houses he never stopped to ask the question, will lead democrat or republican live in this house? he believed every person, every human deserved to have a place to live. that is what our work is based on. we are ready to get to work and we will not be deterred. we will continue pushing to ensure every single family and every single person across our country can experience the american dream. sen. schumer: we have a great freshman class. great unity. thank you, everybody. >> all right. >> chronic school absenteeism in which students miss at least 10% of school days in a year has increased in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic. today education officials discussed the issue and potential solutions. from the broking institution, watch live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> joining us now for the first time since before the election, henry olson, a senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center, podcaster and columnist. he wrote this piece, the headline, a realignment of -- if trump can keep it. he explained the political realignment and the results of election 2024. guest: it is the first time since 1928 more people were saying there were republicans and democrats. that is true in both the exit poll and the ap vote cast poll. when something happens for the first time in 100 years you should sit up and take notice. typically when this happens in american history what happens is the party structures realign. new voters come into another party and leave the old party. a new party becomes dominant.

there's a possibility if trump has a successful term we are looking at the first change and that since the reagan administration. host: explain for folks who say republicans have been elected since 1928. what do you mean by what you just said? guest: when people say they are part of a party that tended to vote up and down the line for that party. when republicans were winning elections since 1946 -- there is about a 20 year period where they did not win national elections. they were getting a lot of independence and a lot of democratic votes -- independents and a lot of democratic modes early on. they had to be campaigning on democratic themes. they had to say things democrats believed and so they could get democrats. they never have really run the federal government. they win elections but how many

times have republicans had trifecta? the answer is nine years out of the 100 years. they can block democratic things, advanced some small things. they have not been able to run the government. the democrats have had the upper hand for a century. it is possible we are looking at a reversal for the first time. host: take us back to the 1980 election and ronald reagan comes in. the senate flips to republicans. was that not a realignment at the time? guest: when reagan was elected, democrats had, depending on the poll, a 20 to 25 point lead in partisan identification. they had run the house since 1954. they had run the senate since 1954. moreover, it was not close. republicans never got more than 192 seats during that period, more than anyone senate seats. i remember 1980. no one saw it coming.

it was a complete change. what reagan did was pull the republicans from a 25 point gap to a five point gap. it made it possible for them to be competitive. they weren't on top. they were still looking up. this is why romney could win 95% of the republican vote and lose to obama. there was 6% more democrats. they were always fighting uphill. just a smaller hill than before reagan. host: a recent piece published on christmas day day. i realignment if trump can keep it. a new political era. explain that part, if trump can keep it. guest: you have to have a successful term. when obama won, republicans rather lowest ebb since before ronald reagan. fewer house members, fewer senate member since before reagan. the party idea was low.

the democratic advantage was the largest since 1983. what obama did was throw it away. he campaigned to heal the economy. whether you are for obamacare or not, what was clear politically was the american people in 2010 other things addressed. you had the biggest swing against a first-term president in decades in 2010 and a complete he wiped out his chance to realign the country along a democratic line. trump faces the same challenges. if he pursues base concerns rather than what he ran on, the people will -- will reject him and they will move back into either independence or the democratic party and the chance for realignment will have been thrown away. host: give me the base concerns you could be referring to versus the things he ran on. guest: there's no interest in the things that chip roy wants to do. that is not what donald trump

ran on and what the american people want. if donald trump will pursue a chip roy strategy to the federal budget, he will throw away his advantage. there's no interest in fighting a religious conservative culture war were liberty, yes. fighting against aggressive excessive and transgender issues, yes. fighting a religious culture were to reestablish to reestablish traditional christianity at the social norm in the country? which is something favored on the right, but no. those are things you want to walk down this path, you will throw away your chance for a center-right political realignment. host: how important is tomorrow's speaker vote to donald trump keeping this realignment? guest: you have to have a successful presidency and that means you have to have control of congress. if the speaker's vote, whether johnson wins or not, ends up with the same sort of mess that we've had for the last few years, where there is no

republican majority that can push things through, that impedes trump's ability to succeed. so if republicans want every -- a realignment where over time they will move the country to the right, they should stop fighting and start talking. and that means a uncontroversial reelection. whether johnson is the perfect person or not, because the long-term interests of the party dictate a successful first-term, and that means fighting together, not with each other. host: henry also with us until 9:30 eastern. go ahead and get your calls in. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. as folks are calling in what do , you make about this interparty battle over h-1b visas right now in the republican party? guest: there's a lot of tension within the coalition, as there always is.

