next on c-span3, author henry olson discussed his book, "the working class republican," and looks ahead to the midterm elections. then a preview of russia's upcoming presidential election. later, hear former british prime minister david cameron testify before congress on global security and foreign aid. >> henry olson is at our table, the author of this book, "the working class republican: ronald reagan and the return of blue collar conservatism." what is a working class republican? >> working class republican is somebody who puts the needs of

the individual above any particular ideology and is more interested in bettering their lives than in pursuing an abstract ideal. >> and blue collar conservatism? >> blue collar conservatism takes a special focus on the person who is of average skill. this is a person who ronald reagan called american heros, farmers, grocers, the cop on the beat. >> what was reagan's appeal to this group? >> he understood them like nobody else in our lifetime. he used to say that the reason he could appeal to them is he really was them. that he grew up in a working class family beset by unemployment and alcoholism. he grew up in a small town where people helped each other, but you had to make it on your own, and he understood what average people aspired to and the fact that he had ambition that even

as a movie actor placed him well beyond the economic dreams, you kn know, and achievements of anybody he grew up with. he never lost touch with his family and his working class roots. he understood what they wanted and what they needed. >> have those reagan republicans stayed with the republican party since ronald reagan? >> a lot of the reagan democrats, the people who brought -- he brought into the party have not stayed with the party. particularly if they're not strongly religious evangelicals, they went back to voting democrat in national election for most of the elections after the fall of the berlin wall. and it wasn't until donald trump in 19 -- in 2016 that you started to see a lot of the same places and the same people or descendants of those people vote for a republican for president again. it was really quite an amazing occurrence. >> did he appeal to them in the same way that ronald reagan did?

>> well, in a much cruder way. let's be fair about that. ronald reagan was a man of soaring rhetoric and sunny optimism and donald trump is neither, but what i think he did do that was similar was place his focus from the minute he came down the escalator in trump tower on them. he said, you're americans, you've been given a raw deal by the people in power. the people in power prefer foreigners over you and i'm going to make you great again and that will make america great again, and i think that's very similar to the sort of positive focus that reagan had and that reagan's boyhood idol franklin roosevelt happened. >> what do you think happened in that pennsylvania special election? 90% white. president trump won by 20 points. >> i think two things happened. one, there was a bad candidate. rick saccone apparently was not doing the things he needed to do

on the ground and fund-raising that a normal candidate would need to do. but the fact is he would have lost badly -- he would have won with a much narrower margin even if he had been a good candidate, and i think part of what's going on is that the republican party is not consistently following the blue collar republican, conservative message that you've got president trump who kind of moves between orthodox republicanism and more of a blue collar republicanism but he doesn't stick with it. the party is not with him. the party went into that district and said, well, tax cuts are going to save rick saccone and they spent millions of dollars on ads about tax cuts. tax cuts are not what the blue collar person wants, not what middle suburb bostia. they want something else addressed. and they found that tax cut ads did not move the electorate and by the end of the campaign they weren't talking about it. that's a sign that the

republican party doesn't understand what the appeal of blue collar conservatism is, and until they do they're going to continue to have problems both in the midterm and the elections beyond. >> let's listen to the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer, on the floor and what he had to say about that pennsylvania 18th congressional district. >> the republican party needs to wake and up realize that giving massive benefits to corporation and the wealthy is never going to be a popular issue for them in the elections because it's terrible policy for the average working class and middle american. the president talks like a populist but governs like a plutocrat. the president talks lake a populist but governs like a plutocrat. he just got rid of a wall street executive, gary cohn, and now he's putting in as his economic adviser larry kudlow, who has favored the wealthy, the club for growth policies, help the

wealthy and all of america will benefit, throughout his whole career. not how trump ran. not what he tells working people when he goes to a big tent in pennsylvania, but that's what he's doing. and sooner or later it catches up with you. >> henry olson? >> i think there is some truth to that, that as i mentioned the president has been veering between orthodox republicanism and populist blue collar conservatism. one of the things i found interesting on pennsylvania 18, the last poll that came out had conor lamb winning more than he did win. tariffs were popular in that district. a plurality of people, even in a democratic-heavy thought that tariffs would be good for their district. that they run on tariffs rather than tax cuts, i think you'd have congressman rick ka cone and not conor lamb because

