embarrassment. europe is an embarrassment. they are going broke. there awoke and worried about -- there woke and worried about climate change and they are broke. russia's not going into europe. i looked on a map. i cannot believe iceland is part of nato. give me a break. host: aren't. nathan, franklin, indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. we have a split republican party. one is a reagan republican nato is important. if you get enabled work, it is going to be us versus russia, china, iran. russia is the largest country in europe but has the east water --

the least warm water ports. the first place that took crimea -- place they took was crimea. the next was donbas. that created a bridge to the black sea. now they are in moldova. the places that occupy in ukraine border the black sea. without the ocean, their navy is junk. host: what threat do you believe russia poses to u.s.? caller: all you have to do is listen to them. they don't like the idea that u.s. is the number one power in the world. he thinks there should be two equal powers, russia and u.s. on your to do is listen to his speeches. he has laid out what he thinks

about u.s. you don't have to listen to the crittenden wing of the republican party, they don't know their history. russia has been our enemy for the last years and have changed passion and has not changed -- and has not changed. of course he does not like nato because nato is not a threat but it is a defense against his desires to become number two in the world or even number one. host: let's take a look at what article five says. the parties agree to any armed attack against one or more of them in europe or north america shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree if such

an armed attack occurs, each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by article 51 will assist the party by taking forth with individually and in concert with the other parties such actions as the dreams this -- as it deems necessary, including armed forces to maintain the security of the north atlantic area. that is nato's article five. let's talk to carlos in springfield, ohio. caller: good morning. i am glad you could take my call. i listened to the individual from pennsylvania outline everything that happened in that area in relation to the warsaw pact aired nato.

over the years we had an easy peace between u.k., ukraine, and russia until nato decided we have to have ukraine and stage big missiles, offensive missiles directed at russia. nato is responsible for the issue we are having now between russia and ukraine. it is pretty obvious to me that nato -- i guess i am still on

the television. that is my viewpoint. the other issue is when these countries had to percent of their gdp, where did the money go? it goes to u.s. and the other countries that provide weapons for nato. this has got to be a massive amount of money. nato is beneficial financially for the u.s.. that is pretty much what i have to say. host: we have this from sonia who says increase, they are

frontline. vincent says we have the greatest military on planet earth, we don't need to spend on to any -- on in two anymore. allie says it is to protect u.s. interests also. it appears to me some people are misinformed believing each country pays a certain amount of money somewhere rather than the small amount of gdp. let's talk to john in salinas, california. caller: the u.s. should maintain its original commitment to the nato as long as the other members do. they have not. i don't know why you guys don't get on their case about this. they don't pay their way. we have provided the way for

nato, the u.s. is nato. the other countries are a joke. they are not defending anything. they sent a few hundred soldiers to afghanistan, give them a medal. nato has always held our coat when there has been a fight. that is a plain fact. we need to say the truth when it comes to this. this is one thing trump is doing. he doesn't want nato to get out -- what is to get out of nato, he wants nato to become what they are supposed to be. how many billions of dollars has nato given to ukraine? they have given them squat. they give them some planes and out tanks. -- plans and worn-out tanks -- planes and worn-out tanks. who is giving them every?

united states of america. our bases in germany and europe, we are giving money to their global communities. it has become a joke. host: let's look at some statistics from abc news. this is from february. it says the u.s. allocates almost twice as much of its gdp, $860 billion as european allies and canada do together, roughly $400 billion. the u.s. contribution mix of two thirds of the total defense expenditures. this has been the case since the alliance was founded. u.s. defense spending saw a major priest after the 911 attacks. bill is hamilton -- is next in hamilton. there you are.

caller: i am for increasing the defense requirements of nato which includes countries contributing additional resources and restocking their military establishments to provide the defense of europe. you miss me provide more support to two and a percentage of gdp, but we have commitments we utilize european bases for in the middle east, africa and to some asia. supporting nato is the ideal thing. supporting ukraine is ideal because of the aggression of the russians, which is not a christian should, it is an autocracy. basically a soviet-styled government in sheep's clothing under the auspices of a democratic state.

the support of nato is the front line. we don't want to repeat 1939. the position is to continue to support a fair and equitable nato. we need to learn from history, history can repeat itself. host: i have got a question for you. what do you think we have gotten from being part of nato 75 years? what benefit has there been? caller: we have peace in europe. i don't know if many of your listeners have been to russia. i have been to russia, poland, europe. that prosperity that europeans have experienced translates back to the u.s.

both in our tourism to and from, our economic relationships. we have had basic peace, no world war in 75 years. host: you think the only reason we have not had a or in europe against a nato country is because of nato? caller: yes. during the soviet times, it is possible thanks could have escalated worse -- things could have escalated worse than we saw. host: let's look at what president biden said at a meeting after the comments by president about need to countries not paying their fair share. here he is talking about the importance of nato. [video clip] pres. biden: 25 years ago today, poland joined nato. i was very involved in that happening.

during that ceremony, the former secretary of state made this statement. she said when we stand together, no force on earth is more powerful. i believed that then and i believe that now. we see it in polish american troops serving side-by-side, the eastern flank, including in poland. we see it in our commitment to collective defenses. i want to note that poland is spending nearly 4% of its gdp on defense. much of it to sing -- much of it interesting american weapons systems. that is double the commitment. we are seeing in putin's onslaught against ukraine -- i

want to thank you for poland's unwavering humanitarian systems, including welcoming about one million ukrainian refugees. you are doing god's work. today, the u.s. is announcing an emergency package for ukraine using cost savings from previously approved contracts. it includes munitions and routes do have ukraine hold the line against russia's attacks for the next couple of weeks which i have the authority to do without asking congress for more money. i have asked them for a lot more money. it is not nearly enough. congress must pass a bipartisan security bill which includes funding for ukraine. we must act before it is

literally too late. russia will stop at ukraine. putin looking at going, putting europe and the u.s. and the world at risk. host: we are taking your calls about nato. today is the 75th anniversary of his forming. we will take your calls in the next few its. peter is calling us from butler, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to comment about a book by tom friedman. his title is "the world is flat after all" which to me means we cannot afford to isolate ourselves. he argues that everyone in the world is technologically connected in a split second so we cannot isolate.

host: this is a cnn article from march 30. it says this is not covered by the nato treaty and some people thinks that -- think that needs to change. sweden became a number of nato joining missions. make that 49 of the 50 states because in a technicality hawaii is not covered. if the u.s. is attacked in hawaii, sadie pearl harbor base, members of nato would not be obligated to raise to the state's defense. it is the weirdest thing, says the president of the pacific

forum think tank. most hawaiian incidents have no idea that their state is technically not addressed in the alliance. howard is calling from wooten beach, florida. caller: we need to support ukraine because -- cause because russia supplies most of the energy going into europe and north africa. if they take over ukraine, they will control the food and europe are -- europe would a satellite of russia. people want to think about that -- ought to think about that. host: jason on facebook disagrees. no more money, time to get out. u.s. is broke and in a death spiral -- debt spiral. bonnie, hollow. caller: that you for taking my call. we need to support but we should only do our share.

nato has to come up with their share. we cannot continue to support the world. my grandfather came here from syria in the early 20's. my grandmother came here from lebanon. he would say we are concentrated on the wrong enemy and that is in the 30's and 40's and 50's. russia is a fully -- they bully -- a bully. we need to stay out of the middle east. i have been over there and we cannot change their way of life. we need you change -- we need to leave them alone. host: let's talk to frank next, catskill, new york. caller: you have had excellent callers this morning.

i appreciate their viewpoints. it really is a european problem. we do need to maintain. trump spoke before the human -- the united nations and european delegation laughed at when he said why should i defend you against you in any here -- against your enemy here? when trump was president, oil was $30 per barrel. -- $30 per barrel -- $38 per barrel. they cannot wage war when will this that low. they cannot do it. i just wanted to add that. host: bob is next. illinois.

good morning, bob. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: i was thinking about individual soldiers, if they support native -- support nato. when you join the army, they don't ask you if you support nato. what if you have russian dissent and then you are -- you are fighting your brother. i support nato myself. i was just thinking of individual soldiers. host: let's talk to ron in kent, washington. caller: the reason i support it is because i worked for nato in

the army as a photographer. i have seen what they do and how they operate. people don't know anything about the nightclubs noisy security you need -- nor the security you need. [indiscernible] they protect us against russia and protected the baltic sea -- and protect the baltic sea and other countries in the area. it needs more support and

understanding. host: just so you are aware, there has been an earthquake in taiwan. i want to show you this picture on the front page of the wall street journal. it is a picture of a building meaning. -- leaning. there have been on people confirmed dead from that earthquake. workers outside a partially collapsed building following a magnitude 7.4 earthquake. it injured -- 130 people remain trapped including people in minds operated by a cement company -- mines operated by a cement company. going back to our conversation about tomato, -- about nato, we are taking your calls. here is some more information to inform you.

