"washington journal"

continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. my guest is martin di caro. he is the host of history as it happens, that is a podcast from the washington times. martin, welcome. >> welcome, well i should say welcome. you are welcoming me. i am always welcome my guest on podcast. i'm a bit flustered. happy thanksgiving delighted to be. here >> happy thanksgiving. and now i get to interview you. you are not doing the interviewing. so, tell us about the podcast. >> it has been on now for about

two years. i have done about 200 episodes, twice per week. history as it happens, as i always say is a podcast for people who want to think about current events and the news historically. one reason why i launched the podcast was to try to get more historical thinking in play. there is plenty of political thinking and partisanship and political science out there. i find it all exhausting after a while. what do i mean by historical thinking? let's just take one example of something that i've been focused on my show recently, that is populism. right wing populism, trumpism, where does all this come from? >> what it is populism, first? >> that is a great question. so recently i had sean relents on the show. that episode is titled the fake populist. the point of that episode was to try to pin down any usable maybe a hero stick a definition of populism. not a fake populist definition because you can stretch the definition of populism so identified almost anything. so, if we start with that first

populists, the originals if you will, 19th century american history. they were a bunch of farmers, small holders, ordinary people of modest means. they made up what you would consider a social movement. it wasn't so much political ideology. it was a social movement directed at trying to compel the government to regulate powerful interest that we're making life difficult for ordinary people. the railroads, bankers, people of great opulence. and they wanted to have a nationalized railroad system, take rower that private hands. because in those days, we often forget this now in our modern world, the railroads were the most powerful interest in the country in the late 19th century. they can make or break you as a business. and they did have a monopoly, and this is where some of our antitrust laws come into play. they also called for things like silver coinage. so some of these issues are no longer no longer applied or current situation. the populist party of the

people's party formulate 19th century. they adopted a lot of the greenback party. platform so dealing with currency issues. they also wanted to ban foreign land ownership in our country. so, not all these issues. there's not a perfect analogy here. not all these issues translate to today. but those are the original populists. the idea that powerful interest in our country were making life difficult, making it hard for ordinary people to get by. in the past century, populism has, you know bernie sanders is a populist, donald trump is a populist, george wallace is kind of. polished boss perot is gonna populist. so you can apply to a lot of different people from a lot of different political's persuasions. >> i will remind our viewers that they can start calling if you would like to talk to our guest, martin di caro of the washington times. it is our weekly spotlight on podcast segment and you can call by party affiliation. so, democrats to a 27 -- 8000. republicans, and independents, 202, seven for 8002.

so just to take a step back, martin, why is it so important to look at history when you are talking about current events? what perspective does it bring you? >> well that is a great point, answer for my long rambling history lesson there. >> it's okay, we have plenty of time. >> as you said, you are interviewing me. i'm usage is asking the questions and letting the historians speak. and i think that is one of the great things about my podcast. i do speak to the best historians in the united states in the united kingdom, and i allow them to share their expertise. so the importance of history. we will stick with this idea of populism or even, i hear a lot about fascism now. everything happening today comes from something somewhere in our past. and i think what studying history does, or look at current events historically, it may make things seem less existentially dire. it may seem, things aren't as unprecedented as we believe. so just let's take this idea that there is a fascist

movement in our country, or as many people say if you follow anyone on twitter, the republican party is trying to do a fascist revolution in our country or we are teetering towards authoritarian fascism. donald trump is truly unprecedented, i think that is all wrong. you can just look at our own recent history in this country and where trump's ideas come from. i have an episode called buchanan's party where i interviewed nicole hemmer. she's an expert historian on the new right. and if you look at the immediate post cold war world, the early 1990s and pat buchanan run for president in 1992. i am surprised happy cannon hasn't sued donald trump are suing his lines. a matter of fact, on c-span's fantastic website, you can go look at patty cannon's announcement when he ran for president in 18 1991 a couple months before the new hampshire primary. he talks about making nato alliance pay their fair share. he talks about getting out of endless wars and endless oversee commitments, he talks

