district court nominee justin walker. also on the agenda 2020 domestic federal spending. follow live senate coverage on c-span2. live friday night two candidates challenging donald trump for the republican nomination, c-span host a conversation with massachusetts governor bill wells and former self the governor and congressman mark sanford to talk about their plans, strategies and why they are running against the president. they will be taking their calls, tweets and facebook comments, part of campaign 2020 coverage live at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org and listen to the free c-span radio apps. >> i am not caring much about popular opinion or pleasing a consumer. when we socialize things like healthcare, you will no longer be bankrupt.

>> sunday at 9:00 pm eastern on "after words," in his latest book the case against socialism. kentucky republican senator rand paul talks about the history of socialism and argues there is a new threat of socialist thinking on the rise in america. he is interviewed by republican congressman matt gates of florida. >> you are making the argument that a country that is more socialist becomes more selfish. >> i think that is true. it is an irony in a way. they would profess it is for the other man. everything is for someone else but in the end it is driven by selfishness. >> watch "after words" sunday night at 9:00 eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> michael barone has a new book, how america's political parties change and how they don't. >> guest: thanks for having me

on. >> host: let me begin with chapter 2 of your book, you say, quote, let me start by describing what i believe to be the political dna of our two major political parties. what is their dna? >> guest: they change their positions on issues over the years, republicans started as the protectionist party, became the free-trade party around the 1970s with donald trump, the trade party. the enduring character is the republican party has always been found around a core constituent of people who are considered by themselves and others to be typical americans but they are not a majority of the population. they need more in order to win. the democrat party has always been a coalition of people who are supposed sometimes not to be typical americans but who together when they hold together can be a majority. always hold to gather and get fights within the democratic

party. that dynamic has continued even as the composition of the republicans core constituency and the groups of the democratic coalition for changed. these are very old political parties, democratic party formed 1832 to reelect andrew jackson. the republican party formed in 1854 to oppose the kansas nebraska act in the territories, they succeeded on that within a decade or so but they have continued ever since. >> host: going back to election day, panic is a poor guide to reality and you provide historical perspective. goldwater's loss in 1954, democratic losses in the 1990s. >> is political party, you will

hear predictions from some people that the republican party which in 2016, majorities in the house is about to disappear, similar predictions about the democratic party from time to time. they persist through political disaster much worse than either party has suffered currently. republicans in 1932, democrats in 1920, they emerge as competitive in a decade and they overcome third-party challenges of considerably greater significance than we have seen with ross perot in the 1990s. there is something fundamental, enduring character of these two parties has provided an avenue for people, the political population has always been diverse ethnically, culturally diverse, racially diverse, religiously diverse since the

beginning of the republic and even when there were british colonies. >> host: you write the following, quote, both parties have changed their policies adapting to economic and demographic circumstances and signaled in the political marketplace. both parties are in the process to provide a congenial though sometimes temporary political home for the large majority of americans over many years. the fact that they have perform those functions for so long under stress and despite massive setbacks provides basis for thinking they will pass through the stress test being administered by donald trump and critics and democratic opponents as they pass through more stringent times before. >> guest: the news give me challenges every day, every week, because there is a lot of clash, a lot of rhetoric that i happen to find personally unfortunate coming from all that.

we find evidence that there has been more political discord in america. i said how about going to fort sumter, south carolina where the fighting in the civil war begins. we have gone through periods of real discord, literally a civil war. the parties endured during that and i think they will continue to endure in the episodes we are seeing now. >> host: the title of the book is how america's political parties change. and other republican nominees, they don't seem historically unprecedented. the voice of partisanship, the residual strength of two ancient american parties seem

undiminished and stronger than ever. >> guest: look at public opinion polling today, 85%-95% of people identify themselves as republicans say they support donald trump, they support him over potential opponents including my college classmate william well, former governor of massachusetts. they continue to be very strong. the composition of the republican party has changed over time. we have seen even broader divergences, sudden shifts in support of a political party. william jennings bryan nominated at age 36 by the democratic party in 1996 -- 1896 repudiated the policies of the incumbent democratic president, grover cleveland. cleveland endorsed the republican candidate. lots of votes changed. many more votes changed.