it says here is what you know about nato member defense spending. former president donald trump's remarks over the weekend, he would encourage russia to do whatever they want. nato countries that fail to -- guidelines have filled -- he said this at a rally. you don't pay your bills, you get no protection. it is simple. multiple centers back his comments, president biden called trump's comments shocking and un-american saying that the commitment to nato is sacred, saying trump's comments put the safety of u.s. troops and their allies at risk. the republican presidential front runner raise questions about nato's guidelines on defense spending and how much

each country can contribute to nato's military efforts. nato's data shows almost all allies are expected to meet the defense spending guidelines in 2024 contrary to trump's comments. a little bit more information about who is nato and who are the members, how does nato fund its defense? nato allies used to contribute to trips and funding to the alliance. how much each country would spend on the fence is voluntary on defense is voluntary -- on defense is voluntary. the set standards for themselves to make sure the alliance has military preparedness. nato leaders pledged to commit 2% of their gdp defense spending in response to russia's annexation of crimea and instability of middle east, the

agreement was renewed in 2023. these are not funds countries pay to nato, but contributions to their own military budgets. the alliance does not have its own army and military protections are insured by member countries according to nato's website. in addition, the countries agreed to dedicate 20% of the defense budget to equipment expenses, including research and development to keep up with modernization in the military field according to the funding section. you can find out more. nato's website is make a -- is nato.int. let's go to joe. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm doing good, how are you.

caller: i am doing great. it is always nice to see you. you are so beautiful. i lost my train of thought. host: we are talking about nato. you are calling on the line to maintain. you went to maintain current levels. caller: i called the wrong line. i am sorry. president trump is right. president biden, the clip you showed of the president, that was riveting. it makes me sleep easy listening to him. he is paying everybody in nato's bills. that is what we do. we are a cash cow for those countries. host: let's talk top -- talk to tom. good morning. caller: i support tomato. -- support nato.

i think nato is a reason russia is not invaded europe -- has not invaded europe. i think we should support ukraine. to see aid workers vehicles destroyed in gaza, weapons the u.s. probably gave israel to kill people could be used to destroy russian tanks. we should start diverting money from israel and ukraine. when ukraine pushes russian back, they should be invited to join nato. host: a lot of people have been saying we should not be the cash cow. you have heard callers say that. that the other nato members need to be paying more into their defense. what do you think of that? caller: i think it is nitpicking. we are all in this together and we should stop looking over each other's shoulders because it is good for the u.s. to support

nato. if we pay more, so what? we are protecting ourselves. host: let's look at those remarks made by former president trump in south carolina about nato. [video clip] nato -- >> nato was busted until i came. they said if we don't pay argue going to protect us and i said absolutely not. use -- you never saw more money or in. the secretary-general was my biggest fan. he said all of these presidents came in to make a speech and leave. they all owed money and wouldn't pay it. i made a speech and said you have to pay up. they asked me that question. one of the presidents of a big country said if we don't pay and we are attacked by russia, will protect us. i said you are delinquent?

no, i would not protect you. i would encourage them to do whatever they want. you have to pay your bills. the money came flowing in. if i said yes i will, you don't have to pay. most politicians have said that. then they are never paying up. i said you don't pay your bills, you don't get any protection. host: ending this segment with a few facebook and social media posts. this is a text from audrey who scesney to has failed to act at crucial junctures and expansionism led to the war in ukraine. no, we should reduce our involvement just as we should reduce u.s. militarism. -- warned us about the military industrial complex. militarism should not be for

profit. then war would end. whatever happened to diplomacy? here is andy, nate was about keeping every country healthy militarily. there's not a big pool of money. it is being prepared for conflict to defend ourselves. ben from michigan by text says "i am a veteran and a support nato. donald trump is a supporter of putin and his expansionist policies. he doesn't care." that is what we have for today's segment, the first segment, but there is a lot more to come. next we have infrastructure security expert stephen flynn. he discusses the baltimore bridge collapsed and how to protect infrastructure and supply chains in the u.s.. later, political scientist lee

drutman discusses the impact of third-party and independent candidates this election year. we will be right back. >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing the truth? >> watch american history tv's major investigations each week. each week authors and historians tell the stories, see historic footage and examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. this week, a committee led by harry truman from the 1940's examined the national defense program and whether there was corruption, waste and inefficiency in military contracting the work is said to have saved money, lives and maybe even shorten world war ii.

watch saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. celebrating the 20th anniversary of her annual studentcam documentary competition, this year c-span asked middle school and high school students across the country to look forward while considering the past participants were given the option to look 20 years into the future or 20 years into the past and in response, we received inspiring and thought-provoking documentaries from over 3200 students's 42 states, a top award of $5,000 for a grand prize goes to nate coleman and jonah, 10th graders in connecticut for the compelling documentary innocent held hostage: navigating past and future conflicts with iran. >> and it is evident then the next 20 years the united states will need more policy that places heavy restriction on all americans traveling to iran because not only will we see

less hostage-taking but the united states will no longer have to participate in such considerable negotiations with iran. >> congratulations to the winners and be sure to watch the top winning documentaries on c-span starting at 6:50 a.m. eastern or anytime online at studentcam.org. washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined now by stephen flynn, the founding director of the global resilience institute and a political science professor at northeastern university. welcome to the program. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: let's start with the global resilience institute, what is the mission, why did it start and what is your role? guest: back in 2007 i wrote a book about rebuilding a resilient nation and the focus was really on our decaying infrastructure and also

recklessness we have as a nation. not keeping up the critical foundations that underpin our way of life. i have the opportunity to come to northeastern university focused on how we make infrastructure. host: let's talk about the bridge collapsed last week in baltimore. could this have been avoided, and what would better resilience of that bridge look like? guest: well, obviously there is an investigation underway that the ntsb is leading with a whole bunch of other folks to look at what would be the real story here. what is clear here is that the ship colliding with the support column or the pylon that supports the stand, that was a single point of failure. the bridge was doomed basically

by the collision that knocked that column down. so stepping back then, we would have first evaluated what is really valuable to us? what is really important? and a bridge that straddles one of the most important points of the country would certainly come to the floor. then we would ask the question is it vulnerable to well, yes. if we look at this span across the channel, that would be potentially a point of failure. in either reasonable measures we could've put in place? in 1980 we had a similar ship hit a column in tampa bay and

tragically, it led to six cars and a small truck plunging 150 feet into the day and the waterways below and 35 people drowned. when they rebuilt that bridge, they did put the safeguard in place of surrounding the column with essentially a mini island and also something we call dolphins. they are like the bumpers on a pinball machine. you can't prevent every ship from hitting something but if you can give it to veer away, you can potentially prevent catastrophic failure. the bottom line is we should've taken the lessons learned from the experience 44 years ago and looked around and other infrastructure, identifying what else were critical and vulnerable.

host: i don't know if we can bring up a few pictures of the barriers you were talking about yet, we have some there. you can't see it, but with something like that really have helped in this particular case, given the mass, the size of this ship, the speed that it was going hitting that pier. with these barriers heavily stop this to the point that it would not have collapse? guest: we will have to find out in the investigation. the key to putting a mimi island around the column is that the ship would potentially hit that and veer off, it would not be able to have direct contact with the support column. that is what the ship would collide into.

when a ship hit an object, the bow rides up on andy kim veer away if you shape it right. it's not every bridge that needs this, it the really critical ones that are standing in important waterways and would disrupt. these are the ones we should be stepping back and saying this is something we need to invest in. host: i mentioned the size of the ships, they keep getting bigger. apparently the bridges haven't really kept up with the reality of these ships that are going around it. guest: that's absolutely the case. when i began my career as a coast guard officer, the ship that i commanded in the lower chesapeake bay, the largest container ships coming into the

waterway in the mid-1980's carried about 3000 containers vs. the 10,000 being carried. and that is a little less than half the size of the biggest container ships carrying over 24,000 containers. so ships have gotten bigger and bigger. and the infrastructure surrounding many of the bridges are decades old. many of our bridges are rated as structurally deficient. most of those are 68 years old or more at 12% of the 600,000 bridges in the nation are over 80 years old. engineers built those for a 30 year lifespan. that doesn't mean you can't extend the life but you have to invest in the maintenance and the upgrades to make sure that they are performing in a way that makes us all safe and provides for the canonic benefits of the infrastructure that was put in place in the

first place. host: and we are taking your calls for stephen flynn. if you would like to call and ask a question about infrastructure, critical infrastructure and what resiliency they would need, you can do so. our lines this time are regional. eastern or central time zones, call us on (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific, (202) 748-8002. we also have a line for texting, (202) 748-8003. and you can post on social media either on facebook or on x. he mentioned the ports themselves. i wonder what kind of vulnerabilities the ports have to whatever could happen to them and what resiliency needs to be considered when talking about actual ports. guest: when we step back and we try to prioritize what infrastructure should be really be investing in, the key is to

look at every bridge as being equal. a particular infrastructure interacts with other infrastructure. the first was used for service transportation. cars and vehicles and trucks that move across the francis scott key bridge. they have to find another way around. but the bridge collapsed into a shipping channel, now disrupting the maritime transportation system. it is a lengthy process to clear the bridge and the debris that has now congested that channel. this is the fourth largest port on the east coast and it is the number one port for automobile imports and exports. and it turns out that yes, we can move some things around. there's a lot of concentrated infrastructure to handle those