people want direct government help not helping corporations indirectly. they want help they know can help them directly. >> the tariff announcement came too late? >> it also wasn't driven home. i think the tariff announcement could have actually come at the right time, but instead of running the ads and having saccone being the tariff candidate, we're going to bring jobs back. we're going to level the playing field. we're going to bring american jobs back to american communities and the way to do that is through the tariff that made america great. i think that could have swupg the balance, but the national republican party does not want to hear that message and i think they're probably going to continue with a losing message and then figure out why they lost after november. >> does the democratic national party want to hear that message? will reagan democrats -- are they up for grabs? will they go to the democrats? do they have the right message? >> the democrats do not have the right message either, but in a midterm election, the way to think about a midterm election is a tennis match, it's breaking

serve. it's a protest election and there will be a lot of people knowing that it's sending a message but they're not giving control of the government to the democrats who will vote democrat this time. and then to continue the tennis analogy, that gives the democrats a chance to gain serve in the 2020 election. that means they need a message that includes these people and doesn't exclude them again. and that's a real open question. the sort of things that senator schumer was talking about. generally blue collar conservatives do not have a problem with corporate tax cuts. they would prefer something that's more direct that helps them, but they don't buy into the message of this helps the wealthy and the plutocrat. that mobilizes core democrats, it doesn't speak directly to blue collar republicans. they tried that message in multiple michigan and wisconsin gubernatorial races and republicans won re-election because the blue collar conservative wants something different than orthodox democrats or orthodox republicans offer. >> let's hear from some of them.

hopefully we'll get some calls on this. democrats 202-748-0400. republicans, 202-848-8001. and ends. 20 -- we're talking about the midterm elections coming up and the future of the republican party. how do you all plan to vote and is it different than how you voted in 2016? so what does the working class republican want? >> working class republican wants a fair shake from the government. the working class republican wants a government that removes barriers that they can't overcome on their own and then gets out of the way. so why is it that a lot of working class voters are upset about immigration and trade? well, they believe that they can't fairly compete with foreigners, whether the foreigners are coming into the country illegally, you know, which is the concern about illegal immigration, or whether they're competing through manipulating trade agreements. and they want the government to

step in and protect them. once that happens, they don't want government planning their lives or directing their lives. so it's something that stands between the democrat orthodoxy of let the government come in and help you and the republican orthodoxy of stand back and lets not worry about it. they want something in between. >> what policy besides immigration are they looking for? >> i think what they're looking for is any sort of policies that plausibly can help improve their standard of living and give them a chance to exercise their dreams. that if you're somebody who is 25 right now and you didn't go to college, you look out and you say, i'm going to have to jump from job to job. i may get a good job now, but ten years from now my factory or the business that i'm may be bought out by somebody or may move overseas. they would like a little bit more strategy andability and a more opportunity. more vocational training,

subsidies to move to place where there are greater opportunities. anything that goes to them and says we're going to meet you on your terms. we're not going to try to make you go to college and live like us because that's not what you want to do. we're going to help you on your terms to be an active part of american life. i think they're less concerned with the policies and more concerned with something that directly speaks to that need. >> let's go to michelle in atlanta, georgia, democrat. what's your question or comment this morning? >> caller: my comment is that the republican party don't address the needs of african-americans. the man that is in the white house right now has had a war on black and brown people in this country. and the republican party will never get the african-american vote because i don't trust that man that's up there in the white house. he has called us names, he has done everything, and the reason

that we as african-american democrats see the nra as a terrorist organization that is organized to kill african-american and brown people in this country, and they would never get my vote or no one in my family's vote. as long as trump is up there in that white house, i despise trump. i can't even call him my president. >> okay. all right, michelle. i heard the point. henry olson? >> i disagree about the object of the nra. i don't think that they're an organization that's focused on harming people of color, but the fact is the african-american vote has been opposed to the republican party for a number of decades and it's a great challenge for the republican party. we have african-american leaders like senator tim scott of south carolina, who is trying to address that issue, but the fact is that the republican party needs to meet the average

african-american voter on the grounds in which they live and that means dealing with centuries and decades of past discrimination in a way that republicans have not dealt with before, and also recognizes that the vast majority of african-americans are working class people. it means the same sort of philosophy that a working class conservative, a working class republican would apply towards out of work or difficult to employ people in michigan should also appeal over time to the african-american worker. working class republicanism i think is the only way to address the working class african-american vote once you've addressed the discrimination. >> would ronald reagan today if he were running appeal to african-americans? >> ronald reagan did not appeal to african-americans. and it was actually something he was always very sore about. because ronald reagan was a man who was free of bigotry. he was raised by his parents,

