>> is their nonfiction author or book you would like to see featured on book tv? send us an e-mail, book tv at cspan.org. or post a comment on our wall on facebook. and now on book tvs "after words" program, he talks about the relevance of religion. >> it so good to see you. i want to congratulate you on your new book, the relevance of religion how faithful people can change politics. >> thank you very much, good to be with you. i have to say enjoyed working on this book and i hope people

enjoy reading it. >> i look forward to visiting with you a little bit about it. hopefully creating a little interest because i think it is certainly a worthy read. you write in the prologue, 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 lived a little bit of politics myself i know it can become all-consuming and it can become god. you tell a story in your 1982 reelection when you were running against harriet would. >> i almost lost it. >> your family, and efforts to encourage you and a little despondency about the race, can you recall that story that your daughter, i think she was 15 at the time. >> my third daughter dede, i

never thought that i had the chance to lose the election. i thought that was going to be fairly easy and then maybe three weeks or so before election day, a pole came out and it showed that i was dead even with my opponent. i thought i'm going to lose. everything is just going to go through the floor here. >> her numbers were rising. >> yes her numbers were rising in mine were plummeting. she had all the momentum on her side and i was, when you think og i spent my life and politics and it's all going to be, i'm going to get the boot, my then 15-year-old daughter dede who was trying to comfort me, she said well it's not the world series. it really put it in place and

for a st. louis and, the world series is the be-all and end-all so i think it was telling because it said politics is not the be-all and end end-all, it really isn't. it's important for all of us, i think to keep it in its proper place. >> absolutely. that kind of 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's 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 four presidents in their view of a virtuous sinister he.

what do you mean by that? >> well the word virtue was used by each of our first four presidents. what they meant by virtue was something more than just how people report themselves. whether they've just lived a wholesome lives or not. but it had to do with the common good and whether we as individuals put the good of the country ahead of our own interests. 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, 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's in it for me. there has to be a a sense on the part of the citizens that we are here for a purpose beyond just grabbing everything we can for ourselves. that concept of virtue which are 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 outcropping were lincoln and most notably john f. kennedy's inaugural speech. he said ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country.

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

>> what 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 what's in it for me, the me is not central. there is something higher, namely god is higher. so your whole focus is for something bigger and better than yourself and 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 sphere at all. >> it really struck me that since john f. kennedy we haven't heard a call for national sacrifice. >> the result is we have a $20

trillion national debt or we are knocking out at the door of $20 trillion. year after year goes by and nothing is done about it. when i was, my last year in the senate, i was the vice chair of the commission on reforming the entitlement program. we came out with a terrific preliminary report, beautiful colored graphs showing that social security was doomed and medicare was doomed and the national debt was going to soar and all this. that was 21 years ago and nothing came of that. that five years ago we had simpson bowles and that was a balanced program of taxes and

entitlement cuts and spending cuts in order to try to get our national debt in some sort of order and nothing, that. in fact, those politicians who were supportive of it were attacked for various pieces of how they supported it. >> i remember it well. you will talk more about the need for compromise and their unwillingness to accept any changes in the entitlement program. >> i think it's not so much the politicians are the odd docs. >> while we are odd docs. >> i don't think it's that, something to fuel your members of congress are they just don't get it, i don't get it. i think politicians are very

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

base for our economic future. >> continuing this religion as a gift of politics, you mentioned that religion is communal and binds us each together. i was very struck by what you described is the growing isolation among the american people and how you can see that has bled over into our political life. did i read you correctly on that? >> yes. >> this is far from an original

point. >> 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. throughout the country, what are we doing? were sitting on our television sets, were driving our cars, the country, it seems the less we are into interpersonal relationships and i believe this is also true in the senate where you served and i served because there was social interaction. 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 and we were in each other's homes. 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 is a politician, but i have one member, a sitting member of the senate tell me that they couldn't think of more than six other senators to have over to his house for dinner. >> right, you speak of the collegiality. the collegiality when i was in the senate, a lot of the problem will go back to those years, years, but what do you see as contributing to the dysfunction of the senate today from the past to the combative