people going from democratic to republican and republican to democratic. than did so in the 2016 election when compared to the elections immediately prior. we have had revolutions before. >> host: what we are seeing or not seeing in this republican primary. go back to 1980 when senator ted kennedy put up a formidable challenge against jimmy carter or 1992 when pat buchanan became a formidable opponent at least early on to george hw bush, miniature beating the loss in november 1992. we are seeing a number of candidates challenging donald trump but none of them seem to be making any mark in terms of polling or traction. >> guest: that is right. we are seeing adhesion to the party leaders and we will see adhesion among democratic voters on the democratic side to opposing donald trump. this is a period are a polarized partisan parity. the two parities are equal size

in the elections. now parity is more than 53% of the vote in a presidential election since 1984, 30 some years ago. we have what are clearly liberal and clearly conservative party. the political scientist of the 1950s put on a campaign, they had commissions and things, we need to have a clearly liberal party and clearly conservative party. we shouldn't have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. they got their wish. now the political scientists of today say this is polarized, these people are attacking each other. we don't like this. it is what their predecessors in the 1950s wanted. >> host: george will, syndicated columnist in the washington post, newspapers across the country, referring

to republicans leading in texas voting badly for the gop and he was at the texas tribune festival which we covered on the c-span networks a couple weeks ago. he made the point the republicans need to lose in 2020 to rebuild, part of the c-span video library. >> the vision has been a constant in the republican party until now. at the 500 day mark of the reagan presidency he had the support of 77% of republicans at the 500 a mark of the trump residency he has the support of 87%. there is less dissent in the republican party than ever before. it is his party which is why those of us who care about the two party system think what should happen in 2020 is the republican party gets a bullet are rated so the old story about hitting the mule over the 4 head with a 2 x 4 get his attention and something needs to be done to get the republicans attention. >> host: your reaction to that assessment from george will, not a fan of donald trump but

longtime republican, supporter of ronald reagan. >> guest: he made a comment in my book how america's political parties change. george has written he is not a republican anymore. he doesn't identify with the republican party, free to give advice to people who count themselves as republicans, gives many people directions but he would like to see a different republican coalition. i think the republican coalition may change over time but looking back over the last 25 years since the 1990s since bill clinton broke the democrats, but suppose:00 on the presidency and newt gingrich broke the democrats oppose of the internal lock on the majority of the house of representatives. the democratic coalition has

become gradually more upscale, high income people move toward the democratic party. one of the problems, both affluent voters in houston and dallas which stayed quite heavily republican decided in 2016 and more so in 2018 house races that they didn't like the donald trump republican party and started voting more democratic. you have the republican party has been more downscale. how do people go into bankruptcy they go gradually and then suddenly. the republican party has changed gradually and now with 2016-18, suddenly into a party that is downscale democratically. the democratic party has turned into a party which is more upscale demographically. the wall street journal had a good article this past week

delineating how that happened but that is the change we have seen to the point hillary clinton, democratic nominee in 2016 is boasting the democratic party carries the most affluent congressional districts and most affluent counties. growing up in michigan, at that stage in the 1850s the republicans had support from affluent voters. they didn't go around bragging the rich people were supporting them and everybody else should deter to the rich people. i found senator and secretary clinton's comments to be a little bizarre for that reason. >> host: some background, you are a former washington post editorial page staff writer, the co-author of the almanac of american politics, a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute, his work available online, washingtonexaminer.com. you traveled to all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts.

>> guest: i perhaps rank with the c-span bus, when i started writing the book of american politics, the co-author, 1970-70 when it occurred to me i had never set foot in most congressional districts. i set about in my travels to make sure that i did and when i landed it, ted stevens in anchorage, alaska, february 1998, my 50th state and 435th congressional district so i have kept up with redistricting. when they change the boundaries i made sure i have been 12 district once again. >> our guest is michael barone. i want to get your reaction to this editorial this morning in terms of where it leads senate republicans and from the senate republican leader who is a supporter of the president who said it has been a great mistake to pull out of syria.

