it is one that just as a person that you're talking to. people are very persuaded by this they think it is a sign of humanity. so what kind of conversation we think is deeply human, is an interesting question. >> also conversational system that explores is a future of interface. the walk of around the town and city i'm living in right now, about half of the people walking down the streets are walking like this. looking at the palm of their hand. that cannot be the final

institution of human interface. i think it is not surprising that we are spending more time talking to machines and humans themselves are systems that it make indicate human. >> you can watch this another like this at book tb.org. and now on the afterwards program john davenport talks about the relevance of religion. >> it is so good to see you, i want to to congratulate you on your new book, the how faithful people can change politics. >> thank you very much it is good to be with you. i have to to say that i enjoy working on this book. i hope people enjoy reading that. host: i hope and i look forward to visiting with you about it. and creating some interest.

i think it is a worthy read. you want want right in the prologue, when 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 led a little bit of politics myself it can become all-consuming, it can become an idol and it can become god. you tell tell a story, in your 1982 reelection when you are running against harriet wood, tough race. guest: tough race, almost lost it. host: your family, and efforts to encourage you and despond and see about the quickness of the race, can you recall that story that your daughter, i think she was 15 at the time. guest: my third daughter, dede, i never thought that i had the chance to lose that election, i thought that was going to be fairly easy per.

and then maybe three weeks before election day poll came out and it showed that i was dead even with my opponent. i thought, i am going to lose. everything is going to go through the floor here. host: her numbers were rising. guest: yes her numbers were rising in my numbers were plummeting. she had all of the momentum on her side. and when he think, oh gee i've spent my life and politics and it is all going to be, i'm going to get the boot. my then, 15-year-old daughter, dede, who is trying to comfort me and she said, well it is not the world series. and it really put it in place. for a saint luisi and, the world series really is the deal. i think it was telling because

it said that politics is not the be-all and end-all, and it it really isn't. it is important for all of us to keep it in its proper place. host: absolutely, that kind of leads me -- and talking about religious and religious people as a gift to politics. i thought when you said when politics is broken we should fix it, no one is going to disagree with the back that it is broken right now. you say that religion raises our sites above the interest of self and group, for the common good. you spoke a lot about the first president and their view of a virtuous citizenry, what did they mean by that question market what you mean by having virtuous citizens? guest: well the word future was used by each of our first four presidents. what they meant by virtue was

something more then just how people hold themselves. whether they just live wholesome lives or not. it had to do with the common good and whether we as individuals could put the good of the country ahead of our own interests. to me, it is fascinating that this is a point that was made particularly by james madison, because madison was a great political realists. realists. he was really the architect of our constitution. he understood that everybody had interest, groups had interests, we had to balance interest to have a country that would function.

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 citizen. that is, it has to be more than just self interest, it has to be more than what is in it for me. there has to be a sense in the part of the citizens that we are here for a purpose of beyond just grabbing everything we can for ourselves. that concept of virtue that our first four presidents thought of was a republican with a small our republican quality, faded out with them. we did not hear much more about them, few outcroppings, lincoln, and most notably john f. kennedy's inaugural speech when he said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can dupe your country.

then he said, and that very short in our girl speech, that america, americans will pay the price and bear any burden for the future of liberty. will that was over half a century ago and we have not heard anything like it since. instead of politicians say we will pay any price, they say you don't have to pay any price at all. it is all about your own interests, namely, what can government offer you by way of benefits and how little can government take from you in way of taxation, it is as though politics is now exclusively an appeal to the self interests. host: how can people of faith change that? spee2 well, when you you think about it it is the

opposite of what the message of religion is. religion does point us beyond ourselves. for faithful people, the meaning what is in it for me, the me is not central. there is something higher, namely god is higher. so your whole focus is on something bigger and better than yourself, i think that is a message that comes from religion, would be a great offering by faithful people to politics and it is not heard in the political spirit as well. host: that struck me, since john f. kennedy we have not heard a call for national sacrifice for individual sacrifice on the part of citizens. guest: the result is, we have a $20 trillion national national debt, or knocking at the door of