abraham lincoln created the republican party. he had to combine people who were immigrant and anti-immigrant into one party. the know nothings in the german immigrants had to be in the same party. so there's always tension within a party. but what we know from other countries is that if you're going to create a working-class party which is what donald trump is doing, you have to lean into that realignment, which means that whether it is h-1b visas or not, you have to have a much more restrictive immigration policy than what you had before. if he is going to give the old guard, a libertarian guard the visas he has to be , even tougher on the other aspects, because the new voters he got are working-class voters who want action on their issues, and that includes shutting down the border, having a tight labor market, and real growing wages for the lower middle class and the middle class. you can't do that with a loose immigration policy. host: you mentioned obama in

2008 to 2010. are there other places where you see realignment possible that did not happen that was squandered? , guest: newt gingrich in 1994. bill clinton also ran has a uniter, not a divider. then pushed things his base wanted. most notably what was called clinton care at the time, which was that era's version of dramatic federal government expansion in health care. he also pushed increased taxes including energy tax that would , have hit everybody. and what happened was that republicans drew even and party alignment and in some polls past the democrats for the first time. even reagan hadn't been able to do that. and then gingrich takes him and immediately moves to start cutting the budget, which is not what those former democrats who we're willing to give them a chance wanted. by the end of the democrats have 1995 their partisan advantage again, clinton wins reelection

and a chance for a mid 1990's realignment thrown away by recklessness. host: do realignments happen more often these days, or the possibility of realignments, than in the past? i'm thinking back to a very long period in which democrats controlled both the house and senate. guest: typically realignments for whatever reason tended to happen on a 40-year cycle. it used to be almost exactly 36 years. and what we have been overdue for another realignment for quite some time, meaning that the old questions that drove the old party allegiances have faded. the new questions that drive new party allegiance become more crucial, and neither party has taken advantage of it. and what we've seen is growing numbers of people who say they are independents, growing numbers of people who say they miss trust institutions. what they want is every alignment. what they want is both parties to stop fighting their base wars and start answering the new questions that people in the

middle want answered. and the first party that does that will have the realignment. but we saw was biden chose to govern more a little more from the base. his party lost. trump has a new historic possibility to answer questions and he can get his party a multi-decade hand. host: henry olsen. his podcast is "beyond the polls." c-span viewers are familiar with him. susie in georgia, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am very grateful for the speaker this morning, because he is getting down to the basic common sense. i do have a question. before i ask it, i have a concern about give an inch, take a mile. the old adage. we have been watching the

current administration give everybody an inch and they take 10,000 miles. with this change coming from the democratics active in the government to a republican view, what will this do to the progressive agenda? we have had the progressives ruling us for over 100 years now. do you feel that is going to be fixed? guest: thank you very much. what we will see if republicans are successful is establishing a new default definition of what it means to be american. what it means. the relationship between the state and the individual. it will be much more accommodative of helping people who need it and not helping

people who don't. when you have a state-driven system. a lot of people who get government protection or government subsidies you don't -- who don't really need it. you look at the billionaires getting a housing mortgage deduction. they don't need a tax cut to afford a house. big universities with $55 billion endowment to get taxed at the rate of 1%. warren buffett said he would -- doesn't think a secretary should pay a higher rate than he does. he pays 10 times greater rate hvard but he has the same amount of wealth. why is that? a republican-led solution will start to chip away at that sort of thing. it is not going to throw away the new deal. americans want an extensive government social safety net and protection. what they don't want is a cocoon or blanket that suffocates them or gives money to people who don't need it.

a republican direction will chip away at that excess and return that to the average person. that is one way what has happened in the last 100 years won't be eliminated, because americans want a lot of what has happened over the last 100 years. but you will stop seeing the progressive state-first government-always solution being the answer. instead you will look to does somebody need help? they will get it. if summative doesn't, we will say no. host: edward in dover, democrat. caller: how do you respond to people who call on c-span, for example today, and say donald trump is the greatest president in american history since george washington? how do you respond to that kind of ignorance? guest: i would call it exuberance. i think trump and some of his fans are a little exuberant in

their support. it is difficult to say donald trump has had a more impactful presidency than the man who founded our country, than the man who saved it during the civil war and so forth. i would call it exuberance rather than ignorance. if a fan of trump calls in and asked me how you can you say that, i will respond to the question directly. that is how i will respond to this caller. host: do you have a ranking of your top three or four presidents? guest: gosh, the top three or four most impactful presidents are the sort of people that created realignments. they solved the major political questions of our day. thomas jefferson, george washington, abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt, ronald reagan. they are the five presidents who have ever had significant realignments? yeah, they changed the direction of the country. host: felix in maryland, democrat. good morning.