withdraw us forces from syria is a grave strategic the steak and we use us less safe, emboldens our enemies, weakens important alliances. sadly the recently announced pull out risks repeating the obama administration's withdrawal from iraq which facilitated the rise of the islamic state in the first place. he goes on to say we need to use both sticks and carrots to bring turkey back in line while respecting it's a legitimate security concerns in addition to limiting turkey's incursion and a cease-fire. we should create conditions for the reintroduction of us troops and move turkey away from russia back to the nato fold. finally he says as neo-isolationism raise its head on the raft and write, we can hear more on endless wars but rhetoric is not changed the fact that wars do not just end, wars are won or lost. the political will to continue this hard work may wax and

wane, senator mcconnell thing threats to the nation are not going anywhere. published today in the washington post. >> guest: what i hear senator mcconnell doing is expressing in specific terms what a majority of house republicans expressed by voting for a resolution condemning the us withdrawal from syria, relatively small number of troops we had there. in effect endorsing some of the arguments he is making there. it is not the first time congressional members of political party, with foreign policies. and in the 1930s and 40s, debating whether or not, and democratic -- and they oppose that move.

>> our guest is michael barone, how america's political parties change and how they don't. >> i have been following analysis. the republican mayor of santa barbara following him in the region. in the revolutionary war -- 15 members of his family in new york, and withdrawing water and

-- it was a bitter war. california after becoming a state. the republican party became strong in california. >> it highlights the importance of history in american politics and fearing experiences people head, the revolutionary war and the civil war, world war ii, influenced political feelings for a long time, multiple generations. one of my favorite datum and subjects for a successful -- what was john f. kennedy's number 2% of the vote in 1960. john f. kennedy, massachusetts, democrat, catholic, liberal on the issues. is number 2 state was georgia. it was a conservative state,

why was georgia voting said democratic. sherman marched his union troops to georgia, and it brought hackles up jimmy carter's back, the future democratic president. and they are so difficult. why have so many democrats after roosevelt and the new deal. one of it is southern white voters who were descended from people who opposed the civil war, supportive of the confederacy in all cases.

>> that sounds like a jeopardy question. thank you for joining us. republican line. >> do you see any similarities, we look back, the party has taken a little change back from kennedy, fascination to the vietnam war, a lot of protests, a lot of anti-american sentiment. we had a huge turn out and vote for jimmy carter. jimmy carter, do you see any similarities between the bernies and elizabeth warren with jimmy carter? with the bad china trade deal,

2.45% out of credit union for vehicle with double vision inflation, ideals we have now, it seems left progressive us to hating america and some of their rhetoric are not proud to be and we are leaning towards that jimmy carter, do you see any similarities in that swing? i'm going to vote for bernie. we need to have a change to people, nothing but good economy and see what a tough time look like, bringing us back to common sense economics. >> guest: some of the examples with jimmy carter's policies during his term as president in 1977-81 are in line with the democratic party being the party tending to favor more federal government control which became democratic party policy during the administration of woodrow

wilson to some extent, 1913-21 but even more so under franklin roosevelt 1933-45. historically the democratic party will be less government -- when it was founded it was against having the bank of the united states against the central bank. it was free trade, lower tariffs, balancing the budget and andrew jackson eliminated the national debt, the first democratic president. they change position over the years. one thing about jimmy carter's policies while he tended to favor more government spending. it is not just deregulation, transportation, regulation of freight rail and the best freight rail industry in the

world, we have the deregulation of trucking which president carter supported which senator edward kennedy supported and the deregulation movement was bipartisan, republicans in the gerald ford administration and the ronald reagan administration supporting it and ralph nader who was not a partisan figure in that stage and not really a supporter of either party but ralph nader argued deregulation would be better for consumers and that has proved to be true. the one that has affected most americans in many ways, airline deregulation. we use to have the days of table cloths and silver salt and pepper shakers but the price of affairs was so much the great majority of americans couldn't afford family