20 trillion. your after year goes by and nothing gets done about it. my last year in the senate i was the vice chair of the commission on the entitlements reform. reforming the the entitlement program. bob curie from nebraska was the chair from this commission. we came out with a terrific, at least preliminary report. beautiful showing social security was doomed, medicare was doomed, and the national debt was going to soar, and all of this. that was 21 years ago. nothing came of that. five years ago we had set some goals. that was a balanced program of taxes on entitlement cuts, 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 supportive of us were attacked for various pieces of how they supported. host: i remember well. we we will talk more about the need for compromise and republicans unwillingness to accept any kind of revenue increases, democrats unwilling to touch any changes in the entitlement programs. so it went nowhere's. guest:'s that's right. i think it is not so much that politicians are odd ducks, maybe they are. i don't think it is that there is something peculiar and members of congress, they just 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 that they in turn vote that. so if, what they are hearing, what they think they're hearing from the public is i want mine and i want it now, give me, then what they are going to say to the public, and you hear it now in the presidential campaign love it do i have great thing for you. i have more benefits for you than anyone else's offering, vote for me. so it e-books this, they listen to what they think is a message of give me, and then they e-book that same message intern. there we are in politics, the result is a very unsound base for our economic future. host: it is frightening.

continuing this religious is a gift to politics, you mentioned that religion is communal and binds us each together. i was very struck by what you described as the growing isolation and loneliness of 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 reach you correctly on that? guest: yes. this is far from an original points, it was made most eloquently by robert putnam and, a harvard sociologist, he wrote a book called going alone. it is how we are all just becoming more individualistic. we are becoming more tuned in on ourselves and hence the title.

we are not even, we don't even belong to bowling leagues, we go bowling alone, that was, that was the title of the book. and i believe that is true here in washington as well as throughout the country. we have the country, what are we doing, we're sitting in front of our television sets, we are driving our cars, the country, it seems the less we are in interpersonal relationships. i believe this is also true in the senate where you served and where i served because there was social interaction among members of the senate. we lived here, most of us. our families knew each other, our spouses knew each other, we knew each other's children, we were in each other's homes, and if you have that kind of

interpersonal connection with people, it is really easier to work things out politically. whereas whereas if you only know someone as a politician, but i have one member of the senate tell me, a member of the senate, tell me that this particular senators cannot think of more than six other senators to have over to his house for dinner. host: right. you speak of the collegiality. the collegiality when i was in the senate was disappearing a lot. a lot of the problems we're seeing now i think a back to those years. what you see is contributing to the dysfunction of the senate today? from the collegiality, the past, to the kind of combative partisanship that characterizes the institution's. guest: i think there are a number of components to that.

i think one of the problems is just scheduling. the need for senators to be on the road raising money in relatively small increments. i think the most a senator can raise for a campaign from an individual is like $2700 for primary and the same for general election. meanwhile, these uncontrolled groups, packs, individual contributors can put in anything they want. so the senator who wants to define a message has to go out on the road and raise maybe 15 or $20 million, $25 million or more million dollars or more

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

host: let me go back to your, and about the senator who only had half-dozen senators who he thought he could fight over, for lack of relationships beyond the combative, on the floor kind of -- you if i recall in the book talk about cornell, congressional delegation of a foreign trip you took. i think it was to asia. guest: it was in 1979, it was at the time of a terrible refugee problem on the border of thailand and cambodia. vietnam had them baited cambodia, cambodia cambodia have been ruled by this terrible tyrant, but these refugees were

across the border and line on the ground dying, it was just awful to see. three of us from the senate, all freshman senators, went over to thailand's and the border of cambodia and then into cambodia in order to call attention to this starvation and to try to figure out what could be done and to try to resolve the problem. what happens in addition to focusing on this humanitarian crisis was that the three of us spent a lot of time together. long nights together from washington d.c. to bangkok is three legs and it was long. we got to know each other. i got to know max who is my

