>> you're going to stay and sign some books no? >> yes, absolutely. thank you. right out of there. [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. is a look at what's on prime time tonight.

>> when i was in graduate school living on my own, i decided i should learn how cars work. i wanted to be self-reliant. i drove a 65 plymouth fury, dark blue-green. it had a huge expansive windshield and a v-8 engine. which meant nothing to me. i knew how to pump gas and check the oil and change a flat tire but that was about it. my father had discouraged me from learning anything about the workings of the internal

combustion engine. when i said i wanted to learn how cars work, he said it's easy, i'll tell you everything you need to know. you put the key in ignition and to turn it. thanks, dad. so i took, i tried to take a course in auto mechanics for adults one night a week at the local high school. on the first not the auto mechanics teacher used the word i have never understood the meaning of, gasket. i knew that it costs a lot to replace and the car was never the same. net plus is going to find out what he gasket once i raised my hand and asked, what's he gasket? the teacher who looked like a used-car salesman to find gasket by getting through the worst that i did know the meaning of, crank case, carburetor. i'm still unsure what he gasket

is. i've gotten quite a lot of mail about a gasket by the way. i think i understand now. grammar has been intimidating and grammarians totem around but you don't need to know them in order to use of the language. put the key in ignition and shoot or not. before working on elements of stuff h there was a kind of recd that any exact notion of what is taking place under the hood. to understand how the language works you have to roll up your sleeves and join the ink stained wretches as we name the parts, being careful be defined in a way that makes them more simple instead more complicated and see how they work together. just between you and me, i suffer and the whole body of english language shudders when a shoe salesman trying to gain my trust leans forward and says, between you and i, when a

character in the movie compliance to a girl that it's just not right lumping you and i together cover when the winner of the academy award for best actor thinks a friend for giving sally and i together. maybe it's the heat of the moment, maybe people think we might be okay at home or you can afford to be a bit vulgar but it can't possibly be right in a formal setting. this bryan garner who i mentioned earlier devotes a column to the whole problem, noting that this is a grammatical error committed almost exclusively by educated speakers try a little too hard to sound we find, not stumbling badly. this kind of thing occur all the time. in an old episode of the honeymooners ralph kramden has jilted at norton and found another bowling partner and he says to norton, we have already reserved that alley for katie

and i. ralph has tried to show the superiority. he's not the most articulate guy. but by putting the other person first, you, sally, teddy, he and the others have left blurred order tricks them into using the wrong pronoun. first let us praise the impulse behind all these flips, the salesman and the emotionally damaged son in the movie or script writer and a movie star are all humbling themselves by putting another person first. didn't let us gently point out that if they were not so polite, but they occasionally put themselves first a would know they have it wrong. no one would begin a speech with between the i and you, or complaint because someone was lumping ing together, i think a friend for getting high and sell

it to get the eve of ralph kramden would probably not say we've already reserved that alley for i and teddy. but he might. >> you can watch this and other programs online that booktv.org. >> and now i we ever of an afterword -- "after words" program. former missouri senator and episcopalian priest john danforth discusses his book "the relevance of religion" which looks at the role religion can play in partisan politics. is interviewed by tim hutchins center, former u.s. senator from arkansas. >> host: senator danforth, so good as you and want want to congratulate you on your new book, "the relevance of religion: how faithful people can change politics." >> guest: thank you so much. good to be with you and have to say that i enjoyed working on this book, and hope people enjoy reading it. >> host: i look forward to visiting with you about it and hopefully creating a little interest because i think it

certainly is a worthy read. so you write in the prologue when politics is broken, we should fix it. and you describe religion and religious people as a gift to politics and religion puts politics in its proper place into someone who has lived al al of the politics of myself i know it can become all consuming, it can become an idol, it can become god. you tell a story in a 1982 reelection when you're running against kerry it would. tough race. >> guest: almost lost at. >> host: your family and efforts to encourage you, although this bond is about the closest of the race, can you recall the story that your daughter come i think she was 15 at the time -- >> guest: my third derby -- daughter, katie, i thought i never had the chance to lose that election. i thought that's going to be

fairly easy, and then maybe three weeks or so before election day a poll came out and showed that i was dead even with my opponent. and i thought, i'm going to lose your i'm just come everything is going to just go through the floor. her numbers were rising. my numbers were plummeting, and she had all the momentum on her side. and i was, when you think i have spent my life in politics and it's all going, i'm going to get the boot. by then my 15 year old daughter, i guess, i'm sure tried to comfort me, and she said, well, it's not the world series the. it really put it in place. and for a st. louis van, the world series is the be all and end all.

