>> washington journal continues. host: jennifer lawless runs the women in politics institute at american university. she has co-authored this report -- girls just want to not run. in youngr gap americans political ambition. are women running for office? guest: they are not running for office or thinking about running for office. that is more problematic than the lack of female candidates itself. host: why? guest: it is not appealing on the radar screen for several reasons. no one suggests it. family members, friends, party leaders, suggested officials. they are more likely to encourage men and recruitment. second, women who has the same exact credentials as men are far less likely than men to self

assess of being qualified to run for office. their self-doubt holds them back. there are people out there who are aiding those doubts. host: 20% of the u.s. senate is women. 17.8% of the house. state governors, 10%. -- stateep legislators legislators. isn't that all good news? butt: it is all good news, it is important to remember that women are 52% of the population. they're more than half of the college graduates. the receiving log degrees and business degrees in almost equal numbers as men. the fact that they are still so fundamentally under a -- underrepresented in political power should raise an eyebrow. host: the gender gap in political ambition. you have a chart here. women are represented in pink. men in blue.

is this a fact that men and women are different or is this because women are being raised not to think about these things? guest: i think it is a combination of a series of factors. recruitment factor, qualifications -- the other thing to keep in mind is that this report is a portrait of college students. these are 18-25 euros. -- yearolds. the gender gap of people who have not determined what their career will be. it is quite stunning. it is the same size of the gender gap we discovered among successful lawyers, business

politicalducators, activists. something is happening to discourage women and thinking of politics as a lucrative profession, something that is appealing in any way. changingthere a way of that early focus on boys? guest: there are a few things we can do. we know that women and men and boys and girls are equally receptive to thinking about running for office when somebody suggests it. the easiest thing to do is to encourage young women to think about it. to put it on their list of possible options. we also know that competitive experiences and reinforce the kinds of qualities and traits that tend to be related to political ambition. playing sports in high school or college, running for student government -- those are two different sets of experiences that are very linked to interest in running for office later in life. to the extent that we can close

the gender caps on those kind of factors come we can promote female candidates. the: i want to go back to sports thing. we will be talking about women in politics throughout this program. you can dial in and participate. we have set aside our fourth line for women who hold political office or have run for political office. we would like to hear from you as well. jennifer lalas is one who has run for political office. (202) 585-3883. i want to go back to the sports thing. you hit this a couple of times. organized sports in college. higher participation rates than women in both of those. why is it important? guest: i think that sports and competition in general and the signal that it is ok -- ok to

compete and ok to win and ok to lose -- a lot of the time when we think about running for office, we think about contests. pretty harsh competition. people have experience competing in a different arena, and a different round that can mitigate some of the concerns they have as to whether they can succeed in the political arena. host: here is another one. politicized environment and political ambition. it ran for student government in college. only 6% of women. 43% of men. guest: it seems to be the case that when women get to college, their interests diverge from those of their male counterparts. uncover differences like this from high school samples. what seems to be happening is that women and men have

different interests and the different interests are fueled by the college experience. it is not to say that they cannot get closer in line together and we cannot encourage women to think about politics among political science classes, to understand how the issues they care about are in fact political and related to government. do that is on us to because they are not naturally selecting into those kind of interests and professions. -- don'tthe parties they focus on women and recruiting women and getting women involved? guest: 20% of the united states senate is women. the interesting fact here is that when women run for office, they fare as well as their male counterparts. both in terms of vote totals and dollars raised. voters are willing to elect women. the problem is that women are not running in the numbers we expect them to run in. the fact that i just said about one women run for office they

fare as well as men, most women do not know that. of peoplehat 70% believe that there is bias against female candidates. acting not to run for office might be a rational response to a political environment that potential candidates perceived as biased. importantly, we have to disseminate the message that women are just as able to succeed. host: here is another chart. openness to potential jobs and professions by sex. is her college age men and women. open to political positions. three. higher on all then when you go to historically female careers. guest: we still have traditional sex segregation in terms of

occupational preferences. that is especially interesting among a college sample. wheres a group of people we would think that we would see far more egalitarian is in. a lot of careers we do. ,areers like lawyer or doctor women and men are equally likely to think of that. when we think about the most traditional roles, we see that the young generation falls into those realms. host: what about when we talk about women's issues in politics? guest: there was a lot of debate over what those issues actually are. traditionally they have been defined as issues that disproportionately affect women, families, and children. women are still responsible for the families and children at greater rates than men. there is evidence to suggest that women are seen as more credible legislating on a lot of those issues. when those issues dominate in the political arena, female candidates might have an edge. that was certainly the case in the 1990's and the early 2000's

-- more recent evidence called into question. now, both male and female candidates are equally as likely to be stereotyped when talking about women's issues and talking about issues like the economy or national security. host: tell us about your experience running for office. guest: i ran for the u.s. house he representatives in t second district of rhode island. i lost. host: why did you get into it and what was the experience like? thet: the experience was most exhilarating, fulfilling experience i have ever had in my life. i got into the race because it was a heavily democratic district and i thought that the incumbent was not adequately representing the people who lived there. issuest of social policy , women's rights issues in particular. i thought that he was out of sync with his constituents and i thought i could do a better job. host: did you raise money? what was the hard part, what was the exhilarating part? guest: taking on an incumbent is

very difficult. you have to build name recognition. you're starting from scratch. i raised several hundred thousand dollars. i gardner nearly 40% of the vote. the thing that was most talking tog was voters, many of whom had never interacted with an elected official or candidate. what was striking to me was the manner in which they were so ready to talk about their experience are having needed help or what they wanted from government -- but also that they really believed that running for office within opera profession. negativeo hear such attitudes toward congress, tour the president, toward our political institutions. i think those are very abstract notions. when voters meet individual candidates or when they interact with individual elected officials, they know that the overwhelming majority of people are doing it because they care and want to make the world a better place. what is your reaction to republican spin the daddy party and democrats being the mommy party? guest: i think it is cliché.