with the probably globalization and free trade. the same types of things don't trump talked about with nafta, et cetera. >> martin, you want to see uncle c-span's and our producers, we have a clip so i want to show it. it is pat buchanan. he is on cbs's face the nation. this is february 1992 and it is two days before the new hampshire primary. >> so mr. buchanan, the president outlined his economic plan tuesday night. what is yours? >> well my view of the economic plan, bob, is that mr. burt put together sort of a grab bag of proposals, tax credits here and there. jack hemp camp secretary said, there's a lot of gimmicks and. it's designed to get the president past super tuesday. i don't think it is the vision the american people need. to get the economy moving again and it is certainly not the long term strategy to make america first again in manufacturing industry business the way we once were. >> all right, that is your comment on mr. bush's plan. what is your plan? >> my plan,, bobby, would be

much more dramatic. i think the president would've had to freeze spending immediately, federal salaries. i think it's tax code should be much deeper. the capital gains tax cut is a phased in approach. it is something mr. busch has not even fought for. and i think the whole area of competitiveness, the president didn't address. bob, we are losing industries like autos and steel. we have lost tvs, veasey, ours radio. the japanese are putting under sold supercomputers, flat panel technology. they are challenging your aircraft industry. where is the administration's plan to make america first again in manufacturing by the year 2000? >> martin, what do you think? that and did buchanan set the stage for donald trump in 2016. >> i think to a large extent, yes. and not just buchanan but these ideas and what you would call, he was called paleo conservative in those days. meaning throwback to the first america first serves. he said america first, i heard those two words in there. america first. and the context there is very

important. because we are still living in this post cold war period. you can and was speaking at the start of it. and he is talking about it, is time now with the cold war over, to reevaluate or overseas security. to start looking inward because we have been neglecting our own manufacturing base which along. he was talking about a pan in that clip, today he just insert the word china, substitute for japan. also, culture war ideas. really important to be cannon. that is also very important on the populist right, today. and there is another great clip that you can watch of buchanan's speech at the republican national convention where he expands on some of these themes as well. and he makes a joke about cross stressors. so buchanan, while he was also a celebrity as with donald trump. and he also had this tenacious style. he wasn't afraid to lob insults and go there. he showed that you could get away with quite a bit. buchanan only got about 30% of the vote in the new hampshire primary against george bush incumbent. that was significant, and you

can start to see the splintering in the republican party again, post cold war. the splintering of the reagan coalition and we are way past the party of reagan at this point. the republican party is very much a populist, if you want to use that term, party. and it is very much a party of trump. but to my very early point about all this talk of unprecedented. trump came out of nowhere, never seen anything like it before. there is some truth to that but it is not really unprecedented. pat buchanan and the new right from the early 1990s. >> i will ask you better podcast until the end of trumpism. this is right after the midterm elections. what is it? is the end of trumpism? >> i think i saw that as an interactive statement on the path cast. the end of trumpism? maybe. we hard to know. i do you think of course, only fools try to predict the future. i do think for him personally

election night was a big setback. how much more of a future he personally has in the republican party, i think that is unclear. it is not looking great for him at the moment. but there is still another year or so before we really get into the heart of things here that he has time. a lot of the donors are leaving him now. a lot of the republican party leaders are quietly and, not even just quietly but publicly distancing themselves. we will see, because of ultimately the people have the final say. we have an open primary system. some people might come back. but him aside, although there is a question of whether trumpism can survive without trump, i think this of politics is here to stay. ron desantis personifies some of that, although he is far more capable and smarter than trump in my view. culture war stuff, hostility to immigration, antipathy to free trade. essentially upending some of the republican nostrums that we get used to from the reagan area. you will still see some of that

there. lower taxes, deregulation, et cetera. but i think the style of politics is here to stay. >> all right, let's take a question from a viewer who sent us a text. this is jumbo in bakersfield california season and pena voter. can mr. daycare especially as to how president reagan would have viewed congresswoman greene and the maga movement in general. we >> well, speculate. i would saying that ronald reagan would not approve of the far right today. he wasn't a big fan of it then. as a matter of fact, the far-right wasn't a big fan of reagan at times. and mythology has built up around reagan in the decades since he left office. it's been more than 30 years since he lost office, about 40 years since you came to power. the far-right did not appreciate reagan when he was dealing with the soviet union in the late 1980s. they thought he had gone soft on communism that he was being

snookered by gorbachev. trinity was around, i don't think reagan would appreciate the far-right. especially in terms of our overseas commitments. reagan was very much a believer in alliance building. i just didn't upset about reagan's vision. i interviewed william bhagan at the university of texas. he just wrote a fibrous book called a peacemaker about reagan's foreign policy. reagan was not held immigration. he very much believed in alliances. he may japan, actually we talk about china today, he made japan the centerpiece of this asian policy. reagan was a huge supporter of retail. and he very much believed that the united states had to engage with the world as a way preserving democracy. now, of course his record wasn't the utopia that i just described. the reagan administration has supported many white right-wing authoritarian movements and third world and central america and africa et cetera to fight communism. but when you look at some republicans today talking about, defunding support for ukraine

