on our web page, at c-span.org/impeachment. it's your fast and easy way to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage, any time. >> the book how america's political parties change and how they don't author is joining us. good sunday morning. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me on. it is a delight to be here. >> let me begin by chapter 2 of your book you say let me describe what i believe to be the enduring character the political dna of our two major political parties. what is their dna? >> they have changed their positions on issues over the years. they are very old parties. the republican party started off as protectionist party became the free trade party around about the 70s. now with president trump they are kind of the trade party. the enduring character is that the republican are party has always been found at around a core constituency of people who are considered by themselves and

others to be typical americans, somehow, but they are not a majority of the population. they need more in order to win. the democratic party has always been a coalition of out groups, people who are supposed sometimes not to be typical americans but who together when they hold together can be a majority. of course they don't always hold together, and we get fights within the democratic party. and that dynamic has continued even as the composition of the republicans core constituency and of the groups in the democratic coalition have chang changed. these were very old political parties, democratic party formed in 1832 to re-elect andrew jackson. they succeeded in doing hah. the republican party formed in 1854 to oppose the kansas nebraska act of slavery and the territories, they succeeded on that, within a decade or so. but they have continued ever since. >> and you beginning in your

introduction basically going back to election day 2016, you write, quote, panic is a poor guy to reality. then you provide historical perspective. gold water's loss in 1964. the democratic losses in the 1980s. >> well, each political party has had its disasters. you will hear predictions from some people that the republican party which in 2016 won the presidency, ma swrorties in the house -- majorities in the house and the senate is about to disappear, permanent minority status. i have heard similar predictions about the democratic party from time to time. they persist. they persist through political disaster, much worse than either party has suffered currently. republicans in 1932, democrats in 1920. they emerge as again competitive within a decade, and they have overcome third party challenges of considerably greater significance than we have seen in our time with ross perot in

1990s. i think there's something fundamental. i think ten during character of these -- i think the enduring character of these two parties has provided an avenue for political expression and choice, from a population which has always been ethnically diverse, economically diverse, racially diverse, religiously diverse, since even when they were british colonies. >> you say quote both parties have changed their policies adapting to economic and democratic circumstances and the signals in the political marketplace. both parties in the process have the ended to provide a congenial though sometimes very temporary political home for the large majority of americans over many years. the fact they had been forming those functions for so long under stress and despite massive setbacks provide some basis for thinking that they will pass through the stress test of being administered by donald trump, his republican fans and critics

and his democratic opponents as they have passed through others even more stringent times before. well i continue to believe that. the news gives me challenges every day, every wreak -- >> -- every week -- >> because? >> because there's a lot of clash. there's a lot of rhetoric that i happen to find personally unfortunate coming from all sides that i just mentioned. but basically they have gone through tougher times before. somebody said to me where could you 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 began? so we have gone through our periods of real discord, of literally a civil war, and the parties endured during that, and i think they will continue to endure in the episodes that we're seeing now. >> the title of the book by

michael barone is "how america's political parties change". you also write this, whatever the diversion of donald trump from other republican nominees and they don't seem historically unprecedented they don't prevent him from winning near unanimous vote from republican voters -- unanimous support from republican voters. >> you look at polling today, 85 to 90 percent of those who identify themselves as republicans say they prefer donald trump, they prefer him over potential opponents, including the former governor of massachusetts, they continue to be very strong. the composition of the republican party has changed somewhat over time. we've seen even broader divergenc divergences, sudden shifts in support of a political party.

william jennings brian, nominated at age 36 by the democratic party in 1896, repudiated the policies of the incumbent democratic president, cleveland. cleveland endorsed the republican candidate. lots of votes changed. many more votes changed. you know, people going from democratic to republican or republican to democratic than did so in the 2016 election, when you compare it to the elections immediately prior. we've seen these kind of revolutions before. >> so if you could then explain what we're seeing or maybe not seeing in this republican primary because if you go back to 1980, for example, when senator ted kennedy really put up a formidable challenge against then president jimmy carter or in 92 when buchanan became a formidable opponent at least early on to george h. w. bush, many attributing that to his loss in november of 1992. we're seeing a number of candidates challenging president trump, but none of them seem to be making any mark in terms of