they need to get together and figure out how to move the country in the right direction. to the extent that we are stereotyping the parties were dividing them and giving them some credit for some issues, it is stymieing progress. host: factors that hinder young women's political ambitions. young men are more likely than aboutwomen to think politics as a possible career path. from their school experience to the peer associations to their media habits, young women tend to be exposed to less political information and discussion than do young men. three is missing at this point. number four is young women are less likely to receive encouragement to run for office from anyone. another one is that young women are less likely than young men

to think they will be qualified to run for office, even once they are established in their careers. , democrats.80 (202) 585-3881, republicans. independents., the fourth line is for women who have run for office or who are officeholders. (202) 585-3883. we will begin with a call on that line from judy in minneapolis. what office he ran for or what office you are holding. caller: hi. i am actually currently running for michele bachmann's seat for the house of representatives. host: are you in a primary? caller: we have not had our caucuses yet. i have one purpose -- person who is competing against me.

there were three republicans that are seeking the public nomination. -- republican nomination. host: why are you running for office? have a history of lobbying the legislature in minnesota for several years. writing legislation, pulling together agency people on the issue of childhood lead poisoning prevention and solid waste issues. i have not seen a resolution of that epidemic for children. at the same time, i am living in a community where michele bachmann has served. i have thought of running against her years ago and i did not. i am at a time in my life -- i am 57 years old -- it is a good time to do it. i thought of running for governor before. i attempted to run for u.s. senate before. this is something that i am ready for. what i would say about what

motivated me is that i had a grandfather who was in the state legislature three terms. i think having a relative close to me that had served in politics possibly had an effect. a very politically minded sixth-grade teacher during the election of next and -- nixon. we were on the campaign trail in the sixth grade. having our little school election and so on. i think that was very powerful. at a young age, to have that social studies experience touring an election year with a very aggressive teacher. being a womanhink running for office is harder than being a man running for office? caller: well, i think the fact that michele bachmann has held the seat for 10 years -- i have

a feeling the constituents -- they may be like to vote for women and they don't care what you say. that may be one thing going for me. i think that actually, for instance, for me, i don't see this as a career, and i don't think anybody should look at politics necessarily as a career. but when it is your time to step forward and take the job for a term or two, to add your input and expertise, to do that. i feel like oftentimes the reason why i felt like running for governor before and attempted to run for u.s. senate is it is like a vacuum cleaner sucking in any normal human being instead of career people. i think there is no accountability for what they are doing, and i have been frustrated with congresspeople going to washington and then

they are listening to the lobbyists in the beltway instead of the local constituents. think we have found you on the internet. are you judy adams, minnesota aggressive project? there is the caller we have been talking to. think a lot of the points that you raised are exactly right. we have 500,000 elected offices in this country, so average citizens are supposed to step forward and run for these offices. it is not meant to be 500,000 career politicians. when you get to the federal level and we are talking about the u.s. house, the senate, or a governor, those tend to be more career like positions. but the majority are not. knowing about an issue, caring about an issue, and deciding it is time to do something about that issue is what we should be encouraging everybody to do. the other thing i would note is one of the findings we uncovered is a politicized upbringing does

encompass very political teachers or high school or elementary school experiences that were politically charged, as well as political relatives. you have to look no further than the u.s. house of representatives to see several examples of multiple generations of elected officials. host: we are getting some tweets . nancyg tweets in, is pelosi and inspiration for you? guest: i think any woman who has made it in politics high has to be an inspiration to anyone who does the kind of work that i do. the manner in which a lot of these high-profile women have managed to a compass not only their legislative goals but also make it important to increase the number of women politics -- women in politics is very admirable. host: sea of tranquility asks, "do you think the way the press

trashes gop women is one reason they do not run for office, like they did sarah palin?" guest: jenny hayes and i have done a systematic media coverage study, focusing on the 20 10th congressional elections. we quoted more than -- on the 2010 congressional elections. we covered ash we uncovered no difference between male and female candidates. of coverage really is an anomaly, and it is not what most voters are exposed to regularly. host: 500,000 elective offices in this country, professor lawless. what percentage had women running for that position? guest: most of those offices are held at the local level, and we don't have brought systematic data. but there is nothing to suggest that the percentage of women running is very different than the percentage of women holding

those positions because we know care as much as men, so they are winning at equal rates. caller: jennifer, you have quite an impressive knowledge on your subject here. my question is about hillary clinton. i am a little afraid that rush limbaugh is going to get hillary clinton elected. host: why do you say that, andrew? you're calling on the republican line. caller: i don't think rush limbaugh is interested in getting republicans elected. he is interested in getting democrats elected so that the people who pay rush limbaugh can make more money off a divided country. that is what i think. anyway, if rush limbaugh does get hillary elected, which is what the people who pay him get

him to do, do you think she would be a good president, or will she be in it for the money like a lot of people think? i think rush limbaugh cannot get anybody elected president, but if we go down the path of assuming she's the nominee who gets elected, she is in a position where it will be far more lucrative for her not to run for office and the president of the united states. she and her husband can both command speaking salaries that far exceed what she would make as president. it is hard to find a candidate, andgh, with a better resume more experience than she has, and it is going to be difficult for the democrats to have a nominee other than hillary clinton should she decide to throw her hat into the ring. 2000 eight campaign -- did you see evidence of sexism in that campaign? caller: 2008 -- some: 2008 did demonstrate

gender dynamics. there's no question that the media -- not the named stream that's not the mainstream media -- focused on hillary clinton's and sarah palin's appearance and backgrounds that seemed to misogynist. that was a very small percentage of overall coverage, that those kinds of examples were played and replayed, and i think it sends a signal to voters that there was rampant sexism. on the part of voters, it is difficult to determine whether there was any. some women supported hillary clinton because they wanted to make history. underwere others who were no circumstances going to support her, not only because of her own adage but because -- host: new hampshire. hillary clinton teared up talking about her campaign. edmund muskie teared up, 1972. he was out. is there sexism there? guest: hillary clinton, when she

teared up, did not engage in an emotional breakdown. her voice cracked and there might have been a little bit of water in her eyes. this was not a meltdown. but voters are really looking, i think, for evidence that she was a normal human being, and that sent that signal. it did not suggest she was weak or unable to govern, it reinforced the human side that ultimately worked to her advantage, at least in that particular primary. ken, from new york, independent line, go ahead with your comment or question for jennifer lawless. -- we: we had an upstate had a lady in upstate new york, a hotly contested local race for the assembly. won by two votes, and it was interesting to watch her because she was an extremely bright mer, a mother. i don't think she had an idea of how all-consuming the task was,