vacations, going on a plane. if you have ever been in orlando airport you would get an idea there's a lot of americans who can afford a family vacation by aircraft today thanks to deregulation. that squeezed cost and transportation, that is an achievement president carter can take pride in. >> a surprising political battleground in the midwest, you make the following point that of the 100 electoral votes that switch democratic to republican votes in 2012-2016, 50 were in the midwest, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, iowa, 20 were in pennsylvania, demographically at -- more closely resembling the midwest than the rest of the northeast including towns like scranton, pittsburgh, meadville. >> another 29 electoral votes in florida, large parts of which are full of midwesterners

and people that were raised there and have those values. one of the big visions in american politics and it is new since the 1990s, between major metropolitan areas, there are about 50 of those and half the people in america live in them. half of americans live outside the major metro areas and if you want to see where the newest change in votes comes from if you are comparing 2016 with 2012 or a very similar electoral configuration of 2008-2004-even 1996 where you see the votes change in favor of donald trump and against the democratic party is the out statement west, midwest beyond the major metro areas. the one state in the midwest

solidly democratic, illinois. why is that? two thirds of the votes are in metro chicago and that has trended democratic since the 1990s with high income people joining low income people voting for the democratic party. the other midwest states like ohio, michigan, wisconsin and iowa either have no major metropolitan states, iowa, none of iowa's 99 counties is in 1 million plus metro area or those major metropolitan areas are a lower percentage of the state total. consequently that proved to be fertile ground for donald trump and treacherous ground for hillary clinton. >> host: the book is titled how america's political parties change and how they don't and our guest is michael barone who has been on this network many years. joe is joining us from new orleans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. tagging on to what you were

just discussing about the voters in areas with the electoral college, i feel that president obama described that area of the country aptly as saying they cling to their bibles and their guns and that has proven to be good. i also think tagging on again to things republican members of the republican party, economic status is changed to lower income people and donald trump, i think, played up to their fear of losing white privilege.

>> guest: the way i see it it is fear not so much of losing white privilege, we don't have racial segregation mandated by law anymore and haven't for more than 50 years thank goodness. but fears of losing jobs in some cases. there has been serious economic studies that showed contrary to what many experts thought and what i thought, that closer trade relations with china and exports from china cost many more manufacturing jobs in america than most of us forecast. there was some reaction to that. i know the caller talked about the comment barack obama -- clinging to the bible and guns, she mentioned there is also an issue with something of

constitutional rights. the first amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion and free exercise thereof. you are entitled to read your bible if you want to. guns, the second amendment. the supreme court in 2008 and subsequent decisions say there's a personal right to keep and bear arms in this country and some gun-control legislation, not all, is prohibited by the constitution. those things are pretty fundamental rights. our founding fathers and framers of the constitution and the bill of rights understood that this is a diverse society. remember when they were writing the constitution and the bill of rights, 1787-1790, they are familiar with the history of europe in the british isles where you had religious wars, wars between people of

different religious views trying to impose them on other people and they took the position that freedom of religion is there and the federal government, congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion. supported by state taxes persisted in massachusetts and connecticut into the 19th century. virginia famously got rid of its established religion when james madison and thomas jefferson opposed it and led the fight to say there is no established church but colonies have been settled by different religious people. calvinists, in virginia, catholic proprietors of maryland, quaker proprietor in pennsylvania. and the founding fathers said this is a religiously diverse country. we are not going to try to have the federal government impose a

religious uniformity, free exercise thereof and people can choose whatever religion they want. it is one way, with diverse origins, operate successfully over the years. >> host: we are taking your text messages as well. what will it take for a third party to upstage the two main parties and gain more equitable power away with them? >> history tells us that. former president who had won a second term by the largest percentage ever recorded up until that date decided to have a third political party and run again under the constitution. suppose the president got his party on the ballot in every one of the states in a majority

of these non-southern, non-1-party districts across the country. and in 1912, theodore roosevelt became the candidate of the progressive party, he finished a strong number 2. william howard taft, recumbent -- republican incumbent president finished number 3. this party had all the political aspects, universal knowledge, very popular, highly intelligent figures ahead of the party. by 1916 it was gone. third-party's operating in wisconsin and minnesota, and they thought some heritages. on the republican team, endorse the republican nominee. when he died in 1919 he was

considered a favorite for the republican nomination in 1920. we might have had a different roosevelt as a 4 term president, if the roosevelt had not died at age 60. we had a test case, real hard. single-member district, all at doral college, structural factors. my argument in how america's political parties change is there is also the fact the parties -- they provide a home for people who identify the core constituency, pharmaceutical americans but a majority of the population, they had a home for people, one thing or another, that has persisted over a long period of time. 165 years. >> host: we welcome our radio audience on c-span radio, streamed on the web, c-span.org.

