weeks or so before election day a poll came out the show and is that even with my opponent and i thought i am going to lose. everything is going to go through the floor here. >> host: her numbers were rising. >> guest: her numbers were rising, my numbers were plummeting. she had all the momentum on her side and when you think i spent my life in politics and i am going to get the boot, my 15-year-old daughter was trying to comfort me. ..

wholesome lives. 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. it was very, to me it's fascinating that this is a point that was made particularly by james madison. because madison was a great legal realist. he was really the architect of our constitution. he understood that everybody had interests, groups had interests. we have to balance interests 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's got to be more than just self-interest. it's got to be more than just what's in it for me. there has to be instance of a part of the citizens that we are here for a purpose beyond just grabbing everything we can for ourselves. that concept the virtue, which are first four presidents thought of as a republican, small r republican quality, fade out within. we did 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, ask what you can do for your country. and then he said in that very short inaugural speech that

america, americans will pay any price and bear any burden for the future of liberty. that was over half a century ago and we haven't heard anything like it since. and 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. namely, what can government offer you by way of benefits, and how little can government take from you and where taxati taxation. and it's as though politics that is exclusively an appeal to the self-interest of the -- >> host: how can people of faith change that? >> guest: when you think about it, it's the opposite of what

the message of religion is. i mean, religion does point us beyond ourselves. and for faithful people than me, you know, what's in it for me, then the, if 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 that is a message that comes from religion, would be a great offering my faithful people to politics, and it does not hurt in the political sphere at all. >> host: 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 the citizen. >> guest: the result is whether $20 trillion national debt, or knocking at the door of

20 trillion. and 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 the entitlement reform and the entitlement programs. bob kerrey from nebraska was the chair of this commission. we came out with a terrific, at least for the many report, beautiful four-color crafts show that social security was doomed, medicare was doomed, the national debt was going to soar and all this. that was 21 years ago. nothing came of that. and then five years ago we had simpson-bowles, and that was a balanced program of taxes and 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 it were attacked for various pieces of how they support it. >> host: i remember well. we will talk more about the need for compromise, but republicans unwillingness to accept any kind of revenue increases, democrats unwilling to touch any changes in the entitlement program and so it went nowhere. >> guest: that's right. i think it's not so much the politicians are just sort of odd ducks. maybe they are, but i don't think it's that. that there's something peculiar in 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.

and to respond to it and then they in turn revoke that. so if what they are hearing, what they think they are hearing from the public is outlaw mine and i want it now, give me. than what they're going to say to the public, you know, you hear it now and the presidential campaign, up to have a great thing for you? do i have, i got more benefits for you than anybody else is offering, vote for me. and so it evokes, they listen to what they think is sort of a message of give me, and then they be focusing message in turn. so there we are in politics. the result is a very sort of unsound base for our economic

future house but it's frightening. continuing this religion as a gift of politics, you mentioned that religion is communal and binds as each together. i was very struck by what she described as the growing isolationist, loneliness among the american people, and that you can see a that has even bled over into our political life and an institution in the senate. did i read you correctly on that? >> guest: yes. this is far from an original point, and it was made most eloquently i think by robert putnam, harvard sociologist. he wrote a book called bowling alone. it's how we are all just becoming more and more individualistic. we are becoming more and more turned in on ourselves, and

hence the title. we are not even, that's right, we don't even belong to bowling leagues. we go bowling alone. that was the title of the book. i believe that that is true here in washington as well as throughout the country. throughout the country, what are we doing? we are sitting in front of our television sets, 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 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's really easier to work things out politically, where as if you know somebody as a politician. but i had one member of the senate tell me, a sitting member of the senate, tell me that this particular senator could think of more than six other senators to over to his house for dinner. >> host: right. you speak of the collegiality, and the collegiality when i was innocent was disappearing a lot. a lot of the problems that we see now i think go back to those years. but what do you see as contributing to the dysfunction of the senate today from the collegiality of the past to the kind of combative partisanship that characterizes the institution no? >> guest: i think there are a number of component to that, but