but she stayed with it and she is a banged up job. if thereo wondering are inherent male-female differences? typically my impression of my own gender is that when we were boys we were all competitive in different ways. sports, thechess, math club, things like that. and a lot of men are drawn into ifitics because -- i wonder she has any views on whether there are geographic differences , in the united states and maybe even extending to europe, where they seem to be making headway. thank you. guest: thanks for those questions. in terms of biological differences or inherent differences, i tend to think socialization overcomes any differences that might exist. in part, that is because the

people who run for office are fundamentally different than everybody else. if you look at congress, the 535 people who served there are far more like each other than they are anyone else in the general population. so uncovering gender differences among them he comes very difficult just because they are driven,titive, assertive, and this is the case for the men and women who serve, which suggests that the manner in which you are raised and the qualities in which you are raised to possess and exhibit can be taught and can be socialized. in terms of geographic differences, we really did not find any. it did not matter where these young and them and -- young men and women were from. not play aeally did role. across the board and across democratic groups, women are less likely than men to express interest in the process. host: have you done a compare and contrast politics business

in other fields, in politics, law, to be where women are doing , performing at different levels? >> what is really interesting is law, we haveand surveyed over the last 12 years about 8500 men and women who work in those professions who are similarly situated, so they have managed to achieve the same levels of professional success in a mail-dominated profession. yet it is from those professions that we see this gender gap in political ambition emerge. something seems fundamentally different about politics because these are women who have achieved the highest level of success in other male dominated realms. they are just not interested in doing it in the political realm. democratic is a candidate in rockford, illinois. tell us about your officeholding or you're running. -- ir: i am not president am not presently a candidate.

i recently ran for local office as alderman. i found the experience very enlightening and informative, and i will continue to run for office. i question for your guest is, did she find in her survey any differences when it comes to economic or culture? i am a woman of color, and i did find because i live in a heavily majority districts that there was a kickback against that. did she find any of that displayed in her findings? guest: we did not find any systematic differences in that way, but we are interested in finding if anyone is interested in running office am a and -- in running for office. while there is a lot of research that verifies the trends that you identify, those are not the questions we were interested in asking. host: john boehner recently said that the gop needs to be more

"sensitive" to women. guest: yes, and then several republicans came out and explained that the way to create that sensitivity was to talk to their wives and daughters about it. not the best way to phrase it. to the extent that the democrats are able to exploit the gender gap, they win elections. you have to look no further than 2012, to the mistakes of todd akin or bishop murdoch. mccaskills why claire is still on the united states senate. it is true the republicans have -- and they also should mean it. it is not just an example of opening a binder and reading talking points. it is a matter of speaking with constituents in a way that they

care about the issues that face the population. host: binders full of women? guest: it is a terrible phrase but started out as an ok idea, which was a way to let findnatorial candidates to out who they would be appointing. when mitt romney did what he did in the states, the whole thing became part of a joke. the reality was republicans were doing other things to reinforce the idea that they were not taking female candidates and voters seriously. men runis tweet -- "do forerently against women fear of being viewed as a bully ?" guest: in the 1990's, male candidates were more likely to talk about women's issues to show they were sensitive and capable of dealing with those

issues. now we have reached a point where campaign tactics look a little more similar across the board. in hereu have a chart about visiting websites, political websites, and men go there more often, period. it has been over the years of to one,ogram, two t men call in more than women. consistently for 15 years. that we foundt that among 18 to 24-year-olds reinforced that. the more things change, the more they stay the same. we have a situation where politics remains seen as a male domain. men are arena in which seen as being embraced and women are not. we have to get away from that. having more women on sunday morning talk shows, political talk radio, having them write to

letters to the editor and op-ed is, will begin to open the door and let people see that women's presence can be embraced when they enter the political arena. host: john from lakeland, florida, go ahead with your comment for an a for loss. racial we don't tolerate profiling, but isn't your organization gender profiling? i would call it sexist. close the mission is to the gender gap in political leadership, so we provide courses that call attention to the way that women in politics fair. we provide leadership training to direct people to the government. we have special events where we bring in women who talk about their stances, and all of our classes and programs and events bring in male and female students across the country. our goal is to bring people information so they can make decisions for themselves. host: amber is a candidate or

williamsburg,in massachusetts. tell us what office you were in or are seeking or are holding. i ran a campaign in a community college that i attended in southern california, a student trustee position, so we were compensated by the state of california, and i was serving presidentrd and the like anyone else who would have run in the city. comment has and the to do with sort of the experience of running because she is focusing on the institute getting students interested in teaching students and getting this age, 18, 19, 20, 21. for me it was really negative. i want to be really honest about what happened because she may have some thoughts and comments

that may be applicable. a liberal,asian, and and most of the work i had done on the campus was to help students and help student mothers that were trying to go to school during welfare reform. you know, try to get childcare and keep students in college when they were being asked to leave if they did not have child student care mothers. i agree with the governor, with some of his immigration policies. one of the things i know now, 20 or 30 years later, i ultimately went on to attend an elite college in the east and age of finance and had a really successful career. one of the things i did is, i was very honest and i spoke about my beliefs and talked 'sout some of the governor

opinions about immigration. because i was not aware i was in southern california, most of the minority students on campus would respond so negatively to was, i had no idea what going to happen in the campaign. it turned into the most horrific , uncomfortable smear campaign while i was running. i will never consider doing this, and he just turned my stomach. so i don't know if it is teaching people when they are in really vulnerable young ages or in college, about what you say and how things can be. just spread like wildfire in a -- i didbut but for me win, but i was sort of slandered, and they had another run-in candidate that ran against me and it turned into a negative experience. i don't know if she has maybe

some thoughts about that. just being open and honest. tryt: one of the things we to do is disseminate information. well aware of the different things that could potentially happen, a win or a loss, a great campaign experience or a negative one. what i can say over the course of last five years, interactive with dozens of candidates, or often than not, win or lose, the experience is incredibly positive. during the government shutdown, this article came out. women are the only adults left in washington. this is from "time." senators were talking across the aisle to each other.

