have the inventories of about 40000 book dealers worldwide. i can usually have an answer for customer while they are still on the phone. independent booksellers curate their own collections. you will find a different selection in each different store. barnes & noble stores and other big-box stores are curated by somebody at the head office and they have their own warehousing system. if you walk into a warrant to noble in green bay or st. louis or san francisco or new york for that matter, matter, you will find largely the same collection of books. that's the difference between us and the big-box stores. the difference between us and amazon is that amazon has everything. all i have is 30,000 books here but will we have that amazon doesn't have is life human

beings and we have opinions. we have books that we like and tend to recognize -- recommend to our regular customers whose taste we get to know, books we think they would like there is a lot of difference between that, believe me, and analog rhythm. amazon is really complicated things a lot more. it would still be interesting to see how that works out in their recent dispute that has brought to public consciousness, some of the aspects of the unruliness of the business.

the conglomeration of the industry, most recently, probably, probably the really big thing that has happened was the merger of penguin and random house which were the two largest publishers to start out with another one publisher. we will see how that works out. in general, it appears that conglomerate in of imprints and publishing houses that have taken place over the past 15 years has really open the doors for smaller independent publishers of which there are a lot more now than there were ten or 15 years ago. i think that's a good thing. they have an a niche to fill now. the big houses, that are responsible for their shareholders are less likely to take a chance. so it's kind of exciting watching from the sidelines and

the end of the business which appears to be getting better all the time which is independent bookselling. it has rebounded in the last few years. from this perspective it's pretty interesting to watch all of that shakeout. i continue to learn more about the business and i'm really happy to be on this end of that. >> now john danforth talks about the relevance of religion. >> it so good to see you and i want to congratulate you on your new book, the relevance of religion. >> thank you very much. it's good to be with you. i have to say that i enjoyed working on this book and i hope people enjoyed reading it.

>> i look forward to visiting with you about it and hopefully creating a little interest because i think it certainly a worthy read. so you write in the prologue, politics is broken. we should fix it. you describe religion and religious people as a gift to politics and that religion puts politics in its proper place. as someone who has lived a little of politics myself, i know it can become all consuming and it can become a bible and it can become god. you tell a a story in your 1982 reelection when you were running against harriet woods. tough race. >> 's tough race, i almost lost it. >> your family, in effort to encourage you, can you recall that story that your daughter, who was 15 at that time -- >> my daughter dede, i never thought that i had a chance to

lose that election. i thought that was going to be fairly easy. then maybe three weeks or so before election day, a pole came out and it showed that i was dead even with my opponent and i thought, i'm going to lose. i'm going to have everything fall through the floor. >> her numbers were rising. >> yes her numbers were rising and mine were plummeting. she had all the momentum on her side. when you think oh gee i spent my life in politics and i'm going to get the boot. by then my 15-year-old daughter dede, who was trying to comfort me, and she said, well it's not the world series. it really put it in place. for st. louis fan, the world

series is the end-all be-all. i think it was telling because it said politics is not the be-all and end-all. it really isn't. it's important for all of us, i think to keep it in its proper place. >> absolutely. that leads me, in talking about religion and religious people as a gift to politics, i thought when you said, when politics is broken, we should fix it. there's no one who will disagree with the fact that it is broken right now, but you say religion raises our sites above the interest of self and group for the common good. you spoke about their view of a virtuous synergy. what do you mean by that? >> well the word virtue is used

by each of our first four presidents. what they meant by virtue was something more than just how people carry themselves. whether or not they live good wholesome life's life but it had to do with the common good and whether we as individuals put the good of the country ahead of our own interest. to me, it's fascinating that this is a point that was made particularly by james madison because madison was a great political realist. he was really the architect of our constitution. he understood that everybody had interests, groups had interests. we had to balance interest to have a country that would function, but he also said that no matter how well structured

our government is, our political system is, the country is not going to succeed, america is not going to succeed without the virtue of its citizens. that is, it has to be more than just self interest. has to be more than what's in it for me. there has to be a sense on the part of the citizens that we are here for a purpose beyond just having everything we can for ourselves. that concept of virtue which our first four presidents thought of as a republican quality faded out with them. we didn't hear much more about it or anything like it. the few outcroppings lincoln, and most notably, john f. kennedy inaugural speech when he said, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

then he said in that very short and all girl speech that america, americans will pay any price and bear any burden for the future of liberty. that was over a half-century ago. we haven't heard anything like it since. instead of politicians saying we will pay any price, they say you don't have to pay any price at all. it's all about your own interests and namely what can government offer you by way of benefits and how little can government take for you by way of taxation and it's as though politics now is exclusively an appeal to the self interest. >> how can people of faith change that?