on serious xm, potus channel 124, 7:00 to 10:00 eastern. joyce, thanks for waiting. charles in south carolina to me are on with michael barone. >> caller: what i'm wondering, what a typical republican is. from my point of view, i have lived 70 something years from new england and always was a democrat. now i am independent but they are always concerned more about their taxes than anything else, always the issue. i can tell who is republican by their point of view on taxes. i live in a mixed neighborhood but if you want to go to the luxury homes they are all trump signs, wealthy people like trump, because of the taxes and it has always been that way and religious right and always supported the republican and evangelicals are supporting the republicans which i call them radical christians because i don't think they believe anything about christianity except trump has some kind of mandate from heaven which i

think is absurd because i need to find a new heaven then. my point of view, ask me about taxes, i will tell you if you are a republican, and i'm annoying every person. i believe in everything, minorities, women in politics, black people being in politics and i don't see them in the republican party. i don't see black people, women, i don't see anything over there that is typical of americans, typical of a tax related, wealthy person who doesn't care about people on the border, don't care about what i believe in, that people are supposed to care about babies and children. i thank you and i'm interested in your book, but i don't believe it is what i see about republicans which everyone i know as they become rich they

change their party, got to get in and protect the property, always property and always taxes. >> host: we will get a response. >> guest: the caller is identifying accurately more the past than the present. we are moving away from the political alignments she talked about. when i was growing up in michigan, the auto company management -- republican people that identified with the united auto workers members, factory workers, voted democratic. that was a pattern that was common, not universal, the 1950s. my experience when i go south to broad street, those beautiful historically preserved houses in charleston, america's fastest-growing metro areas demographically. i don't see a lot of trump signs. certainly around the country when you look at the richest

areas of the country, how does beverly hills vote? how does greenwich, connecticut vote? they vote democratic. greenwich, connecticut, has been going democratic, moving towards the democratic party where the first president bush's father and the second president bush as grandfather was first selectman of greenwich for 20 years, rich man living in the community full of rich people, that has been moving towards the democratic party. if you go to the upper east side of manhattan, the rich areas, the late david koch lived, you go to aspen, go to palm beach county, very richest parts of america, bel air where president reagan lived in retirement went democratic. i think what happens is americans, as i put it more often, are split in politics

along cultural and economic lines. you see split on economic lines, like rich people voting against, voting for candidates for lower taxes. you see that less today than you did in the future. a better indicator is what is your position on abortion rights? do you believe roe v wade was correctly decided, and expansion of view of abortion rights should take place or do you think that abortion is the murder of a human being and you should -- extinguishes the human life and should be prohibited or at least limited in its availability? those issues are more powerful in determining voter choices these days than issues of taxes. the rich people in manhattan, california, are voting for the high tax parties. they are paying high taxes. they think on balance that is

good public policy. their choice, every vote counts. in the south we saw less of that of high income people moving towards the democratic party but in the 2018 house elections, metro houston, metro dallas, fort worth, metro atlanta, metro phoenix in the west where the high income people stayed republican unlike those in the northeast, the industrial midwest and west coast where high income people stayed republican they trended toward the democratic candidate in 2018, they clearly don't like donald trump's style and some of the policies he has supported on trade and immigration. >> host: a tweet from katherine, there's much to the concept of what defines the

dems and republican parties is systemic and relevant from their inception and worthy of study. susan is joining us in california on the democrats line. you on with michael barone. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i was listening to different calls and it seems the republican party -- first of all sounds -- >> we are going to leave this recorded segment of washington journal, you can watch all our programs online, c-span.org, now to live coverage of the u.s. senate. tates are district judge for the western district of kentucky. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is it, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of justin reed walker of kentucky to be united states district judge for the western district of kentucky shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.