is there a difference between men and women? difficult to it is know, especially when this example is based on the united states senate and three or four women in a bipartisan way. we should be cautious in trying to generalize to the world -- that said, there is evidence to suggest that at the end of the day women collaborate and cooperate in a way that is different than men, and if there's any chance that that is true systematically, that is even more reason to feel more female candidates and get more involved in politics. host: hi, susan. i grew up in a highly political family and we were encouraged to volunteer for campaigns. i graduated from conservatism to now i am pretty much voting democrat although i maintain my independence for the very reason that the woman before me said -- if you step out of the box at

all and express one's opinion -- and i fault the left for this somewhat -- just the sense that if you have one opinion that the canon, you are automatically branded either a racist war -- it is so extreme. and the other thing, there is this impression that you cannot run for politics unless you are a ged or have a masters degree for the kennedy school of government. you, and elite position at american u. but there is something for everyone, even college dropouts, if they have something to bring to the table. i do remember very vividly -- i lived in washington at the time -- and "the washington post" was covering donna shalala and

hillary clinton, who happened to washingtonlunch at a restaurant on secretaries day, and one of the waiters came over and brought them inadvertently -- i do not think they recognize them, believe it or not -- a rose. and it immediately -- and immediately donna shalala was quoted as saying, "we are not secretaries!" i don't know -- lastly, congratulations on running in rhode island, our dear friend cathy just made it into the state senate there. susan, we are going to leave it there. running out of time. jennifer lawless? guest: the thing i would note is when there are already elected usices, it is incumbent on to identify candidates who would be excellent for whatever position they would be. there are no educational credentials or income

requirements, especially for lower offices. what i would tell people, if there is an issue you care about and you think you or somebody you know would be an excellent candidate, don't worry about their backgrounds. encourage them to run. that is the best way to breed a successful campaign. he final thing i would say, if people decide not to run for office after making a conscious decision and weighing the costs and benefits, that's fine. a lot of people choose certain professions over others. but the fundamental problem i see is that women are systematically less likely than men to have it on their radar screen of the first place, and that seems like a problem. host: a tweeps -- amongweet -- and chris, good morning. caller: it is not so much that i have a question, i would like to

get the young lady's opinion off the air. i was a football coach a couple of years. from the time girls are younger, it seems they are more taught to be -- i hate to say this like this -- sexually attractive to men, the way they dress, the way they act. you talk about being competitive, and it does not seem that they are taught to be competitive. it seems like a natural extension of what you had said of them being the 90% caregiver in the home, that that would follow into their careers. my daughter is a nurse, the other is a teacher. it seems like a natural extension of -- and i don't want to sound sexist -- but of them being a woman. i admire that you would run for office, but in a city like between it is very much the two parties. it is extremely hard to have name recognition, to develop those names, and to raise the funds that are necessary. is plentyink there

for professor lawless to respond to. guest: it is true that it is difficult to go out and raise money and build name recognition, but nothing suggests that women cannot be as successful as men when they try to do that. i don't think we should assume that because it is a difficult task women cannot succeed. the other thing i would note if we see these trends of women becoming less competitive than men, we can begin to change that. nothing is set in stone. we don't live in a world where we are left to navigate it, we can actually change it. that is what i think knowing competitive experiences can generate some sense of the competitive spirit. knowing that, i think it is useful and we can encourage young girls to get involved in if they have the background. host: duke from california, you're the last caller. i don't think you ought

to be pushing for a process of eliminating men from running from office for one reason only, and that is they possess which leads -- disagree, but i push it the comment. i think we do ourselves a disservice when we exploit the capital and at the end of the day elected officials represent their extension with ease. that is why the incumbency advantage is so high and they kept getting reelected. as long as we hold them accountable and get out there and vote and make sure there is electoral competition, we will wind up with better government. host: wild and wonderful tweets in -- guest: interestingly, men and women were both very turned off

having to navigate this media environment with regard to privacy issues or they lack thereof. at the end of the day, that turns off both men and women at relatively equal weights. -- equal rates. zimonjill miller tweets in -- guest: i am familiar with this. name it change it identifies sexist commentary in the media and put it out there so people are aware that the media are not treating female candidates well, and that is supposed to put pressure on the media to change the behavior. certainly absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is a very noble effort. the thing i would mention is that the amount of sexist commentary out there is very, very small, and so that is not what is keeping women running for office, and it is not affecting women's election

outcomes. if we have to make choices focusing on the lyrical recruitment and encouraging women to believe in themselves as candidates, that will ultimately lead to more women candidates. host: we have been talking to american university professor jennifer lawless about this report, "girls just want to not gender"washington journal" con. the: now joining us on "washington journal." article, aet into conservative vision of government, what with the pastor have been like if mitt romney had been elected? guest: it would've been a better

year. that economic policies would've been in place. the economy would be recovering better, america would have a stronger and more vital role in the world. i think there would be less chaos and disorder in the world. i think we would be in the process of undoing and repealing the affordable care act, which i think is a monumental failure. a lot of the problems we are facing that are really being driven by what is popularly known as obamacare, we would not be facing. i think we would be in a lot better shape. for national affairs, you and michael percent have written a large article, a conservative vision of government. i want to take a snippet of this and have you expand a little bit on it. you have asked the question, what is the proper and appropriate extent and purpose of government? and servitors in recent years have not done enough to answer this question. i think that is right.

several things are going on. i think over the last five years during the obama era, conservatives have done a pretty good job at making criticisms of government and obama era policies. i think that is good, as far as they go. but with a have been able to do, what they haven't been doing is positivelate a more seal of government. is way that i have put it that conservatives talk a lot about the dangers of the size of state but they don't talk about the purposes of the state. it is one thing that conservatives have made mistakes on and are open to criticism. in this essay in "national affairs," it is that they haven't articulated the purpose of government is, but there has been a kind of ferocious antigovernment rhetoric and mindset that has taken root and

found a home in some elements of the conservative movement. when mike and i are trying to do in this essay is why we think it iss an error we think wrong historically, philosophically and politically. write,t the heart, you of the oppositional view of government espoused by some libertarians and tea party leaders, is a particular version of american history. our national recovery they insist depends on returning to the governing philosophy of the american founders as it is embodied in the constitution. guest: that is right. his is the most interesting part of the article to work on. if you're familiar with the conservative debate and some of the ferocious antigovernment rhetoric, you'll find a lot of conservatives anchor their views in the constitution and the founders.