colleague in the senate, we both served in the senate finance committee which is a very heavy-duty committee. we are both interested in a lot of the same things, particularly in national trade. so we got to know each other, we got to like each other. host: max being a democrat. guest: max was a democrat and he had a son named zeno. zeno was a baby at this time. so he asked me because i am an ordained clergymen to baptize zeno, which i did. now, i cannot imagine that in today's u.s. senate as i understand understand what is going on in washington. i just think it's a battle all of the time. but, if you get to know someone on a personal basis you can try at least to communicate and to

work things out. spee1 that story story about max really resonated with me because i made one of my best friends on the other side of the isle with ben nelson. it was the result of a cornell to afghanistan. it is it is really true, when your many hours out of that furnish that is the senate, you get to know someone as a person it is harder to hit them on the floor. guest: that's right. how is the media going to deal with something like this? how is your opponent going to deal with it? hardly a junket to the border of cambodia when people are starving to death. but it is an opportunity for quality time and that is really important. host: yes, i think that is very true. that is contributing to many things, certainly a big

contributor to what we see in washington today. then you you say, you're right, religion creates the environments where compromise thrives. you told about the advice of the legendary senator russell long gave you when you became chairman of the commerce committee. can you recount that for our viewers today? do recall the advice again? guest: yes, russell long was just great. if you ask me what did you enjoy most about serving in the united states senate? why, russell long would be very close to the top of that list. he was so clever and funny, he understood how politics worked. he was the chairman of the finance committee, i i was on the finance committee, then i

think it was 1985 republicans got control of the senate and i became the became the chair of the commerce committee. somewhere i have this recording, may be in a closet somewhere don't know, 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 it give everybody on the committee a sense of participation. a sense of a stake in the legislation that you're trying to pass. give them an amendment, give them some little piece of the legislation so that they want to think to pass. the the second

thing he said was, never hold a grudge. because the person who is your opponent today is likely to be your ally or summit you will need is your ally tomorrow. those were the two things he told me. host: and that relationship with senator had gone back to your early day when you first came to the senate. guest: yes, the first first day. the first and the senate finance committee. this was russell, what happened was i showed up for my first day on the senate finance committee. i was one of 38 republicans in the u.s. senate, 38 is, you eight is, you might as well have zero, it is nothing. we had 388 republicans, i had just turned 40 years old, i had just arrived in the senate, i

had never met to russell long before. he was the chairman of the senate finance committee. i was was delighted to be on that committee. it has to do with taxation among other things, but that is the big issue on the finance committee, tax legislation. so i show up for my first day on the finance committee and russell is presiding, what the committee is doing, is there he should setting up their program for the year ahead and writing a letter to the budget committee and telling them what their plan was for the year ahead. so there is a positive proceeding, so i am way down at the end of the table and he had never seen me before, i raised my hand and i said, well mr. chairman, i have an idea.

he looked on the table and he said, zero? what is your idea? and i said, being a republican, i think we need a tax cut. he said, zero? , to the tax cut? well i had never thought about that. so i blurted out, this is an early 1977, i said $5 billion. in said $5 billion. in those days $5 billion was something. and he said, all right, does anybody objects? objects? without any objections, that is agreed to. i thought, wow! this is going to be great.

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

it always worked that way. i was on it for 18 years, we had terrific chairman in both parties on that committee. it always worked across party lines and if you wanted to do anything you had to have bipartisan support for it. host: i love that story. so that early mentor for you which practicing the x ructions he gave about giving a stake to every member and don't make an enemy, you may need to be an ally. my question is, will that advice work in the senate today with the rigid ideology and partisanship? will work today, will that advice? guest: it is not working today. i think the reason it is not working is, what are members of the senate hearing now from