>> when you think about it, it's the opposite of what the message of religion is. religion does point us beyond ourselves and for faithful people, the me, the what's in it for me, is not central. there is something higher. namely god is higher. your whole focus is for something bigger and better than yourself. i think that is a message that comes from religion and would be a great offering by faithful people to politics and it is not heard in the political sphere at all. >> that really struck me that since john f. kennedy we really haven't heard a call for national sacrifice or individual

sacrifice on the part of citizen. >> the result is we have a 20 trillion-dollar debt were we are knocking at the door of 20 trillion. your after year goes by and nothing is done about it. my last year in the senate, i was the vice chair of the commission on the entitlements reform, reforming the entitlement program. we came out with a terrific, at least player mary report with beautiful graphs showing that social security was doomed in medicare was doomed and that was 21 21 years ago. nothing came of that. then five years ago we had another balanced program of

taxes and entitlement cuts in spending cuts in order to try to get our national debt in some sort of order, and nothing came of that. in fact, those politicians who were supported of that were attacked for various pieces of how they supported it. >> i remember it well. we will talk more about the need for compromise and that republicans are willing to accept any kind of revenue increases and democrats are unwilling to change any of the entitlement programs. >> that's right. i think it's not so much the politicians are just odd ducks. well maybe they are, but i don't think it's that. i don't think their peculiar or they don't get it, i don't think so. i think politicians are very,

very keyed in to what they are hearing from the public. they respond to it and then they in turn, revoke that. if what they are hearing what they think they are hearing from the public is i want mine and i want it now, gimme, than what they are going to say to the public, and you hear it now in the presidential campaign, do i have a great thing for you. i do. i have more benefits for you than anybody else is offering. vote for me. it evokes what they listen to what they think is a message of gimme and then they evil that same message in turn. so here we are in politics and the result is a very unsound

base for our economic future. >> continuing this religion is a gift of politics, you mention that religion is communal and binds us each together. i was very struck by what you described as the growing isolation and loneliness among the american people and that you can see how that has even bled over into our political life in the institution of the senate. did i read you correctly on this? >> yes. this is far from an original point and it was made most eloquently, i think, by robert putnam who wrote a book called bowling alone. it's how were all just becoming more and more individualistic.

we are becoming more and more turned in on ourselves and hence the title. were not even bowling in leagues, we go bowling alone. that was the title of the book. i believe that is true here in washington as well as throughout the country. what are we doing? were sitting in front of our television set and driving our car. the country, it seems, the less we are in interpersonal relationships and i believe this is also true in the senate where you served and i served because there was social interaction from the senate. we lived here, most of us, our

families and spouses knew each other. we knew each other's children. we were in each other's home and if you have that kind of interpersonal connection with people, it's really easier to work things out politically whereas if you only know someone as a politician, but i had one member of the senate tell me, sitting member of the senate tell me that they couldn't think of six other senators that he would have over to his house for dinner. >> you speak of the collegiality and the collegiality when i was in the senate was disappearing. a lot of the problems we see now go back to those years. what do you see as contributing to the dysfunction of the senate today from the collegiality of the past to the combative partisanship that characterizes

the institution now? >> i there are number of components to that. i think one of the problems is just scheduling and the need for senators to be on the road raising money in relatively small increments. i think the most that a senator can raise for a campaign from an individualist is $2700 for the primary and same for the general election. meanwhile these uncontrolled groups, the packs and the individual contributors can put in anything they want. the senator who wants to define a message has to go out on the road and raise raised maybe 15

or $20 million, $25 million or more depending on the state. >> they're not in washington. >> it means they're not here and relating to each other and so i think something is lost in that regard. i think something else is going on that is even more serious than that and that is that the pressure that members of congress are hearing from their so-called base, from their stalwarts supporters, all the pressure is don't get along. don't compromise. don't make a deal. so you've basically got independent contractors out there making speeches and the idea of politics, meaning working things out is lost in the shuffle.