cars. they have to be examined by customs and this whole facility to handle that, but you can't just pop up with another ship and drop it somewhere else. these are actually specialized ships that can't go in every single port. when you are seeing is you are mapping out the dependencies, the interdependencies of other infrastructure in other systems, and that helps you to assess this is the really important one. there are a lot of bridges that the department of transportation has to take care of and they will say we have to spread it out and protect all the bridges, but some bridges are more important than others because they are connecting to other infrastructure the same can be true for other sectors. you lose power, it is a terrible thing but loss of power translates into loss of water. water is a basic element of

life. we basically need to focus on both the asset and the risk, but also map out what else is it connected to? should it fail, what would be the consequences? those consequences are basically really bad. that is, it would be really disruptive, it would cost a lot of lives. the economic cost is huge and it would take a long time to repair. and you would say that needs to be a priority, we have to really look into safeguarding that. that is not something we are going with our infrastructure. we have just a bunch of it spread out across the nation and we are not doing a systematic assessment of importance and how to safeguard it. ports are absolutely essential to the economy. 90% of world trade is at sea. americans finally had a realization of just how important it is for our way of life and the global economy when we had the covid incident and

all the ships that were backed up outside the port of los angeles and long beach, the disruptions were being relied on. ports are vulnerable primarily through the disruption of the water that allow the ships to come in and out. then there is a shoreside infrastructure that needs to be looked at. that is something that we really need to put a high priority around in safeguarding. host: regarding supply chain disruptions because of this foreclosure, is it going to be as bad as covid-era supply chain delays, or will the impact -- i mean, how bad of an impact will the typical consumer in the united states feel? guest: it's going to be significant. certainly not to the degree of what we saw in the covid

pandemic, especially the port of los angeles and long beach. the port of baltimore brought in a little over one million containers last year. the port of los angeles and long beach together brought in over 17 million, so it is a much larger impact. 50% of the energy west of the rocky mountains comes into the port of l.a. and long beach were immediately offshore to that. really important before we see cascading consequences not just for the nation, but for the world. in the case of the port of baltimore, it is significant regional and global impact in some sectors. this is an important port in addition to automobiles which is just coming back on its feet after covid so they are going to see disruption, but also for farm equipment. it is the closest port on the eastern seaboard the midwest. coal is actually exported out of

that port. we have major distribution centers for things like home depot and fedex and other things that we rely on for many of our goods. that also can be disrupted because of the loss of the francis scott key bridge. and finally, it is in the middle of the eastern seaboard. to work around this we have to going north and south but when we have to going north and south and south to north, we are running into some problems of being in the middle disrupted. it should not be viewed as a local problem and it shouldn't be also viewed as a big airliner crash that we focus on for a little bit and move on. the disruption and the pain that the local folks are going to feel in the baltimore area is going to be very real and very long-standing for quite some time, and for the rest of us, we are impacted as well because of this disruption to our supply chains.

host: we will take calls shortly but i wanted to ask you about a timeline. how big of an effort is this going to be to get reopened? this is probably >> one of the most serious salvage operations the u.s. has had in decades. the bridges estimated at 3000 4000 tons of material are now in that channel, and we have to assess it because when you start taking it, it is like a jigsaw puzzle. every time you pull the piece out, something else can fall in its place. so you have to do that in very murky waters, and the weather is something that you have to take into account, a ratty's -- rather stormy couple of days on the east coast, so that slows things down. the basic mechanics are if you have to survey what you've got, go in and cut up some of the

pieces, start pulling it away and get the ship out of the way. it is coming down incrementally. we can get the channel open probably if enough heavy equipment arrives. it is a 60 plus day probably scenario. the bridge being rebuilt tends to be a multiyear effort. it's not that we can't build bridges quicker. when we put up virtually all of our bridges we used to do it in a couple of years. it is a question of whether we are committed to doing it and i would argue that every american should be behind the city of baltimore to get this right. airports are all interconnected, we are all interconnected. we've got to get out of the tribal mindset that says this is not affecting me. we are one country, the infrastructure is critical to all of us. when a piece as significant as this comes down we need to invest in getting it back out and put our hands together and work on that. host: we got a question for you from mike in rockford, illinois who asks does the ship have

insurance? who exactly owns it, and why was biden so quick on saying the taxpayers are going to pay for everything? is this a chinese ship? guest: the chip is actually a singaporeian vessel which actually has a good reputation in the maritime industry. it was charted by merce, the largest operator in the world and of course is operating in a u.s. port. a lot of complex jurisdictional issues. yes, there will be insurance and they will be some payments made relative to this, but as anybody knows who has gone to court, it takes a long time. so i commend the president for stepping up and saying we are going to get this fixed. we will sort out who is going to pay later. that is what we do and what we need to do right now. hopefully people will be held to

account once the investigation is done. but what we can't afford to do is wait for it to get sorted out and use those resources to rebuild. we have to be working right now in getting that channel clear because there are a number of vessels that are stuck behind it. no vessels can get in it. we are talking at least 15,000 dockworkers directly involved and another estimated 150,000 other jobs that are tied indirectly to the port. and again, the things moving in and out of this affect all of us. what the president was really conveying is let's just get it done. that is the kind of leadership that we need to do when we have these kinds of challenges. host: let's talk to callers now. bill is in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning, professor flynn. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: ok. professor flynn, the comments

that you made regarding the importance of rebuilding that bridge and getting it going, i think that was right on point. i think that is a crucial point. but my question to you is in the new york area, we have numerous bridges connecting manhattan with new jersey, connecticut and so on. can you comment on the brooklyn bridge, the george washington bridge, which are two older bridges in the area, and then you have the bridge that was just recently redone.

can you comment on the engineering and the structural status of those three bridges as it relates to safety? thank you. guest: absolutely. the single bridge with more vehicle than anywhere in the world is the george washington bridge. there are eight planes on the top deck and below deck six waves. it moves an estimated -- vehicles every day. that is about 10 times as many vehicles as move across the francis scott key bridge. as you mention, other key bridges, so you've got all of the maritime traffic that comes into the new york metro area and that is the largest port on the east coast.

it actually doesn't move as many vehicles, but it is stranding the medical channel that is one of the largest container ports in the east coast and that is important elizabeth just outside of new york, new jersey. the port authority of new york, new jersey is responsible for most of these bridges and they have done a very good job maintaining and upgrading them even though they are old. the brooklyn bridge obviously is a historic bridge. similarly is well-maintained. support columns of the bridge and the span of the george washington bridge are on land or very close to land, so they are very much out of the way where a ship could hit them. we should be thinking that safeguards for shore side as well.

the brooklyn bridge was really over-engineered. engineers basically were looking at it, they were really concerned about this lasting for the ages. the core issue with our bridges as we have so many of them, over 600,000 nationwide. we will be need to make sure that we are maintaining them. when we don't maintain it is a lot like if you don't fix your roof if you have a leaky roof. the cost gets exorbitant by not making those repairs, or if you don't tuneup your car. you're setting yourself up for very expensive outcomes. there are a generation of folks that have inherited our grandparents mansion and are refusing to do the upkeep. people are driving by going look at that nice house. the wiring doesn't work and the roof is leaking. it is a disgrace that at the wealthiest nation in the world, this infrastructure was built by

our parents and our grandparents and great-grandparents in many cases, their treasure, and we are not even taking the responsibility to maintain it to pass it onto to our children. never mind upgrade it. and we see that there are catastrophic consequences if we don't do the things we should be doing to safeguard what is critical. host: date is next in california. caller: it's camarillo, by the way. i live pretty close to the next major port north of long beach. anyhow, a couple of quick questions. one is as an interim precaution, has anybody considered many requiring tugboats while they passed through the bridges? not a long-term solution, but maybe an interim precaution.

and the other question i had is electronic vehicles, which weigh roughly twice as much as a gas powered vehicle. i would just like you to comment on that because that is going to cause wear and tear on these bridges. thank you. guest: taking your first question, actually, i'm sorry, i lost you, what was the first question? host: requiring tugboats in the port. guest: thank you. tugboats are clearly a measure that we often take when large vessels are in places where they could put shore side infrastructure at risk. when the dolly was pulling out of the port it was escorted by tugboats up to a point where it made its way into the channel.

the question probably in the baltimore case, the channel is going to take a lot to clear to the degree that they start opening it back out, it is going to be narrow. the notion of making sure you have tongue escorts to get through the infrastructure as well as in the infrastructure, that is certainly something that needs to be looked at. the other design way is creating sort of pumpers on a pinball machine. they basically, the vessel gets off course, essentially bounces into them so it won't hit that really important structure. electric vehicles, a resilient focus has is asking these kinds of questions and we invest in new technology, does it generate new risk?