what mike and i did is go back and analyze what the founders really believed at the time. it is a lot more complicated than that. what people need to understand is we have this great debate in the 18th century in which the , thealist founders antifederalists were viewed as the antigovernment. they had people like james madison and alexander hamilton, george washington, james wilson. these are not people who view government as a necessary evil in the words of thomas paine. government properly limited and probably frameless central as a public good. so think what has happened is that the founders of the constitution have been is appropriated by some modern-day conservatives. they are invoked more often than

red. i do think you people would go back and the debate of the american founding, the rhetoric tothis positional mindset government would be different than what we're hearing. i want to make one thing clear come i very much in favor of limited government. in the essay we explain why we are. i think there's a difference between limited government on the one hand and a kind of reflective rhetorical denigration on the other. some people are going to read this are going to say establishment republican. guest: yes they will. i'm not quite sure what that phrase means. around as hurl that an epitaph are part of the establishment themselves. actually don't think establishment, per se, is that. -- is bad. i actually think if you look through the agenda that i have advanced in this essay with mike

grierson that i'm mature it would qualify as establishment. i am very forward leaning and fairly bold and the forms that i have been advocating, both in writing and in meetings with congressional leaders. people can decide for themselves whether i am part of the establishment or not. it is not problematic, i like washington dc. i have a number of good friends here. i think people should be judged not whether they're part of the establishment or not but by the merits of their ideas. host: a little bit more from important respects abraham lincoln continued the philosophical arc of the framers of the constitution. very true.s lincoln was the 16th president. i think he was america's greatest president, probably in competition with washington. here's a de facto founder of the republican party. here again, this is an individual who if you examine what he said, what he wrote and what he believed, was not

was a denigrated of government. in fact he expanded the powers of government, much as the founders did. greatn really was the interpreter of the founders, probably almost without question the greatest presidential founders time the and again in his debates with stephen douglas and in this case against slavery used to go back to the declaration and explain what that meant. here again come i think it is worthwhile to go back to read what these people said, what they believed. it is important to say that i am not arguing it would not argue that the founders are lincoln magically appeared in 21st- century america they be happy with the size of government. i suspect it would be concerned. dealto one i spent a great of my time arguing for limited government, why that is important and why i think that there have been a lot of

mistakes from the obama presidency because government is toog too much and doing much poorly. our purpose here was to try and add what i suppose is a corrective to the conservative debate and the conservative movement. host: what is the ethics and public policy center? tanker onis a think it in 1976 by ernest lefevre. hass relatively small and about 20 scholars here in washington dc. unlike some of the other think tanks that are around, it makes a conscious effort to try and the religious and moral dimensions of public policy. really has some of the finest .cholars in the country is a really a tricky place. it is one of the first ones i worked for when i came to washington in the 1980s.

i had a series of jobs in three republican administrations and worked in the bush white house. when i left there in 2007, they gave me an office at home and i am delighted to be there. it is a wonderful place. host: speaking of the catholic focus, the pope has made some policy statements. rush limbaugh has caused some of his ideas marxist. we think about pope francis? guest: i think he is traffic. myself am a christian, not a catholic, but a christian. i think he embodies in very many ways the spirit of christ. i think is good for the catholic church, which is an institution that has absorbed some tremendously difficult blows over the last eight. i think his humility and his humanity, his obvious concern for the poor and the disenfranchised, people living in the shadows of society, is terrific.

i read this exhortation, the part that had to do with the economy was pretty minor in .erms of what he wrote i read it, didn't agree fully with his views. at that he is somewhat simplistic and his views and sweeping in his statements toward capitalism, but he is not an economist and what he is arguing for primarily on not economic or public house in matters could use the head of .he roman catholic church i'm very intrigued by him and i think he is a part from being that important of a religious leader come i think there are some lessons that he can teach people in politics in terms of how to get your message through in a way that is not public anations related but really authentic insight into his heart and mind and soul.

host: back to a conservative vision of government, your michael peterson right -- it speaks well of conservatives that they want to be thought of as the defenders of the constitution, but at a minimum, constitutional conservatives should recognize what both the federalist founders and lincoln actually envisioned for the republic they created and preserved. they is an argument to go back. we talk about how nasty the debates can get.

throng for christians -- i think it is wrong for christians to and make them. i think you can learn what the animating principles were. what is the philosophy that informed their thinking. what is the disposition that they had? you can take that and try to issues and the challenges. it can be instructive and helpful. host: the relationship between the government and the life of the people is a particularly challenging problem in our time. the overreach of the obama years

has given form to the less powerful desire to manage and manipulate those realms of life that in our country have generally been left within the purview of the family, civil society, and local community. guest: i think it is one of the biggest distinctions between liberals and conservatives. institutions -- conservatives place a high premium on them. what conservatives have argued for is that between the state and the individual there is human life that needs to be respected and supported. this modern liberalism tends to impose itself there. to think that it knows better. there is an impulse toward centralization. we see it in the affordable care act, which i think is problematic. we see it manifest in the current debate.

religiousent about liberties in the affordable care act and whether religious institutions him and their health insurance policies, have to give out policies that would cover birth control and abortion. historically, the state has respected the wrist -- religious views of these institutions. administration, keeping with modern liberalism, says we know better. you will bow before the state. we will dictate to you what you should do. you may have religious objections, but we really do know better. that is a precise and specific manifestation of this broader debate and tendencies. , this tweetwehner -- your response to this tweet.

