house representatives for 40 years since 1950s democrats had uninterrupted control of the house. for much of that time, democrats had uninterrupted control of the senate. and republicans would win the white house with a brief interspersal there by democrats. while you could see members come and go, the stability there was something we kind of got used to. and after 1994 and actually i'd argue really since the turn of the 21st century, we've known nothing but volatility obviously in our own, you know, what's been happening outside of politics. 9/11, the financial crash in 2009, covid. and politics sort of followed suit. control of congress has flipped just in 20 years. the house has flipped three times, the senate four times just in 20 years. it took 40 years for the house to flip once. and i think what we're also

seeing is the toll it's taking on bipartisanship. because what we're entering into now is more of a parlitarian kind of government where people vote party rather than person. and back at the turn of the 21st century, we had 30 senators who represented states that the presidential candidate of their party did not win. so you had blue senators in red states and red senators in blue states. now we only have six of those. and one of them of course gets a lot of outside attention, joe manchin from west virginia, as does susan collins from maine, because they are such an anomaly. >> volatility is the new normal. there's a lot of really interesting information in terms of the flips in the house and the senate and the white house. but thing i want to point out is particularly in the house. you write that democrats controlled the house for 40

straight years from 1954 until 1994. democratic control of the senate lasted uninterrupted for 25 years from 1955 to 1980. 1952 until 1988, republicans won seven of ten presidential elections. today most of those who work in politics don't know of a time when control of the house, senate, or white house wasn't up for grabs. and those are the people i wanted to ask you about, amy, the people that are not necessarily elected officials but people who work in offices, work in k street and lobbying. those people know nothing but volatility. >> that's an interesting point because i think there's a combination of those of us who grew up in the #sh0 the relative political stability and those who came to washington or came of age post-2000 and know nothing other than that. and it's really the members to me that have been the biggest change. you have very few members in the

house or the senate. in the house i think it's something like 80% have been there since just 2006. have been elected since 2006. so most folks don't remember not just what it was like in the early, late '90s, but even in that relatively calm period politically when republicans had the house for five straight terms, five straight years in the early 2000s. and so what you have is kind of a bifurcation which is where this tension is between folks who are saying, well, gosh, joe biden, he's been part of washington for 50 years. he knew of this era. he loved -- at least he talked about how much he loved this era of working across the aisle, friendships with republicans, he was going to bring this unity back. and yet structurally washington is so much different than the place he came to when he first was elected.

but even the place that he came to when he was vice president in 2009 or, you know, when the senate was -- the last time the senate was 50/50 in 2000. you have just such a different makeup of senators and sort of the time they were raised in. and so you have those kinds of folks, and then the new members who were coming in who were saying, what is this that you talk of, this bipartisanship? what is this that you talk of, this era before 2006. it's a little bit like, you know, when you were a kid and your parents would talk to you about, well, in my day, we wouldn't do x, y, z. that's what it probably feels like to many of these members. like you're talking about a totally different time that just doesn't exist anymore. stop trying to put us back into that box. we're not going back. >> amy walter is our guest. cook political report national editor, your calls and commence

are welcome. democrats, it's 202-8000. and all others 202-8002. you mentioned the toll on bipartisanship that all this volatility has had. let me ask you, you write largely on the federal level. is that same sort of volatility happening down ballot in the states? >> i think that's exactly what we're starting to see is the states are acting much like the federal where more and more of these members are being elected, again, really on the basis of their party affiliation more than just, you know, on their individual merits. and so as we see fewer and fewer voters is there it -- tickets at the federal level, very few people vote for a presidential candidate of one party and a down ballot candidate of another party. it's changing the makeup of

delegations at the state level. and the expectations at the state level. remember, states were in the place that they were called the laboratories of democracy where you can do things at the state level you couldn't do at the federal level because people were more willing to be -- i guess it was more of a parochial sort of politics. all politics is local. now all politics has become national. and that's true all the way down ballot. we're seeing county commission races that you get the national sort of influence, sort of shadowing over it. and i remember even back in 2010 many state legislative races, the issue was obamacare. obviously that's a federal law. these state legislators had

nothing to do with it. but it was being used as a cudgel by republicans against democrats in states really as a signaling, as a way to say if you don't like barack obama, vote for me, don't vote for this democrat, even though this democrat has absolutely no influence at all on what's going on in washington. >> it felt like for a moment after january 6th that january 6th could've been, to use your term, peak volatility, let's say. like, that was the moment where all that volatility came to a head, and after that sort of bipartisanship may begin to come together. what's your thought on that? >> it sure felt that way. i absolutely agree. there was this window where it felt as if you finally had republicans and democrats coming to the same conclusion. this was absolutely terrifying, outrageous, fill in all the blanks.