go ahead. caller: hi, speaker. i hear your back rent is research as a senior fellow. i wanted to get your input on policy changes for realignments, especially regarding immigration. with stricter immigration it sounds like the country will be heading to in my profession in accounting, they changed the american institute of certified public accountants to the association of international certified public accountants. from a micro perspective we are seeing this realignment occur already with the licensure offered overseas. i was curious how you would -- how you feel about that. guest: immigration is clearly tied with trade which is tied with offshoring and the ability to not manufacture goods but manufacture ideas overseas,

which is the sorts of thing an accountant would do. donald trump -- a lot of republicans in 2016 were talking about immigration. only donald trump made the necessary connection of immigration and trade. you cannot be free-trade with goods and ideas and anti-immigration. you have to be both or neither. i think what you will see as trump understands that is you will see attempts to make sure that trade and ideas and goods only happens when americans are already assured of rising job opportunities up and down the educational spectrum and rising real incomes up and down the income spectrum. that will be a change in economic thought. it will be a direct assault on post-1944 and post-1989 global consensus. if it is successful, it will produce a prosperous and socially cohesive america. host: the caller mentioned your day job.

the ethics and policy -- public policy center. explain what eppc is. guest: eppc is a think tank, a unique washington institution will remake recommendations and arguments to policymakers and thought leaders listen to and incorporate. we have a judeo-christian perspective, one informed by the anthropology of the whole human person. we think there is a body and a soul. not just looking at material concerns. my particular expertise is politics and public opinion that shapes policy that can be considered and adopted. host: what do you talk about on "beyond the polls"? guest: what i usually talk about -- if you are the sort of person who likes to look at precinct returns and understand polling methodology. host: and we have several that do. guest: we do, and this is the

podcast for you. i will be looking at the intraparty fights. i will have republicans from all sides talking about the new party, and i hope democrats on all sides good and some international elections, starting with germany. host: anywhere you get your podcasts, you can get beyond the polls. guest: pretty much. host: henry from texas, good morning. caller: so far i've not heard anything i specifically disagree with. i did vote for donald trump. i hope you are right in everything you've said. the insanity we live under in this country each day has got to stop. it has got to stop. the government -- something in the government, whether it is

the deep state or corporate interest, is bent on ruining this country. this is the only country we have. we can't go anywhere. i turned on the tv yesterday morning and i saw the insanity -- what is going on in this country. what is happening to america? this is a wealthy, powerful country, there's no reason for americans to live this way. guest: i think the color expressed the concern that is in part driving the realignment, which is that this is an economy that no longer works for everybody, it is a social culture war that's been going on that makes tens of millions of americans feel like they are strangers in their homeland. and increasingly we feel unsafe, whether on the new york subway system because somebody throw somebody under the bus or light them on fire, or unsafe on our streets because some but he

makes a right turn onto bourbon street and plows them down. those are the questions people want solved. they don't want the base concerns solved. they don't want ideological concerns solved at the expense of their concerns and that's what donald trump was elected to solve and if he does that he will bring in a republican realignment. host: the editorial from the wall street journal says syria should not be the united states problem in the wake of this terror attack. they make the point that this question of whether the united states should have a basis in the middle east as a place to keep terrorism from forming and eventually coming overseas, we need to rethink this. and possibly have that foothold in syria and think about this and other countries as well. guest: the question i will post

to the wall street journal editorial boat -- board is what size of american military do we need to do that? america made a series of commitments during the cold war undergirded by defense spending between 6% and 12% depending. it made additional commitments during the war on terror. what size military do we need if we are going to have basis in syria and robust presence in europe and basis and military forces and africa to fight terrorists there and a force that can fight iran in the middle east and -- >> we are here today to talk about two big fixing topics in education right now, one being student disengagement and the other being chronic absenteeism. they are related in a lot of ways but tar