guest: not many and they shouldn't. there are some conservatives who either explicitly say or hint that this notion of dismantling the state and going back to the pre-new deal era. security would be unconstitutional. in practice, the republican party is the political home of the conservative movement. there were no prominent conservatives who want to do it. the best figures in american conservatism and elected officials, in congress, people like paul ryan, are promoting far-reaching, very necessary reforms to programs like medicare. not to dismantle them, but to help them survive. at the rate we are going, if there are not necessary reforms,

those programs will go bankrupt. at some point there will be a real jolt to the people who depend on those programs. much as we have seen in countries like europe, like greece. i don't think it is foreign to. it would be politically suicidal. ronald reagan made his peace and so should others. westerly, rhode island. a letter to the editor in the washington times. time for republicans in name only to follow the tea party. writes, to paraphrase mark twain, reports of the tea party's death of been greatly exaggerated. the tea party will shortly become the dominant political force in america and here is why.

here's a news bulletin. fightyou won't lead the to reverse the socialist utopia that washington is jamming down thethroats, you can follow tea party or preferably just get out of the way. guest: that is a good letter at editorial in terms of capturing a particular point of view. is first thing i would say that the tea party has been a force for good in american politics. its genesis and creation was in response to an overreach of government by the obama

administration. it manifests itself in several ways. years withthe early the huge money that was spent to try to get us out of the economic, financial collapse that we had. but mostly in the affordable care act. huge and important and positive force in the 2010 midterm election. i think that is good. the instincts and impulses, many of them, of the tea party are good. that there is this kind of rhetorical overreach. there is a kind of reflexive denigration within some members of the tea party or some of the groups where every time government is mentioned in a agative light, it tends to be little bit of imprecision in the tea party. i wrote a piece in the wall street journal a couple of years

ago -- michele bachmann considers herself a member in good standing of the tea party. they talk a lot about limited government. but then when specific issues came up like medicare reform, which paul ryan was pushing, she was very hesitant about getting into it. were very coolrs to the idea of entitlement reform. you cannot be a limited government individual in 2014 or 2012 and not be in favor of entitlement reform. there was this odd kind of schizophrenia that was going on. rhetorically, very far out there. then when you got into the policies, somewhat modest. the last thing i would say -- there is a conservative disposition and temperament. some people within the conservative building of the tea party have lost that. there is a kind of purification

impulse with this individual got to. john boehner is a republican in name only. constantly berating people who are part of the establishment. wanting to burn heretics. more a notion of exclusion than expansion for the party and a kind of intellectual rigidity that i think has taken place. we sought in the republican party in the 2012 election. if you could get $10 of spending cuts for tax increases, which of you republican candidates would agree to that? not a single hand went up. there is an ideology within the republican party, tea party movement that says you will not raise taxes under any conditions, regardless. i think that is not a conservative way to approach things. there is nothing set in stone about where the tax rates are

right now. it depends on circumstances. it depends on what you get in return. any conservative would take that in a moment. this is an ideological rigidity that is taking place. i suspect that person probably shares it. host: one more quote from your essay before we go to calls. a truly conservative response to the advance of the liberal or progressive ideology would not involve the adoption of an opposite and equally narrow ideology. guest: it is an interesting thing. of liberalism and isservatism -- conservatism a negation of ideology. wary of abstractions and of imposing per the polls regardless of circumstances. ofprinciples regardless

circumstances. conservatism believes in the complexity of human society, the dangers of unintended consequences. the antithesis of a revolutionary rhetoric, utopianism. it has stayed away from ideology. one of the figures was edmund burke. the great british statesman in the 18th century. he wrote reflections to revolution in france. a fierce critic of the french revolution. and rightly so. this was a person who wrote a great deal about the importance of prudence. taking into account circumstances, history. that is what conservatives should be. it should not be an ideology in the way that that is generally under stud. -- understood. host: peter wehner is our guest. stephen in california on our

democrat line. . caller: thank you very much. wehner.l words, mr. i have a lot of problems that are coming across from conservatism. we are experiencing unfettered capitalism. if we live in a consumer society that funds 70% of our economy and what makes more sense -- to have 150,000 people with $350 people or 350 million with $150 million? we had pretty close to that when clinton left office. i was making a very good living at that time. i was pushing a couple hundred thousand per year. i had an employee working at my

gallery and things were working beautifully. now we are giving more and more tax cuts to the wealthy. is that somebody who makes 400 times what i make in a year is only paying 200 times what i pay in taxes. that is 50% less. if we have the temerity to ask that person to pay 55% of what i pay in taxes, that is class warfare. that seems to be the conservative argument. host: i think we have a good issue to grab onto. guest: good question. i appreciate them. there was a lot of human hardship these days. driven by the economy. those are also difficult and poignant examples. let me try to take these in pieces. i don't think we have such a

thing as unfettered capitalism in america. we have a fair amount of regulation. i would argue that a problem today -- let me say one other thing about capitalism. capitalism is the economic system which has done far and away the most to lift the poverty and to create a middle class. and to give people a chance for prosperity and dignity, work, and human flourishing. capitalism has been one of the wonders of the world. that does not mean that it does not make mistakes or that it does not need the state to impose certain regulations. -- maybe a fewng libertarians -- for unfettered capitalism. in terms of the economy today, we have had barack obama who has been president for five years. he is not a conservative.

he is arguably the most liberal president we have ever had. he has given us a historically bad economic recovery. job growth has been stagnant. in thember of people labor force. long-term unemployment reaching record levels. poverty a record levels. i don't think you can lay the problems of the economy at the foot or feet of conservatives. i think a lot of it has to do with president obama. i think some of the things go beyond president obama or a single president. i think there are deep structural changes that are happening and that we have to deal with. one last point about this larger question about income inequality , which is a fairly hot topic in political circles and an issue obama talked about. income inequality has gone up in the obama years. median income for the poor has gone down, not up.

that needs to be said. secondly, the united states is the most progressive tax system of any of the rich countries in the world. make, the top one percent 40% of all total income taxes. in the 1970's it was 20%. whatever complaints people have about the rich, it is not borne out by the data. host: kathy, montgomery, texas. republican line. please explainou why the conservatives have the deep concern over obamacare and the overspending of the democrats and obama? our future is in despair. i don't understand why people cannot grasp this. it is not his race. he is half white. i am so sick of hearing that we are racist. we are so concerned for our future.