and a deep frustration with the way in which the president had acted that day and continuing into the next day with the tweeting and the encouraging. so it looked like maybe this was the breaking point. and then we got to the reality of the moment, which is that the president, president trump really had sort of set this new standard that there was no going back. there was no apologizing. there would be no moment where it was okay to acknowledge that your own party or the leader of your party was somehow wrong. and we saw very quickly this dissolve. and now what we have, and in talking to staff up on the hill, i'm sure you're hearing this as well and talking to others who were spending time on the hill.

the environment there, especially among members and among staff is more toxic than it was before january 6th. because you have, especially among democrats, many of them saying i don't feel safe, not just because people came and tried to, well, actually physically broke into the capitol, tried to abduct or kill or do things violent things to those people who work here. but that my republican colleagues were complicit in that or condoned it in some way. and then my republican colleagues came back to the chamber after this violation and continued to support these baseless allegations that the election was somehow stolen or fraudulent. and so that actually -- you know, the irony is it was this moment that could have been. if you had written a political science paper, you'd say, okay, a moment like this is where the fever breaks.

but, instead, it's only made the toxicity deeper. >> we have calls waiting. but let me ask you first about a potential uncertainty in the 2022 senate race with the announcement that roy blunt of missouri, one of the senior leaders and a close ally of mitch mcconnell won't be running for re-election. he makes the fifth republican not to be running in 2022. how much uncertainty does that add to mitch mcconnell? >> absolutely. you know, this is now the fifth republican retirement, which in some ways you would say, gosh, what is that saying? republicans are very close to being able to take control of the senate. they just, you know, need to pick up a seat or two in the next cycle, and they're good to go to get a majority. and, yet, what you see are the, as you pointed out, the sort of senior republicans, the more establishment republicans, ones more aligned with mcconnell,

ones who came of age at a different era during this era that we discussed earlier, the '80s and the '90s. many of them served either in congress or in the senate when george w. bush was the president, not just since either obama or trump was president. so you're losing the sort of institutionalists. and the real question, i think you're right, the volatility question, is who replaces them in the senate. many of these are red states. missouri is going to be really tough. there was a time when missouri was considered a swing state. it's not a swing state anymore. it's a pretty red state. there's not a very deep bench of democrats in that state. alabama another place where you're losing institutionalist in senator shelby. another very deep red state. even ohio, i know you were talking ohio in the previous segment. that was a swing state, it's more of a red state now. but the question is what kind of republicans come out of those

primaries? how engaged will former president trump be in those primaries? and what's the likelihood, and it seems more likely that you're going to get more of a trump-like replacement to these establishment republicans. meaning that the senate becomes much more -- the republican side of the senate is much more in president trump's image than one that we had before he came into office. >> let's hear from viewers and listeners. we'll go first to georgia on the republican line. welcome. >> yes. good morning, amy. do you hear me? >> yes, we do. >> i sure do. >> thank you very much. amy, you and charlie with the cook report i think are our national voices as it relates to an objective review that has gone on for years, and i appreciate you very much. you've kept your honor in that

regard, and charlie as well. the peak volatility of bipartisanship that you speak of, and i did read the article being lost. but also i think being lost to a realignment of -- as you stated, but the sibling i think is also a realignment due to a complicity to an ideology based on a fealty versus a policy agenda, whereby -- i am a suburban, upper-middle income post-graduate and medical doctor. and my husband's the same. my children, the same. i also am an african-american woman, and i was a part of a traditional republican bridge from the 1800s until the '60s. and i live in a community -- actually i'm visiting my