who were ardent democrats, to see the good in average people. he went out on the line for people of color and minorities when it was not popular to do so, and he believed that his smaller government, not no government, but smaller government through private initiative policies were the best for the african-american community, and it always pained him that african-american leaders did not see it the same way. >> and you write in the book, contrary to popular belief, reagan was not a supply-cider. reagan never argued that fostering entrepreneurship and enacting low taxes on the rich where the primary reasons for his tax cuts. he argued for a humane economy, one in which everyone's taxes were lowered and one in which everyone's contributions were valued, and in doing this, reagan easily avoided the classic democratic party charge that republicans are the party of the rich and the boss. today's conservatives are sitting ducks for this charge. >> yep. they levied that charge against ronald reagan and the fact is that it didn't stick. the working class democrat who

didn't like classic republicans came over in droves, millions of them came over, because they heard ronald reagan speak and they know that charge just didn't fly. but now you've got today where people -- the republican party aren't talking that way. they are talking much more in terms of helping the boss will help you and you're seeing those voters not being willing to support that republican agenda. they did support donald trump, and donald trump didn't talk that way. that is one thing senator schumer is right about. he didn't campaign that way on the campaign trail. he campaigned much more like a ronald reagan in that aspect than like a paul ryan or a mitt romney. >> let's go to joe, who is in georgia, republican. frequent caller here on the washington journal. always a very enthusiastic republican. hi, joe. >> caller: hey, gretta. i love c-span. been calling y'all for 30 years. love the network. i've never been so fired up in my life. as you know donald trump, i'm a

strong trump person, i was a strong reagan person. trump has just appointed larry kudlow as chief economic adviser. kudlow is fantastic. steve morris, his business partner, they wrote the great trump tax cuts and david purdue, the great senator from georgia is helping him. i've never been so fired up in my life. i predict the republicans will win the midterm elections by a land slide and trump will be re-elected with the biggest landslide in history. >> joe, you say that because of the tax cuts? >> caller: yeah, i love the tax cuts. i'm a -- i've been a stock market investor of 50 years, and, boy, my stocks have done great. i'm so fired up, i haven't been able to sleep the last two nights. i'm so fired up about it. >> all right, joe, i'm going to leave it there. henry olson? >> i appreciate joe's optimism and enthusiasm. i think that, you know, i am not opposed to the tax cuts. i should make that clear. but i do think that the average

american voter is not quite as enthusiastic about them as joe, and not quite as partisan as joe. and i think we're seeing that on the ground, which is that even though people are -- the average family is going to see $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 cut in their taxes this year, it is going to cut their taxes, but it doesn't solve the most direct problems they care most about. it will fire up the democrats, aggravate the republicans, but those people in the middle who decide the elections are not fired up about the tax cuts. they want something oh else. >> those republicans or democrats in the middle, the independents. when they look at democrats and say, this is just for the rich, okay, so what? what else do you have? >> that's right. i think if i were a democrat, if i were advising the democratic party, what i would say is that what you want to do is look more like bill clinton and less like

hillary clinton. and i mean that in terms of. c cy -- policy. when bill clinton ran, he directly addressed some of the concerns that working class democrat who's voted for ronald reagan had, and he said i'm not a republican, but i hear you and here is my solutions to those problems. those people flocked back to him, even in the south in those days. mrs. clinton did not have those things. when she did, she addressed them. i hear your problem and here is the classic democratic progressive solution. they want to be taken seriously. they want their world view to be taken seriously and they need a solution to their problems in language they understoand and that cannot be the old democratic wolf in the new sheep's clothing. it needs to be something new. that's what donald trump offered them. not 9 the old republicanism, not the old democracy. think a democratic candidate who wants to deal with that who wants to address those voters needs to have a similar approach.

>> on what donald trump offered them, you write, the trump victory may point the way to a national republican majority, but it does not deliver it automatically. he has shown no inclination to develop the type of comprehensive philosophy that drove reagan's political ambitions. he also seems to think of the party and its members as pieces on a chess board, of value only so long as they are of use. what do you mean by a national republican majority? >> well, what i mean is that when you ask people what party they line towards, the democrats have led for 86 years. that the only question is the size of the margin. are there 5% more democrats or as was the case when ronald reagan was elected, 26% more democrats. the republican party will be the national majority party when those are flipped. when a plurality of people in america say, you know, i am comfortable with the values that the republican party espouses, they're my party. i think that blue collar republicanism is the way to go