i think it was telling because it said that politics is not the be all and end all. it really is a. and it's important for all of us i think to keep it in its proper place. >> host: absolutely. that kind of leads me, him 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 that is going to disagree the fact is broken right now. you say that religion raises our sites about the interest of self and group for the common good. you spoke about the first four presidents and their view of the virtuous citizenry. what did they mean and what do you mean by having virtuous citizens? >> guest: the word virtue is used at each of our first four

presidents. and what they meant by virtue was something more than just a people comport themselves whether they are living wholesome lives. but it had to do with the common good, and whether we as individuals but 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 political realist. he was really the architect of our constitution. he understood that everybody had interests. groups at interest. we had to balance interests to have a country that would function. but he also said that no matter how well structured our government is, or our political

system is, the country is not going, america's not going to succeed without the virtue of its citizens. that is, it's got to be worth in just self-interested it's got to be more than what's in it for me. it has to be 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 the virtue which offers four presidents thought of as republican, a small r republican quality, fade out with them. and we did hear much more about it or anything like it. a 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 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. and 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 by way of taxation. and it's as though politics now is exclusively an appeal to the self interest of the citizens house but how can people of faith change that by being -- >> guest: well, when you think about it is the opposite of what

the message of religion is. i mean, religion does put us beyond ourselves. for hateful people, then the, you know, what's in it for me? it's not essential. there's something higher. namely, god is higher. the whole focus is for something bigger and better for yourself and i think that that is a message that comes from religion, would be a great offering by faithful people the politics, and it is not heard in the political. at all. >> host: it really struck me that since john f. kennedy we really have not heard a call for national sacrifice or individual sacrifice guesstimate and the result is we have a $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 preliminary report, beautiful for colored graphs showing that social security was doomed, medicare was doomed, the national debt was going to soar and all this. i 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 and 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 supported it. >> host: i remember well. and 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 programs so they went nowhere. >> guest: that's right. and i think it's not so much that politicians are just sort of odd ducks. maybe they are but i don't think that it's that. you know, that there's something peculiar from members of congress. they just don't get it. i don't think so. i think politicians are very, very tdn to what they are hearing from the public.

and they respond to it -- they think they are hearing from the public is i want mine and i want it now. give me, then what they're going to say in public. and you hear it now and the presidential campaign, do i have to do that? id. i have more benefits for you than anybody else is offering. vote for me. and so it the folks this. they listen to what they think is sort of a message of give me, and then they evoke the same message in turn. so there we are in politics. and the result is a very unsound base for our economic future.

>> host: it's frightening. continuing this religion is a gift to politics, you have mentioned that religion is communal and finds this beach together. i was very struck by what you described as the growing isolationist, lowest among the american people, and that you can say about has even bled over into our political life and in the institution of the senate. did i read you correctly on that? >> guest: yes. this is, this is far from an original point, and it was made most eloquently i think by robert putnam who wrote a book called bowling alone. and 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 if you are here in washington as well as threat the country. throughout the country what are we doing? you're sitting in front of a television set, 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 from the senate. we live 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, or as if you only 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 couldn't think of more than six other senators to have over to his house for dinner. >> host: you speak of the collegiality, and the collegiality when i was in the senate was disappearing on. about 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 of? >> guest: i think there are a

number of components to that. but i think one of the problems is, is just scheduling and the need for senators to be on the road raising money in relatively small increments. so i think the most that a senator can raise for a campaign from an individual i think is $2700 for the primary, same for the john election. meanwhile, -- general election. these 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, $20 million, $25 million or even more depend on the state.