90-year-old mother here in georgia to care for her. but i little bit in middleburg, virginia. so i know the region. and i have family all over the country. we have reunions in kansas. i love downtown kansas. our beloved kate that we lost is from kansas. so i think that we're having a realignment of demographics as opposed to policy. and it intersects with policy. because as we are retiring 60s and 70s, my children are in their 30s and 40s who are now up and coming physicians. so they are part of a larger society that deals with health and education as i did, my husband and i. and my mother was a librarian in a 6,500 town. so i'm talking about demographics and the makeup of how our politics brings together people. so i'm a part of the suburbia women who voted and see educated

women like myself. this is about my perspective of who it is that i look up to. people who are a part of my lifestyle. i'm an episcopalian. i'm a part of that kind of republican policy and social construct that we thought of back in the day that we no longer think of. republicans say they are for working-class. and the reason why i changed over to voting for democrats after the bush, the daddy bush, was because i saw the party. and i have friends who are democrats. because, see, women like ourselves, women with choices like you, who are educated and well rounded and well traveled, well versed, we make choices based on a different thought pattern i think. i support the ideology of public education, my parents sent me, and i sent my children harvard,

columbia, duke, those are private schools, but we paid for it. and now we have a republican party that is wanting private schools to get our public dollars. >> you have a lot of points there, and i appreciate you calling this morning, and amy walter, feel free to respond. >> yeah, sure. i think evy's making some really good points about our realignment. this is why i love covering politics, and this is sort of the -- sort of what i find so interesting about it is that coalitions of the two parties are not permanent. they change. and sometimes they change based on big events. sometimes they change because of personalities, ideologies. it does feel, yes, as if our identity is much more of an issue than ideology in terms of how voters are picking their party. but this has been going on for some time. i remember looking back at, say, the 2000 election. and you had al gore winning in some of the wealthiest counties

in america, and george w. bush winning in some of the least wealthy parts of america. so this idea that economics is sort of the driver for everybody. you vote your pocket book. i think that's been, you know, something of a myth for some time, that voters use their values, voters use cues about what they want america to be as the driver for their vote. it's not as simple as they pick a policy or they go through a checklist and say which is the party that fits all of my top issues, i'm going to go pick that one. but i think when ahappened in the era of trump was that he made it very clear that you could only pick one side. this wasn't a malleable thing. you're either on my side or you're on the enemy side. you're with me or against me. there's no way you can be both. you can't be sort of that

bridge. you talked about being a bridge between the two. there are some things you agree with me, some things you don't, that's okay. it was, no, we have a very clear path forward. if you believe these things, you're a real american. if you don't believe these things, you're not a real american. so that divide has gotten deeper. it's not necessarily that it's gotten wider, but it's gotten deeper. so the question is what happens, is there any bridge now between that divide in these next few years or in this next election. and we're seeing the divide driven, as you also pointed out, by where you live, the density divide is what some folks are calling it. the inner suburbs, suburbs that are closer to big metro areas are now becoming much more democratic. the fewer people that live in a region small town rural america which had been represented by

democrats now almost entirely republican. >> let's hear from louisville, kentucky. bernie on the democrats line, hi there. >> good morning. january 6th, it just seems like it cannot be talked about enough. i was watching c-span that morning with pedro, and i had a very busy day. and he suggested, because i was all ready to watch democracy in action, and he suggested i get the radio app. so i went to work, i'm listening to the radio, and everything's going to plan, we're making the votes, people are doing their speeches, and then all at once something broke. and at that point i had to rush home because this felt like a 9/11 moment. it was just -- i had to get home. i felt like i had to be with my wife to watch what was happening. it was terrifying. but it seems like back in 2010 with the tea party and newt gingrich that we had some of the

same volatility that was going on. i didn't know, i was wondering what you thought about that. plus, i've got one other thing that i have to ask real quick. i see a picture of gwen eiffel behind you. are you the new host for washington week? [ laughter ] i understand this is a softball question. but we watch it all the time. we've been through a lot of different hosts, and you were fantastic last week. >> oh, that's so kind of you. thank you. yes. i have behind me that is the postage stamp that was put out last year in her honor for black history month. that's blown up, that postage stamp, a friend gave that to me. so it's always sitting behind me as a reminder that she was my mentor and my friend, and i just still continue to think of her every day, every moment and try to imagine how she would be processing this era we're in.