it's lost in this pressure to be absolutely. in their position. >> let me go back to the senator who only had a half-dozen senators but he thought he had a lack of relationships that were combative on the floor. you as i recall, talk about a congressional allegation, a foreign trip trip that you took to asia. i think it was with senator bock and's. >> it was in 1979. it wasat the time of a terrible refugee problem on the border of thailand and cambodia where vietnam had made it to cambodia who had been ruled by a terrible

tyrant, but these refugees cross the border and were lying on the ground dying and it was awful to see. three of us from the senate, all freshman senators, went over to thailand in the border of cambodia and into cambodia in order to call attention to the starvation and we tried to figure out what could be done to try to resolve the problem. what happened, in addition to focusing on this humanitarian crisis was that the three of us spent an awful lot of time together. long flights to get from washington d.c. to bangkok is three legs and it was long. but we got to know each other and i got to know max baucus who was my colleague in the senate

and we both served on the senate finance committee which is a very heavy-duty committee and we were both interested in a lot of the same things, particularly international trade. so we got to know each other, we got to like each other. >> max being a democrat. >> max being a democrat and he has a son named zeno and he was a baby at this time. he asked me, because i'm an ordained clergyman, to baptize his son which i did. now i can't imagine that in today's u.s. senate as i understand what's going on in washington. i just think it's a battle all the time. if you get to know somebody on a personal basis, you can try at

least to communicate and work things out. >> that story about max baucus really resonated with me because i made one of my best friends on the other side of the aisle. it's really true, when there are many, many hours and you're out of that furnace that is the senate and you get to know somebody as a person, it's a little bit harder to hate them on the floor. >> that's right. and i think that, you know, how is the media going to deal with something like this? how will your opponent deal with this in a political campaign this is a junket to afghanistan. hardly a junket to the border of cambodia where people are starving to death. it is an opportunity for quality time and that's really important. >> i think that's very true. that is peculiar.

it's certainly a big contributor to what we see in washington today. then you say religion creates the environment for compromise and thrive. you told about the advice that the legendary senator russell law gave you when you became chairman of the commerce committee. can you recount that for our viewers today? you recall the advice he gave? >> yes. russell law was just great. i mean, if you you asked me what did you enjoy most about serving in the united states senate, russell lawn would be very close to the top of that list. he was so clever and funny and he understood how politics worked.

he was the chairman of the finance committee. i was on the finance committee. then, i think it was 1985, republicans got control of the senate and i became the chair of the commerce committee so i have this recording, i think somewhere, maybe in maybe in a closet somewhere, i took this tape recorder and i went to russell's office, and i turned on the recorder and i said, russell tell me how to be a good chairman. he said, i have two pieces of advice, one piece of advice is give everybody on the committee a sense of participation. at a a sense of a stake in the legislation you are trying to piece. give them an amendment or some piece of the legislation so they

want nothing past. second thing he said was, never hold a grudge. the person who is your opponent today is likely to be your ally or someone you will need as your ally tomorrow. those were the two things that russell said to me. >> in that relationship where the senator had gone back to your early day when you first came to the senate. >> yes, the first day on the senate finance committee. and that. >> you had no idea. >> that's right. this was russell. what happened was i showed up for my first day on the senate finance committee, and i was one of 38 republicans in the u.s. senate. thirty-eight is, is, you may as well have zero. it's nothing. we had 38 republicans

republicans. i had just turned 40 years old. i had just arrived in the senate. i had never met him before. he was the chairman of the senate finance committee. i was delighted to be on that committee. it has to do with taxation among other things, but that's the big issue, tax legislation. so i show up for my first day on the finance committee and russell is presiding and what the committee is doing is they are setting up their program for the year ahead in writing a letter to the budget committee, committee, here's what our plan is for the year ahead. he was drafting a letter. so there's there is this little pause in the preceding and i'm way down at the end of the table, and he had never seen me before. i raised my hand, and i said,

mr. chairman, i have an idea, and he looked down the table he said oh? what's your idea? then he said, being a republican, well i think we need attacks. we should have a tax cut. and he said, zero? how much of a tax cut? well i never thought about that this was early 1977 and i said $5 billion. in those days $5 billion was a lot of money. he said all right, does anybody object? okay, without any objection, that's, that's agreed to. i thought wow this is going to

be great and of course i hustled back to my office and turned out a press release that said first day on the job and i've got a 5 billion-dollar tax cut well i didn't do anything of the kind. we were just writing a letter. we weren't legislating but the question is why did he do that why did russell, senior democrat do that to the junior almost useless republican on his committee. the reason, thinking thinking back on it was he wanted me to look good. he wanted me to look good he knew i i was going to crank out a press release and he knew that if he did something generous for me then i would be the participating member of that committee, and that's a way that