the polling or traction. >> that's right. i mean, we're seeing adhesion to the party leaders, and i think we will see adhesion among the democratic voters on the democratic side to opposing donald trump. this is a period that i've called polarized partisan parity. the two parties about equal size in the elections. you are not seeing -- no party has won more than 53% of the vote in a presidential election since 1984. that's, you know, 30 some years ago. you know, we have what are now a clearly liberal and a clearly conservative party. the political scientists of the 1950s, by the way, put on a campaign, really. they had commissions. they had things where they said we need to have a clearly liberal party and a clearly conservative party. we shouldn't have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. well, they got their wish. and now the political scientists

of today say gee, this is polarized. these people are attacking each other. we don't like this. well, it's what their predecessors in the 1950s wanted. >> let me share with you, this is george wilson, a columnist this morning in the washington post and in newspapers across the country. referring to republicans leading in texas voting badly for the g.o.p. he was at the texas tribune festival which we covered for the c-span networks a few weeks ago. he made the point that republicans need to lose in 2020 in order to rebuild. here's part of what he had to say, part of the c-span video library. >> division has been a constant in the republican party until now. at the 500-day mark of the reagan presidency he had support of 77% of republicans at the 500 day mark of the trump presidency, he had support of 87%. there's less dissent in the republican party than ever before. yet his party, which is why

the -- those of us who care about the two party system think what should happen in 2020 is the republican party gets obliterated so that it will get, you know, the old story about hitting the mule over the forehead with a two by four, it gets its attention, and something needs to be done to get the republicans attention. >> michael barone, your reaction to that assessment from george will who clearly has not been a fan of president trump, but a long time republican, supporter early on of ronald reagan. >> he's made a comment on my book here on how america's parties change. he has written he's not a republican anymore. he doesn't identify with the republican party. he's free to give advice to people who do count themselves as republicans. he gives many people advice in many directions, but he would like to see a different republican coalition. i think the republican coalition may change over time, but also looking back over the last 25

years, since the 1990s, since bill clinton broke the democrats -- the republicans supposed lock on the presidency and newt gingrich broke the democrats supposedly eternal lock on the majority of the house of representatives, what we have seen is the democratic coalition has become gradually and then suddenly more up scale, higher education, high income people have moved towards the democratic party. one of the problems of the republican party in texas is that those affluent voters in houston and dallas, which had 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 they started voting more democratic. you've got the republican party has become more down scale. the novelist hemmingway was asked how do people go into bankruptcy? he said they go in gradually and

then suddenly. the republican party has changed gradually and now with 2016 and 18 more suddenly into a party that's down scaled demographically. the democratic party has turned into a party which is more up scale demographically. the "wall street journal" had a good article this past week delineating how that's happened. but that is the change that we've seen, to the point that hilary clinton, democratic nominee in 2016 is now boasting that the democratic party carries most affluent congressional districts and the most affluent counties in the country. when i was growing up in michigan, where at that stage in the 1950s, the republicans had support from affluent voters. they didn't go around bragging that the rich people were supporting them. and therefore, everybody else should defer to the rich people. i found that senator and secretary clinton's comments to be a little bizarre for that

rchbl -- for that reason. >> he's wrote for u.s. news and world report, the co author of almanac of american politics, a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. his work also available on-line at washington examiner.com. this i didn't know about you that you have traveled to all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts? >> well, i guess i perhaps rank with the c-span bus in getting around the country, but when i started this almanac of american politics, lead co author in 1970, 71, it occurred to me that i had not ever set foot in most congressional districts, so i set about in my travels to make sure that i did, and eventually when i landed at ted stevens airport in anchorage, alaska, february 1998, that was my 50th state and 435th congressional district. so i've kept up with