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

as i understand it, the message to at least some members, republicans in the house is, if you vote for let's say paul ryan or whomever to be the speaker of the house, we are house, we are going to oppose you in the primary. so it is as on to if those are desperate to keep their job in the message they are hearing is, don't give. i don't think that's where the american people are. i think these are the loud voices but i don't think this is where the american people are. host: bringing you back to the message of your book, where people of faith, religious religious people can create an environment where compromise and workability can actually occur if they allow their voices to be heard and not drowned off. guest: it is 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 and america of not wanting to entangle religion and politics, separation of church and state, very important principles, very important not to use religion in a partisan way. what i am talking about is the tone of politics. it is not, support this piece of legislation or that, or be a republican or democrat, these faithful people are everything on the philosophical spectrum. i think what religious people can bring to politics, is that they 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 it is gridlock. host: nothing happens. guest: it is like a shiny car that just doesn't work. you can turn the ignition and you just get nothing. it doesn't move in any direction. host: there are a lot of people of goodwill in the senate who felt like what is happening but they cannot figure out how to solve the problem. guest: i think so. i wish some of them would be a little more edgy and sticking up for the principle. for that principle let's make that thing work. maybe a little less worried about, oh i must satisfy the

loudest people in order to survive the next election. but i think that we, the people can encourage this in our politicians. we can attempt to evil from our politicians and attitude toward politics where they do not treat us as selfish people all out for herself, or a people who who will never give her never compromise. i think if we give them that message they will respond to that message. host: okay. in the prologue, you wrote something that raised a question in my mind. you said that you have found it difficult in your life to draw a straight lines between creeds you believe and policies you

support. because a lot of people do say well god told me this and this is why -- but i wonder whether you believe a person's theological beliefs, and you're right the people of faith are all over the place and theological beliefs, but whether those theological beliefs and up to be a conservative or not doesn't drive you want direction or not. guest: i think people who are conservatives would say yes i think liberals would say yes. i think people who are conservatives would emphasize the social issues and they would say, here is god's position position on whatever gay marriage, whatever the issue is. i think people who are liberal would say their concern for the poor and for the disadvantaged compels them to take a

particular position on say, some spending program. so i think there are plenty of people who say that and plenty of people who have written that. people of left and right. to me, they are right across the political spectrum, they are faithful people. i do not think that my position on say, 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 it faithful people are, should be, or required to be concerned about disadvantaged people. i i believe that, i think it is very hard to read the bible without being

concerned about matthew 25, the least of these. i think that is right there. but, how does that translate into specific legislation? there we have disagreements because some people would say, well the answer is such and such a governmental program. other people would say, nope, that is not going to work very well. the answer should be in the private sector doing more. that is debatable. that is politics. that is is something you just work out politically. i think that if people take the position that my way is god's way, it forecloses any kind of

compromise, any kind of agreement, it is really a putdown of the other guy you are trying to deal with. if i were to say, well well i am god's a voice in the u.s. senate, or i were to think that, and then i would say no you are against god, it is unworkable. so it is really important to understand the difference between religion and politics. politics is not absolute, it's not in the realm of a creed, i believe this, i believe that, that is not how politics work. politics is people with different opinions and they put those opinions forward and then somebody else does something else, and so so where do we end up? well hopefully this is the way our political system was

designed, this is the way madison intended it. hopefully we get all of these people and one bag, you shake it up and something comes out of it. so i think, the word for it, making a political point of view, a religious point of view is idolatry. spee1 i think you wrote that the budget should not be considered a moral document. there is room for debates. guest: yes somewhat say that but they would say the budget is a moral document. well if you say that, and that is i have a position on spending, if you say that it is to say therefore the alternative position is immoral.

where does that leave the political process? host: a pretty significant part of the republican party now deals with libertarianism. you are, at least a segment of it you are very critical of libertarian -ism in your book. in fact, i think you said it in shrines a thomas felt it is not can pad a bowl with love one another. so can you just expands? guest: i think the meaning of libertarian is a means different things to different people. i took the definition right out of anna and her followers.

