any lessons from his life in terms of the choices that he made, the spirit with which he believed in this nation and its capacity for the young people who really do have to carry these traditions forward? any final thoughts for them? ..

>> that's what kept us going. >> thank you so much. >> thank you c-span always so kind. god bless you, my brother. >> that was afterwards book f's signature program in which authors of the latest and nonfiction bookser interviewed. watch past programs at booktv.org. >> now a reair of an afterwards

program. former missouri senator john dan don furth looks at the role religion can play in partisan politics. interviewed by tim hutchinson. >> so good to see you and i want to congratulate you on your new book, the relevance of religion, how faithful people can change politics. >> i have to say i enjoyed working on this book, and i hope people enjoy reading it. >> i look forward to visiting with you about and it hopefully creating a little interest because i think it's certainly 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 of politics and that religion puts politics in its proper place, and someone who has lived a little bit of politics myself, i

know it can become all-consuming and become god. you tell a story in your 1982 re-election when you are running against wood. and you almost lost. and a -- can you recall that story that your daughter, i think she was 15 at the time. >> guest: my third daughter, dee dee, and i never thought that i had a chance to lose that election. i thought that was going to be fairly easy, and then maybe three weeks or so before election day, a poll came out and it showed that i was dead even with my opponent, and i thought, i'm going to lose. i'm just -- everything is going to just go through the floor here, and -- >> her numbers were rising.

>> yeah, her numbers were rising, my numbers war plummeting, and she had all the momentum on her side, and i was -- when you think, oh, gee, i've spent my life in politics and it's all going to be -- i'm going to get the boot. and my then 15-year-old daughter, dee dee, was i guess -- i'm sure -- trying to comfort me, and she said, well, it's not the world series. and it really put it in place. and for a st. louisan, the world series is the be all and end all. so, i think it was telling because it said that politics is not the be all and end all. it really isn't. and it's important for all of us, i think to keep it in its proper place. >> absolutely. and that's kind of leads me

to -- in talking about religion and religious people as a gift to politics, and i thought when you said -- when politics is broken, we should fix it. no one is going to disagree with the fact it's broken right now, but you say that religion raise our sights before the interest of self and group for the common good. >> talk about the virtuous citizenly? what do they mean by that and what do you mean by having virtues citizens? >> guest: well, the word "virtue" was used by each of our first four presidents, and what they meant by "virtue" was something more than just how people support themselves, whether they're just living 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. it was very -- to me, it's fascinating that this is the 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 interest, groups had interests, 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, 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 what's in it for me. there has to be a sense on the part of the citizens that we are here for a purpose beyond just

grabbing a reason we can for ourselves. that concept of virtue which our first four presidents thought of as a republican, with a a small r, republican quality, faded out with them, and we didn't hear much more about it or anything like it. a few outcroppings, lincoln, and most notably, john f. kennedy inaugural speech when he said, ask not what your country can could 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. so that was over half a century ago. and we haven't heard anything like it since. and instead of politicians

saying, we'll 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 -- >> how do -- how can people of faith change that, by being -- >> guest: well, when you think about it, it's the opposite of what the message that religion is. religion does point us beyond ourselves and authorize faithful people, the me, what's in it for me, the me, is not central.

there's 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. >> host: that strike me that since john f. kennedy we have not heard a call for national sacrifice or individual sacrifice on the part of citizens. >> guest: the result is that 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 a commission on the entitlements, reforming

entitlement programs. bob kerry from nebraska was the chair of this commission. we came out with a terrific -- at least preliminary -- report, beautiful four colors, 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. 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 get our national debt in some sort of order and nothing came of that. in fact politicians were attacked for various pieces. >> host: i remember well. we'll talk more about the need for compromise that runs