you know, you bring up a really good point about january 6th. i was in something of the same boat. i too had c-span on in the background because i knew this was going to be a big day in terms of -- i wanted to listen to the speeches, i wanted to hear how republicans were sort of processing the -- again, this is before the attack on the capitol. but how republicans were making the argument about overturning the electoral college votes. i wanted to see how many republicans were going to be supportive of that. i wanted to see how democrats were going to counter that. and i was also really, if i'm being honest here, focusing much more on the election that happened the day before, which was the january -- the run-offs for the senate race. and trying to make sense of that. just out of the corner of my eye i was looking out at what was going on, on the hill. and like you i was drawn to it in a way that felt very similar

to september 11th and hearing from friends and staff who were there at that moment. the amount of trauma and terror that they felt was quite remarkable. so, i do think it has had an impact. i do think that for americans outside of washington, they did see that as a really critical moment. and i do think it's impacting the way that folks are dealing with each other. i think the difference between, say, 2010 and now is this feeling that these forces are out of control now. i mean, i think, you know, when you saw the rise of the tea party and the sort of we're going to go take washington back, it was rhetorical. now you hear those things. you see people coming to state capitols with machine guns or, you know, other weapons.

they're not actual machine guns, but bigger guns that can do a lot of damage. you see more and more threats against members. just listening to the hearings about january 6th from both the fbi director who's saying we're just seeing an unbelievable explosion in domestic terrorism threats, especially white supremacist groups. you hear from the chief of the capitol police saying the number of threats against individual lawmakers she said was through the roof. so, this feels like a very scary time. and i think, you know, again, i'm here in washington, i live close to the capitol, these things are very personal for me. but i think for even folks who don't live in and around this region, the idea that there are people now who do believe so

firmly that the only way to succeed is through a level of violence. that makes its way to other places and gets out of just the washington focus. and that is a very worrisome trend. i'm hoping that because the fbi has been really focused on this, other law enforcement, that it gets tamped down. but when you saw a kidnapping plot against the governor of michigan, i'm worried that this could be not just an outlier. >> we are talking about the volatility in politics with our guest amy walter, national editor of the cook political report. nelson is next in pembroke pines, florida. republican line. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. >> you bet. >> ms. walter, i listen to you every monday on the pbs

newshour. and i know you try to be objective and you do a pretty good job of it overall, but you do also have your biases. one of your comments was, essentially, blaming president trump for the scenario that exists today and the hostility of the different political parties and the way people think. yet i remember in 2016, and by the way in 2016 i was a never-trumper and i voted for gary johnson. but in 2020 i did vote for president trump. in 2016 they were already talking about impeaching him before he was even sworn into office. a lot of what's going on today regarding the right-wing aspect of the movements that you're

talking about is in direct reaction to the left-wing movements that have been taking place for the last five years. particularly antifa and black lives matter and the continuing riots even to this day in portland, oregon, and other regions of the country. all of the law enforcement should be used in order to prosecute those individuals who invaded the capitol, but the same should be done for those individuals who attacked public buildings in those other states, and that is not being talked about. and that is not being emphasized on the part of the government, particularly the democratic party. >> okay, nelson, amy walter. >> yeah, nelson, appreciate your comments. the first is, yes, i agree with you. donald trump didn't invent this

polarization. this has been around for a long, long time, or this volatility. as i said, this really i think can go back to the turn of the 21st century. but i do think that the deepening of it he played a role in that in encouraging this divide, in encouraging this sort of -- the way in which he approached politics was a zero sum game, all or none. so if it wasn't to -- he didn't invent it but he also didn't tamp it down. he helped to keep that blame brewing. and the big difference between what happened at the capitol and what is happening in portland or in other cities with antifa, joe biden, as president, joe biden as candidate, never encouraged, supported anything that

suggested that people should go and sort of take over, take things into their own hands. when you're the president of the united states, it is your obligation to go and defend every one of those institutions and to defend the united states capitol. and the events of january 6th wasn't just the language that the president used that day. it was the language leading up for the entire fall that this election was a fraud. baseless claims that have eroded faith of the public in our voting institutions. that is very difficult to get back. when you lose faith in our democratic institutions, that leads us to a very, very dark place. and so, you know, i think we're moving into a new presidency. we're going to see, again, continued polarization. we're going to see the parties divided. but i'm hoping what we see at

least is that it's not encouraged, the flames are at least tamped to a much lower level. >> on voting rights let me use a text from irwin here in madison, wisconsin. he says, ms. says, ms. walter, believe hr-1, the voting rights bill, will affect local politics? you have a number of states passing tougher voting laws, georgia is one of them just passed a bill yesterday, and the efforts by the biden administration, executive orders coming down from the president on voting. what's your view of all this? >> right. well, we know that the federal government's involvement in voting is not as significant as the states, right? the states show many of the rules for everything from, you know, the times that the polls are open to who can vote by mail and who can't and the requirements for voter i.d.