the ships keep getting bigger and bigger because the economics were bigger ships are better. we get more to scale, it is a much more efficient way to put more and more containers to monitor ships. but the bigger the ship, the more it is potentially affected by currents and by wind when it is in the harbor. so the structure for technique, are we taking the right safeguards to protect that vessel? these are very important questions that should have been asked as ships evolve. same thing with electric vehicles. atkinson is this is absolutely the right direction to go from a sustainability standpoint, and there is little question i think that we are moving in the right direction and that is all very good, but one issue would be let's say half the vehicles in southern florida become electric and we have a category four storm hit miami, can you handle

that? we can, we just have to think it through. as we transition to new technologies, which we must for the sustainability of our planet as well as our economic way of life, we have to think about how that changes the nature of risk and if the consequences are really significant if we have failure, and we have to go right. let's think about some reasonable safeguards that will help mitigate those consequences. and should something it knocked down, plans to recover. these are key concepts that gets us out of waiting for things to break and scurrying to put it back together again. like trying to put humpty dumpty back together. what is really critical is how we sustain it, given that risk is a fact of our lives. host: the color after that ev's

in the sense that they are heavier than their gas counterparts. has that been looked at as far as additional wear and tear on bridges? guest: i have not looked at that, so that is a new issue that i would have to consider. certainly heavier vehicles will do more wear and tear which means we would have to do more maintenance on those roadways or on the deck of bridges. still very small relative to the demands put on. the value of ports is getting stuff off the roadways and using our inland waterways, our seaports, and most efficient, most sustainable way to move goods, but we've neglected our waterway infrastructure. we largely built our nation in the 18 then it 19th-century around water. that is why most are major cities are located where they are. if they are not on the coast

they are next to major rivers like the mississippi. this is a system that is invaluable to our economy and yet we have been neglecting it as we are neglecting our power grids, as we are neglecting taking care of our water. american society of civil engineers does a report card every few years, most recent one in 2021, and the grades were not ones you would want your kids to bring home from school. we are talking about water, a basic element of our life getting a d+. the wastewater gets a d. bridges actually did reasonably well, they gotta c. this is a disgrace, we are the wealthiest country in the world. we got to get our act together and start investing in ways that make it work better. but also more resilient because we know whether it at the risk of terrorism or the risk of

climate change or whatever it is the risk of accidents that happened like we saw very tragically last week in baltimore. host: sorry to cut you off, there has been substantial investment in infrastructure from the bipartisan infrastructure law. do you feel that is not enough and that is not addressing the vulnerabilities adequately? guest: it has been a bit of a game changer in that after 30 plus years of neglect we have not done a major investment as a country and we finally got that legislation passed. but to be clear, it is a down payment on what we need to do. we've neglected it for so long. it's not like we need just a new deal with all public funding going to infrastructure. there is a lot of wealth in the private sector. we have to think different about our finance infrastructure. this is reversing the decline

and getting us moving forward. but the challenge we have because we are 50 states and territories is that we tend to look at it through the lens of local and state, and we don't step back and see it as a national and global system. so one of our challenges is how do we prioritize where we should be making these investments? we should be looking where things are really valuable and where they may be highly vulnerable. those are the things that we need to look toward. of course, every dollar we are spending on new infrastructure, we should think about risk in advance. is the sea level going to be rising? it will be. how much might that impact? more frequent hurricanes work drier seasons of wildfire risk. we want to be sure that when we invest in that, some of these considerations are being put in as a result of the infrastructure act. again, it is a down payment on what should be a similar priority for americans over the

next 10 plus years. host: greg is next in fayetteville, north carolina. caller: good morning. let me ask you, i've got a couple questions here, so let me ask you going back as a follow-up to what you were saying, are you saying that the state of maryland and baltimore does not bear some responsibility for what happened? and bringing up sort of a federalism issue here, shouldn't the local and state authorities which are closest to the situation, they should know what is going on with the bridges and our infrastructure. shouldn't they be the ones that help finance and make some of the changes, because putting all the responsibility on the american taxpayer for their already being $32 trillion in debt, i wouldn't get into it a philosophical argument here, but

it seems like the state of maryland and baltimore should bear some responsibility here. and also a second question is i read what happened, can you explain why the electricity going out on the ship kept it from being able to stop? thank you. guest: two really important questions. the federalism issue is at the heart of the challenge that we have of how we report our infrastructure. this issue of who should pay. there is little question that the way we organize the government is that at every level, we need to invest in what our critical foundation is for our way of life. whether it is our local community, a city, town, municipality, or at the state level or ultimately at the federal level when we are talking about interstate. the story of the francis scott

key bridge is a mix of jurisdictions. absolutely maryland is going to be paying the biggest price for the loss of their bridge and looking at this, we wish more had been done to alleviate this risk but that gets a little complicated because the coast guard is bondable for permitting the bridges but the channels are federal responsibility, not state. the u.s. army corps of engineers plays a critical role in those guidelines. and obviously the private sector has got a very big vested interest in this as well. that is just to say that it really is a complicated set of issues where ultimately we are all going to pay as american citizens if we continue to neglect our infrastructure. we have to invest at all levels, the local, state, and federal.

this is the bridge disrupting a major port regionally and nationally. just stepping up and getting it done. and getting through the issue of who pays is going to be sorted out. but going forward, we will incapacitate ourselves if we basically say it is only one or the other. we know some of the wealthiest parts of the country can afford investing in infrastructure. some of the other part to the country have inherited infrastructure, they are losing population. what do we do? these are hard questions and they require us to think about as citizens where responsibility lies given that we do have a federalist form of government. going back to the ship and the loss of power, it is an issue

that this is really where the ntsb really needs to do their homework. there are essentially two power systems, the power that provides propulsion which spins the propeller show the ship can maneuver and there is the power that supports all of the electrical operations of that ship. the electronics and the lights and so forth here. in this instance, the power failed in the entire ship and the time it took come up there wasn't enough time for it to be restarted in order to get that ship back on course. there will be questions about maybe the helmet was already turning and it was trying to get to the channel and then when the power went out, unfortunately the rudder pushed that ship on a disastrous course. these are really technical set of issues. the core issue is that a large ship coming in contact with a

support column of a suspension bridge meant that bridge span was doomed. so the ideal approach here is to figure out how to protect the most critical elements of that bridge. host: let's talk to brian next in albuquerque, new mexico. caller: pleasure to speak with you. i agree with everything you said about investing in our infrastructure, but i'd like to point out that one of our major parties, all they like to focus on is cutting taxes and deregulating business. this is where that leaves us. we have crumbling infrastructure and corporations that are very irresponsible. i'd like you to comment on the situation with boeing. boeing has bigger problems than plane crashes simply because of the way boeing has been managed. they have two brand-new airplanes crashed because of the way boeing built their airplanes.

and it's going to take years in court to sort that out. but it is pretty obvious what is going on. the same thing going on with the railroads. they are not maintaining properly because nobody in the government and congress makes them do it. the republicans have gone on to just let the market play out, whatever happens, happens. the consumer will do something else. nobody wants to pay the bill. in my other comment, who inspects all these massive ships that go in and out of airports? i used to feel of hedge equipment and i know that big, heavy machinery only makes money when it is operating in moving and doing the job it was designed to do. so if they are sitting there in port getting maidens or being inspected, that cost of the corporations billions of dollars and they don't want that, they just want to run a machine until it breaks, unfortunately. i'd like your comments on that.

guest: absolutely. there's little question that the issues of investing in infrastructure are highly political, which is extraordinary because when we really look at the history of the country, this is something that was almost uniform support across the spectrum. all of the great infrastructure projects were basically made possible, access to the great lakes and the opening up of are in the waterway system and building of bridges, this was something that everybody recognized was to our collective advantage. and many times it was a federal level investment that was needed to get these projects in place. the interstate highway system is of course the result of an act and the eisenhower administration to step out and put together a nationwide service transportation system. so what i like about resilience, i can't find somebody who is

against it. the key point i think in trying to build a bridge, a political bridge that gets us basically on track is if we do the analysis that says this is really important, and if it fails, here is what the cost will be, are you ok with that? people say yes, i will live with that. but if we make at the proposition that ok, here is what the consequences would be, and let me talk to you about the options that would help reduce that risk, it costs ex, y zeek versus the cost of failure, is that a reasonable investment? everybody will come in and say we probably should do that because we really don't want to pay the price of failure. the debate may be on the margins about how much we should do or where we start first, but the key is one that says look, we

can't be a global superpower, a dominant economy if our way of life is ailing and we are not taking care of them. that is something we should all be able to agree on. it is all hands on deck. yes, the private sector has an important role to play. so they may be thinking that different financing, things like goals and other things that are not very popular but somebody has got to pay, having the user pay is one of the ideas that we've been kicking around for a long time and sustaining critical infrastructure. i think we can do this and i think the key is to shift away from throwing darts at each other and standing back and between doing the hard work of mapping out what our critical foundation is. we need water, lead wastewater, we need all these systems to work like telecommunications. and then just undertake the effort of his invulnerable and

if it is, how do we safeguard it? that is what i would move forward and it is one that we can afford to do and one that cannot afford to neglect. host: stephen, what do you think is the biggest risk to our critical infrastructure? is it cyberattack, is it terrorism, is it simply that everything is old and it is going to crumble on its own? guest: it really is all of the above to enlarge extent. the key with the resilience focus is you step back and you actually don't look at the asset and that is where you start, by looking at the hazard, whether it is endurance threat or whether it is a storm, but you start examining the key functions that we have to have. mobility to move vehicles. we talked about the george washington bridge, the 330,000 vehicles per day. critical to the economy of the northeast. most of the goods coming from

new jersey, new york have to cross that bridge. but when you talk about it in those terms you realize ok, that is really important, how do we begin to safeguarded against age as an important hazard, potential terrorism risk? if somebody tries to sabotage the structure and also in terms of storm risk it may be susceptible to. you start by looking at what is really important. what we know with the cyber risk is that we've embraced the internet of things, essentially embedding the internet and all of our infrastructure. this real efficiency ticket from that. we use to send people out to look and inspect. now we can put a sensor on it. the problem is every time we make a connection we create dependency and we make multiple connection can create interdependencies. that means that we have a shop or disruption that cascades across those dependencies and