redistricting, so when they have changed the boundaries, i have made sure i have been in all the districts once again. >> our guest is michael barone. before we get to your calls, i want to get your reaction to this editorial this morning, just in terms of where it leaves senate republicans and from the senate republican leader who is a supporter of the president but said it's been a grave mistake to pull out of syria. this is what senator mcconnell wrote today in the washington post. withdrawing u.s. forces from syria is a grave strategic mistake. it will leave the american people and homeland less safe, embolden enemies weaken important alliances sadly the recently announced pullout risks repeating the obama administration's wreckless withdrawal of iraq which facilitated the rise of the islamic state in first place. he says we need to use sticks and carrots to bring turkey back in line while respecting its own legitimate security concerns in addition to limiting turkey's incursion and encouraging and enduring cease-fire, we should create conditions for the

reintroduction of u.s. troops and move turkey away from russia, back into the nato fold. finally he says as isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more talk of endless wars but rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end. wars are won or lost, while the political will to continue this hard work may wax and wane, senator mcconnell saying the threats to our nation are not going anywhere. published today in the washington post. >> well, what i hear senator mcconnell doing is expressing in specific terms what a majority of house republicans expressed by voting for a resolution last week condemning the u.s. withdrawal from syria, relatively small number of troops we had there and in effect endorsing some of the arguments that he's making there. it's not the first time that congressional members of political party have opposed a

president's foreign policy stance. you had, you know, thinking back to late 1930s, early 40s, when we were debating whether or not to aid britain world war ii, president roosevelt, democratic president supporting aiding britain when it was standing alone against the nazis and some of the democratic party senators opposed that move. up until the morning of december 7, 1941. >> our guest is michael barone. book is called "how america's political parties change and how they don't". let's go to jane joining us from joshua tree, california, democrats line, good morning. >> hi, yeah, i've been following the -- [inaudible]. his father fought in the

revolutionary war. [inaudible]. this fellow lost 15 members of his family, ended up on a sailing ship where they were -- [inaudible] -- ended up in san francisco, and in san francisco in the 1850s, my understanding it was a bitter bitter war, and we were -- california after becoming a state, they almost were going to be on the side of the south. that's really when the republican party became strong in california. >> jane, thanks for the call. >> i think jane's call highlights the importance of history in american politics and experiences that people had in the revolutionary war, in the civil war, world war ii. influence political feelings for a long long time. multiple generations.

you know, one of my favorite subjects for a successful bar bets i suspect is what was john f. kennedy's number two state in the percentage of the vote 1960? john f. kennedy, massachusetts, democrat, catholic, relatively liberal on the issues. his number two state was georgia. we think of georgia now as a conservative state. it was southern democratic then. why was georgia voting so heavily democratic? well, one answer is that sherman marched his union troops through georgia only 96 years before that election. people were still voting against sherman's march. marching through georgia, songs commemorating that march brought -- jimmy carter's back the future democrat from south georgia. those experiences have purchase on people's minds long after they've existed because they are

so difficult. why did we have so many conservative democrats after the roosevelt and the new deal sm -- deal? well one reason is that southern white voters who were descended from people who had opposed the civil war, who had been supportive of the confederacy in many but not all cases continued to vote democratic off that experience, decades and even a century before. >> that sounds like a jeopardy question. let's go to greg. thank you for joining us from huntsville, alabama, republican line. good morning. >> do you see any similarities when we look back, you saw the parties take a little change, and the voting take a little change back from kennedy's assassination to the vietnam war, we saw a lot of protests, a lot of anti-american sentiment, and we ended up as we come through watergate, we had a huge

turnout and vote for jimmy carter. jimmy carter, you know -- do you see any similarities between the bernies and the elizabeth warren with jimmy carter? we ended up with a bad china trade deal, gave away the panama canal. i think i paid 14.25% interest at a credit union for a vehicle. we had double digit inflation. with the ideals that we have now, where, you know, it seems to bring left progressive as hating america in some of their rhetoric or not proud to be, and we're leaning back towards that jimmy carter. do you see any similarities in that swing? personally i'm going to vote for bernie. i think we need to have a change so people who have lived through a good economy could see what a tough time looks like, may bring america back to common sense economics. >> thank you for the call.