>> host: which means they are not in washington. >> guest: they are not here, not relating to each other. and i think that's 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 stalwarts 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 to be

absolutely pure and taking a position. >> host: budnick about to comment about the senator who only had a half a dozen senators that he thought he could invite over, the lack of relationships beyond the combative on the floor. you, as i recall, into the talk about a codel, congressional delegation for trip i think it asia and i think it was with senator baucus. could you recount that? >> guest: yeah, 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 tyrant, but these

refugees had crossed the border and coaches will laying on the ground dying. it was just awful to see. so three of us from the senate all freshmen senators went over to thailand and the board of cambodia and then into cambodia in order to call attention to this starvation and to try to figure out what could be done to try to resolve the problem. what happened in addition to focusing on this humanitarian crisis was that the three of us spent an awful lot of time together. long flights. i mean, to get from washington, d.c. to bangkok is three legs in that flight, and it was long. but you got to know each other. and i got to know max baucus who was my calle colleague in the s.

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

baucus really resonated with me because i made my best friends in the senate on the other side of the aisle with ben nelson and it was a result of the codel to afghanistan. when you are many, many hours, out of the furnace that is the senate and to get to know somebody as a person, it's a little harder to hate them on the floor. >> guest: that's right. and i think, you know, so how was the media going to do with something like this? how was your opponent going to deal with it in a political campaign? this is 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,

certainly a big contribute to we see in washington today. then you ride, religion creates the environment for compromise and thrive. and you told about the advice that the legendary senator russell long debu gave you whenu became chairman of the commerce committee. can you recount that for our viewers up to date? do you recall the advice he gave? >> guest: yes. russell long was just great. i mean, if you asked 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, and he understood how politics work. and so he was the chairman of the finance committee.

i was on the finance committee. i think it was 1985, republicans got control of the senate and i became the chair of the commerce committee. so i took it. summer i've got this recording, i think summer, maybe in a closet somewhere. i took this tape recorder and i went to brussels office -- russell's office. i turned on the record 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. a sense of a stake in the legislation that you are 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 somebody you will need as your ally to more. those are the two things aspect that relationship with the senator had gone back to you early day when you first came to the senate. >> guest: yes, first day. first on the senate finance committee. and that -- >> host: you had an idea. >> guest: yeah, that's right. and 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 in the u.s. senate. 38 is, you may as well have zero. is nothing. we had 38 republicans are i just turned 40. i 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 sitting out there program for the year ahead, and writing a letter to the budget committee, here's what our plan is for the ahead. really drafting a letter. so there's this little pause in the preceding. so i'm way down at the end of the table, and i, he had never seen me before. and i raised my hand and i said,

well, mr. chairman, i have an idea. and he looked down the table and he said, oh? what is your idea? and i said, being a republican, well, i think we need a tax, we should have a tax cut. and he said, oh? how much of a tax cut? well, i had never thought about that. and so i blurted out, this is an early 1977, i said $5 billion back in those days $5 billion was something. >> host: significant, yeah. >> guest: and he said, all right, does anybody object? okay, without any objection that is agreed to. and i thought wow, this is going to be great. and, of course, i hustled back to my office, turned out a press

release of this at first on the and i've got you a $5 billion tax cut. well, i didn't do anything of the kind. we were just writing a letter. we were not legislating, but the question is why did he do that? why did russell long, senior democrat, do that for the junior almost useless republicans on his committee? and 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 chairmen in both parties on that committee, and it always worked across party lines. and if you wanted anything, you had to have bipartisan support for its. >> hostit. >> host: i love that story. and so they are, that early mentor for he was practicing exactly the instructions he gave about giving us take every member come and don't make an enemy. he may need to be your ally. now, my question is will the advice work in the senate today with the rigid ideology and the partisanship? will that work today, but that advice? >> guest: 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 compromise? and i think that is what they are doing. i think they claim, from the base of the two parties, well, if i try to work anything out with the other party, i'm going to get a primary opponent or i'm going to be opposed in the next election in my own party. so there's this, the voice they hear is, don't give an inch or don't do anything. don't budge. and the result of that is nothing happens. nothing. well, what is happening in the house of representatives? what's 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 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 what the american people are. i think that, i think these are the loud voices but i don't think this is worth the american people are. >> host: bringing you back to the message of your book where people of faith, religious people can create an environment where compromise and workability can actually occur if the other voices to be heard and not drowned out by -- >> 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 in america of not wanting to end angle religion and politics. separation of church and state, very, very important principles. very important not to use religion in a very partisan way. but what i'm talking about is the tone of politics. it's not, you know, support this piece of legislation or that will be republican or democrat. because faithful people are all, everything on the philosophical spectrum. but i think what religious people can bring to politics, that they have in common is another voice, an alternative voice with 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 in the tax is. and its gridlock. it's like a shiny car that just doesn't work. you can turn the ignition and nothing. it doesn't move in any direction. >> host: don't you agree to a lot of people of goodwill in the senate who don't like what's happening, but they can't figure out exactly how to solve the problem? >> guest: i think so. i wish some of them would be a little more edgy in sticking up for the principle of making the thing were. just for the principle let's make it work. and maybe a little us worried