i think, i mean, one of the problems is just scheduling and the need for senators to be on the road raising money in relatively small increments. so i think that the most that a senator can raise for campaign, from an individual, is $2700 for the primary, same for the general election. meanwhile, these uncontrolled groups, individual contributors and the pacs tech achieve anything they want. the so the center who wants to define a message has to go out on the road and raise maybe 15, $20 million, $25 million or more depending on the state. >> host: they are not in

washington just the that means they are not here, they are not relating to each other. something that something is lost in that regard. but i think something else is going on that's even more serious than that, and that is that the pressure that members of congress are hearing from their so-called base, from their stalwart supporters, all the pressure is, don't get along, don't compromise, don't make a deal. and so you've got basically 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 did

absolutely pure and taking a position. >> host: let me go back to your comment from the center who only had half a dozen senators he thought he could invite over, the lack of relationships beyond a competitive on the floor kind of. you, if i recall, in the book talk about a codel, congressional -- did you recount that? >> guest: it was in 1979, and 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 tyrant, but these

refugees had crossed the border and they're just lying on the ground dying. it was just awful to see. and so three of us from the senate, all freshmen senators, went over to thailand and the border of cambodia and then into cambodia in order -- in order to call attention to this starvation, to try to figure out what could be done, how 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, i mean, to get from washington, d.c. to bangkok is three lakes in that flight, and it was long. but we got to know each other. i got to know max baucus who was my colleague in the senate, and we both served on the senate

finance committee which was a very heavy-duty committee, and we were both interested in a lot of the same things, particularly international trade. and so we got to know each other. we got to like each other uzbek max being a democrat. >> guest: max being a democrat, and he has a son named zeno. xena was a baby at this time and so he asked me because i'm an ordained clergyman to baptize zeno, which i did. now, i can imagine that in today's u.s. senate as i understand what's going on in washington, i just think it's a bit baffled all the time. if you get to know somebody on a personal basis, you can try at least to communicate and to work things out. >> host: the story about max

baucus really resonated with me because i made one of my best friends in the senate on the other side of the aisle with ben nelson, and it was as a result of a codel to afghanistan. it's true when your many, many hours, your out of that furnace it is the senate education know somebody as a person. is a little harder to hate them on the floor test mac that's right. and i think, you know, so how is the media going to do with something like this? how was your opponent going to deal with it in the local campaign? hardly a junket to afghanistan. hardly a junket to the border of cambodia when people are starving to death. but it is an opportunity for quality time, and that's really important. >> host: i think that's very true, and that is, as you said many things but certainly a big contribute to what was in washington today.

you right, religion creates the environment for compromise and thrive. and 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 you recall the advice he gave? >> guest: yeah. russell long was just great. i mean, if you asked me what did you enjoy most about serving in the united states the senate, why, russell long 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 come and i think it was 1985, republicans got control of the senate and i became the chair of the commerce committee. so i took come in somewhere i've got this recording, i think summer, maybe in a closet somewhere, i don't know, but i took his tape recorder and i went to russell's office and i turn on the recorder and i said, russell, tell me how to be a good chairman. and he said, i have two pieces of advice. he said, one piece of advice is get everybody on the committee a sense of participation, since of a stake in the legislation that you were trying to pass. give them an amendment, give them some little piece of the legislation so that they want the thing past. the second thing he said is,

never hold a grudge. because the person who is your opponent today is likely to be your ally or someone who will be your ally tomorrow. >> host: that relationship with the senator had gone back to your early day when you first came to the senate. >> guest: yeah, first day, first on the senate finance committee. >> host: he had an idea. >> guest: that's right. and this was, this was russell. so what happened was, i showed up for my first date of the senate finance committee, and i was one of 38 republicans in the u.s. senate. 38 is, you may as well as zero. it's nothing. we were at 38 republicans. i just turned 40. i had just arrived in the

senate. i have never met russell long before. he was the chairman of the senate finance committee. i was delighted to be on that committee. and it has to do with taxation, among other things, but that's the big issue in the finance committee 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, and writing a letter to the budget committee, here's what our plan is for the year ahead. he was drafting a letter. so there is this little pause in the preceding, so i'm way down at the end of the table, and he had never seen me before. and i raised my hand and i said, mr. chairman, i have an idea.