a response from michael barone. >> some of the examples of carter's policies during his term as president 77 to 81 are in line with the democratic party being the party tending to favor more government, more federal government control, aid to people which became democratic party policy during the administration of woodrow wilson to some extent, 1913 to 21, but even more so under franklin roosevelt 1933 to 45. historically the democratic party had been less government party in the 19th century when it was founded. it was against having the bank of the united states, against a central bank. it was for free trade, lower tariffs, balancing the budget, and president andrew jackson eliminated the national debt for two years in the 1830s, democrat, first democratic president. so the parties do change positions over the years.

one of the interesting things about carter's poll sis on economics is while he tended to favor more government spending and control than the republican parties of his days, he also was a major supporter of deregulation of communications and of transportation. we got the are regulation of freight rail and we've got the best freight rail industry in the world now. we had the deregulation of trucking, which president carter supported, which senator edward kennedy supported. the deregulation movement was bipartisan. you had republicans in the gerald ford administration and then in the ronald reagan administration supporting it. and you had ralph nader who was not a partisan figure at that stage and is not really a supporter of either party now, but ralph nader argued that deregulation would be better for consumers. and i think that has proved to be true.

you know, we've had perhaps the one that's affected most americans in many ways, airline deregulation. you know, we used to have the days of cloth, table cloths in the airlines and little silver salt and pepper shakers, but the price of fares was so much that the great majority of americans really couldn't afford family vacations, going on a plane these days. if you have ever been at the orlando airport, you will get an idea that there's a lot of americans who can afford a family vacation by aircraft today. that's thanks to deregulation, but it squeezed out costs in transportation everything that we buy. that's an achievement that president carter can take pride in. >> the surprising new political battleground, chapter 14, the midwest and you make the following point, that of the 100 electoral votes that switched from democratic to republican votes between 2012 and 2016, 50 were in the midwest, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, and iowa,

20 were in pennsylvania specifically west of metro philadelphia which demographically is more closely resembling the midwest than the rest of the northeast including towns like scranton, pittsburgh, meadville >> and another 29 votes in florida large parts of which are full of midwesterners and people who were raised there and have those values. i think one of the divisions now in american politics -- and it is new since the 90s is between our major metropolitan areas with metro populations over a million, there are about 50 some 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 largest change in votes come, if you're comparing 2016 with 2012

or with the very similar electoral configurations of 08, 04, 00, even 1996, where you see the votes change in favor of donald trump and against the democratic party is the outstate midwest as i call it. it is midwest beyond the major metro areas. the one state in the midwest that was solidly democratic, illinois. why is that? well, about 2/3 of the votes in illinois 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 areas in their states. none of iowa's 99 counties is in a million plus metro area, or those major metropolitan areas are a lower percentage of the state total.

so consequently, that proved to be fertile ground for donald trump and treacherous ground for hilary clinton. >> the book is titled "how america's political parties change and how they don't". our guest is michael barone, a friend of this network on for many many years. we welcome you back. joe is joining us from new orleans. democrats line. good morning, joe. -- good morning, jo. >> good morning, tagging on to what you were just discussing about the voters in the areas where 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 been proven to be true. and i also think tagging on again to saying that

republicans, the members of the republican party now, their economic status has changed to lower income people, and donald trump i think played up to their fear of losing white privilege. >> thank you. we'll get a response. >> well, i think, you know, the way i see it it's fear not so much of losing white privilege, we don't have racial segregation mandated by law anymore in this country, haven't had for more than 50 years, thank goodness, but the fears of losing jobs in some cases. i mean, there's been some serious economic studies that showed contrary to what many experts thought, contrary to what i thought, that the closer trade relations with china and the exports from china cost many

more manufacturing jobs in america than most of us forecast. so i think there was some reaction to that. i note that the caller talked about the comment that barack obama made during the 2000 -- you know, clinging to their bible and guns. as she mentioned that, i thought, you know, there's also an issue of something of constitutional rights there. clinging to your bible, the 1st amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. you are entitled to read your bible, if you want to. guns, the 2nd amendment, the decision the supreme court in 2008 and subsequent decisions say there is a personal right to keep and bear arms in this country and that some gun control legislation, not all of it, is prohibited by the constitution. so those things are pretty