partisanship that characterizes the institution now? >> i think there's a number of components there, but i think one of the problems is the scheduling and the need for senators to be on the road raising money in the relatively small increments. i think the most is senator can raise for an individual. >> meanwhile these uncontrolled groups, they tax and the individual contributors can put on anything they want, the senator who wants to define a message has to go out on the road and raised $15 million or

more. >> they're not in washington. >> it means they're not here, they're not relating to each other and so i think something is lost in that regard, but i think something else is going on that's even more serious than that and that is the pressure that members of congress are hearing from their so-called base. the pressure is, don't get along, don't compromise, don't make a deal. so you have independent contractors out there making speeches and the idea of

politics of working things out, is lost in the shuffle. this pressure to be absolutely. >> let's go back to the senator who thought he only had guess he could invite over. you, as i recall talk about a trip that you took, i think it was to asia and i think it was with senator baucus. >> yes it was in 1979. it was at the time of a terrible refugee problem on the border of thailand and cambodia where vietnam had invaded cambodia. cambodia had been ruled by this terrible leader but these

refugees had crossed the border and were just laying there dying and it was awful to see. three of us from the senate, all freshman senators went over to thailand and into cambodia in order to call attention to the starvation and to try to figure out what could be done to better resolve the problem. what happened in addition is this humanitarian crisis was that the three of us had spent an awful lot of time together. long flights from washington d.c. there were three legs in that flight to bangkok and it was long but we got to know each other. i got to know max baucus who was

my colleague in the senate. we both served on the senate finance 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 drama cat. >> and he asked if i could baptize his baby zeno, and i did. i can't imagine that in today's senate as i understand what's going on in washington. i think it's a battle all the time. if you get to know somebody on a personal basis you can

communicate much better. >> that story of max bacchus really resonated with me because i made one of my best friends in the senate with ben nelson and it was as a result of a co-dell to afghanistan. it's really true, many hours if you're out of the furnace which is the senate and you get to know someone as a person, it's harder to hate them on the floor. >> that's right. i think that, how is the media wing to deal with something like this, how will your opponent deal with it all while it's a junket to afghanistan. hardly a junket to the border of cambodia where people are starving to death, but it is an opportunity for quality time and that's really important. >> i think that's very true.

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

so he was the chairman of the finance committee and i was on the finance committee. then, i suppose was 1985, 1985, republicans gain control of the senate and i became a chair of the commerce committee. so i've got this recording, i think 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 if everybody on the committee had a sense of participation. a sense of a stake in the legislation that you are trying to pass. give them an amendment are some

little piece of the station so they have a stake. the second thing they said is never hold a grudge because the person who is your opponent today is likely to be your ally or somebody you will need as your ally tomorrow. >> that relationship the senator who had gone back to early day when you first went back to the senate. >> yes, first day. >> he had an idea. >> yeah. this was russell. so what happened was i showed up for my first day on the senate finance committee and i was one of 38 republicans. thirty-eight is, you might you might as well have zero. it's nothing, we have 38

republicans and i had just turned 40 years old. i had never met russell long before and he was the chairman of the committee and i was delighted to be on that. it has to do with taxation among other things, but that's the big issue on the tax finance committee. i show up on my first day in russell's presiding and, what the committee is doing is centering up there program for the year had in writing a letter so that's really what they were doing. there's this little pause in the preceding and i'm way down at the end of the table and he had never see me before. i raise my hand and i said,

mr. chairman, i have an idea. he looked down the table and he said oh, what's your idea? and i i think we need to have a tax cut. and he said how much of a tax cut? so i ordered out, this is an early 1977, $5 billion. in those days that was really significant. he said all right, does anybody objects, without any objection, that's agreed to. >> i i thought wow, this is going to be great.

i turned out a press release that said first day on the job and i got me a 5 billion-dollar tax cut. why 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 long, senior democrat, why did he do that to this new member? the reason he did it is because he wanted me to look good. he knew i was going to crank out a press release and he knew if he did something generous for me, then i would be a participating member of that