those interdependencies. that will be one of the things that we may have to look for and undoubtedly will be looking at, whether there is a cyber risk associated with the ship. there are cyber risks associated with maritime rule and we haven't been keeping up with it because that ship, as big as it was, was run by a crew of 21 people. 21 people for a ship as mammoth as that. how do you do that? relying on lots of automation and electronics and electronics have to be sick there. so we are embracing new technologies. the key with resilience again is recognizing systems are interdependent. everything is connected. when hurricane maria hit puerto rico, a hurricane hitting puerto rico is not new. so why wasn't so bad? it is because every foundational life system and critical system failed. power failed, water failed, the

port was closed, the service transportation closed. there was no energy. that is why it took up to a year to get started. you have those cascading failures. you have to kind of crank everything up again and then it really is hard. and our power grid faces similar vulnerabilities. we've come very close in many instances to it going dark and then restarting is a really long term prospect. so we have to get out of this. we are becoming more and more dependent on the power grid to electrify so many things with sustainability rather than keep it in great shape in order to be able to manage what we are asking it to do. so these are all key things. again, the focus here is not just embracing things because they make it efficient or embracing things because they make it more affordable. you think about the risk that may be going with any new

innovation and then mapping out whether the consequences are really significant if we have failure. post: we will take one more question. max, can you make it quick? >> yes, ma'am. i go on i 75 northern michigan and they put a bridge near the saginaw river in the 60's, and that the time that bridge was being built, construction workers were complaining that something is wrong with this. i go up north quite frequently every other week and i go where i call retirement time or there is not much traffic you go over this bridge and it is like going over a horizontal roller coaster that goes up and down. the north, south lanes, there's open space of about 10 foot. the last 15, 20 years they've developed some type of device

that is on the back of a truck that goes vertically outside of the bridge, and it goes horizontally down and then back vertically under the bridge and it goes about two or three miles per hour. and i know from reading about it and stuff that something is wrong. they are constantly inspecting this bridge. i'm 84 years old, i probably won't see it in my lifetime that i make a prediction that that is, from what i have read and going across and all the time, is really not safe and the people that built it said that. so i agree with you 100%. host: last comment? guest: well, basically we know that you have about 60,000 bridges, and there are millions every day over those bridges. that is not a good situation to be in. we have to upgrade eric dane on investing our critical infrastructure.

a cautionary tale i hope every american takes with the tragedy that we saw last week with the loss of the francis scott key bridge. neglecting her infrastructure, neglecting investing in the key safeguards to protect it and to assure it can provide its function for the height of recklessness. the consequences are enormous. we can't take it for granted, we must invest in greater resilience. post: stephen flynn, lucas live professor at northeastern university, you can find more of their work at global resilience. thanks so much for joining us. host: in about 30 minutes, author and local scientist lee drummond will be here to discuss third-party and political candidates this election year. your chance to weigh in on any

political or public policy topics on your mind this morning. you can start calling in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ announcer: american history tv, saturdays on c-span 2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 70 5 p.m. eastern our american history tv series looks at historic congressional investigation that led to changes in policy and law, particularly in the truman committee headed by harry truman, examining the national defense program during world war ii and whether there was waste and corruption defense contracting 8:00 p.m. eastern, university of kentucky writing and rhetoric professor brandon

kirby on the legacy of efforts to bring awareness to the 1955 murder of her son emmett till. and not neglect the m eastern, a discussion about president ulysses grant military service presidency and legacy. exploring the american story. find a full schedule on a program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. not neglect p.m. eastern, justice o'connor looks at bigfoot's place in american culture and more with his book the secret history of bigfoot. 10:00 p.m. eastern, journalist annie jacobson shares her book nuclear war, the sequence of events that would occur at home

and around the globe following the launch of a nuclear missile. she's interviewed by national security analyst --. watch every sunday on c-span2 to find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at tv.org. >> of the house will be in order. >> c-span tolerates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, your primary source for capital health, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided all with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. we are in open forum and before we start taking your calls on

any public policy issues that you got on your mind this morning, i wanted to show you this article from the guardian. the headline is the machine, is really use ai to identify 37,000 targets. israeli intelligence sources reveal use of systems in gaza and claims the mission given to kill civilians in pursuit of low ranking militants, israeli military bombing campaign in gaza used a previously undisclosed ai-powered database that one state identified 37,000 potential targets based on their apparent links to hamas, in addition to talking about their use of the ai system called lavender. they claim that israeli military officials permitted large numbers of palestinian civilians to be killed, particularly during the early weeks and months of conflict.

the unusually candid testimony prepared -- provide a rare glimpse into the first hand experiences of israeli intelligence officials who have been using machine learning system to help identify targets during the six-month war. israeli use of palestinian systems and its war has entered uncharted territory for advanced warfare, raising a host of legal and moral questions and transforming the relationship between military personnel and machines. " this is unparalleled in my memory" said one intelligence officer adding that they had more faith in statistical mechanisms than a grieving soldier. everyone there, including the lost people on october 7. the machine did it coldly, and that made it easier. take your calls now in open forum. edward in florida, independent.

>> you guys a great job. caller: you guys to a great job. i heard the biden administration just released a press release that they are not going to refill our strategic reserve because oil prices are too high. so just wanted to get that out there, just shaking my head. you have a great day, thank you. host: you too. kenneth in new york, independent line. how do you pronounce this? caller: copeg. anyway, i just wanted to touch on the data were talking about i don't think people realize the ramifications of us not supporting nato. the world looks to us, like it or not. something bad happens in the globe, is america they look too.

and if we send the message that we are not bare, we don't have your back, a lot of countries are going to be looking to other countries for support. and by that i mean we can't count on america, we had better get friendly with the chinese and the russians because we don't want those guys. host: in your opinion, what is the big deal of countries going to support from china and russia? caller: it is like going to the mob for a loan. i mean, you are asking the bully in school to protect you. you never know when he could turn on you or say i will protect you, but down the road i'm going to need a favor from you. you are running the risk of aligning other countries with autocratic countries. we want to remain a democracy. that is what we want. it may be a flawed system, but

the world looks to us. this election that is coming up here, not a battle of these other issues. do we want to be a democracy or autocracy? that is the main issue. host: salsberry, north carolina, line for democrats, good morning. >> good morning to america, c-span. the gentleman just spoke about democracy. in a lot of things are happening around the world that really catch people in the wrong way, but in america, is the situation that we have at this moment. and i have the belief that when people say democracy, they should say vote democrat. just saying democracy, you must also say if you are a republican and you believe in democracy, you've got to stand up and say you are going to vote democrat. let the people know that it is all about america. it is not just about one half of

america, it is all of america. i really do hope and pray that people when they say it is all about democracy, if they are republican, i hope they speak out and say i'm going to democracy and i'm voting democrat. i hope that they see that we are united and nothing, nothing, nothing that america can do will fail if we are united. host: george in massachusetts, independent. >> hats off to you and the great work that you do monday through friday every week. host: actually seven days a week, george. caller: great. i don't watch on the weekends. anyway, thank you so much. i want to speak on the john lewis voting at and states that go to independents.

60% to 70% of americans don't like the two candidates for president. what we need to do is go independent and stop listening to major media. third-party candidates have no chance. i just wish myself and my state were in everett positions to change this country. thank you very much. host: we are going to be talking about third-party candidate in the about 15 minutes on this program so be sure to stay with us for that. william in new haven, connecticut, democrat, good morning. caller: to morning. how you doing, c-span? host: doing great. caller: i really want to talk to you, you had a guest on, i had a question for him about the baltimore bridge.

they talk a lot about the baltimore bridge today, but nobody talked about responsibility of the ship that hit the bridge. are they liable for it? that is my question, are they liable? nobody talks about the liability of these shipowners. i know the bridge has to be rebuilt and i know that the federal government was going to help out, but i'm just talking liability. if i had someone with my car, i have insurance for the liability. i'm just curious about that. nobody talks about the liability of the people that own the ship. that liability of the people on the ship. host: i think the investigation is ongoing, but that will definitely be a question for the investigators. arthur, california. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i was impressed with the governor -- with the gentleman speaking about infrastructure, we talked about the delivery of

medical services and we spoke about what are and the cleanliness and we spoke about war and realized today that the great cancer that is killing america is read. and, it stops at the top -- greed. it starts at the top and it ends at the top. there is profit in war and we need to stop making war. and the bridge thing is just one more thing that was not taken care of because it would have cost too much money to do the right thing. so we have many problems in our country. and it does not have much to do with who becomes president. it has been going on for 75 years and going on for 50 years at least. and i do not know if there is an answer for it. my particular feeling is that we

need to restructure the political system to term limits and limited terms. so that public funded elections will take dark money out of politics and that might start to solve some of our problems. host: talking to joe in madison, connecticut. line for democrats. caller: i have been following this situation in baltimore because i am a professional mariner and i have 50 years experience and the question was after 9/11, the federal and municipal agencies were all saying that they word the a rapid response for terrorism. even though this was not. nobody mentioned rapid responses. all of the organizations that are supposed to be ready to do something when a bridge falls down or power plant is blown up.