about i am most satisfied the loudest people in order to survive the next election. i wish that, but i think that, that we the people can encourage this in our politicians. we can attempt to evoke from our politicians and attitude towards politics whether the treatise as selfish people all up for ourselves or a people who will never give or never compromise. and i think if we give them that message they will respond to that. >> host: in the prologue you wrote something that raised the question in my mind. you said that you have found it difficult in your life to draw straight lines between things

you believe and policies you support. a lot of people do say god told me this and this is why. but i wonder whether you believe a person's theological please come and direct, people that are all over, there is places on theological beliefs, but whether those theological beliefs influenced by the end of a conservative or a progressive. does it drive you in one direction or another tragic i think people who are conservatives would say yes, i think people who are liberals would say yes. i think people who are conservatives would emphasize the social issues and they would say, you know, it is god's position on whatever, gay marriage, whatever the issue is protecting people who are liberal would say they are concerned for the poor and for the disadvantaged compulsive

them to take a particular position on some spending program. so i think that there are plenty of people who say that and plenty of people who have written that, from left and right. to me, they are right across the political spectrum that are faithful people. i don't think that mike, i didn't think that my positions on, say the tax bill or spending appropriations bill, were directed by my religious point of view. i do think that there some general principles. i think that faithful people are, should be, required to be concerned about disadvantaged people. i believe that. i think it's very hard to read the bible without being

concerned, matthew 25, the least of these things. i think that is right there. but how does that translate into specific legislation? they are we've got disagreement. because some people would say, well, the answer is such and such a governmental program. and then other people would say, no, that's not going to work very well. the answer should be, you know, and the private sector should do more. that's debatable. that's politics. that's something you just work out politically. so i think that if people take the position that my way is god's way, it forecloses any kind of compromise, any kind of an agreement.

it's really a put down of the other guy you are trying to deal with. i mean, if i were to say, well, i'm not voice in the u.s. senate, or i were to think that, and then i would think, well, no, you're using it against god. it's not workable. and so it's really important to understand the difference between religion and politics. politics is not absolute. is not in the realm of the absolute. it's not in the realm of a creed. i believe this, i believe that. that's not how politics works. politics is people with different opinions and they put those opinions forward and then someone else does something else. and so where do we end up? well, hopefully this is what our

political system was designed. this is the way madison contended it. hopefully you get all these sort of people in one bag and shake it up and something comes out of it. so i think, i think, i mean, the word for making a political point of view a religious point of view is idolatry host but i think he wrote the budget should not be considered a moral document, that there's room for debate. >> guest: sure. and there are people that do. liberals would say that, some of them, that, but they say the budget is a moral document. well, if you say that, and that is i've got a position on spending for this or that. if you say that, it's 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 identifies with libertarianism. you are, at least a segment of it, you are very critical of libertarianism in your book. in fact, i think you said it enshrined autonomous self. is not compatible with love one another. so can you just expand a little bit on -- >> guest: you know, i think that, the meaning of libertarianism, i think it means different things to different people. i took the definition right out of ayn rand's and her followers,

and i think that what some people mean by libertarianism is don't get involved in what you could call social issues. so that's a point of view. but the philosophy of libertarianism is egocentricity in the extreme. the philosophy of libertarianism is i am the center of the universe. and it's all about me. and that's what i'm critical of, both from a political standpoint and from a religious standpoint. >> host: i found it very, it was educational to me to think of libertarianism that way. because i think a lot of people think it's less government which is consistent with the kind of conservatism. that to libertarianism philosophy isn't. >> guest: i kind of set up a

strawman, i don't know. i may have gotten it wrong. i was being, because i think when, like paul ryan said, he's a libertarian, i don't think he means the ayn rand version of it. i think he is talking, i think, he is a religious person. he is not meaning to say everyone for himself. that's what the philosophy is. i don't know, maybe i got that wrong in the book, but when talking about is if you put yourself as the center of the universe, that is contrary to what religion is, and it's what gets us in this pickle of having government malfunction. ..