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

will that work today? or will it divide us? >> it's not working today and i think the reason it's not working is, what are members of the senate hearing now from their constituents? are they hearing don't rise, and i think that is what they are hearing. they claim on the base the two parties, if i try to work anything out with the other party, i'm going to be opposed in the next election, in my own party. so the voice they hear is don't give an inch. don't do anything.

what we took from the message as i understand it is the message to some members in the houses if you vote for paul ryan or whomever to be the speaker the house, house, were going to oppose you in the primary. so it's as if everybody is desperate to keep their job in the message that 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. >> bringing you back to the message of your book where people of faith, religious people can create an environment of compromise and workability can actually occur if they allow their voices to be heard and not drawn out. >> yes 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 very important themes, religions and it frames it in a bipartisan way, but what i'm talking about is the tone. it's not whether you're republican or democrat, faithful people are everything on the philosophical spectrum, but i think with with religious people can bring to politics, that they have in common. that is another voice, an alternative voice with the

politicians are now hearing. what are now hearing is don't compromise, compromise, don't give an inch, don't cut any spending, don't increase the taxes and it's gridlocked. nothing happens. >> right. >> it is a shiny car that doesn't work. : :

>> >> i think if we use that message there will respond. >> in the prologue you wrote something that raises the question in my mind that you

found it difficult to draw a straight line between creeds you believe and policies that you support. but i wonder if you believe of persons theological belief? but does that influence if they are a conservative or progressive? vitter people who are conservatives would say yes and liberals would say yes. people would of the size the social issues and say here is god's position of whatever gave marriage or those who are liberal to have concern for the port id

for the disadvantaged that compels them to take a particular position. plenty of people whose say that on the left and right. to meet their right across the political spectrum. and i did not think my position on the tax bill or appropriations bill were directed from the point of view but i do think the general principles the faithful should be required to be concerned i believe

that it think it is very hard to read the bible without being concerned of matthew 25. it is right there. but how does that translate into specific legislation? there we have disagreements because some people would say the answer is such an such with the others would say that does not work very well. the answer should be in the private sector. that is something you worked out politically. i think if people take the position my way is god's way then it forecloses any type of compromise or agreement.

if i were to say if i were god's voice then i say you are against god. it is not workable. so it is really important to understand the difference with politics and ideology. it is not in the realm of the creed that is not how politics works that is people with different opinions they put those four words so where do we end up?

hopefully this is the way the way bad decision intended so the word to make a political point of view is idolatries. >> if they wrote to should not be a moral document. >> and though liberals would say that they say the budget is a moral document if you say that to have a position

to say that alternative position is immoral then what does that leave the political process? >> day pretty sick of the camp part of the republican party identifies of libertarian you are very critical of libertarianism in your book in fact, i thank you said it enshrines the is not compatible with love one another. kid you expand? >> the meaning of libertarianism i take the definition wright out of line rand one dash nine rand

and what some people may buy libertarianism is don't get involved in what you call social issues but that philosophy is ecotourism's interests of the to say i am the center of the universe. and it is all about me. i am critical as a political and religious standpoint. >> founded very educational to think of it that way because the government that is consistent. >> i assure libertarian

philosophy is not. >> i may have gotten a raw but i think when paul ryan said he is so libertarian i felt a curious that version of it but he is a religious person he does not mean to say everyone for himself but that is the philosophy. arabia got that wrong but what we're talking about if you put yourself in the center of the universe if it is contrary in and what gets us into this schedule.

>> he did not dodge the of hot-button issues buy you argue abortion in same-sex marriage are not subject to resolution of legislative action and they should be dropped as a political position and the religious people are more likely to win their point and you talked about law read though wagner -- loretta that was interesting common ground. >> i of the pro-life republican but i think politically this issue is over and the supreme court decided roe v wade 42 years ago and it will not overrule

itself. abortion as a legal matter will be looked at for a very long time. so to fight that battle as a political issue is not fruitful but the story of wagner have people can try to read reach in howl if you can pro-life can accomplish something beyond the political sphere isaacson jones was the head of the largest abortion clinic in my state.