finance committee worked. and it always worked that way. i was on it for 18 years. we had terrific chairman in both parties on that committee and it always worked across party lines. if you wanted to do anything, you had to have bipartisan support for it. >> i love that story, and so that mentor for you was practicing exactly the instruction he gave about giving a stake to every member and don't make an enemy who may need to be your ally. my question is, will that advice work in the senate today with the rigid ideology and the partisanship? will it work today? that advice? >> it's not working today and i think the reason it's not

working is what are members of the senate hearing from their constituents? are they hearing don't compromise? i think that is what they are hearing. i think they claim, from the base of the two parties, well if i try to work anything out with the other party, i'm going to get a primary opponent. i'm going to be opposed in the next election in my own party. the voice they hear is don't give in inch. don't do anything. don't budge. the result of that is nothing happens. what is happening in the house of representatives? what is the message?

as i it, the message to at least some members is if you vote for paul ryan or whomever to be the speaker the house we are going to oppose you in the primary. so it's as if everybody is desperate to keep their job and the message that they are hearing is don't give, give, but i don't think that's where the american people are. i think these are the loud voices, but i don't think think this is where the american people are. >> bringing you back to the message of your book where people of faith, religious people can create an environment where compromise and workability can actually occur if they allow their voices to be heard and not drown out. >> it's the theme of the book. the theme of the book. is to encourage religious

people to be more active in politics in order to fix politics. we have this wonderful tradition in america of not wanting to entangle religion and politics. separation of church and state, very important principles and very important not to use religion in a very partisan way, but what i'm talking about is the tone of politics. it's not support this piece of legislation you have to be a republican or democrat, it's everything on the philosophical spectrum, but i think what religious people can bring to politics, that they would have in common is another voice, an alternative voice to what the

politicians are now hearing. what they are now hearing is don't compromise, don't give an inch don't cut any spending. don't increase any taxes and its gridlock. nothing happens. it's like a shiny car that doesn't work. you can turn the ignition and you get nothing. it doesn't move. >> do you feel there are a lot of people of goodwill in the senate who don't like what's happening but they can't figure out exactly how to solve the problem? >> i think so. i wish some of them would be a little more edgy in sticking up for the principle of making the thing work.

maybe a little less worried about i must satisfy the loudest people in order to survive the next election. i wish that but i think that we the people can encourage this in our politicians. we can attempt to evoke from our politicians and attitude toward politics where they don't treat us as just a bunch of selfish people out for ourselves or people who will never give or compromise. i think if we give them that message they will respond to that message in the prologue. >> in the prologue you said something that raised a question in my mind. you said you found it difficult in your life to draw straight

lines between things you believed and policies you supported. a lot of people do say god told me this and this is why but i wonder whether you believe a person's theological's theological beliefs, and you're right people are all over the board in terms of those beliefs, but whether those beliefs influence whether or not they end up a conservative or a progressive. does it drive you in a certain direction? i think people who are conservatives would say yes and people who are liberals would say yes. i think people who are conservatives would emphasize the social issues and they would say here is god's position on whatever, gay marriage or whatever the issue is. i think people who are liberal would say their concern for the poor and for the disadvantaged

and that impels them to take a particular position on some spending program. i think there are plenty of people who say that and plenty of people who have written that of left and right. to me there right across the political spectrum they are faithful people. i don't think that my positions on the tax bill or spending appropriations bill were directed by my religious point of view. i do think there are some general principles. i think the faithful people should be required or are required to be concerned about disadvantaged people. i believe that may think it's

very hard to read the bible without without being concerned for, you know matthew 25 is the least of these. i think that is right there. but, how does that translate into specific legislation? there we've got disagreement because some people would say, well, the answer is such and such government program and other people would say no that's not going to work very well the answer should be in the private sector doing more. that's debatable that's politics. that's something you just worked out politically so i think if people take the position that my way is god's way, it forecloses any kind of compromise any kind

of agreement and it's really a a putdown of the other guy you are trying to deal with if i i were to say well i'm god's voice in the u.s. senate or i were to think that and then i would think well know you're using it against god. it's unworkable and so it's really important to understand the difference between religion and politics politics is not absolute. it's not in the realm of the absolute. it's not in the realm of a creed. i believe this, i believe believe that. that's not how politics work. politics are people with different opinions and they put those opinions forward and then somebody else does something else and so where do we end up?