and he looked down the table and he said, oh x. what your idea? and i said being a republican, well, i think we need a tax cut. we should have a tax cut. and he said, i'll? ashman o.? how much of a tax cut? well, i had never thought about that. so i blurted out, this is an early 1977, i said $5 billion. in those days $5 billion with something. and he said, all right, does anybody object? okay, without any objection is agreed to. and i thought wow, this is going to be great. and, of course, i hustled back to office, turned out a press release that said first that on

the job and i've got you a $5 billion tax-cut. well, i didn't you in the coming. we were just writing a letter. we were not legislating from the question is why did he do that? whited russell long, senior democrat, do that to the junior, almost useless, republican on his committee? in 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. and that's the 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, and if you wanted to do anything, you had to have bipartisan support for it. >> host: i love that story. and so that argument before he was practicing exactly the instructions he gave about giving the state to every member and don't make an enemy. now, my question is will that advice work in the senate today with the rigid ideology and the partisanship? will it work today? >> guest: it's not working today, and i think the reason it's not working is what our members of the senate hearing

from their constituents? are they hearing, don't compromise? and i think that is what they are hearing. i think they claim from the base of the two parties, well, if i tried 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. so there's no voice they hear it is don't give an inch. don't do anything. don't budge. and the result of that is nothing happens. nothing. what is happening in the house of representatives? what's the message? as i understand it the message to please some members,

republicans in the house is, if you vote for, let's say paul ryan for whomever to be the speaker of the house, we are going to oppose you in the primary. so it's as though everybody is desperate to keep their jobs, and the message that they are hearing is don't give. but i don't think that's where the american people are. i think that these are the loud voices, but i don't think this is where the american people are. >> host: bring 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 drowned out. >> guest: 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 in america of not wanting to entangle religion and politics. separation of church and state, very, very important principle. very important not to use religion is a very partisan way. but what i'm talking about is the tone of politics. it's not, you know, support this piece of legislation or that, or be a republican or democrat. is everything on the philosophical spectrum. but i think what religious people can bring to politics, that they have in common is another voice, and alternative voice to what the politicians are hearing. what they know hearing is don't compromise, don't give an inch,

don't cut any spending, don't increase in taxes. and its gridlock. it's 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: don't you agree that a lot of people and good will in the senate who don't like what's happening, but they can't figure out exactly how to solve the problem transferring i think so. i wish some of them would be a little more edgy in sticking up for the principle of making government work, just for the principle, let's make this thing work. and 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, that we the people can encourage of 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 go all out to ourselves, or a people who will never give, we never compromise. i think if we give in that message they will respond to that. >> host: in the prologue he wrote something that raised the question in my mind. you said that you had found it difficult in your life to draw straight lines between things

people eat and policies you support. because a lot of people do say god told me this, and this is why. but i wonder whether you believe a person's theological belief, and you're right, people of faith are all over, and there's places on theological beliefs, but whether those theological beliefs influence by the end of a conservative or a progressive, does it drive you in one direction or another? >> guest: i think people are conservatives would say yes, and i think people who are liberals would say yes. ..

and i don't think that -- i didn't think my positions 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. faithful people are required to be concerned about disadvantaged people. it is very hard to read the

bible without being concerned 25, that is right there. how does that translate into specific legislation. there we got disagreement because some people would say the answer is such and such a government program and other people would say no, that is not going to work very well. in the private sector, and doing more. that is debatable, that is politics, something you work at politically. if people take the position my way is god's way, it closes any kind of compromise, any kind of agreement.

it is up put down of the other guy you are trying to deal with, if i were to say i am god's voice in the u.s. senate, you are against god and it is unworkable, really important to understand the difference between religion and politics. politics, not in the realm of the creed, and i believe that. it is not -- politics with different opinions and put those opinions forward and somebody else does something else so where do we end up? hopefully this is the way the

political system was designed, this is the way medicine intended it. hopefully you get all these people and shake it up and something comes out of it. the word for making a political point of view, religious point of view is idolatry. >> host: the budget should not be considered immoral document. there is room for debate. >> guest: liberals would say that. some of them. they say the budget -- if you say that, i have a position through this, if you say that it is to say there for the alternative position is immoral.