fundamental rights. they are examples of how our founding fathers and the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights understood that this was already a diverse society. remember that when they were writing the constitution of the bill of rights, 1787, 1790, they were familiar with the history of europe and 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 you had -- that freedom of religion was there, and they said the federal government, congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion. some of the states had religious establishments, churches supported by state taxes, that persisted in massachusetts and connecticut and 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's no established church. but the colonies had been settled by different religious people. calvinists of massachusetts. anglicans in virginia. catholic proprietors in maryland. quaker proprietor in pennsylvania. and the founding fathers said this is a religiously diverse country. we're not going to try to have the federal government impose a religious uniformity in this country. we're going to have total freedom of religion, free exercise thereof. and people can choose whatever religion they want. it's one way that you make a continental-sized country with diverse origins from the beginning, operates successfully over the years >> we are taking your text messages as well. this is from ken in norfolk, virginia saying what would it take for a third party to up stage the two main parties and gain more equitable power with them? >> well, it would take -- it would take quite a lot.

i think history tells us that. imagine that a former president who had won a second term by the largest percentage ever recorded up until that date, decided to lead a third political party and was allowed to run again under the constitution suppose that president got his party on the ballot in every state and ran congressional candidates in the majority of non-one party districts across the country. well, that actually happened in calendar year 1912. roosevelt became the candidate or progressive party, he finished a strong number two. william howard taft the republican incumbent president finished number three. you know, this party had just about all the political assets that you can think of, universal knowledge, very popular and highhigh highly intelligent figure as the head of the party.

by 1916 it was gone. you had third parties still operating in wisconsin and minnesota where they had support from german and scandinavian people of those heritages basically disappear in the rest of the country. roosevelt was back on the republican team, endorsed the republican nominee and when he died in 1919, he was considered the favorite for the republican nomination in 1920. we might have had a different roosevelt as our four term president if president theodore roosevelt had not died at age 60. but i think we've had a test case. it's real hard. the single member district, the electoral college are structural factors. my argument in how america's political parties change is that there's also the fact that the parties have this enduring character. they provide a home for people that identify with that core constituency, thought of as typical americans, but a minority of the population. they have a home for people who

identify as members of out groups for one thing or another in the democratic party, and that has persisted over a long period of time. 165 years. >> we welcome our radio audience on c-span radio h is streamed on the web and sirius xm channel 124, every sunday morning. joyce from charleston, south carolina, you are on the air with michael barone. >> hi, michael. i'm wondering what a typical republican is. from my point of view, i've lived 70 something years from new england and always was a democrat. now i'm independent, but they are always more concerned about their taxes than anything else. it was always the issue. i could tell you who is republican who isn't republican by their point of view on taxes, and i live in a mixed neighborhood, but if you want to go to the luxury homes, there are all trump signs and trump

wealthy people like trump because of the taxes, and that's always been that way, i think, and also the religious rights have always supported the republicans and evangelicals have supported the republicans. i call them radical christians because i don't think they believe anything about christianity except that trump has some kind of mandate from heaven, which i think is absurd because i need to find a new heaven then. anyway, that's my point of view is that i want to ask you, ask about taxes. i'm just an ordinary person. i believe in everything minorities. i believe in having women in politics. i believe in black people being in politics. i don't see them in the republican party. i don't see the black people. i don't see the women. i don't see anything over there that's typical of an american. it's typical of a tax-related

wealthy person who doesn't care about people on the border. they don't care about what i believe in that people are supposed to care about, babies and children and all that stuff. so anyway, that's my point of view. and thank you. i'm interested in your book, but i don't believe that it's what i see about republicans. everyone i know as they become rich, they change their party. got to get in there and protect their property, all their property and all their taxes. >> joyce, thanks. we'll get a response. >> i think that the caller is identifying accurately more of the past than the present. i think we are moving away from the kind of political alignments that she talks about. i mean, i know when i was growing up in michigan, the people that identified with the auto company management voted republican. people that identified with the united autoworkers members, the factory workers, voted democratic. that was a pattern that was common, though not universal in