hopefully this is the way our political system is designed, this is the way madison intended it. hopefully you get all of these people and one bag and you shake it up and something comes out of it. so i think the word for making a political point of view a religious point of view is idolatry. the budget should not be considered a moral document there room for debate. >> sure. and there are people who do. liberals who say that, some of them but they say the budget is a moral document well if you say that and that is i've got a position on spending this or that. if you say that it's to say therefore the alternative solution is immoral where does

that leave the political process? a pretty significant part of the republican party identifies, you are at least a segment of it, you are very critical of libertarianism in your book. in fact, i think you said, it's not compatible with love one another. can you expand just a little bit on -- >> you know, i think the meeting of libertarianism, i think it means different things to different people. i took the definition right out of miranda and her followers and

i i think what some people mean by libertarianism is don't get involved in what you could call social issues so that the point of view, but the philosophy of libertarianism is egocentricity in the extreme. the the philosophy of libertarianism is i am the center of the universe. it's all about me that's what i'm critical of both from a political standpoint and from a religious standpoint. >> i found it very educational to me to think of libertarianism that way because i think a lot of people think we want what's consistent but i'm sure that philosophy isn't.

>> i probably set up a strong and. maybe i have gotten it wrong but i think when paul ryan said that he's a libertarian, i don't think he means the rand version of it. i think he is talking, he is a religious person. he is not meaning to say everyone for himself. that's what the philosophy is. maybe i got that wrong in the book, but what i'm talking about is if you put yourself as the center of the universe, a that is contrary to what religion is and be it's what gets us in this pickle of having government malfunction. >> you did not dodge a couple of

hot button issues that might be worthy of some conversation. you argue that abortion and same-sex marriage are not subject to resolution by legislative action. religious people are more likely to win the point by changing the question. >> you talked about the red a wagner and bj isaac jones. tell us about that. that was an interesting common ground i am a pro-life republican, but i think politically this issue is over and when the supreme court decided roe versus wade 42 years ago and it's not going to

overrule itself. abortion as a legal matter is going to be with us for very long time. i think to fight that battle as a political issue is not fruitful. the story of loretta wagner and bj isaacson jones is very tell telling about how people can try to reach common ground on a difficult issue and how somebody who is pro-life can accomplish something beyond the political sphere. isaacson jones was the head of the largest abortion clinic in my state. loretta wagner was the head of missouri citizens for life. he just died recently.

wonderful, dear person, person, very devout roman catholic. they got to know each other and they struck up a friendship despite this major difference and they worked on doing this together. for example, the abortion clinic placed on its premises, and adoption service to give an alternative to young women that it doesn't have to be abortion. it can be adoption. that is really substantial and i'm sure it permitted a number of abortions by doing it. i came from the depths of loretta wagner's faith in the goodness of her heart and the ability of two very different

people to try to figure out if there is something we can agree on, and there was. >> yes, that's a compelling story. what would you tell the many, many believers, the people of faith who feel very strongly about the abortion issue and human life and they can't separate the political realm? >> i would say i honor that and i agree with that. i am pro-life, but where can you do the most good? where can you do the most good in furthering your cause? where can you accomplish the most? are there some dead end streets? will they keep the battle going

but not get anywhere? are there some constructive things that you can do that change a culture and the pro-life people would say and do say that the real problem, bigger than abortion is the culture of death it's a culture of d valuing human life. now that is something that is really worth dealing with and to be very active in it and active in your community and active in your church, looking for opportunities that value human life, look at the number of people who are being murdered on our streets so i just think there are many opportunities but

my counsel in this book is if you can avoid a fight that's not getting anywhere avoid that fight and direct your attention to something that is more fruitful. >> thank you for that you also deal with a little bit, i found it interesting the dilemma that politicians sometimes find themselves in is where their informed judgment, their educated judgment is. have you used an example in your own experience about what that was. i can remember well expand a little bit on that. >> when i was in the senate i used to travel around the state and meet with groups of high

school students i could count on getting the same question and the question was do you vote your conscience or do you vote the will of the people? it's a complex dynamic relationship because if you didn't care about what the people thought you would really be a fat head. you would have problems and you wouldn't get elected and you shouldn't get elected if it was just well i monopolize all truth. you would be really sick. on the other hand, if all you did was take polls, why are you there? so edmund burke, the famous british parliamenparliamen tarian and philosopher of the late 18th century famously

said you have to be in communication with your constituents and enclose communications with them, but in the and you have to do what you think is right. you have to vote your conscience that was the answer that i gave high school students i had no doubt in my mind what the right vote was because i thought if we did not ratify those treaties we would be in real trouble. we would be trying to protect the canal in an area with 50 miles of jungle on each side of the canal open to constant terrorist attack and uproar for no purpose. it was an international waterway. why would we be in that fix?