all of the situations that your guests talked about. where is the response plan and why didn't the media talk about it? host: merle in rockaway, new york. independent. caller: i want everyone to remember the assassination death of martin luther king jr., a great black american, so great that he has a day we celebrate and a holiday in his name. and the thing he did, so many things that he did to help this country and mankind. and i wanted to know if c-span would play a little of his last, and i wanted to say god bless everybody and have a nice day. host: thank you for that. that is april 4, 1968, that is

the date of the assassination of martin luther king jr.. bill in cleveland, ohio. republican. good morning. caller: i was calling for the sorry state of affairs since 2020, you know from the first day in office. joe biden chucked all of the border laws that trump had in place out. that horrible withdraw from afghanistan. and the border failure, which has resulted in lives in the united states from illegal immigrants. it is a sorry state of affairs and i never thought i would see this. thank you. host: bill in -- michael and fort oaks, north carolina. republican. good morning. caller: good morning, how is it

going? host: how have you been? caller: i really enjoyed easter. it was great. we had some chancy whether in north carolina yesterday so it has been fantastic. to get back to open forum. the presidential race, that is what is on my mind. so i just wish that there was a serious third candidate that -- because earlier i know that i had really had hoped that nikki haley would come through. but it was a long shot. and so right now i am thinking biden, but, i do not know. host: i just want to know when you talk to your friends and neighbors in north carolina,

what are they saying? do they agree, or are they one side or the other? caller: there is a lot of -- i will say he will probably, donald trump, is 60%. host: i am here. i hear you. caller: so, you know, around the triangle which is raleigh, durham and chapel hill you will have a lot of biden supporters because -- for different reasons and geographically or whatever. there is more high income people making more money. so i will tell you what, i was hoping that the gentleman from west virginia, the independent, i was hoping he would come through. i will let you go, and i would

like to let everybody know that whoever becomes president, we really need to support them and everyone have a great mother's day. host: thank you. patty in wellsboro, pennsylvania. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have not called in when you have posted before. and i just want to say -- host: nice to talk to you. caller: thank you for the work that you do. you are probably the best host on. beyond all of that, i almost did not call in this morning because you were hosting and something happened yesterday morning during the show that i could not get off my mind. most of the day last evening and this morning did some more research, and the guest that you had on from citizens for the renewal of america.

i am really concerned about the program platforming folks who are involved in the project 2025. i am among a group of folks who have spent a lot of time delving into what that is, project 2025. and it is concerning. i do not know how much folks at c-span, producers, staff, hosts delve into and educate themselves about some of these issues that are proposed. and i think that the american people need to be more educated about what it really means. host: talk about what you find most concerning in the platform. caller: my gosh. ok.

so the biggest thing is this. they present it as preparing for the next administration. important work, lots of positions to fill. that is on your program and by the folks who supported as you know just regular business, making sure that we are ready to hit the road running. but, it is pretty nefarious. the premise of it is that they are now staffing up folks and taking up cases. i am actually in a few groups. i study extremist groups and get in their chats and -- like moms for liberty and citizens for the renewal of america. the purpose of this is to install loyalists to discharge civil service -- servants and install loyalists who will do

the bidding of the extreme right ideologies. the most prominent of which in the platform is project 2025. if you read it it is almost like 1000 pages. i have been delving into it for four months. it is a christian nationalist agenda. so, the senate is not an option. and they are hiring. they are hiring. they are folks who will go along with whatever the agenda is. to create a christian -- " christian" nation. let us say the former president got in. we had guardrails. people still believe we have strong guardrails because we are democracy. mostly they think that is messy and you cannot get what you want

done. and if those guardrails are not in place or they are just an idea, but you have loyalists, for instance, jeff karp was brought up and it was funny that lady who called and asked if he is still involved. yes, very much so. and she said he got called out in his pajamas, actually his boxers. anyhow. the man is not a white house counsel. he was attempting to have the attorney general send out letters to the states saying that the doj was concerned that they had found problems with elections in those states and asked the states cannot certify those elections. that was the purpose. host: when you say that there were guardrails being dismantled, do you mean the civil servants and people who are just working in the

government from administration to administration, is that what you mean? caller: exactly. the institutions. for instance at the department of justice, if you have people willing to go along 100% with what jeffrey clark and other folks were trying to do after the election, if what you have are loyalists to that agenda and that administration's agenda rather than to the united states and rule of law, then you do not have a democracy, what you have is an autocracy, the ability of one person at the top to pull the levers of the government. host: i have to move on to other people but i will say that anybody who wants to see that conversation that patty was

referring to from yesterday can do so on our website -- our website, c-span.org. also project 25 online, project25.org. you can read it for yourself. it is over 800 pages long and it is in the public domain. craig in new york. republican. good morning. caller: look, i think you do a fantastic job. i have heard a lot of folks on the show and you are great. but that is not my point. my point is that i do not mind prices going up if i am going over a bridge, i do not mind paying $10 but i want to know where the money goes. there should be a system where i can put on my computer and say how much of my paying -- is a george washington bridge election -- collecting every single year and they say whatever money that bridge takes

in, anything that needs done that year comes out of that fund before it goes to anywhere else before it goes to a general fund, before it goes to the mta. before it goes anywhere. and that bridge is fixed of that year for whatever problems it has whether it needs painting or updating, or paving, whatever it needs. i should be able to go on my computer and say, hey, it needs $20 million worth of work on the bottom part of the bridge. that money is being taken out of the fund that the bridges collecting every year, and that is being fixed every year. what they do is that they take the money and put it into some general fund and then 20 years later they say well the bridge has been -- we have not painted the bridge in 20 years. so it is going to be a huge expenditure.

we have not done this in 20 years so there will be a huge expenditure. the reason the tolls are on the bridge is to support the bridge. those things never happen and then the taxpayer gets bamboozled into giving more money to fix something that the money was there every year to upkeep the bridge so you do not have these kinds of problems. host: i understand your point. let us try to get julia in new jersey. independent. good morning. caller: i am calling because i think a lot of people on the show are people across america who do not realize what is going on. specifically in my neighborhood, in my synagogue the other night there was an event that the synagogue posted for a group of volunteers who clean up dead bodies after and prepare them for burial after terrorist attacks in israel.

and the pro-hamas segment decided this was something that they wanted to protest. there were 100 of them essentially at a hate rally at my synagogue. we have not heard anything from our elected officials about this. it is barely covered in the news and i think people should now this is something happening in america, not that different from charlottesville with the neo-nazi march that happen a few years back. host: there is a local news article that our producer was able to pull up about that, julia with the headline " supporters of israel, palestinians again come to faced -- come face-to-face in new jersey. that is the cbs news site that you can look at. we appreciate you bringing that to our attention. that is all the calls we are able to take for this segment. more to come on the program. lee drutman will be here to

discuss the potential impact of third-party and independent candidates this election year. stay with us. ♪ >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight for a key moment. >> the chair would like to ask my distinguished republican colleague if i would take the chair -- if he would take the chair. with the gentlemen please take the chair. [applause]

>> the house will be in order. >> c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.

you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and live scheduling information for the tv networks and c-span radio from a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free or visit c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. i am joined by lee drutman, a political reform program senior fellow at the new america foundation and author of the book called breaking the two party doom loop. welcome to the program. guest: it is good to be with you. host: you have a piece called " why rfk jr. will be a chaos factor this election year" so

let us start with that. why chaos? guest: it will be a close election between trump and biden and kennedy seems to be pretty consistently polling around 10% to 12%. probably some of that road -- some of that support will drain as we get closer to the end november -- to the november election. but he will be a factor. and a chaos factor because we really do not know whether he will take more votes from biden or from trump, or bring in some other part of the electorate that typically does not vote. it is creating a level of uncertainty of what the outcome will be. host: when you say polling around 10%, what do we know about that and what variability and who are the people saying that i am voting for rfk jr. guest: let us start with variability. actually his average is out to 10 to 12%.

but it is kind of all over the place. i have seen him as low as 3% and as high as 22%. so why is his support sell all over the place? and i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that pollsters are not sure how to capture his supporters and how to weight them. because what connects many of his supporters, people who say they would vote for him is that they are anti-system voters. they are not super engaged, they are probably people who are the least likely to participate in able. -- in a poll. it is hard to know how many people will votes, and whether they will indeed vote for kennedy or not. i think there is a sense of deep frustration with the alternatives that people have. if it is indeed trump and biden

and both of them have clinched the party nominations and will certainly be nominated at party conventions. host: we are talking about a quarter, roughly a quarter. given either one. guest: and that is a significant part of the electorate. host: how significant compared to previous elections? guest: well, extremely high and it is not just trump and biden but it is also democrats and republicans. in 1994, only 6% of the electorate said that neither party represented them, favorably. now it is about a quarter or more of the electorate who says i do not like either party. biden and trump are both underwater in their favorability. they have low favorability ratings and that was true in 2016. biden was slightly above 50% in