america, the 1950s. i think that my experience when i go south of broad street, down in those beautiful historically preserved houses in charleston, one of america's fastest-growing metro areas, by the way, 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 heavily democratic. you know, greenwich, connecticut, has been going democratic, moving towards the democratic party, where the first president bush's father and the second president bush's grand father was first selectman of greenwich, for 20 years a rich man living in a community full of rich people, and that's been moving towards the democratic party. if you go to the upper east side of manhattan, the rich areas,

where the late david koch lived, one of the koch brothers, you go to aspen, you go to palm beach county, you go to the very richest parts of america, bel air, where president reagan lived in retirement, going democratic. i think what happens here is that americans as i put it more often are split in politics along cultural than along economic lines. you do see splits on economic lines such as the, you know, 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 that roe v. wade was correctly decided, that an expansive view of abortion rights should take place? or do you think that abortion is the murder of a human being and that it extinguishs a human life

and should be prohibited or at least eliminated 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's good public policy. so it's their choice. every vote counts one. and so 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 dall dallas-ft. worth, metro atlanta, metro phoenix out in the west where high income people had stayed republican, unlike those in the northeast, the industrial midwest and most of the west coast, where the high income people had stayed republican,

they trended towards the democratic candidates in 2018. they clearly don't like donald trump's style and some of the policies that he's supported on trade and immigration. >> this is a tweet from katherine who says i'm interested in reading this book. i suspect that there is much to the concept of what defines the dems and the republican parties is systemic and relevant from their inception and worthy of study. that's a tweet. susan is joining us, redding, california, on the democrats line. you are on with michael barone. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was listening to the different calls. and it seems like the democrat and republican parties, first of all i think money is

influencing. i think the other thing is the parties are getting their voters emotional. i don't think the voters are educating themselves enough. they are listening to the main media influencing their opinions, like i watch c-span. i want to hear it straight from the politicians and congress voice and words. c-span seems to be the only station that really gives us a straight out true idea of what's going on. i think the voters are starting to change where they are educating themselves. i wonder if you think voters are starting to talk to each other instead of listening to the opinions of the media and the

politicians. >> susan, thanks for the call. >> i think we're back to an era, except here in on c-span, towards partisan journalism. and that actually is the historic heritage of political journalism in the united states. if you go back to the 19th century, foundation of the democratic party, in 1832, when william l. marcy, democratic politician from new york said to the victor goes the spoils. they got the money for holding offices. democratic newspapers got the printing contracts, and that was the source of considerable income and profit to them, and they took a democratic party line, and the republican newspapers took the same line. if you want -- if you lived out in the midwest and you wanted to get the republican party line when the party was founded in 1854, you subscribed to horace

greeley's new york tribune. if you wanted to get the democratic line why the civil war was a big mistake, you supported james gordon bennett's new york herald. that was the partisan politics of the day. we had an era particularly with the start of broadcast journalism with radio and television, regulated by the federal government, where the broadcasters accepted the idea that they should provide an objective and not partisan point of view. i think increasingly as time went on, in the 60s, 70s, 80s, so called objective point of views became less objective and thankfully your long time colleague had this idea of presenting a genuinely nonpartisan, bipartisan, open to all and not endorsing candidates idea with c-span. and i think your success is due in part to the fact that as the caller said, media has become more partisan. people seek media that tends to

view the world from the same perspective that they do. that makes a certain amount of sense, but it's always useful to get a reality principle of getting some sense of what people are saying on the other side, and i would endorse one other idea that i think laid behind what the caller said which is that it is easy to criticize ordinary people as not having clear ideas, not much knowledge about these things. i found that if you listen to people, they may express not maybe very articulately, not perhaps in an organized fashion, perceptions that are pretty accurate about the country or at least some perceptions and some knowledge, and they have some rational basis for the way they vote, and it has something to do with not only with their own perceived self-interests of them

and their families. but also has something to to with the perceived best interest of the country as they see it. every vote counts one, and i think every vote is entitled to respect until proven otherwise. >> we thank you for those kind words about c-span. if who wants to be a millionaire ever goes back on the air, you need to be a lifeline because you know so much about political trivia. this is from roy who says you're write about abortion that one issue trumps all others especially the one issue economic viability that would make their lives better through higher taxation on the wealthy. so keep those comments coming in. we will read them and share them with you as we go to bruce in twin rocks, pennsylvania. good morning, democrats line. >> good morning. thanks for taking my call this morning.