where does that leave the political process? >> host: a pretty significant part of the republican party identifies with libertarianism. you are, at least a segment of it, very critical of libertarian islam in your book and you said it enshrines autonomous self, not compatib one another. could you expand on that? >> i think the meaning of libertarianism, in means different things to different people. i to the definition of ayn rand and her followers.

what some people mean by a libertarian isn't, social issues. ecb isn't this city in the extreme. i am the center of the universe. it is all about me and that is what i am critical of. or religious standpoint. >> a lot just think it with less government, which is consistent with conservatism. >> guest: kind of set up a

strong man, i was -- when paul ryan said he was 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 meeting to say everyone for himself. that is what the philosophy is, maybe got that wrong in the book. if you put yourself at the center of the universe, that is contrary to what religion is and it is what gets us in this pickle of having government malfunctioning. >> host: he did not dodge a couple hot-button issues, a

little bit of conversation. you argue that abortion and same-sex marriage are not subject to resolution by legislative action and i think i am quoting, dropped salient political positions and religious people more likely to win their point by changing the culture. you talked about loretta wagner and it was interesting common ground. >> guest: i am a pro-life republican. but i think that 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 is a legal matter is going to be with us for a very long time. so i think to fight that battle as a political issue is not fruitful. but the story of loretta wagner in st. louis is very telling about 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 sphere. isaacson jones was head of the largest abortion clinic in my state. lorett wagner was head of citizens for life. a very -- just died recently, wonderful person, very devout

roman catholic. they got to know each other and they struck up a friendship, and they worked on things together. placed on its premises, to give an alternative to young women that it doesn't have to be abortion, it can be adoption. is really substantial land i am sure it prevented a number of abortions by doing it. it 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. >> host: it is a compelling story. there are many believe is that people of faith who feel very strongly about the abortion issue. about human life and they can't separate political realm -- >> guest: i honor that and agree with it. i am pro-life. where can you do the utmost good? in furthering your cause? where do you accomplish the most? are there some dead end streets which are going to keep the battle going but do not get anywhere? are there some constructive

things that you can do that change a culture? 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. the culture of devaluing human life. that is something that is really worth dealing with. to be very active and to be active in your community, your church looking for opportunities that value human life, look at the number of people who are being monitored -- murdered on our streets. i just think there are many opportunities, my counsel in

this book is if you can avoid a fight that is not getting anywhere, of wood that fight and direct your attention to something more fruitful. >> host: thank you for that. you also deal cohen of interesting, politicians, legislators find themselves between popular opinion and where they're informed judgment, educated judgment is, you use his example in your own experience, the panama canal and i can remember well the same dilemma in arkansas for that. expound a little bit on that. >> guest: when i was in the senate and meeting 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 is 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 wouldn't get elected and shouldn't get selected if it was just, well, i am -- by monopolize all truth. you would be really sick. on the of this and -- on the other hand if all you do is take polls, why are you there? edmund burke, the famous british parliamentarians and philosopher of the late eighteenth century

famously said you have to be, you have to be in communication with your constituents, in close communication with them but in this end you have to do what you think is right. vote your conscience. and that was the answer that i gave high school students. the panama canal, i had no doubt in my mind what the right vote was because i thought if we did not ratify those, we would be in real trouble. we would be trying to protect the canal in an area with 50 miles of jungle inside the canal, open to constant terrorist attack and up for for no purpose. it was an international

waterway. but i didn't communicate it well enough with my constituents. i didn't do a good enough job going out meeting with people, listening to them, getting their point of view and going through it with my road map to isn't. was it going to be unpopular in any event? yes. it was going to be intensely and popular vote for the panama canal treaty but it was almost disrespectful to my constituents not to let least give them a fair hearing before i announced my decision. >> host: you find those kinds of situations where you knew you were voting against popular opinion in your state, would that -- >> guest: that was the biggest