unwillingness to accept any kind of revenue increase. democrats unwilling to touch in changes in the entitlement program circuit went nowhere. >> that's right, and i. >> guest: that's right. i think it's not so much that politicians are just sort of odd ducks: but i don't think it's 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 into what they hear from the public, and they respond to and it then evoke that. so if what they're hearing, what they think they're hearing from the public, is, i want mine and i want it now, give me, then what they're going to say to the

public, and you hear it now in the presidential campaign -- of do i have a great thing for you? do i have -- i have got more benefits for you than anybody else is offering. vote for me. and so it evokes this -- they listen to what they think is sort of a message of give me and then they evoke that same message so there we are in politics and the result is a very unsound base for our economic future. >> host: right. it's frightening. continuing this religion as a gift of politics, you mention that religion is communal, and binds us each together, and you -- that was -- i was very struck by what you described as the growing isolationist, and

loneliesness among the american people and that has bled over into our political life and the institution as a senate. did i read you correctly on that? >> guest: yes. >> host: when you were in the senate -- >> guest: this i 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" and it's how we're all just becoming more and more individualistic. we're becoming more and more turned in on ourselves, and hence the title. we're not even -- we don't even belong to bowling leagues, we go bowling alone. that was the title of the book. and i believe that is true here in washington, as well as throughout the country.

throughout the country, we're sitting in front of our television sets, we're driving our cars, there is the bigger -- 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 and 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, whereas if you only know somebody as a politician, but i -- 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: right. you speak of the collegiality, and the collegiality when i was in senate was disappearing. a lot of the problems we see now i think go back to those years, but what do you see is a contributing to the dysfunction of the senate today, from the collegiality of the past to the kind of combative partisanship that characterizes the institution now? >> guest: i think there are number of components to that. but i think that 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 most that a

senator can raise for a campaign from an individual is $2,700 for at the primary, same for the general election. meanwhile, these uncontrolled groups, pacs and the 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 million, 2,520,000,000 daz, 25 million does, even more depend thing state. >> host: they're not in washington. >> guest: hair not here. they're not relating to each other, and so i think that something is lost in that regard, but i think something else is going on that is even more serious than that, and that

is that the pressure that members of congress are hearing from their so-called base, from their -- the 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 -- the pressure to be absolutely pure and taking a position. >> host: let me go back to your comment about the senator who only had a half dozen senators he thought he could invite over, the lack of relationships beyond the combative on the floor kind of -- you, is a recall in the book, talk about a codell, a

congressional del base, a foreign trip you took to care and think it was with senator backus. >> guest: it was no 1979, and it was at the time of a terrible refugee problem on the border of thailand and cambodia, where the vietnam had invaded cambodia. cambodia had been ruled by this terrible tyrant, pol pot, but these refugees were -- had crossed the border and were lying on the ground dying. it was just awful to see. and so three of us from the senate all freshmen centers, went over to thailand and the border of cambodia and then into cambodia, in order to call

attention to this starvation and to try to figure out what could be done to try to resolve the problem. what happened in addition to focusing on this humanitarian crisis was that the three of us spent an awful lot of time together, long flights, to get from washington, dc to bangkok is three legs in that flight, and it was long. but we got to know each other, and i got to know max bachus, who was my colleague in the senate. we both served on the senate finance committee, chase 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, i --

>> host: max being a democrat. >> guest: max being a democrat, and he has a zino. xino was a ben at this time, and he asked me, because i'm an ordained clergyman to baptize xino, which i did. now, i can't imagine that in today's u.s. senate, is a understand what is going on in washington. i just think it's a pitched battle although time, but if you get to know somebody on a personal basis, you can try at least to communicate and to work things out. >> host: that story about max bachus resonated with me because i made one of my best friends in the senate on the other side of the aisle with ben nelson as a result of a codel to afghanistan. when you're many hours, out of that furnace that is the senate, and you 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 that -- how is the media going to deal with something like this? how is your opponent going to deal with it? oh, well, this is a junket. 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: and that is -- i think that's very true, and that has contributed -- as you said, many things, certainly a big contributor to what we see in washington today. then you say -- you write, religion creates the environment where compromise can thrive, and you told about the advice that 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: yes. he -- russell long was just great. if you ask me what did you enjoy most about serving in the united states senate, why, russell long would be very close to the top of that list. he was so clever, and funny, and he understood how politics worked, and so he was the chairman of the finance committee. i was on the finance committee. then -- and i think it was 1985, republicans got control of the senate, and i became the chair of the commerce committee, so i took -- somewhere i've got this recording, i think, somewhere, maybe in a closet somewhere. i took this tape recorder and i