could you please explain this. guest: let me try to untangle that. there is no question on the financial side. that we are going to have a day of reckoning. it may not be far in our future. you cannot continue to spend so much more than we are taking in and run this kind of debt. these constant deficits. more and more people are understanding what is wrong with obamacare. for years, it was a kind of abstraction. president sold it on a false pretense, claims about it were not true. they needed to say them to get it passed -- that you could keep your health care plan if you had it -- he word, and of story. that is demonstrably untrue. is not just wrecking the american health-care system, but

it is a huge drag on the economy. it is a huge problem. i think what is happening is that the american people are seeing this firsthand. with people losing their coverage. with sticker shock premiums, deductibles going up, people losing their plans. plans., employer remember, the affordable care act was sold as something that would deal with a problem -- the uninsured in america. according to the congressional be at office, there will best 30 million people that will still be uninsured when obamacare goes into effect. in some respects the process of destroying american health-care system. to have gone from 45 million

uninsured to 30 uninsured. there are ways of dealing with the problems of the uninsured in a discreet way. going back to conservatism and liberalism, this was the liberal impulse. that liberals would know better, that they would have a centralized plan, that they would command and control -- that these experts would be able to decide and run american health-care. they cannot even get the healthcare.gov website up and running -- even though they had millions of dollars to spend, three years to prepare -- it was a disaster. , in this sense. the president and his party are paying a high political price for it and i suspect in the what he 14 midterm elections. -- 2014 midterm elections. host: a tweet. do you consider yourself a moderate?

guest: no. if somebody considers me a moderate, they are pretty far on the french. i am a conservative. -- fringe. i am a conservative. i have a tremendous amount of respect for ronald reagan and margaret thatcher. burke, james madison, lincoln -- i think he is the greatest american president. all of those would qualify as conservatives. i think that there are people genuine, thinks that a authentic conservatism is not what they are for. they gravitate toward a kind of revolutionary, radical form of conservatism.

the history of conservatism, the wisdom of conservatism, and i think what is the best interest -- you try to engage in a serious debate and rather than engaging in a debate, they write people off as rino's were moderates or whatever the agger --adjective of the day is. is the divideous between libertarians, t partiers, moderates, establishment conservatives in the party? guest: it is real. months,in the last few john boehner pushback against tea party groups. -- he was insanely one of the leaders of the government shutdown.

paulave people like rand -- a real libertarian. intelligent, well spoken. you are seeing the debate in domestic affairs and in foreign policy. paul is nothing like the reagan internationalist approach. he does not really believe america should have a prominent role in maintaining world order. these debates are fairly intense. they are not unhealthy. not dissimilar to ronald reagan and richard nixon and henry kissinger. reagan was a strong critic of detente. reagan had a debate involving

the panama canal. those debates are not bad. it tends to be somewhat undisciplined. you have these kind of back-and- forth. some of these issues will be resolved once the republican party dominates -- nominates a candidate in 2016 and the party and the movement will unify behind them. host: dave in florida. independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, sir. [indiscernible] and theg the tea party people who are not that educated , but are totally fed up.

going back to george bush. you keep knocking president obama. the main reason obama got elected in the first place is because that people were so fed up with the moderate conservatism -- i would almost say liberalism of george bush -- and the madness that went on then. around --ed right they totally went directly opposite of what he campaigned on. people went ballistic. it is not an antigovernment -- it is an antiestablishment. host: thank you. guest: thank you for the call. let me try to untangle this. i do have some criticism of the tea party. as i said earlier, i think they are a force for good in american politics. i credit them with the 2010

midterm elections. but i think that some refinement needs to go on. party needs the tea to look within. some critiques need to go on. i don't think they are evil or nasty. ishink for most part, it comprised of good, generous, patriotic americans and the think the impulses are all right. i am a strong critic of president obama and that the government -- what the government is doing. there has been a rhetorical overreach. it is hurray richmond government -- a disparagement of government hich is not healthy. president bush was a conservative by any reasonable metric. in some ways, even more conservative than ronald reagan. he never raised taxes.

reagan did. huge advances on supply-side economics. he also had the tougher taxes. bush never had that. spending under bush was considerably less than it was under reagan. taxes were lower. i think president bush, as a conservative, stands up very well. i think president obama was elected in part because of the financial crisis and the iraqi war. the media with both of those. -- let me deal with both of those. withdent bush was dealing reforms with freddie and fannie. who brought those reforms? -- was a junior senator blocked those reforms?

one was a junior senator named barack obama. it was a rough kind of justice that president obama inherited the problem. the bush administration made real errors in the iraq war. the planning was not proper. the theory did not work. president bush changed it. he advocated the surge. counterinsurgency strategy, beautifully executed by david petraeus. by the time he left office, iraq was in relatively good shape. it was a relatively pacified country. that has been undone, but not because of him. it is because of the policies pursued by his successor. host: a tweet. guest: no, i don't think so.

it was a comment and one that governor romney himself said that he regrets. people have to speak for themselves. i am not wild about this notion of establishment republicans. people have to speak for themselves. view which does exist within conservatism that is very, very worried that we have created a nation of takers instead of givers. people who have become overly dependent on government. they don't pay income taxes and they get money from various government programs and it has corrupted their character. and impeded better judgment. i think that the 47%, and was unfortunate. what republicans and conservatives have to do is find a language and set up policies

that actually appeal to middle- class people. a huge changes happening in america that has happened in america over the past several decades. i'm not sure republicans and conservatives are aware of it. this is not 1980. white voters are increasingly smaller percentage of the electorate. the he 12 election was first one in which the nonwhite vote was really decisive. mitt romney won the white vote by 20 points. that is historically very good. it is almost unprecedented. yet he lost by over 5 million votes. he lost the nonwhite vote by 63%. 1996, for every two years, the nonwhite vote has gone up 2%.

i don't think the conservative movement and the republican party have adjusted. that does not have a disposition that is appealing to america today. if they are getting a higher percentage of a smaller pool of voters -- that is not a prescription for success. host: john in illinois on the democrat line. you are on. caller: good morning. discuss top tax rates and conservatism from a little different point of view. it is a little long and complicated. if you think it has value, maybe you could keep the host from cutting me off. host: i will recommend that you add it yourself and get it down into a bite sized chunk.