up froar that i was in. originally everything you do in the senate was controversial, you never make everybody happy. if you have good reasons and you communicate with people, then people might disagree with you. but they will respect you and understand it. and the greatest compliment that i would receive was we disagree with you, but we respect you. >> host: we talked a little bit about, you alluded a little bit to the republican freedom caucus and what is going on in the

house. you are pretty hard on the current state of politics in america. you, warned that the hard-edged meanness of some republicans will be our downfall unless we correct it? your thoughts of litta little m that. lead in some republicans come across as angry, mean people and they talk about it, well, my constituents are angry. my people, everybody is a angry. en their response to that is if you think you are mad, i am really mad. and it builds on itself. this is politicians respond to

the public and they can also evoke responses from the public and this is what is going on now. there are people in politics who assume that the american people are mad and they will make them even matter. i don't think this is what the american people are. i don't think so. just a couple weeks ago i was in your neck of the woods, not your state but in my home state, joplin, missouri, four years ago this past may was levels by a major tornado that killed 160 people and wiped out a seven mile long, three quarters of a

mile wide swath, everything in that town. if you think anything that would get people to give up or make some so hurt and so a angry, that would be it. and yet i was there five days after that tornado and it was the opposite. it was people saying we are going to rebuild our tell. every people planted american flags. i don't think the american people are a bunch of mean angry people. i think it is absolutely the opposite. i think that these angry people don't have any future. you saw here's some 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. that is what we got now. how many more fighters do we need? how about a few peacemakers? it is a misreading of the character of the american people. i think religious people acting from their faith have an opportunity to appeal to the best and i will give you an example. very recent example. charleston, south carolina, young man goes into an

african-american church bible study. and kills nine people. nine individuals. two days later it is his arraignment and the relatives of the nine people stand up,ne after another and they say we forgive you. it didn't come to people, that is a religious statement. that grows out of their faith. and what came into that? what did that evoke? what happened because the relatives of nine people, what happened then? then three days later the governor announces the confederate flag is coming down from the capital ground. and surrounded by republicans, democrats, conservatives,

liberals, african-americans, white, america standing behind her. these nine people changed 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 to make up their minds that they will try to make things better, fix politics in this country, doesn't take a ton. a few people could do it. >> host: right to where i wanted to end the interview, we have just a few minutes left, but you do decry the meanness of campaigns to date. now the money that has to be raised for campaigns today.

can a person like you if -- a person of faith who believe strongly, a person passionate about public policy, what would you say to them? if they make it in today's environment where there is such appeal to enter? >> guest: and talked about it, be out in the open about it, talk about it, that is what the public can do as well. why do these nasty campaigns take place? they take place because they work. let's make some not work. what would happen if people got in the face of politicians, got in their face hopefully with tiki -- tv cameras rolling, and they would say i just saw on the 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? do you say you approve that message? how does that square with your values? and if it does, say so. if it doesn't, take the thing off the air. i believe that would work. >> host: you would encourage people of faith not only to be active in every area but to be engaged. >> guest: yes. i think so and i wrote the book ten years ago called faith in politics, it was a warning, don't over do it, believing such and such a position is god's position because religion and politics can be terribly divisive. when i wrote that some people said you are saying religious people get out of politics, no, i am saying don't use it decisively in politics, don't

try to use religion, misuse religion. what i am saying in this book is engage yourself in politics and become a countervoice to those who are just saying it is all about me, don't give an inch, i am a angry, be a counterof voice to those people. >> host: john danforth, thank you for spending time with us today. thank you for writing this book. is something i hope has a big reader isship. thank you. >> that was afterwards, booktv ad signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction

books are interviewed. >> many of this year's presidential candidates have written books introduce themselves to voters and promote their views on issues. here's a look at some of the candidates's books.

booktv has covered many of these candidates. you can watch the montel web site, booktv.org. >> and now booktv's live "in depth" program. for the next three hours tour opportunity to talk to economist walter williams. his most recent book, "american contempt for liberty" tackles numerous issues including race, education, the environment, health care and more. >> host: walter williams. in your most recent book "american contempt for liberty" you write it is difficult to be a good economist and simultaneously be perceived as compassionate. to be a good economist one has to deal with reality, to appear compassionate, often one has to avoid important questions. >> guest: that is absolutely right.