but i didn't communicate it well enough my constituents. i didn't do a good enough job of going out and meeting with people, listening to them and getting their point of view and then going through it with them. i owed that to them that i didn't give it to them. so wasn't going to be unpopular in any event? yes it was going to be intensely unpopular to vote for the panama canal treaties but it was almost disrespectful to my constituents not to at least give them a fair hearing before i announced my position. did you find those kinds of situations where you will you were running against the popular opinion in your state? did that. >> that was a biggie.

that was the biggest uproar that i was in. that was really something. but sure, because virtually everything you do as you know when you're in your senate is controversial. you're not to make everybody happy. but if you think it out and you have good reasons and you communicate with people, then people might disagree with you, but they will respect you and understand it. the greatest compliment that i would receive was we disagree with you. but we respect you. we've talked a little bit about,

i know we'll talk about the freedom caucus and what's going on in the house right now, but you were pretty hard on the current state of politics in america and most agree that you learned the hard edge meanness of some republicans will be our downfall unless we correct it. give me your thoughts a little more on that. >> i think certainly not every republican, but i think there are republicans who come across as being mean people. they come across as angry mean people. they talk about it. they say well my constituents are angry. my people everybody is angry. then their response to that is, well if you think you're mad, i'm really mad and it builds on itself and this is politicians

respond to the public and they can also evoke responses from the public and so this is what's gone on now. i think there are people in politics who assume that the american people are just mad as hornets and they're going to make them even matter. i don't think that's what the american people are. i don't think so. i was, just a couple weeks ago in your neck of the woods, not in your state but i was in my home state of. joplin missouri was leveled by a major tornado. it killed 160 people and wiped out a 7-mile long, three quarter

of a mile of everything in that town. if you think anything would get people to give up, just know or make them so hurt and so angry that would be it, and yet, i was there five days after that tornado and it was the opposite. it was people saying working to rebuild our town. every place you looked in the rubble of joplin people had planted american flags. that's what they thought of their country. the spirit of their country. i don't think the american people are a bunch of mean angry people. i think it's just absolutely the opposite. so i think these angry people don't have any future.

when you hear them say this is kind of a campaign line, i want to go to washington or jefferson city or wherever they want to go, i'm to be a fighter will that's what we got now. how many more fighters do we need? how about a few peacemakers. i think it's a misreading of the character of the american people. i think that religious people acting from their faith have an opportunity to appeal to the best in the states i'll give you an example. just very, very recent example charleston south carolina, a young man goes into an african-american church during bibles that he and killed nine

people. nine innocent people. two days later it's his arraignment and the relatives of those nine people stand up, one after another and they say we forgive you that is a religious statement that grows out of their faith and what came from that, what did that evil? what happened because of the relatives of nine people. what happened then? three days later the governor announces the confederate flag is coming down from the capital ground. and she is surrounded by republicans, democrats

conservatives, liberals, african-americans whites america is standing behind her and these nine people have changed the political culture. >> it was remarkable. >> of the cradle of the confederacy. it was just remarkable. it doesn't take a ton of people but a few people acting from their faith who make up their minds that they are going to try to make things better and fix politics and then this country. it it doesn't take a ton. a few people can do it. you're getting right to where i wanted us to be able to in this interview. we have just a few minutes left. you do decry the meanness of campaigns today and the amount

of money that has to be raised in campaigns today. can a person like you if a person like you was running, person who is passionate about public policy, what would you say to them and if they made make it in today's environment where there is such a fuel,. >> yes i would talk about it and i would say be out in the open about it and talk about it. i think that's what the public can do as well why do these nasty campaigns take place?? they take place because they work. so let's make them not work. what would happen if people got in the face of politicians? if they just got in their face hopefully with the tv cameras rolling and they would say you know? i just saw on the television commercial on your behalf and i

i want you to tell me how does that commercial square with your values? just tell me do you stand for that you say you approve that message? where would your values be if it does alright then say so if it doesn't then take the darn thing off the air. i believe that would work. so you would encourage people of faith to not only be active but be engaged. >> yes. i think so and you know i wrote a book ten years ago called faith in politics and it was kind of a warning about don't overdo it and believe that such a such position is god's position because religion and politics can be terribly divisive. when i wrote that, some people said what you're saying that