caller: you kind of ironically pointed out how the top one percent are now paying about 40% of the taxes and yet most people are aware that they are much -- paying a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than in the 20th century. the implications of being able to double the amount from 20% to 40% -- they are paying a huge percent of our total taxes but an ever smaller amount of their income. income is growing at an enormous disparity. the other main thing i want to discuss is about the concern with top tax rates. themizing revenue is one of concerns of government. it is a legitimate question to ask why is that a concern? while we are in so much debt, it obviously is.

conservative is say that decreasing taxes increases revenue. theratechnologies and maximize revenue is important. host: a conclusion? is thatthe conclusion where the top tax rate would be. point is that if you brought it down to 1%, you would not be bringing in any income. how can they argue all the time to only lower it when you don't necessarily know if you are already below the point which maximizes income? host: thank you. guest: that is an interesting and intelligent question. i agree with you to this extent. i do not think there is a magic rate. you cannot constantly argue that taxes should be lowered. at some point, taxes will in fact go to a point when there is too low and you don't get any revenue at all. the question is, what is the

rate that maximizes economic growth and brings in the kind of revenues that you need? i would point out that when president reagan took over, the top tax rate was 70%. he cut it to 28%. hugh had huge economic growth. the 70% rates were clearly oppressive and problematic and where an anchor and wet blanket on the economy. under reagan, we had huge economic growth and huge job growth. this is an, i think issue which really divides liberals and conservatives. the topic of this program. liberals few taxes through a moral prism and as an instrument to try to redistribute wealth. i don't see it that way. tohink taxes should be used fund government, not to redistribute wealth. what you should be thinking about is what are the policies that advance economic growth? rates thate tax

unleashed the american economy and democratic capitalism in a way that leads to prosperity for people at every strata of society? liberals spend a tremendous amount of time concerned about inequality. inequality is endemic to human life. maury quality does not necessarily lead to better life. someone the other day pointed hadthat china under mao much more equality than china today. but there is no question that china is better today in terms of what it offers its citizens. it could be that the rich are getting rich at a faster rate and the port for getting rich and the gap increases, but everybody gets better. that is not the issue. is there social mobility? if you have income inequality but not social mobility, that is

a kind of caste system. that is problematic. pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. on a macro level, what is your on aon about capitalism collision course with socialism? why don't we hear that word very often? in my observation, the past 60 or 70 years we are out spending ourselves, but we do not want to raise taxes. i am not a socialist. i just would like to hear your opinion. yes.: the collision between capitalism and socialism. this is an old, now ancient debate between capitalism and socialism. been a capitalist country, it still is. president obama is a person of the left, so he is pushing

policies to redistribution, high taxes, larger role of government. he has taken it more in a , likeatic socialist countries you see in europe. democratic capitalism is bad for all sorts of reasons -- better for all sorts of reasons. on the tax issue, the question is not whether we should raise taxes on the rich so we make them pay more, so there is some kind of punitive aspect to this or so we decrease in the quality -- the question is what are the tax rates, what are the tax policies, what are the tax codes that lead to economic growth? and other republicans have been advocating and have put forward -- will put forward a conference -- comprehensive plan that will push forward reform of the tax code which

would lead to some higher taxes -- lower tax rates, but a broadening of the base. the kind of tax reform that happened in 1986, the bipartisan deal between ronald reagan and tip o'neill and bill bradley and others. wondrous in terms of its economic effects. host: freddie, indianapolis. democrat. i am classifying myself as a socialist communist. a socialist capitalist. the reason for that. let me tell you. reduce -- a redistribution of wealth. when the people out here do not , someone is going to have to feed them. have jobs to feed themselves, someone will have to

feed them. if no one is feeding them, they will not let them go hungry. what do you think of that? guest: thank you for the call. i agree. i do think someone needs to feed them. i think one of the roles of the state is to provide, to give provision for the poor and particularly those who have been poor and needy for no fault of their own. i believe in the welfare state in that understanding of it. that is partly why we wrote this article. , and i think the objective of the most conservatives, is to try to have fewer people who are poor. growth,uires economic peoplemobility, giving skills and talents that they economy. modern

thinking about the poor in staying in the situation that they have and that the state needs to give the money -- that is not good. i understand helping the poor as a temporary provision in most situations. but it is not good for them and it is not good for society to keep them there. what you need to do is to have public policy that gives people the best chance to prosper and to flourish. that does not mean that they are going to be essentially wards of the state. host: the last call comes from alan in maryland. on our independent line. caller: good morning. you used to determine antigovernment three times this morning. -- i don'tovernment understand why you use this term consistently like a liberal does.

host: sorry about that. i thought you were finished. isst: the reason i use it that when you listen to the rhetoric of some people -- not all people on the right -- it is a constant barrage that is critical and denigrating of government. i would call that antigovernment. i do not think it is nihilistic or anarchist. i think it is a rhetorical disposition to criticize government. critic ofin, i am a much of what government is doing. i think it is too large and needs to be limited. in the formulation of margaret thatcher, it takes too much to do too much for us. i think if you just listen to the public debate -- at least as represented by some people on it is this- denigration of government that i think is unfortunate and problematic. i think there is an element -- some people on the right to view

government as a kind of necessary evil. i do not agree with that. i do not think that is really true. i do not think it is faithful to the best tradition of conservatism. host: a tweet. guest: i have tried to. you can go back and read the tape or watch the tape, read the transcript, read the article. or go to commentary magazine.com. i have laid out, more times than i can count, more public policies, from the reform of entitlements, to the tax code, education reform -- i think that is a big issue. i think areas of private and public choice, charter schools, accountability, merit pay -- very important issues. i think reforms of energy -- it

does not get nearly enough attention. this is important. i try to spend a fair amount of my time actually laying out what conservatives ought to embrace. this is a much more theoretical discussion and article itself, in terms of the philosophy of conservatism, as opposed to laying out a 10 or 20 point public policy proposal, which i am happy to do some other time. --t: the title of the essay a conservative vision of government. it is available at national af