2020. we are in an era of politics where there is such deep frustration with the two dominant parties and pretty much all of the national figures. there is not an elected national figure in the united states who has positive favorability rating. host: going back to rfk jr., he put out this ad that i want to show to you and then i will get your reaction to it. [video clip] >> over the last five years the country has become something unrecognizable. journalists have exposed a massive censorship complex. federal agencies like the fbi, irs, justice department and secret service have been weaponized against political opponents. we are subject to constant surveillance and a government who wraps itself and lies, and secrets. corruption is pervasive within the regulatory agencies in the

halls of power. the only one thing that can turn it around and if you thought i was gonna say it is me, you are mistaken. that is not something i can do alone. if enough people want to reclaim the country, i will be the sledgehammer that the american people will wield to smash apart the corrupt merger of the state and corporate power. i can only do that with your active support before and after andrew the white house. and right now what you can do is to invest in my campaign. donate what you can and i promise you that i will redeem the trust that you put in me. and together we will show that we the people can take back our power. [end video clip] >> what do you think. he will be the sledgehammer. that is a very violent image that he will just smash everything. he is going against corporations, government, the

merger of government and corporations, he says. the entire system is rotten and corrupt, we have to take a sledgehammer to it. that is a very violent and aggressive approach to governing. and yet, when you look at trust in our institutions across institutions and how people feel about washington there is a level of residence. -- resonance. host: the gallup from october shows this headline. support for third u.s. political parties up 63%. 63% is significant for a third party. and yet nobody has broken through. guest: the third party that people want is hypothetical. there is a frustration and people are saying to a pollster do you want a third option? it is the third option that they

might imagine would be the ideal option. now, in reality, we probably need five or six parties to represent the diversity of the american public. but the challenge is that we have a winner take all system so that in order for a third-party to succeed it would need to displace one of the two major parties and that is hard to do. host: you have an x posting about third-party candidates. i know. and it is a table talking about the third-party candidate going back to 1892, teddy roosevelt was at one point a third-party candidate. but showing 18.9% of the vote in 1992. what is this table really

showing? guest: is showing that every now and then you have a third-party candidate who does rake through. and -- break through. and i went back and looked at all the candidates that succeeded either winning a state or getting 10% of the vote. every now and then you have candidates who are capturing a particular issue that neither of the two parties is capturing, or a particular part of the electorate that neither are capturing. and most importantly that an important -- that apart -- that part of the electorate said i want something else. so in 1892 you have james weaver who is a populist. a progressive candidacy. teddy roosevelt in 1912 was the most successful. robert in 1924. and then you have two basically anti-civil rights, preserve

segregation segregation, trout thurman and george wallace. and an you have ross perot in 1992 was the first with no previous elected experience. all of these others had previous elected experience including one former president. perrault was -- periot was the first outsider. he does not win a state that he got very high in 18%. and both parties take up the dead trade issue and it lingers. and now i think kennedy, i do not know if he will get 10% but i think he will be a factor. host: we will take your calls for your guest on third-party candidates and third parties in general. on the lines by party, so it is republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002.

what do you make of the no labels efforts that did not really go anywhere? guest: no labels, no candidate, no impact. it was kind of misguided. host: why? guest: take out one thing right, i will say and i write about this in my subsection that i was referring to and it is called under current so you can find that and subscribe for free. the no labels candidate who has maybe never emerged was built around the idea that people might want a third option if it is trump or biden. but the new labels -- the no labels idea was this washington insider establishment type person or republican and a democrat and it was going to be bipartisanship. and the energy for a third-party

is not we want somebody who will preserve the washington comedy of good old part -- bipartisan togetherness. we would want somebody who is like kennedy who is going to smash the system. and an outsider. all of the interest in third-party candidates is not that i want somebody who is a washington established figure like mitt romney or joe manchin. i want somebody who is going to come in from the outside and the rise in amateur candidates for congress and people who have elected -- elected so far. there is such an anti-politician mood in this country. and that is what kennedy is kind of channeling. host: your book is called "

breaking the two party doom loop: the case for multiparty democracy in america." what changes need to happen for us to actually have multiple parties. is it reform to the electoral college? guest: it will probably not be reformed. it -- i support it but it is a hard thing to do. in order for third parties to be viable and to play and except double -- and play a viable role we need a system that has third parties. most democracies have systems of proportional representation with multimember districts and parties putting forward lists and parties get their share of seats in proportion to the share of boats that they get. if we adopted proportional representation, which we can

absolutely do and it is completely constitutional and there is nothing in the constitution that demands single winner plurality and many early districts were multimember districts. so proportional representation for the u.s. and fusing -- fusion voting in which you have multiple parties who can nominate the same candidate for such as senate, governor, and president. part of our history, that is often forgotten throughout the 19th century was that we had vibrant third parties and often they ran their own candidates and often they endorsed a democratic or republican candidate or a whig candidate. a lot of the anti-slavery parties, the free soil or liberty party were fusion parties and then they combined to become the republican party.

that is a lost tradition and we can bring that back. in new jersey there is a lawsuit. the moderate party wants to be a fusion party and in kansas there is a new party who called -- called united kansas who wants to be a fusion party. it is legal in new york and connecticut. that is a way to get third-party organizing in a constructive way. not smash the system but engage people in a productive building of coalitions that can actually govern. host: there is a text from mark in fort lauderdale florida. as long as you are talking about third parties you please emphasize that his biggest donor tim -- is timothy mellon who is also a republican mega donor. sorry. you had mentioned that it is not clear if rfk jr. would pull more from biden or trump, but clearly

the biden campaign is putting out ads about rfk jr. and the sources of his funding. host: well, -- guest: if i had to guess, i would say that probably kennedy takes a little more from biden than from trump. although, it is hard to tell in mice abstract -- my substack undercurrent events, i did try to do data analysis looking at all of the poles that we have so far. and what we find in looking at, or what i found was that kennedy does better in polls where biden's margin against trump is worse. trump is better in the polls where kennedy does better. maybe that is because kennedy is pulling away from trump and may be those polls are weighting a

certain type of voter who is anti-system and is more likely to support trump or kennedy. maybe it is statistical noise. if i had to guess, i would say it is probably taking away from biden. but at this point, i would like to see more data. it is hard to conclude. host: let us talk to callers in livingston, new jersey. independent line. josephine. good morning. caller: i am interested because i remember what i experienced in 2000, gore versus bush, it was a hernandez number of weeks that we had to worry about and the decision was made and we accepted the decision. did not like it but we accepted. that will not happen this year. robert kennedy being put up there pointblank by republican business. you mentioned not -- one name

and there are more than that. the kennedy family is 10 brothers and sisters. his cousin, john f. kennedy's grandson all have said that they will not vote for him because a vote for him is a vote for trump. that is all that has to be said as far as i'm concerned. one experience with trump was enough for me. thank you. host: what do you think? guest: again this concern of who he takes more votes away from. and i think there is a high likelihood that in the six or seven closely contested swing states the margin between whoever wins that state will be less than the share of boats that kennedy gets. -- votes that kennedy gets, and that will lead to the speculation that kennedy was a spoiler. and whether he winds up with a

contested election which, we go through a period of uncertainty, recounts enclosed votes. i think that is a real danger this year. as josephine notes, in 2000, gore conceded and we moved on. in 2024 if it is that close and there is such a narrow margin and such uncertainty about the legitimacy, i do not know if we will move on so easily. i worry about that. host: teresa in little rock, arkansas read an article about what would happen if no can get -- canada gets 270 votes in the electoral college. you think that might happen? guest: what she is referring to is the contingent election in which if no candidate gets 270 electoral college votes it is

the house of representatives actually picks the president with each state getting one vote and that will happen once -- and that happened once in 1824. is it a possibility. it is. i would place it adds a pretty low possibility. it is hard for me to see kennedy winning a single state. although, if i had to guess, which state he could win which is alaska which is the state with the highest share of truly independent voters. alaska has three electoral college votes. you can certainly draw a scenario in which neither candidate gets 270 votes. and that would be another challenge to the legitimacy of our political system. i have a hard time seeing that playing out in an orderly and rational and reasonable way. host: tracy is a republican in

sugar land, texas. caller: i am really interested in this because i listens to mr. kennedy and he actually said that he likes trump better than biden, several times i heard him say that. when i heard what he was for, i think he has more of a libertarian. actually, believe it or not, i think trump has a lot of libertarian ideas. biden on the other hand, the democratic party is trying to split the country. all you have to do is read the communist manifesto and what the plan was. they just restyled their goals. what i would like to see and i know this will not happen. it would be great if we could have kennedy partner up with trump. because then we would have an

independent, because you said he is pretty independent. and then if trump wins, he might run the next time and we might actually get a libertarian. that might sound silly, what i think they would mesh together pretty good. host: what do you think? guest: i am somewhat skeptical of that. they both have big egos. i would have a hard time seeing them work together. i am not sure that kennedy is much of a libertarian. he seems kind of all over the place and a lot of his environmental positions seem pretty at odds of -- at what a lot of libertarians would consider to be the role of government. and you know, also, i think if you read the communist manifesto it is pretty far from what any party in modern democratic

policies anywhere in the world is trying to implement. host: this is just so you see, a visual of a poll done by the pew research center conducted in february of this year. roughly one quarter of americans have an unfavorable view of both biden and trump. here the unfavorable of both is 26%. favorable of trump and not biden is 37. favorable of biden and not trump is 34. favorable of both is 2%. you have some optimists. guest: i am not sure who those people are or if they are paying attention when responding. host: independent line in new york. tim. good morning. caller: good morning and how are you doing this morning? host: great. make sure that you mute the tv. caller: ok. is that good? host: go right ahead. caller: ok. i was just wondering if robert