a wonderful person and a devout catholic and day got to know each other they had a friendship for example, the abortion clinic on its promises to with the adoption service for the alternative to women that is substantial and insure there have been and never of abortions stopped by doing that.

but in the goodness of her heart there is something we could agree on 54ff is a compelling story. many people of a faith feel very strongly about the abortion issue and they cannot separate the political realm. >> i would say that i honor that and i agree. i am pro-life but where can you do the most good? to further your cause are their dead end street shh streets to keep the battle going and are there

constructive things that change the culture. that pro-life people would say the real problem is bigger than abortion but to devalue human life that is something that is really worth dealing with. and to be active in your community to look for opportunities that value human life or people that are murdered on our streets

i think there are many opportunities but if you can of for aid of fight avoid it in direct your attention to something more fruitful. >>host: the dilemma the that politicians thought were popular opinion of their educated judgment like the panama canal i know they face up that same dilemma expound on that. >> when i was in the senate

like again of the same question how devote the will of the people it is a dynamic relationship because if he didn't care what the people thought you would have problems and then you would not get elected and you would be set of the of their hand if all you did so edmund burke tuesday you

have to be in communication with in the end you have to do you think is right this is the answer i gave high school students i had no doubt in my mind because i thought if we did not ratify we would be in real trouble to redact that canal opened to constant terrorist attack

i did not communicate as well i did not do a good enough job to get the point of view and i owed that to them would that be a popular? it would be intensely and popular but it was almost as respectful to released not give them a fair hearing. >> if you were voting against the popular opinion in your state?

>> that was the biggest uproar that was something but virtually everything you do if you communicate in people may disagree but they will respect and understand that the greatest compliment i would receive is we heard you but we respect you. >>host: we have talked a little bit about the

republican freedom caucus but you are pretty hard on the current state of politics in america and those that agree with you. so if it is the downfall give me your thoughts. >> certainly not every republican the czar that come across as mean people or in greek or mean and they say my constituents are in grave. if you thank you are mad and then i really mad.

and then to evoke responses from cover public this is what is going one. so people in politics the suit there are as mad as hornets and there will make them even matter. -- even more mad and i don't think that is what they are. a couple of weeks ago i was in your neck of the words in your state in my home state joplin, missouri for years ago was leveled by a major tornado that killed 160 people to wipe out a 7-mile

long swath of everything in that town. just make them so hurt and so angry that would be it to. i was there five days after the tornado. people said we will rebuild our town and every place you looked people planted american flags. that is what they fought of the spirit of their country. item think the american people are read and angry so

i think it'll have any future if they're angry i want to go to washington and jefferson city that is what we have now. how many more do we need? however out of you peacemakers? i think it is a misreading and religious people have an opportunity to appeal to the best law that will give you an example. charleston is south carolina , a young man goes

into a bible study and kills nine people. today's later is his arraignment they stand up one after another and they say we forgive you. that doesn't just come to people it is a religious statement growing out of their faith. what did that evoke? just the relatives of the nine people? for three days later the governor announces the confederate flag is coming down. she is surrounded by

republicans and democrats conservatives and liberals african americans, white, and they changed the political culture of the cradle of the confederacy. it was just remarkable and it doesn't take but a few people acting from their faith that they will try to make things better. >> you were coming right to read what to end the interview with a few minutes left. you do decry the campaigns

today the amount of money that has to be raised a person of faith passionate about public policy but would reduce say to that? if there is such an appeal? >> i think that is what the public could u.s. will. why do they take place? because they work. so make them not work. what would happen if they got in their face will flee with the tv cameras rolling to say i edges saw on television a commercial tell

me how does that square with your values? if it does then the say so. i believe that would work. >>host: you encourage people of faith and but i wrote the book 10 years ago as a warning don't overdo it was such a position because politics can be terribly divisive. to see people get out of politics i am saying don't

use the. so i see don't use religion but in this book to become the counter florey's give me everything that i can get. and to be a counter florey's it doesn't take many to do that. >>host: thank you very much for spending time with us today. i hope it has a big readership.

>> american christianity that continuing revolution and stephen cox joins us here on booktv. when we sing about that old-time religion what do we using about? it is called the old time religion and h