or maybe curtailing are coming back drastically with the u.s. support for ukraine, ronald reagan would've wanted nothing to do with that. >> all right, let's go to the phones now. scott is in oxen hill maryland. democrat side. scott? >> hi. is there an opposite of populism? my understanding populism is that it is like, a lot. i don't if it is complaining about a lot of issues but, you know they are popular shoes and acrylic either party passage is just like, whichever popular opinions on issues don't conflict with their party, they all have to dive into some popular stick issues. >> i agree with that. i think both parties to third degree have co-opted populist ideas. and that is what happened in the late 19th early 20th century. the reformist progressives, header, wilson teddy roosevelt, taft, and others co-opted many

of the popular populist reforms. i was like with the early populist agenda, very much a reformist agenda. today, what would you call the opposite of populism? probably however defined, the establishment. not for the people, or the deep state i guess is one way of putting a. >> all right, let's talk to cornelius next and alexandra louisiana. republican. hi? >> hi, me. i tell you you are the greatest host. i want to compliment you on that, mimi. >> mr. martin, i'm an african american and republican. i am 61 years old, i will be 62. and i think you have got history a little bit wrong. i served in the military. i was military police officer from 79 to 1994. and when reagan took office the first time, if those hostages hadn't been given up, we would

have gone to war with brandon. so, i think that you talking about populism, i supported ross perot. to me he was a populist. >> i would agree. >> to me was a populist, to me trump is a populist and it is just that people, we want this country to be a goodly and godly country. and that is what it was years ago. and i just think that you missed the mark on some things. so thank, you and god bless. happy thanksgiving, everybody. >> i agree with the caller that ross perot was a populist. i don't think ronald reagan want to go to war with iran. unfortunate for him, jimmy carter was able to hit a very last minute. this is, true right into the moment that ronald reagan was about to be inaugurated, jimmy carter was on the phone securing the release of the hostages from iran. the iranians despise carter in the u.s. administration so much,

they did not want to actually get it done and announce it. so reagan got some of the credits for that on his inauguration day because he it wasn't out until reagan became president. iranians wanted carter to get no president no credit for that. with that aside, reagan was not a warmonger. he, his critics said he was. his critics were afraid that he was trigger-happy and that he was pushing the world towards nuclear war. we but not counting his support for, as i mentioned before, some right-wing authoritarian guerrilla movements in central america, africa, and elsewhere, he only send american troops into combat once in the years and that was in grenada. >> all right, joanna's. next democrats line. >> good morning. couple of things, first thing is that i want people to understand that the washington times is a republican, right-wing newspaper owned by the muniz. the movies. that is what it is. so when people listen to the

podcast, they need to do it with an eye of skepticism, that is number one. number two, i know just a couple of things that you talked about. i see you sort of descending trump. i thought that was really interesting. but here is the deal, as you mentioned trump and buchanan of populist. if populist is defined as ordinary people like you are talking about, they certainly are not ordinary people. they were privileged elite, wealthy people from wealthy families. these are not ordinary people. so they have a different view of things, a very different things. how trump ever became a populist unpopular with his base baffles me considering most of them are of modest income. they pay taxes, he doesn't. so >> okay joe, analysts get a response. >> well first of all about my podcast in my own politics, as

well as my listeners know my politics are not on the far right. our newspaper, our editorial pages conservative and the ownership of our paper has no say whatsoever what i put my podcast. so i'd encourage listeners to give it a listen. many megastar liberal historians, so maybe she wouldn't enjoy it. as far as defending trump, i do not defend donald trump. i feel like he should be disqualified from ever holding office again for what he did on january six. and i think that his presidency was a regrettable one for the most part. now, her last point about how did people like buchanan and some of these others get labeled populists when they themselves are certainly not average people of ordinary means, while one point is, your own personal situation has less to do with whether your populist versus say the policies that your espousing. i, mean elizabeth warren certainly is you would say a member of the elite. she espouses an economic policy