i think that what some people mean by liberal terry and is him is don't get involved and what you can solve social issues. the philosophy of libertarianism is egocentricity and the extreme. the philosophy of libertarianism is, i i am the center of the universe. it is all about me. that is what i'm critical of both from a political standpoint and from a religious standpoint. host: i found it very educational for me to think of libertarianism that way. i think a lot of it think of it as less governments, which is consistent with conservativism. true libertarianism philosophy philosophy is an. guest: i kind of set up -- i may have gotten it wrong.

i think, like when paul ryan said he was libertarianism, i don't think he means the random version of it. i think he is talking, he is a religious person, he is not meaning to say you know, everyone for himself. that is what the philosophy is of -- i don't know, maybe i got that wrong in the book but what i am talking about is if you put yourself at the center of the universe, a it is contrary to what religion is, and be it is what gets us in a pickle of having government malfunction. host: you did not dodge a couple

of pop and issues that are worthy of some conversation. you argued with abortion and same-sex marriage are not subject to resolution by legislative action and they should be, i think i am quoting that drop a salient political positions and that religious people are more likely to win their point by changing the culture. guest. host: you talked about loretta wagner and bj, tell about that, it was an interesting common ground. guest: i am a pro-life republican. but, i think politically this issue is over. the supreme court decided roe versus wade 42 years ago, i think. it is not going to overrule itself, abortion as a legal

matter is going to be with us for a very long time. so, i think to fight that battle is a political issue it is not fruitful. but, the story of loretta wagner and bj jones in st. louis is very telling of how people can try to reach common ground on a very difficult issue, and how somebody who is pro-life can accomplish something beyond the political fear. isakson jones was the head of the largest abortion clinic and my state. loretto wagner was the head of the missouri citizens for life. just died recently, wonderful person, dear, dear person, very devout roman catholic.

they got to know each other, they struck up a friendship despite this major difference. they worked on things together, for example, the abortion clinic placed on its premises and adoption service to give an alternative to young women that it does not have to be abortion, it can be adoption. that. that is really substantial. i'm sure it permitted a number of on abortions by doing it. they came by loretto 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.

host: that is a compelling story. what would you tell, there are many, many believers that people of faith who feel very strongly about abortion issue and human life, they cannot separate the political realm. guest: i would say, i honor that and i agree with it. i am pro-life but where can you do the most good in furthering your cause? where can you accomplish the most? are there some dead-end streets which are going to keep the battle going but are not going to get anywhere? are there some constructive things that you can do that

change the culture? the people, pro-life people would say, and do say that the real problem is bigger than abortion, it is what they call the culture of death. it is the culture of the valuing human life. that is something that is really worth dealing with. to be very active in it, to be active in your community, to be to be 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. my counsel in this book is if

you can avoid a fight that is not getting anywhere, avoid that bite and direct your attention to something that is more fruitful. host: thank you for that. you also deal with a little bit, i found it interesting, the politicians elected legislators find themselves in between where popular opinion is and where their informed judgment, educated judgment is. you use an example in your own experience, the panama canal, and i can remember well because the senator face the same dilemma and i voted for that. expand a little bit on that. guest: well, i used to be, when i was in the senate and in the state particularly we would meet with groups of high school students. i could count on getting the same question and

that question was do about your conscious or do you vote the will of the people? it is a complex dynamic relationship because if you did not care about what the people thought you would really be a fat head. you would have problems and you would not get elected and you should not 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 parliamentarian and philosopher of the late 18th century famously said that you have to be in communication with

your constituents and in close communication with them. in the and, you have to do what you think is right. you have to vote your conscious. that was the answer that i gave high school students. the panama canal, i had no doubt in my mind what the right but 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 predicament. but, i didn't i didn't communicate it well enough with my constituents. i did not do a good enough job of going out, meeting with people, listening to them, getting their point of view, and then going through it with them. i owed it to them that i did not do it. so, wasn't going to be in popular in any event, yes. it was going to be intensely on popular 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 announce my position. host: do you find those kinds of situations where you knew you were voting against the popular opinion, the popular feeling in your state. guest: that was the biggie. that was the biggest uproar that