f. kennedy, jr. got more coverage on the mainstream media , how you think he would actually do. because right now he is appearing on podcasts and he is already doing very well. he has a majority of the vote of people in the -- under 45. and people say he is all over the place, that i think he has an interesting group of interests, whether it is being tough on immigrants or israel or ukraine. it is sort of you know, i am not sure the right word for it. but he is formulating some good theories, i think. and we have to do something with

these other parties because they are just ridiculous that we should have to vote for them. there is too much money in politics to begin with. i do not know. i am glad that there is a decent third-party candidate running and i honestly hope that he wins and keeps the other candidates from reaching 270 electoral votes. host: are you voting for rfk jr. then? he is not on the ballot in new york, at least not yet. guest: i -- caller: i will. he probably will not be my vote. but i would like to hear what your thoughts on it, especially that you had a vice president that could supply a little bit for his and can -- for his candidacy. guest: clearly, he has resonating with voters like tim. now, i think if there was a question it would be what if he

got more coverage? we are discussing him, so that is coverage. he has over one million followers on tiktok. so in an era of fractured media he is clearly reaching an audience. you know, i do not know if more coverage is necessarily better given that a lot of coverage will be coverage that is real scrutiny. if you asked trump or biden whether they benefit from all of this coverage, a lot of coverage is asking questions. and i think there would be a lot of questions raised about a number of kennedy's positions and a number of things that he has done over the years. whereas in many ways, he can present his own story through tiktok and youtube and podcasts.

he kind of controls his own narrative in that space. and there is a bit of a blank slate quality to him for a lot of people as well because he is not somebody who is well known to most people and he has an outsider and does not have a political history that has been well scrutinized. i am not sure if he would benefit from more coverage. host: he was on washington journal. if you would like more information go to c-span.org and look for his segment and take a look at it. pat is in keyport, new jersey. republican. hello. caller: my question is aren't we going about this the wrong way? if we want to form a third-party should it be from the bottom up? the republican party was the last successful third-party. it displaced the whigs.

if you look at congress, even independents and congress have to caucus with republicans or democrats. they do not stand alone. when you talked about the parliamentary system, the proportional systems, aren't most of those parliamentary? we have a system of checks and balances no prime minister. so is a third-party really going to make itself up? guest: a lot of questions. let us start with this portion will parliamentary question. which i think is actually quite important to understand that yes, when we look at western europe we are a lot of proportional systems are in place, most of those governments are parliamentary systems where there is not a separately elected president. but if we look more around the world we see a lot of countries with separately elected presidents and proportional representation further legislature. it is quite a common combination

around the world and you can actually find on my substack under current events a recent essay about how presidential systems and proportional representation can work quite well together. but on the do we need to -- if we need to start a third-party from the bottom up, yes, that is exactly how we should start a third party, but it does need some money to get going. but, i think starting a third-party effort at the presidential level is the place where it is the least likely to succeed where there are a lot of state legislatures that are dominated by one party, republican or democrat where the opposing party is sort of shriveling up and dying, and those are places where there might be real opportunity is organize new parties. host: susan is next in walton,

new york. democrat. are you there? go ahead. caller: my question was i kind of like rfk because of the courage it must take him to run for office at all. when you have your uncle killed, then your father killed, the man has to have courage to go into the government and tried to take -- to run for president in the first place. those are things that trump or biden have never had to face. so i see him as courageous, and he speaks out on subjects that nobody else will touch. and he kind of makes you want to feel like you have in america again. instead of a country that has been overrun on the border and instead of having inflation so

high that people cannot afford food. it just gives me hope. and i do not understand why people hate him for trying to help people. host: we will get a response. any comments? guest: i mean very clearly susan, you find a lot about his candidacy resonating. and i think there is an appeal of being an outsider and someone who is challenging the conventional wisdom on a lot of topics. host: eli from boston wants to know what will it take for rfk to get in the debates? how likely does that seem and how fundamental is it to his success? guest: i am not even sure. i'm not sure what the debates will look like. traditionally it has been if you are polling at 15% you get in

the debates. i am not sure if you will get up to 15%. host: but i remember ross was debated. guest: because he met the standard. that was the last time. now, i do not know how fundamental it is to his success, because i think the odds of him winning are very low. i would basically put them as statistically indistinguishable from zero. but the odds of him holding the balance of vote in key swing states are pretty high. and i think that would be the case regardless of whether or not he gets in the debates. clearly he is getting his message out because it is resonating with a lot of people who are frustrated with the status quo and the options that they have. host: ollie in lorton, virginia. independent. in morning. caller: hello. i do not know if this is

considered a comment or a question. recently michigan has gotten more attention and coverage so a couple hundred votes or 10,000 votes granting him michigan in the presidency because of the events in the middle east. i was wondering how minorities in the united states react to the idea of a third party. is it possible that a third-party be supported by minorities mostly? thank you. guest: i assume he means racial minorities there. and i think that the support coalition for kennedy is

diverse. the support coalition for biden is diverse. even the support coalition for dive -- for trump is increasingly diverse. i think the u.s. is a extremely diverse multiracial, all thai ethnic country. within many racial and ethnic immunity is there is tremendous diversity of political opinion. so i do not think there is any particular racial minority or coalition for any particular candidate, it is not like racial minorities will all vote for a third-party candidate. i do see looking at polling support, higher support for third-party candidacy is and third-party candidates in minority communities, although that might just be a function of a lot of them being younger

demographics. and younger people are especially easier -- especially to feel that the two major parties are not speaking to them. host: ron in pennsylvania. democrat. caller: good morning. i think we ought to do away with the electoral college. i would like to see someone from common cause on the program. but also the third-party business, definitely kennedy should really drop out. he is going to really hurt i think the biden and -- abiding campaign. his whole family is supporting biden, and you wonder where he is coming from. anti-serve. he fits in -- anti-vaxxer, and he fits in with trump and the other useful idiots for putin. we do not need him in there.

that is all my comment for today. guest: i mean electoral college is an idiotic way of taking the president. but, it is what we are stuck with because it is in the constitution because it was a last-minute compromise of the constitutional convention. and, despite repeated attempts in the course of our political history to eliminate the electoral college it is still with us. we came close in 1969 and 1970 after the third-party candidacy of george wallace to eliminate the electoral college. many cap -- maybe kennedy if he does well will create a threat to the stability of the electoral college. so who knows. that was the last time we almost got rid of the electoral college. host: melanie in cherry field, maine. democrat. good morning. caller: hello, i enjoy your show

very much. i have two questions. you're just talking -- in order for a third-party to be successful you have to get rid of the electoral college, and you just answered how that could be done. but my second question is why not right choice voting. again, electoral college have to go for -- go first. guest: yes. i mean we are focused on the presidency as a place where we want a third party. and just because the president himself -- in is a narrow winner take all election you are going to wind up with two dominant candidates. but there is a real opportunity to have more parties in the legislature which is common throughout the world if we use

proportional representation. and we could use fusion voting and single winner elections. you could also use rank-choice voting and they are also pros and cons to all of these approaches. but if the goal is to get more parties in the mix, we really want to think about proportional representation and fusion voting. host: james in philadelphia, democrat. good morning. caller: the phrase that comes to mind when thinking about a third party is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and i guess the explanation. we have become so nuanced in our election process, nuanced in the fact that the swing states take on such a great importance. if you convinced me that robert kennedy jr. is going to swing

the vote to a democratic way in those swing states and it seems like you are leaning to that, the gentleman when he mentioned that you will find a lot more support in the red states than the states that definitely support trump. if you could convince me that he could get support in these swing states to biden, i would say go for it. thank you for taking my call. host: what do you think? guest: i do not know. this is no question that everybody wants to figure out is who is he taking more support from. and i think it is very uncertain given his support coalition because a lot of people who do not typically vote or just broadly disaffected. and they really wind up deciding close to the last minute.

so, i do not think there is any way to know that. host: do you think there is any reason he might drop out before the election? guest: i do not expect him to at this point. it seems like he is gathering momentum. and he may see himself as really building a movement. and the best way to kill whatever movement he has building is to drop out. if we remember and that in 1992, perot dropped out and then joined the race back after september. host: i did not know that. guest: it was an odd thing. his polling was starting to crater but then he got back and because he got ballot access. the question is how many states

he is on the ballot in. host: joe, chicago, illinois, democrat. guest: a couple of points. number one so long as we do not have the option for range voting, any -- ranked voting, any third-party candidacy is playing a spoiler role. as long as that is the case you are stuck as -- with what you got. please note that we had a deal worked out in terms of immigration that took several months to iron out and at the last minute the fearless leader went to tell the republicans to kill it. so, you tell me who wants to get things done in washington and who is simply dragging their feet and sitting on their hands without accomplishing anything. biden has accomplished a lot. even by reaching out to

republicans to get the biggest infrastructure bill passed in generations. please note that trump cap talking -- kept talking about infrastructure and he never even had a plan. you wants to eliminate the aca and give it back to the insurance companies to keep getting rich on the backs of poor people. america, wake up. host: the comments will be the last one. lee drutman is the author of " breaking the two party doom loop" and a senior fellow at new american foundation. he has -- thank you so much for joining us they. guest: it's been a wonderful conversation with clearly a diversity of opinions in a diverse cry