populist message. i don't really consider donald trump much of a populist. i've been a more in the fake populist category. >> all right, let's talk to mike. he's on the republican line from houston texas. hi, mike. >> good morning. mr. decarlo, thank you for being. there i would disagree about reagan when you mentioned the evasion invasion of ukraine. i don't think putin would have invaded ukraine if reagan were president. and never would have happened. that is my opinion. i think that reagan's strength and the uncertainty that other evil leaders or tyrants like putin would fear him. and that is exactly how trump delivered his foreign policy. the enemies of trump feared him overseas. also, the lady who called in about warning about -- being conservative. the litany of left-wing

institutions across america is stunning. big social media, academia, hollywood. academia is the breeding ground for college education. and the impressionable minds of 18 to 22 year olds, it is not even a close call as to who has the institutional controls around the impressible minds of our youngest voters in america. >> all right, martin, your response. >> well i think there are some truth to his last point. cultural lebanon liberalism is dominant in many areas of our society. as far as whether putin would've invaded ukraine if ronald reagan was president, that is an impossible thing to know because that's a counter historical. i'm trying to pass tara something happening today. we keep in mind, ukraine is not part of nato. so if ukraine have been part of

nato, i think that would be more important as far as calculus for putin. now, whether ukraine may have been part of nato had already been president in the 1990s, again that's another counter historical. four is caller who is interested in ronald reagan, i just in my most recent episode actually is called reagan's vision. i interviewed a republican, former republican policy maker who is now a scholar, as i mentioned at the climate center the university of texas. milley william and bowden, e might enjoy that conversation. we talk all about reagan's foreign policy, the good and the bad. >> all right, let's check in on twitter. this is derrick and he says this. the gop is rhetorically populist with voters voting against their own interests. as gop leaders ultimately serve the interest of billionaire donors. the very class the reagan family and constituency is ostensibly fighting against. what do you think?

>> there is some truth to that criticism. and that criticism has come from some people on the right in the wake of the midterm elections. there's one fellow, his name escapes me but he's part of this movement called a national conservative. they are gaining influence on the right. who said that in his view anyway, a major reason why republicans underperformed in the midterm elections was, they didn't have a working class, middle class economic program. they focused way too much on all of this culture war stuff. so, maybe there are some validity to what that tweet are. said >> all right, let's go to. charlene uk california. democrats line. >> yes, you are absolutely right. trump was a fake populists. reagan was a pretty good president, and yes i believe that if he put on the way putin has done, and i believe it would when into ukraine. -- with the republicans and the

democrats, when we finally went after -- . they opened the door and you are right. we could take out mr. buchanan about japan. and inject china, china's government have sent all their educated people over here and they are incensed leaving others on our jobs in their countries. and, hey, we the people, it is our fault. we need to stop breaking down into parties like that. and we need to start looking at individuals and vote for our own interests. if we don't start doing that we are going to lose everything. that is my common >> i think both parties must own the institutional failures that have damaged american society over the past 30 years. nafta might be in that category. the global war on terror terror and bipartisan support and support among think tank. the defense industry, the mass media. one thing i try to avoid on my podcast, me, is partisan stuff.

there is enough of that out there. as i said, i'm trying to do more historical thinking. it is impossible to avoid politics. i do a lot of political history, of course. but i think she makes a good point that both parties and this. i think all of us actually. >> okay, then i will ask you about history. charles lindbergh, going back to the original america first tours. what was his role in this? >> i'm glad you brought that up because, to my earlier point about what we are seeing today is really not that unprecedented. the very first america first serves, who where they? where does that term come from. again this is late 19th century early 20th century. the idea. now, remember. the united states have been a neutral country since the first days of the republic. and involvement in world war i was seen as a bimistake in the aftermath of the war. and this is where we get the america first movement. charles lindbergh comes into the america first committee, which existed for only 15

months. 1940 1941 was disbanded after the bombing of pearl harbor. they were clearly on the wrong side of history there. but it is this idea that the united states should. well, in those days ago to fortress america. they were not passive us. they simply did not want to get untangled in another european war. they opposed foreign-ness. they were hostile to immigration. immigration restriction became very popular in the 1920s after the 1924 immigration act signed by calvin coolidge. they opposed security commitments, entangling alliances to bore that turn from washington and thomas jefferson. and, so the united states can be a self, can sustain itself without having to get tangled up in what was going on in much of the rest of the world. this was of course a difficult position to stay consistent with because, the united states was a burgeoning economic military power after the spanish american war of 1898.