forward. the only time the republican party has significantly gained on the democrats in that 85-year period was during ronald reagan's presidency, and i think they could have gained more if his successors had understood the message, but donald trump kind of gives them an opportunity to learn from 30 years of error and say, americans want something that protects and advanced them. they want government to be on their side when they need it and out of their way when they don't, and that's something that if the republican party could deliver they would become the plurality party and build a majority, a consistent majority and not simply win when democrats screw up. >> deborah in wellsville, new york. independent. >> caller: hi, i was just wanting to comment. i think one thing that lamb did correctly was that he went door-to-door, face-to-face, listened to people. to learn his community. i don't think we get enough of that from our politicians anymore. we have to go to them in

stadiums and they just talk, we listen. there is not enough of them knowing their own communities. to really represent us. so i would like to see more of the old fashioned way of getting out there and winning the vote. that's it. >> now, i think that's absolutely right. one of the things i think people reacted against both in the sanders candidacy and the trump candidacy was the sense that politics is manufactured and artificial. that there are people who are out there who are kind of like selling you a product, and people can be very articulate. you've had a lot of people on. you know what media training is. everyone knows how to deal with you. but what sanders and trump offered was something that was authentic. it could be crude. in trump's case, it could be a little bit loud in the sanders case, but when you listen to them, you knew that they were speaking from the heart and that they were speaking not because

somebody had given them three sound bite bullets that they were supposed to work into every 30 seconds worth of speech, and i think social media gives people a wonderful opportunity. when conor lamb goes door-to-door, he can't meet 600,000 people but he can film every interview he has door-to-door and people can go see and it look at it and download it. you have an opportunity with technology to be real and open and honest in a way we haven't had in the last 60 years. i think if more politicians did that, more people would trust their politicians. >> who in the democratic party do you see as the next leader? who is what you're describing? >> i think there are people that can be the leader. the question is do the democrats want them to be that leader? that the democratic enthusiasm, much as after barack obama, the republican enthusiasm passed over to the that's right, and i think that pushed the republicans in a direction that took them out of, you know, contact with the center that was willing to give them a chance.

the democratic enthusiasm is on the progressive left, and i think they run the same risk of doing that. i think somebody like a mark warner, who is a little dry but is the sort of person who has that centrist approach who understands the needs and respects the needs of real people could be that sort of person. i think a tim kaine, the virginia tim kaine, rather than the vice presidential tim kaine would have been a similar person. both of them are from virginia. there is a reason for that. virginia kind of combines both aspects of the democratic constituency. the highly educated inner area of north virginia, where you have to deal with democratic party activists, but a lot of rural and suburban types, people who are less ideological, who just want government to help get out of the way and help them when they're down. they understand that in their home state. the democrat who ran more like they were running in virginia and less like manhattan would do a much better job at winning the presidency. >> and in washington, d.c., democrat. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing?

i'm an african-american scientist. i'm pleased to speak with you again. it's been a year since i've been on c-span. i am ashamed of this president. he was not elected by the popular vote, he was elected by the electoral college. and i am a scientist -- barack obama had zero indictments. he had a clean bill of health when it comes to indictments and one of the worst indictments was richard nixon, and i think trump is going to surpass him. the thing here is, our country is looking very poorly across the nation right now. the world is wondering, what's wrong with america? and we are opening the doors for china. china is going to take off like a rocket. and i've worked at nasa space flight center and also for the state department. i understand the intelligence business. being a phd scientist, i speak

german. when i start looking at america from europe, america looks terrible from europe right now. we are going backwards, climate change, all this stuff that trump is taking us backwards. look at the education. the department of education. betsy devos is taking education in this country backwards. i think your guest is very intelligent. i want you to help us. maybe you can do some things to improve the republican party towards african-american people. >> okay. i have to leave it there. mr. olson? >> i think there are a lot of interesting points there. certainly trying to combat the chinese rise is something that the president is trying to do. i do think the president needs to deal with the sense that there is impropriety. either in his business dealings

or his or his associates' dealings with russia. that's what the investigation that the special counsel mueller is looking into. will determine in some way. but i think the president needs to, you know, not come clean, but i think he needs to be given a clean bill of health if he's going to be really sort of be the leader that he wants to be. that's not entirely within his control. >> bill's in pennsylvania, a republican. hi, bill. >> caller: good morning, greta. mr. olson, i'm really happy to hear your words today. like a breath of fresh air here. a lot of times the guests are the same old people. and your message is right on. i hope donald trump is listening to you right now because if he wants to win a second term, i think you've got the playbook. i like the term that you're using, blue collar republican. i consider myself a blue collar republican. even though i have a master's