i'm a conservative democrat. i tend to see with my social values with the democratic party really changed over the years, and i'm mostly the republican on my social values now, but at any rate, i wanted to get back over to about syria, if that's okay. i'm wondering with france, england, germany, the united nations, how come we have to have the burden with with our soldiers, every body is blaming the president on what's going on over there now, and where are these other countries? they are supposed to be allies. do they have soldiers over there? or are they taking the reins? you know, all we hear is about the president and us -- he's made a mistake and that, but

where are these other nations? what are they doing? >> bruce, thanks for the call. again, the editorial this morning from the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell in the washington post calling the president's decision on syria, quote, a grave mistake. to bruce's point? >> a grave mistake is not an ambiguous way to put it, i guess, for senator mcconnell. i note that the caller in some ways exemplifies is one example of why donald trump won the election and won the 20 electoral votes of pennsylvania in 2016. he says he has identified as a democrat for many years but tends to take more conservative position on the cultural, noneconomic issues and seemed to be a supporter of the president. identifying himself as a conservative democrat. that's -- i've got chapters in

this book "how america's political parties change" about how the liberal republican voters and politicians the ended to disappear and how conservative democrats voters and politicians the end -- tended to disappear and the caller is one example of that. syria, if i could make a bipartisan critique, perhaps, i think the policies of both or current president and his predecess predecessor, in some ways resulted from impulsive statements that perhaps were not a good idea. i mean i wrote a couple articles in the washington examiner on president obama's declaration and i think it was august 2012, that the use of the poison gas by the syrian government would be a red line, and i based some

of that on the extensive reporting that peter baker did on this issue in the new york times, an excellent reporter, and he, you know, it seems that that was not a prepared statement. it was a statement made in a campaign environment. you were just having or about to have the republican national convention and president obama clearly didn't expect the syrians to use poison gas, which they then did and gave us a choice, are we going to get in or get out, and he basically decided not to get in, but eventually we had troops there under president trump. you had president trump announcing on a sunday night saying hey we're taking the thousand or so troops that we have in this zone near the turkish border. that looks to be a little impulsive too. so i find a basis on which some people could criticize both our recent democratic president and our current republican president

on this issue. >> a couple things to share with you, a short while ago the president @ real donald trump again talking about the wall saying the wall is making a very big difference, even dems in the area are happy. you can follow the president @ real donald trump. this was written in the new york times, republicans are victims of their own success, succeeded with trump's agenda in 2016 and may very well succeed with that again in 2020. that becomes the play book. they didn't win on balanced budget ets, constitutional or george w. bush's foreign policy. the question for republicans going forward is whether build the wall and the talk radio drum circle will be sufficient to carry them forward without the novelty and celebrity of donald trump. a spauler related question -- a smaller related question is whether the reagan conservatives can be kept in the republican coalition and whether there are enough of them to bother with. on the republican line, brian from knoxville, pennsylvania.

good morning. >> yeah. a quick question, do you think with the president's son-in-law being part of the israeli peace process and the president giving jerusalem the embassy is tied in with the syrian move? as well as how do you feel that jewish wealth in our country has affected politics? i heard a statistic up to 50% of our billionaires being jewish. >> president trump's policy on israel has been supportive of israel government. he's moved the american embassy from tel aviv which the largest metro area into jerusalem which is the capital of israel. many people, including many experts on the middle east --