we finally get nine continuous territory there. philippines, cuba, et cetera. so the first america first essentially a post world war ii, u.s. involvement were way too. they were isolationists. no one today calls themselves an isolationist. however, the ideas continue to simmer beneath the surface. i just talked about some of them. the united states doesn't need to be so involved in the rest the world. you can and you can bring these back out into the open after the end of the cold war. you heard the call before. i encourage people to listen to his december 10th 1991 campaign speech when he announced he is running for president. he talks about all these things. now the cold war is over, it's time to reevaluate all of our expensive security commitments overseas. i'm not here for it to himself as an isolationist, but you might call him a neoisolationist. donald trump doesn't call himself an isolationist, he is more of a unilateral list. but he criticize nato, pull the united states out of the paris climate accord, canceled the around nuclear deal. those are the continuities. charles lindbergh, donald trump,

very different people. but there are some continuities there. >> all right, let's talk to reena in illinois on the democrats line. hi. >> good morning. you know, i'm listening to all these things you keep talking about trump. trump is nothing like these past republican party presidents. he is more like has a dictator like mentality. and the gop also has that. because if you are talking about history, you have to talk about everybody's history. and how everybody contributes to history. and they keep trying to take away the african american contribution to history. so i wish you would stop comparing trump to any president. he is the worst president i've ever been under, and i voted for reagan, and i did vote for bush back in the day because they voted for the interest of the people. trump has no interest in making america great. only four part of some of the

people, not for all the people. so i wish you could stop comparing trump to reagan and any other president. >> got, it re-. again reena >> i agree with. that trump is different in any public republican president. my idea but is president his politics not being a president is that there is some lineage there depape can, and george wallace, if you want to talk about race and racial resentments, george wallace and the summons strategy. we also mentioned charged charles lindbergh running against, if you listen to some of charles lindbergh speeches when he became part of the imfc. the america first committee, their little echoes of trumpism. >> all, right michael is on the republican line in park film maryland. hi, michael. >> my question is, when my comment. not only would there not have been an invasion of ukraine if reagan was president, i don't believe there would've ever been 9-1-1. they would not have been even

in their wildest dreams when they have ever thought of orchestrating that. which probably took about 20 years. and it came up in a weak administration and william jefferson clinton. and that is where it started. >> martin, what do you think? there is this belief that nobody would dare attack america if. >> the question of if reagan were president today, it is undoable. i think everyone listening remembers beirut in 1982. the united states was subject to multiple terrorist attacks including one idlib the marines barracks killing more than 200. teams that happened when ronald raegan was president. and he pulled the u.s. out of lebanon as a result. as far as 9/11 goes, a point at this fact of history. it was the reagan administration dramatically expanded support for the

mujahideen in afghanistan fighting the red army during the 19 80s. and gave a lot of arms organization and legitimacy, sending the money along the saudis, to pakistan, to the mujahideen parties. the cia didn't fund or support al-qaeda, but i have that entire milieu of chaos created in part by the united states, obviously the soviet union bears a brunt of the responsibility for invading afghanistan. there are some great books that they're about how the united states kind of gave birth to this problem in afghanistan, or helped birth it was support for the mujahideen and some of the radical islamist who are still in play in afghanistan, and we're still fighting the united states occupation in our last war. so i don't open give reagan a clean bill on that one. >> let's talk to kelly who is an independent birmingham alabama. hi, kelly. >> good morning.

i know my questions a little bit of your format, but i was wondering if your quest had any insight into the potential money laundering investigations being re-pursued with the opening of trump's tax returns. >> i have no idea. sorry i can't help you on that one. >> joseph, stuart town pennsylvania, democrats line. >> good morning. the first thing i wanted to do it was kind of defend your house today because, somebody said he is from the washington times and wanted to dismiss him immediately, and i just don't think that is right. you listen to what the man says, and then you make a judgment. and i think he is pretty honest and he is conservative, but he is pretty honest. so that is the first point i wanted to make.