degree, i understand that the working man if we're going to get our country back on its feet, it's going to take more than $1,000 tax cut. that's good, but it is going to take tariffs. it's interesting, i just had a discussion with a libertarian friend and he telling me that a tariff is a tax. and i said to him, i'd much rather have tariffs funding our government than federal income tax on individuals. the last point i have in and the question i have for you, what type of risk does the republican party have right now in that a jeff flake and a mitt romney are going to try to break apart the republican party off before the next presidential election and pirate enough votes away to prevent the republicans from winning the white house in the next election? >> interesting question. >> it's one i actually get asked quite a bit about.

so working class republican party needs all different parts. can't be built entirely on blue collar populism. that's kind of steve bannon's error. he always thought, if i can get rid of all the establishmentian republican types, we'll have a great majority party, no, you just have a different minority party. what the flake party types don't understand is that the majority of republicans don't want the old answers. that they don't want immigration without restriction. they don't want trade without mutual responsibility between the two parties. and i would urge them to work within a republican party to build a new coalition rather than split off. if they were to split off, think they have a great chance of giving the election to the democrats and that's probably -- that would not mean that they would suddenly be able to make the republican party the party of their dreams, it would mean that they would then come to the

reality four years later of trying to deal with the republican party that disagrees with them on principle. that is -- this is not a question of donald trump. donald trump is the vessel of people's concerns, not the creator of their concerns. if he were to pass from the scene tomorrow, flake, romney and other people who are upset with trump would find they'd have to make the same compromises in order to be part of the republican party that they have for make with trump. >> senator jeff flake spoke about his retirement, what he wants the future of the republican party to look like. yesterday in washington. we covered that. if you go to our vent, c-span.org, you can listen to him in his own words. thomas in daytona beach, florida. democrat. >> caller: yes, ma'am. thank you for your show. i've got a couple of comments. one, you know, people need to remember, ronald reagan and mr. trump were both actors. they both are people that know how to manipulate the media.

they're both people that know how to tell you what you want to hear when you want to hear it. and let me tell you, i'm a truck driver by trade. 34 years. so i am the definition of a blue collar man, okay? let me tell you the different between a blue collar democrat and a blue collar republican. a blue collar republican, he don't know how to figure out what's really good for him and he's shoots himself in the damn foot. i'll give you an example. this tax bill they just pushed through there. giving all these breaks to the companies, well, them companys is going to turn that money right around and invest that money in china and mexico and other places. so who is that helping? >> thomas, you still there? >> caller: yes, i'm still here. >> okay. we're listening. go ahead. finish your thought.

>> caller: i just feel like they, you know, i know people down here that are immigrations. immigration, they whine, they cry, they bitch about it all the time and hire three or four people from mexico to cut their grass and to work for them. so they're hypocrites. >> and what's a blue collar democrat to you? >> caller: a blue collar democrat is somebody that can figure out what's good for him and not shoot himself in the foot. just like these people that are all behind trump. trump ain't doing nothing for the working man. he ain't doing a thing for the working man. he's out for the rich man. that's why he made them tax incentives permanent for the corporations. >> okay. so, henry olson, react to what you just heard there from that caller, but then also talk about what has president trump done for the working man or woman? >> well, first, i appreciate that gentleman's enthusiasm as much as i appreciate, you know,

joe's enthusiasm. i understand that he's a partisan and that he values the things that democrats value. i would venture that there are a lot of truck driving american men, almost all long haul truck drivers are men in america, who love donald trump. what has donald trump done for the working man? i think the first year in office he was pretty much an orthodox republican, and i think that was a real problem. i think it is a not quite a river boat gamble, but it's not clear to me that the cuts in the corporate tax rate will flow without more government intervention down to the working person. because there are a lot of trends in the economy that is devaluing what that person brings to the table. i think this year he's trying to right that more by focussing more on immigration and tariffs and the theory being that if you

face less competition from foreign cheaper workers then that provides more of an incentive for businesses to invest in the american and puts a higher pressure upwards on wages. it will be interesting to see whether or not he continues with that under fierce republican party pressure. >> michael, walnut creek, california. democrat. >> caller: yes, good morning. first of all, let me say i am a labor democrat. and i don't trust my own party. when they elected tom perez under nancy pelosi, under chuck schumer, they seemed to be more interested in daca than they are real solutions. as far as the president goes, the promises he made, rolling back regulation, even though it's a small tax cut, it is a tax cut. he made these promises and he's absolutely kept them. so i don't see how you can be upset. now, as far as your scientist from washington, d.c. talking about the previous president. i think he better go back and