went to russell's office, and i turned on the recorder and i said, russell, tell me how to be a good chairman. and he said, i have two pieces of advice. he said, one piece of advice is give everybody in the -- on the committee a sense of participation, a sense of the state and the legislation that you're trying to pass. give them an amendment, give them some little piece of the legislation so they want the thing to pass. 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 at your ally tomorrow.

>> host: the relationship with the senator had gone back to your early days when you first came to the senate. >> guest: yes. first day. first day on the senate finance committee. >> host: he had an idea. >> guest: that's right. and this was russell. what happened was i showed up for my first day on the senate finance committee, and i was one of 38 republicans in the u.s. senate. 38 is -- you may as well have had zero. it's nothing. we had 38 republicans. i had just turned 40 years old. i had just arrived in the senate. i had 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 there's -- what the committee is doing is they're setting then program for the year ahead and writing a letter to bucket committee, here's what our plan is for the year ahead. it's drafting a letter. >> host: right. >> guest: so, there is a little pause in the proceedings, so i'm way down at the end of the table, and i -- he'd 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's your idea? and i said, being a republican, well issue think we need -- we into have a tax cut.

-- we should have a tax cut. and he said, oh? how much of a tax cut? well, i'd never thought about that. and so i blurted out -- this is in early 1977 -- i said $5 billion-inch those days $5 billion was something. >> host: significant. >> guest: yeah. and he said, all right, anybody object? okay, well, without any objection, that's 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 that said first day on the job 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 weren't legislating. but the question is, why did he do that? why did russell long, senior

democrat, do that for the junior, almost useless, republican on the committee? and the reason, thinking back on it, was he wanted me to look good. he wanted know 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 is the way that finance committee worked. and it always worked that way. i was on it for 18 years. we had terrific chairmans on both parties on the committee, and it always worked across party lines, and if you wanted anything, you had to have bipartisan support for it.

>> host: i love that story. and so 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. he may need to be your ally. now, my question is, will that advice work in the senate today with the rigid ideology and the partisanship? would that -- will it work today? will 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're hearing. i think they claim from the base of the two parties, well, if i

try to work anything out with the other party, i'm going to get a primary opponent. i'm going to be opposed in the next election. in my own party. so there's this -- the voice they hear 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 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'll oppose you in the primaries. so, it is as though everybody is desperate to keep their job, and the message that they're hearing

is, don't give, but i don't think that is where the american people are. i think that that's -- i think these are the loud voices but i don't think this where is the american people -- >> host: bringing you back to the message of your book, where people of faith, religious people, can create an environment where compromise and work ability can actually occur if they allow their voices to be heard and not drowned out. >> guest: 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. and 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 in a very partisan way, but what i'm talking about is the tone of politics. it's not, support this piece of legislation or that or be a republican or democrat. faithful people are 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 to what the politicians are now hearing, what they're now hearing is, don't compromise, don't give an inch, don't cut any spending, don't increase any taxes, and it's gridlock. >> host: nothing happens. >> guest: it is like shiny bar that just doesn't work. you can turn the ignition and

just get -- and it doesn't move in either direction. >> host: decent you agree there are lot of people in good will in the senate who don't like what is happening, but they can't figure out exactly how to solve the problem? >> guest: i think so. i think -- i wish some of them would be a little more edgy in thinking up for the principle of making government work, just for that principle, let's make the thing work, and maybe a little less worried about, oh, i must satisfy the loudest people in order to survive the next election. i wish that. but i think that we, the people, can encourage this in our politicians. we can attempt to evoke from our