[inaudible] -- i haven't noticed any lately. and i think, you know, the idea that other arab countries, saudi arabia, the gulf states, egypt, would react very negatively to us if we supported israel in this regard. that doesn't seem to be the case. it may have been the case 25 years ago. doesn't seem to be the case this year. you know, i think that the caller referred to a large number of jewish people who were billionaires and so forth. i don't think his figures are accurate, but there's no question that you have many jewish people that have been very successful economically in this country, have contributed in my view very positively, not just to our economy, but also to our arts, to our science, establishment and so forth, and i don't think that american support for israel, u.s. government support for israel whether it's come from president

trump, whether it's come from other republicans, whether it's come from democrats, is a reflection of money from jewish contributors. it's a reflection of very widespread american public opinion. you look at the public opinion polls in the united states, and you see overwhelming majorities in support of israel for a variety of reasons. israel is a democracy. it has the rule of law. it provides equal rights for all of its citizens, including those of arab ancestry and background, and that's the kind of country that the united states tends to like. it's also become one of the high-tech and innovation leaders in the whole world. 7 million people producing scientific and technological advances that we in the united states can profit from in a

trading world economy >> the president talking politics overnight in another tweet that came just after 10:30 last night east coast time. >> on the democrats line, robin in baltimore, good morning. >> good morning. my question this morning is regarding the statement mr. barone made about how the framers of our country, you know, had come to the conclusion that it would be wise to -- fair for everyone to practice their religions and open our bibles freely in this nation.

but i always heard this phrase separation of church and state call for the separation of church and state. i'd like to know exactly what that comes from. >> thanks for the call. >> separation of church and state, i think it's a fair conclusion from history that the idea of separation of church and state comes from a letter that thomas jefferson, our third president, wrote to a baptist congregation in connecticut, where he said there should be a wall of separation between church and state. that was jefferson's personal opinion. you know, the baptists had been strongly and still are strongly against the idea of entanglement of religion with the state, with the government. they have been strongly of that position, so jefferson was perhaps catering to a

constituency that -- saying that i have the same views that you do. the 1st amendment is not exactly a separation of church and state. the law says the 1st amendment says congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. and congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. what that means i think is there's not going to be any federal established religion, religion that the state supports, that your tax money finances and so forth in a systematic way. most of the colonies did have establish eed lidge johns -- religions, anglican in virginia, congregational in massachusetts and connecticut. the massachusetts and connecticut establishments continued until 1818 and 1832.

they were not considered at that time to be a violation of the 1st amendment. they were voted by the state legislature and the governors of those states just as virginia voted to get rid of its established church in the period i think in the 1780s in particularly james madison who was strongly against an established religion. that was a big change from the european heritage that most of the colonists had. you had an established church in england, scotland, ireland at that time. you still have an established church in england and scotland. you had established churches -- it was understood in most of the countries in europe, the scandinavian countries where many of the german states were

lutheran, the king of france was his most catholic majesty. spain didn't recognize anything but the catholic church and so forth. so it was a real change that the founders made on something that they considered very seriously, and they set a new tone, and, you know, when george washington goes on his trip through the states, when he's the first president, goes to newport, rhode island, and he's greeted by the synagogue there, he makes a special point of visiting the synagogue, of saying that -- sending a letter saying that the people of the jewish faith are not given tolerance as an exercise of things but simply as other equal individuals in a republic where freedom of religion applies to all. >> two quick final points. we have a minute left. this is from paula following up

on an earlier point how do you explain the republicans disdain for social programs, social security, medicare, when red states like west virginia consistently voting against their ability to survive their own interests? >> well, you know, people decide what their own interest is. and if they think abortion rights, or right to keep and bear arms is more important than putting more money into medical care plan, that's their right. those that think those are not a good decision to make can make their arguments what you see is a lot of modest income people voting against more federal spending. a lot of high income people voting for more federal spending and higher taxes. those are the decisions people make. >> the book is called "how america's political parties change and how they don't". the cover includes the american flag and a sand castle. >> hourglass. that's right, things change as

hemmingway said about bankruptcy, gradually and then suddenly. donald trump is part of the sudden for us. we are taking a little time getting used to it. >> michael barone, as always, thank you for stopping by. we appreciate it. >> thank you >> house republicans have swapped out members on the intelligence committee ahead of next week's impeachment hearings. minority leader mccarthy announced that ohio congressman jim jordan will take the place of arkansas representative rick crawford while the impeachment process is underway. here's the clerk's announcement today on the house floor. >> the honorable speaker, house of representatives madame, this letter serves as my intent to resign from the house permanent select committee on intelligence effective today, signed sincerely rick crawford member of congress. >> without objection the resignation is accepted. the chair announces speaker's