those things are set by the state. that's not going anywhere. the bill that passed the house is unlikely to make its way through the senate filibuster gauntlet. the laws that are passing in places like georgia, the real question in my mind, though, these sorts of laws that are -- they're basically a reaction to the last election where democrats did much better, they voted much more frequently by mail. what happens when we're not in a pandemic? what happens when it's republican voters who say, well, i want to vote by mail, but it's gotten a lot more complicated or there are many more rules now that i have to follow -- i guess i'm just not going to vote. they may end up hurting their own voting base more so than they think. >> let's get one more call here, alicia, in columbia, maryland.

good morning. >> caller: good morning, ms. walters, and good morning, america. but i say what i want to say, let me thank you and also could you kindly answer a question maybe i misunderstood. did you stay that when you have any airing of the hearings or -- and other things from the white house -- not the white house, from the house, that they approve or they ask you what to run on c-span or that c-span has its own -- >> we make our own editorial decisions, if that's what you're asking. we're committing to running the house and senate gavel-to-gavel coverage, but every other

hearing or white house briefing, our team makes that decision on a day by day and sometimes hour by hour basis. >> all right. let me finish with you -- with this and then i'll leave my comment. >> why don't you ask amy walter a question. she's our guest and i don't want to keep her hanging too long. go ahead and -- >> caller: i have -- i have senior moments. you'll have to forgive me. there was a hearing on the 6th, about the 6th, and you ran most of the stuff. however, when the defense came on on friday, you didn't show the tape of that. in other words, you showed most of what the democrats have said or that the -- >> i'm not familiar with what we

ran or not that day. everything we covered would be on our website and if you would move to your question for amy walter, we would appreciate it. >> caller: i wanted to make a comment. if you don't mind my calling you amy because you're young enough to be my granddaughter. >> that's fine. >> caller: you talked about feeling old. i came to washington the first time in 1960, president eisenhower had invited me for children and youth conference and that was the first time i had seen the big city. i'm telling you, being from a reservation, my eyes were big everywhere. but, anyway, and -- because, i guess, the influence that washington and the way it gave

me an influence and i went to the capitol and so forth, senator goldwater showed us around, and i got very interested in politics. and as soon as i got out of college and could afford stationary and a pen, i started writing to the senators and representatives. and they would always respond, i've gotten some things done my own way with schools and different things -- >> i'm going let you go there. i don't want to keep our guest too long. amy walters, some final thoughts. you've been in washington doing what you've been doing since 1991. other than the volatility that you write about at the political report, what are some of your observations. >> i appreciate what alicia is saying about being awed and wowed by this place. and i think that's what keeps me

going is, this is still a really inspiring place. and it's a lot bigger and busier than it was when i first came here. it felt a little bit sleepier back then. but you're surrounded by incredibly talented people all of whom come here because they believe they're going to make a difference. you may not agree with the issues they want to make a difference on, but you should have some support and encouragement for people who think that they can make a difference, that they can still come and have a role in our democracy. and so that i appreciate. and just the final thing, one reason i also really love covering campaigns is i get to meet these folks as candidates. and, again, it keeps you kind of humble and keeps you really in touch with how diverse america is. the folks who come in who run for congress look a lot like

america. and to understand and appreciate that, come here, meet some of these members, don't just read the reports about the two or three who get all of the attention, most of the members come here because they really believe they're going to get something done. they don't get a whole lot of attention. they don't get a whole lot of fame or instagram followers. they're just here doing their job. >> amy walter, great to have you on with us this morning. >> thanks a lot, bill. you're watching c-span3, your unfiltered view of government. c-span3 was created by america's cable television companies and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span3 to our viewers as a public service. michael is back with us this morning to talk about foreign policy challenges facing the new president. he's the research and foreign

policy program director for brookings institution and author of the book "the art of war in an age of peace." michael, let's begin with president biden's decision to execute those air strikes in syria. what was the goal of them and your reaction to that decision? >> i think president biden wanted to show that he, like his predecessors, would not tolerate attacks on american forces in iraq and he needed some way to show that there was not going to be a belabored process that got tied up in american bureaucracy or american-iraqi agreement about how to respond and that's why he found a target in syria where he didn't need to ask the permission of the iraqi government. when president trump authorized the attack against qassem soleimani, the iranian terrorist mastermind, he