politicians an attitude toward politics where they don't treat us as just a bunch of selfish people or a people would will never give or never compromise, and i think if we give them that message, they will respond to that message. >> host: all right. in the prologue, you wrote something that raised a question in my mine. you said that you had found it difficult in your life to draw straight lines between creeds you believe and policies you support. found that -- because a lot of people do say, well, god told me this and this is -- but i wonder whether you believe a person's theological belief -- people are all over the place on

theological beliefs -- whether the theological beliefs influence whether they end up a conservative or -- progressive. >> guest: people who are conservatives would say yes, and people who are liberal wood say yes if think people who are conservatives would emphasize the social issues, and they would say, here is god's position on whatever gay marriage, whatever the issue is, and i think people who are liberal would say, their concern for the poor and for the disadvantaged, disadvantage compels them to take a particular position on, say, some spending program. so i think that there are plenty of people who say that and plenty of people who have written that. left and right. to me, they're right across the

political spectrum there are faithful people, and i don't think that my -- 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 is some general principles. i think that faithful people are, should be, are required to be, concerned about disadvantaged people. i believe that. i think it's very hard to read the bible without being concerned for mag mag threw 25, the least of me. i think thatting right there. but how does that translate into specific legislation? there we got -- 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 in the private sector doing more. that's debatable, that's politics. that's something you just work out politically. so, i think that the -- if people take the position that my way is god's way, for closes -- forecloses any kind of compromise or a putdown of the other guy you're trying to deal with. i i -- if i were to say i'm god's voice in the u.s. senate, or i were to think that, and then i would think, well, no, you're against god, and it's

unworkable, and so it's really important to understand the difference between religion and politics. politics is not absolute. it's not in the realm of the absolute. it's not in the realm of a creed. i believe this, i believe that. that's not how politics works. politics is people with different opinions, and they put those opinions forward and then somebody else does something else, and so where do we end up? well, hopefully this is the way our political system is designed, this is the way maddison intended it. hopefully you get all these sort of people in one bag and you shake it up and something comes out of it. so, i think that it's -- i mean, the word for making a political point of view a religious point

of view, is idolatry. >> host: i think you wrote that the budget should not be considered a moral document. there's room for debate. >> guest: ya, sure, and people who -- liberals would say that, some of them, that the budget is a moral document. well, if you say that, and that is, i've got a position on spending for this, that, if you say that, it's to say, therefore, the alternative position is immoral. and where does that leave the political process? >> host: a lot of -- i guess a pretty significant part of the republican party now identifies with -- you are at least a segment -- you are very critical of libertarianism, in your book,

in fact i think you said it enshrines autonomous self, 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, and i took the definition right out ayn expand her followers, and i -- ayn rand and her followers and what some people think by libertarianism, is don't get involved in what you call social issues. so that's a point of view. but the philosophy of

libertarianism is philosophy of -- 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 a very -- educational to me 00 think of libertarianism that way because i think a lot think it's less government, which is consistent with kind of conservatism, but true libertarian philosophy isn't. >> guest: i kind of set up a straw man. i may have gotten it wrong. i was being -- i think when, like, paul ryan said that he is a libertarian, well i don't think he means the rand version of it. i think he is talking -- he is a religious person.

he is not meaning to say, everyone for himself, and that's what the philosophy is. i don't know. maybe i got that wrong in the book. what i'm talking about is if you put yourself at the center of the universe, a., that is contrary to what religion is, and, b., it's what gets news this pickle of having government malfunctioning. >> host: did not dodge a couple of hot-button issues that maybe is worthy of a little bit of conversation. you argue that abortion and same-sex marriage are not subject to resolution by legislative action and they should be -- i think i'm quoting here -- dropped as salient political positions and that religious people are more likely to win their point by changing their culture.