i was in. that was really something. but, sure because every thing, virtually everything you do as you know in the senate is controversial. you are are not going to make everybody happy. but, if you think it out, you you have good reasons, and you communicate with people then people might disagree with you but they will respect with you. they will understand. the greatest compliment that i would receive was, we disagree with you. but we respect you. host: we have talked a little bit about, you alluded a bit about the republican freedom caucus and what is going on in the house right now. you are pretty hard on the

current state of politics in america, and most certainly agree with you. if you warn that the hard edge mean this, some republicans will deservedly be our downfall unless we correct, talk a a little bit more on that. guest: i think that's really not every republican but i think there are republicans who calm across as being mean people. they just come across as being angry, mean people. they talk about it, they say well, my constituents are angry. my people, everybody is angry. that their response to that is, well if you think they are mad i am really mad. it builds on itself, politicians

respond from the public but they also evoke responses from the public. so this is what is going on now, i think there are people in politics who assumed the american people are just as mad and they will make them even matter. i do not think that is what the american people are. i do not think so. i was, just a couple of weeks ago in your neck of the woods, not in in your state, but i was in my home state, joplin. joplin, missouri 44 years ago this past may was leveled by a major tornado that killed 160 people, and wiped out a 7-mile long three quarters of a mile wide swath, everything in that

path. if you think anything that would get people to get them to give up, just go, or make them so angry that would be it. yet, i was there five days after that tornado, and it is the opposite. it was people saying, we are going to rebuild our town. every place you looked in the rubble of joplin, people had planted american flags. that is what they thought of their country. the spirit of their country. i do not think the american people are a bunch of mean, angry people, i think it is just absolutely the opposite. i think these angry people do not have any future. 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 am going to be a fighter. well that is what we have now. how many more fighters do we need? how about a few peacemakers. so i just think it is 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. i will give you an example. just very recent example. charleston, south carolina a young man goes into an african american church, a bible study

and kills nine people. nine innocent people. two days later it is his arraignment. the relatives of those nine people stand up, one after another and they say, we forgive you. that doesn't just come to people. that is a religious statement. that grows out of their faith, and what came from that, what did that evoke, what happened because of the relatives of just nine people? what happen then? why, then three days later the governor announces the confederate flag is going down. she is surrounded by republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals,

african-americans, whites, america is standing behind her. these nine people have change the political culture 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, fix politics and men to this country. it does not take a ton. host: you are bringing right to where i wanted us to end the interview today. we just have two minutes left. you do decry the meanness of campaigns today, the amount of money that has to be raised in campaigns today.

can a person, like you, if you are running today, person like you a person of faith, person who is passionate about public policy, what would you say to them? can they make it in today's environment where there is such an appeal? guest: yes, i would say talk about it, be out in the open about it. i think that is 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, just got in there face, hopefully hopefully with tv cameras rolling and they would say, you know i just saw on television a commercial on your behalf and i want you to tell me how does that commercial square with your

values? just tell me. do you stand for that? you said you approve that message, how does that square with your values? if it does, all right, say so. if so. if it doesn't, take the darn thing off the air. i believe that would work. host: so you would encourage people of faith to not only be active in every area but be engaged. guest: yes. i think so. i wrote a book ten years ago called faith in politics and it was kind of a warning about, don't over do it in believing that such and such a position is god's position because religion and politics can be terribly divisive. when i wrote that some people said well, you are saying that religious people get out of politics. nope, i'm saying don't use it,

divisive lee in politics. don't try to use religion, misuse religion. misuse religion. what i am saying in this book is, engage yourself and politics and become a counter voice to those who are just saying, it is all about me, give me everything i can get. and don't give an inch. i am angry, be a counter voice to those people. >> ..

good evening. thank you all for coming out tonight. we are really delighted to be here. that