reflect on his history as far as the previous president. we had several incidents where he should have been indicted but wasn't. the attorney general would never appoint a special counsel. so these are just my thoughts and i'd like to hear your guest's comments. >> okay, michael. >> well, i think there are a lot of blue collar democrats who feel exactly the same way that you do, that it is not an illegitimate concern to worry about the effect on your job, wages and community because of people who are here without legal status. but there is a large perception that the leaders of the democratic party care more about daca than care about the working person who is a native-born citizen. and i think part of what's going on is the idea that i was born here. i was -- i am an american. as a citizen, that should count for something more than where i pay taxes and who i vote for.

and that implicit contract has been broken. that people who empower are willing to throw away the fact that we're -- we have a common bond in pursuit of something else. and when republicans don't worry about off-shoring, that triggers one way, and when democrats don't care about the legal status of people who are coming into a community, that triggers it in a different way and the blue collar person, the person in the middle would hike something different than either side. >> byron in cleveland, tennessee. end. >> caller: hi, good morning. i just -- i was wondering if the guest there has ever read the communist party usa documents there. i've read the communist party documents and what i gather is they are -- have taken over the democratic party. and some republicans also because what they're espousing is they're targeting certain

groups of people, the minorities, the women's groups and things of that nature, and they actually come out and lay their plans out, what their strategies are for the coming elections there. what people don't realize, you know, we have a socialism and communism are exactly the same thing, the communists are more militant than the socialists are. people need to be aware, you know, of that. >> okay. henry olson? >> i can't say that i've ever read communist party usa documents. i've read the communist manifesto. it's an interesting call to arms for its time. but i think what people in america have always wanted is a government that is on their side but not on their back. well before socialism and communism was introduced, you had people calling for tariffs. the original republican party

platform was one of direct government subsidy of railroads, of education, agriculture to get the economy moving again. i think that's what americans have always wanted, a government that will remove barriers that they can't remove on their own and gets the heck out of the way and let's them live their lives. it can sound like socialism, but it isn't. it's a natural human desire to be treated as a free and equal individual with different sets of talents and aspirations. >> joe in new orleans. a democrat. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have always thought that donald trump won the election with the so-called working class, which is to me white working class. is because they were afraid of losing their white privilege. all along that time you heard it was told to them that the united

states was turning brown. that white people will be the minority come 20 whatever. and they voted for donald trump because he appealed to their fears. they were also resentful for the fact that president obama won two terms. so it was a backlash against hillary clinton because she was associated with barack obama. so -- and the natural prejudices between races came to a head, and that's why donald trump won. because of fear of losing

control, fear of losing white privilege. the -- i really believe the united states would have been better along economically and whatever if the republicans had tried, had put forth a little effort in working with president obama in putting forth programs and issues that would have benefitted everyone. >> okay, jo, we're running out of time. hen hen henry olsen? >> that's a very common view among democrats that donald trump didn't win because of legitimate concerns about the economy but because of racial resentment. i don't happen to share that. i think it's difficult to square that with the fact about 6 million of donald trump's voters are people who had voted for barack obama twice. i think it's difficult to square that with a lot of poll

questions that show that people of that background generally have racial -- accept racial equality and may have policy differences with the left but that doesn't mean that they're racists or afraid of losing white dominance. i think that it would be a good thing for the republican party to remember that -- who those voters are and that they were promised that things would get better and that government was going to stand by their side and directly champion their values. and if they were to do that over time, i think you would find a real working class republican party will do better among hispanics, will do better among asians, will do better among african-americans, because over time what they will find is that those people will vote for a party who is willing to give them a hand up. what those people tend to believe right now is that the

republican party wants to have hands on and consequently they look to the democrats. >> henry olsen is a senior fellow and author of the book "the working class republican: ronald reagan and the return of blue collar conservatism." thank you for the discussion this morning. >> thanks for having me on. >> appreciate it. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. american history tv on c-span3 with day-long live coverage from ford's theater in washington, d.c. for the annual abraham lincoln symposium. with anna holloway, co-author of "the greatest invention of the civil war." william harris, michael burlingame, stanley harold, lincoln and the abolitionists and walter starr, author of "stanton: lincoln's war secretary." sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, "book