and you talk about loretta wagner, and b.j. isaacson jones. that was an interesting common ground. >> guest: i am a pro life republican but i think that politically, this issue is over, and the supreme court decided roe v. wade 42 years ago, i think, and it is not going to overrule itself, and abortion is a legal matter is going to be with us for a very long time. so, i think that to fight that battle is a political -- as a political issue is not fruitful but the story of lower rate to wagner and -- lorettaing aer in

and bj isaacson jones and st. louis is very telling how 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. isaacson-jones was the head of the largest abortion clinic in my state. loretta wagner was the head of missouri citizens for life. he was a very -- just died recently, wonderful person, dear person, very devout roman catholic. and they got to know each other, and they struck up a friendship despiting this major difference, and they worked on things together. for example, the abortion clinic

placed in its -- on its premises an adoption service to give an alternative to young women that it doesn't have to be abortion. it can be adoption. that's really substantial. and i'm sure it prevented a number of abortions by doing it. and it came from the depths of loretta wagner's faith and the goodness of her heart and the ability of two very different people to try to figure out, is there something we can agree on? and there was...

i am pro-life but where can you do the most good in furthering your cause? where can you accomplished the most? are there some dead end streets which are going to keep the battle going but you are not going to get anywhere? are there some constructive things that you can do that change a culture? the pro-life people would say, and do say that the real problem is bigger than abortion, it it is what they call the culture of

death. it is the culture of d valuing human life. that is something that is really worth dealing with. to be very active in it and to be active in your community, your church, looking for opportunities that value human life. look at the people who are being murdered on our streets and, so i just think that there are many opportunities but my counsel in this book is if you can avoid a fight that is not getting anywhere, avoid that fight and director attention to something that is more fruitful. >> host: thank you for that. you also deal with, little bit that is interesting the dilemma

that politicians elected legislators sometimes find themselves in between popular opinion is and where their informed judgment, their educated judgment is. you use the example in your own experience and i can remember the same dilemma and i voted for that. sound a little bit on that. >> guest: i used to be, when i was in the senate and would meet with groups of high school students in the state, i could count on getting the same question. the question was do you what your conscious or do what the will of the people? it's a complex dynamic relationship because if you

didn't care about what the people thought you would really be a fat head. you would have problems and you would not get elected, and you should not get elected. if it was just, well i am just -- you be upset, on the other hand if all you did was take pulls, why are you there? so edmund burke, the famous british parliamentarian and philosopher of the late 18th century famously said that you have to be in communication with your constituents and in close communication with them. in the end, you, you have to do what you think is right. you have to vote your conscious. that was the answer that i gave high school students.

the panama canal, i had no doubt in my mind what the right vote was because i thought if we did not ratify those treaties we would be in real trouble. we would be trying to protect the canal in an area with 50 miles of jungle on each side of the canal, open to constant terrorist attack in uproar for no purpose. it was an international waterway, why would we be in that situation. but, i i didn't communicate as well with my constituents. i did not do a good enough job of going out, meeting with people, listening to them, getting their point of view, and then going through it with them.

i owed that to them and i did not give it to them. so, wasn't going to be unpopular in any event, yes. it was going to be intensely on popular vote for the panama canal treaty but it was almost disrespectful to my constituents not to at least give them a fair hearing before i announce my position. >> host: define those kinds of situations where you knew you were voting against the popular opinion in your state,. >> guest: that was the biggest uproar that i was in. that was really something. but, sure because virtually everything you do, as you know when you are in the senate is controversial. you are not going

to make everybody happy. but if you think it out and you have good reasons, and you communicate with people, then people might disagree with you but they will respect you and understand it. the greatest compliment that i would receive was, we disagree with you. but, we respect you. >> host: we have talked a little bit about the republican freedom caucus and what is going on in the house now. you are pretty hard on the current state of politics in america, most would certainly agree with you. you warned that the hard edge meanness of some