>> 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. is not going to overrule its

self. abortion is going to be with us for a very long time. so i think to fight that battle is a political issue is not a fruitful, so the story of florida lander and bj isaacson jones in st. louis, people can try to reach common ground on very difficult issues and how somebody who is pro-life can accomplish something beyond the political sphere. isaacs and jones was the head of the largest abortion clinic in the united states. loretta wagner was head of the first -- was a very wonderful

person, very devout. they got to know each other, they struck up a friendship despite this major difference and 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 doesn't have to be abortion, it can be adoption. that is substantial and i am sure it prevented a number of abortions by doing it and 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 than there was. >> host: that is a compelling story but what would you tell people? there are many many believers, people of faith who feel very strongly about the abortion issue, cumin life, they can't separate political realm. >> i would say i honor that, i agree with it. i am pro-life, but where can you do the most good in furthering your god? where can you accomplish that? are there some dead end streets which are going to keep the battle going but not going to get anywhere and are there some

destructive things people do that change the culture? the people, pro-life people would say and do say that the real problem is bigger than abortion. it was 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 in it, in your community, looking for opportunities that value life, look at the number of people 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 fight and direct your attention to something more fruitful. >> host: thank you for that. you also deal with hall -- what politicians elected, legislators find themselves between more popular opinions and where they're informed judgment, educated judgment, use this example in your own experience, the panama canal. i can remember well, the same dilemma in arkansas, expound a little bit on that. >> i used to be when i was traveling around the state, particularly groups of high

school students, and do you vote your conscience or the will of the people. it is the complex dynamic relationship, if you didn't care about what people thought, you have problems and wouldn't get elected and shouldn't get elected if it was just high monopolize all truth, you would get really sick. on the other hand if all you did was take polls, why are you there? edmund burke, the famous british parliamentarian and philosopher of the late eighteenth century

famously said you have to be -- you have to be in communication with your constituents but in the end you have to do what you think is right. that was the answer but i give high school students. the panama canal and had no doubt in my mind what the right move 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, open to constant terrorist attack and a poor for no purpose. it was an international

waterway. 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 with it. i owed that. was it going to be unpopular in any event? yes. to vote for the panama canal, but it was almost disrespectful to my constituents not to at least give them a fair hearing. >> host: did you find those kinds of situations where you knew you were voting against the popular sentiment in your state

-- >> guest: that was the biggest uproar that i was in. that was really something. but sure. virtually everything you do as you know when you are in the senate is controversial, won't make everybody happy, if you communicate, and have good reasons and you communicate with people, then people might disagree with you, but they will respect you and understand and the greatest compliment that i would receive was we disagree with you, but we respect you. >> host: we talked a little 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. most would agree with you. do you warn that the hard edge to meanness of some republicans will deservedly mean our downfall unless we correct it? give me your thoughts a little more on that. >> guest: certainly not every republican, i think there are republicans who come across as being mean. they just come across as being a angry, mean, can't they talk about it, they say well, my constituents are angry. my people, everybody is paying 3 and their response to that is you think you are mad, i am really mad. and it builds on itself, and

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

mile wide swath, everything. if you think anything would get people just to give up or make them so hurt and so a angry, not that would be it. i was there five days after that tornado, it was the opposite. it was people saying we are going to rebuild our town. every place you looked in the rubble of joplin people planted american flags. that is what they thought of their country, the spirit of their country. i don't think the american people are mean, angry people. i think it is just the opposite. i think the same repeatable

don't have any future. you hear them say this is kind of a campaign war. i want to go to washington or jefferson city or wherever you want to go, i want to be a fighter, that is what we have got now. how many more fighters do we need? how about a few peacemakers? i think it is a misreading of the character of the american people. i think that religious people acting from their faith, an opportunity to appeal to the best. i will give you an example. charleston, south carolina, young man goes into an

african-american church, 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 is a religious statement that grows out of their faith and what came from that? what did that evoke? what was -- what happened to the relatives of nine people, what happened then? three days later, announces the confederate flag going down from the capitol grounds and she is surrounded