the other point i wanted to make is, i'm kind of wondering how you are going to react when, i believe it is inevitable that donald trump is going to be indicted for what he did with stealing the documents and not returning them and then covering it up. >> yeah, that is a great question. what would happen to donald trump's chances to win the republican nomination in 2024 if and when he is indicted. i think there is a good chance he will be indicted based on my reading of the news. i read the same news that you do. add a special insights eruptive. i think for his base, it will make any difference at all. and because of the way the republican primaries and the democratic primaries for that matter are structured, the base could be enough to get you the nomination. maybe not a general election victory, and we just saw that play out here in the midterms. all of the trumpists or the trump e candidates, election deniers that won their

primaries, where they were all defeated in the general election just now a couple weeks ago. and i think that is why we'll call it establishment republicans, have had enough of trump. >> let's talk a little bit about the election denialism. is that part of the populism or is that really unique to president trump? >> well again, populism is library. chairman can stretch it to. i think there's always been a lot of conspiratorial thinking in populist politics, but not to this degree. i think this very much has to do with his personality and his ego. and i think that is why a lot of establishment republicans, even some of his former supporters, have had enough. we've got to be passed 2020, you can't keep talking about the past. as they say, elections are the future. >> all right, let's hear from mark on the republican line in phoenix city, alabama. hi, mark. >> hi. i just had a couple of observations. i used to be a republican for most of my life. i still consider myself a

conservative. but i feel that the republican party just got completely crazy. i am afraid of what trump almost into this country. and i just need to clarify that somebody is going to do something about it. >> if the color is still with us, i would like to ask, sir. obviously you are not a fan of trump, as i mentioned before. i mean, i am a reporter. but i've been critical my of trouble my podcast. how do you feel that rhonda sanchez or kemp in georgia or dewine, who are conservative republicans without all of that trumpian baggage? >> they are again the same thing. they are not true representatives of what a conservative is. they have been radical and in everything that they do, they are trying to destroy the country. i live in alabama and i now consider myself an independent but i can no longer stay silent

about this matter because people are not recognizing these problems. they are just voting with their heart and forgetting about what it does this country. >> there is some truth to that i think we still have a lot of what is called negative partisanship. it doesn't matter how bad my candidate, is i'm voting for him because i just can't stand the person on the other party. but, to the colors point people aren't recognizing this. i think the fact that so many of the worst of the worst elections hires were rejected by the american people on election day, on the midterm elections, show the people are paying attention to this. i think extreme positions on abortion will also rejected by the american people on election day. most people don't want to ban all abortions in this country, even in conservative states. i think we saw that two during the midterms. although i don't bill myself as an election analyst, over here. >> dave it is on the democratic line. oakland california, hey.

>> good morning, how you doing. yes. i was. calling i heard the gentleman mention ronald reagan. and when i think of ronald reagan, i think what i was in high school. and i think it got crack cocaine and the closing of all the mental hospitals. so i see this woman's problem, it started then, and when that crack cocaine came out, it was like they let the toothpaste out and they couldn't put it back in. and with all that money being made throughout this whole country behind drugs, especially miami. because miami was pretty much built on drugs. so when this guy speaks on reagan, people in california my age, they think a crack cocaine and what it into our cities. >> my own view on reagan is that he was the second most consequential president of the 20th century. consequential doesn't necessarily mean good or bad. influential, maybe a synonym consequential. second most after fdr.

i don't think is domestic agenda has aged very well. i think trickle down economics just to name one thing has proven to be a lie. >> all right, jeanne is our last call from santa barbara california, independent line. >> well i have a couple things to say. thank you for letting me talk. >> but briefly, jeanne, because we're running on time. >> well i think religion and guns are going to destroy this country from within, and i don't think we have to fear the chinese or the russians. we are self destructing and i would also like to see if the committee will ask the people in front of them how much money they are getting from the nra, and that will tell the american people why the nra will fall against 2:18 year olds in this country and destroying our own country because the nra is so strong and the politicians are taking money from the nra.

it is so simple, it is so easily. >> all right, jeanne, let's get a response. >> i will just say this since i'm taking it near the end here. so much existential dread in a lot of these calls, and just in our society in general recently about the end of democracy and the rise of fascism and it's gonna be the last election and our country is in decline. i think maybe what some historical thinking helps would help people do is, things don't seem so dire. it doesn't mean we don't have serious problems in our democracy does face challenges. but i think our democracy and our institutions have been proven more resilient and robust then maybe some people thought possible. look at how strong turnout was during the midterm elections. there was so much fear about voter suppression. voter turnout was great, that's just one example. >> all right, martin di caro, host of history as it happens podcast on the washington times. thanks, so much. >> thank you very much, mimi. i loved being here. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.

we are funded by these television companies, and more. including buckeye broadband.