republicans will deservedly be our downfall unless we corrected. give us your thoughts on that. >> guest: certainly that not every republican but i think that there are republicans who come across being mean people. they come across being angry, mean people. they talk about it, they say well, my constituents are angry. my people, everybody is angry. then their response to that is, well if you think you are mad, i am i am really mad. it builds on itself and this is politicians respond to the public and they can also evoke responses from the public. so, this is what is going on now i think there are people in politics who assume the american

people are just as mad and they are going to make them even madder. i do not think that is what them american people are. i do not think so. just a few weeks ago i was in your of the words, not in your state, but i but i was in my home state, joplin, missouri. four years ago this past may was leveled by a major tornado that killed 160 people and wiped out a 7-mile long three-quarter of a mile wide area. everything in in that town. if you think anything that would get people to give up, or make them so hurt and so angry, that would be it.

yet, i was there five days after that tornado and it is the opposite. it was people saying, we are going to rebuild our town. every place you looked in the rubble of joplin, people planted an american flag. that is what they thought of their country, the spirit of their country. i do not think the american people are a bunch of mean, angry people, people, i think it is just absolutely the opposite. so i think these angry people don't have any future. you hear them say, this is kind of a campaign line, i want to go to washington or jefferson city, or wherever they want to go, i am going to be a fighter. while that is what we have now. how many more fighters do we

need? how about a few peacemakers? so i just think it is a misreading of the character of the american people. i think that religious people acting from their faith have an opportunity to appeal to the best. i will give you an example, just a recent example. charleston, south carolina, a young man goes into an african-american church bible study and killed 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 does not come to people, that is a religious statement. that goes out of their faith and what came from that? what did that evoke? what happened because of the relatives of just nine people? what happened then? then three days later the governor announces the confederate flag is coming down. she is surrounded by republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, african-americans, whites, america is standing behind her. these nine people have change the political culture of the cradle of the confederacy. it was just remarkable.

it does not take a ton of people, but a few people acting from their faith who make up their minds that they are going to try to make things better, fix politics and mend this country. it does not take a ton. >> host: you are bringing right to where i wanted to end the interview today. with just a few minutes left. you do decry the meanness of campaigns today, the amount of money that has to be raised for campaigns today, can a person like you, if you are running like you, people of faith, people who believe strongly in his passion about public policy, what would you say to them? can they make it in today's environment where there such appeal to anger?

>> guest: yes. be out in the open about it, talk about it. i think that is what the public can do as well. why do these nasty campaigns take place? they take place because they work. so let's make them not work. what would happen if people got in the face of the politician, just got in their face, hopefully with a tv camera rolling and they would say, you know, i just saw on television a commercial on your behalf and i want you to tell me how does that commercial square with your values? just tell me. do you stand for that? you you say your prove that message, how does that square with your values? if it does, all right, say so. if it doesn't, take it doesn't, take the darn thing off the air.

i believe that would work. >> host: yes. so so you editing courage people of faith to not only be active in every area, but be engaged? >> guest: yes. i think so. i wrote a book ten years ago called faith in politics and it was a warning about don't overdo it and believing that such and such a position is god's position because religion and politics can be terribly divisive. when i wrote that, some people people said well you're saying that religious people cannot be in politics. no, i'm saying do not use it divisive in politics. don't try to use religion, misuse religion but what i am saying in this book is engage yourself in politics and become eight counter voice to those who are just saying it's all about

me just give me everything i can get an don't give an inch. be a counter voice to those people. it will work. it does not take many people to do that. >> host: senator, thank you for spending time with us today. thank you for writing this book. it is something i hope has a big readership. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. >> that was afterwards, book tv signature program which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interview. watch past afterwards program online book tv.org. >> now, afterwards on book tv. missouri senator claire mccaskill talks about her life and political career in an interview with political editor, susan glasser. >> host: i s