the house is live on c-span. >> c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. .

you joyce appleby, why did call this book on the history of capitalism "the relentless>> that is what the history of capitalism has been, one ahead revolution in workplaces, areas of profit, productive centers -- one revolution after another. one economist said it well, capitalism is about creative disruption. we get all the new technology but sometimes we get to the messy part. every invention that succeeds wipes out its predecessor, and this may change where people to have. it never stops. as we know, having lived through 2008 and 2009, we now realize that this was not out of nowhere but that is what it seemed like that is a part of it that is a revolution going from boom time to burst bubble.

>> define capitalism. >> a system in which private individuals take initiative with their own capital usually to enhance production or produce something that they can sell in the market for profit. i give that definition and it seems so ordinary and yet every element in that definition was an affront to the established customs and traditions of the societies in which capitalistic traditions began. >> give us an example. what was an affront? >> in a society of scarcity, which all traditional ones were, you did not hear about individual initiative. you stayed in your place and did what you were told because they were so close to the edge in their capacity to produce food. that individual initiative was very dangerous. and then the idea of a traditional economy in which

they did not produce things, produced on land that was owned by lords and worked by tenants and some private farmers, but the government controlled it. they had laws about stalling, and when the crop was in, you could not hold it off the market. you cannot sell it to brewers if the government said that they needed it for food. you had to take it to the market on a certain day and sell it. that was a lot of control. now you have private capital going where the owner wants it to go. those are very disruptive things. enhanced production is another way.

you do not enhance production without assaulting all production and ways of working. >> go back to the very beginning. can you put a date on when it started? >> no, i cannot. i started in england and i do not think that capitalism was inevitable. i think it was a convergence of trends and developments and some fortuitous events. in the 17th century, the core of capitalism was discovering and developing new machines on the basis of a new science that greatly accelerated the amount that could be produced by any worker. this is what we think of as galileo and others, they discovered that atmosphere had weight, and that there was a vacuum, that natural laws were uniform, and these ideas began in an intellectual elite but they happened in an open

society. this advanced right into the work -- the workshop. how many people through the ages must have seen boiling water push up the top? and yet it took all of those centuries for what? for the theory that explains it, for the mechanics who had the ingenuity and desire -- it was a propitious linking of technology with advances with economic opportunity and a supportive social environment. england had solved the problem of food shortages. it did not involve capital but

it made it profitable. >> you throw a bone to the dutch. >> definitely. the dutch were great innovators. the dutch were very serious traders, that is what they did well. they could take storehouses of everything like timber and grain, and made themselves the great carriers of the world. they are innovative with banking and finance. they charged interest rates of 2%-4% when everyone else was charging 12%. but the dutch had a problem. they only had to import for three months of the year. i think that crimped their imagination.

i don't think they could see the possibilities of the system that they had started. they were well enough developed in agriculture that they did not have to worry after they went through the century of improvement. the dutch were fat and happy so they were not pushing to change what they did well. what was remarkable about england is that once they started, they never stopped. innovating, renewed development, applied at different productive places. everything from drilling mine shafts to reinforcement. >> let's review your background. when we talk about this on this

program 10 years ago for one of your books, you pointed out that you were born in omaha, nebraska. you've lived in kansas city. and then in dallas. what were you doing there? >> my father worked for united states gypsum. >> you ended up in california and went to stanford. where did you get your master's degree? >> the university of california-santa fe. i was living there with my husband and i was very lucky because they initiated a master's program. otherwise i was not able to get it. i got that from a graduate school. and it was within 10 miles of my house. i had three children. fortunately they extended the graduate education.

he learns and remembers. it's fantastic what he knows. it was just wonderful. he lives near me and it is wonderful to talk to him about this. he never lost that. he would go one that amplifies subject. he was the one that told me he was -- to alert the founder of nbc. >> you went to the university san diego. >> i taught there for 14 years and then i went to ucla. >> are you still teaching? >> no. >> when did you start this book and how did you go about researching it? >> i started this -- it took me two years so i started it four years ago this summer. i knew a lot about the first part. modernistorian of early

europe. i had to understand the economic developments as well. and then after that, when we got into the industrial revolution i simply read what scholars did. but the interesting thing was that i never thought of it as a book fof scholars. i thought of it as a book for the general public. and that was so liberating. i did not think of all of those critics that would be arguing my thesis. i just thought that should rule readers wanting to learn about the history of capitalism. and it was fun to write. >> were you surprised -- you studied history all of your life, and if you did not know

about something and you found out about capitalism. >> a lot of things. i did not know much about germany in the 19th century. and yet when i saw how both the united states and germany surpassed england, i was interested in how the germans had done this. and how different the united states's economic development and political development was from germany. here were two different paths toward capitalist leadership and excellence. different strengths, different leaders, truly different results. and that made me realize that because capitalism is a cultural system it has a different face in every country. >> explain the difference. >> the germans were struggling to create a nation -- depressions were struggling and that started out with the customs service and the use the economy to create this unity

which they finally achieved for bismarck, prussia the largest of the 300 principalities and states that composed germany. and because they were built by aristocrats -- let me just back up. the aristocrats were not particularly interested in industry. they were interested in german prosperity but they had contempt for the industrial magnates. the magnates cannot count on the government to finance the banks. and so they arranged to have industrial -- investment banks,

the first ones were in germany and a couple of major cities. one industry was in the northwest and had to pull people from the poorer parts of germany as workers in the steel factories. but they began -- there began to be unrest -- and now effort and the question. there was an attack, an assassination attempt on the kaiser. but bismarck initiated the social welfare program. workers' compensation, pensions, and the like. he wanted to fend off the radicals. and because he had power, he was not stopped by the industrialists who hated that sort of thing. you look at the united states and we have a very poor safety

net. we had never had strong unions. and that means that our social welfare has been very hard to push on this front. that is one of the big differences. >> what other than farming started capitalism? what was the first industry? >> mining in england. they needed pumps to get rid of the water, and then steam engines to run the pumps. it consumed enormous amounts of coal. you could not leave the coal field very far. you had to have your industry there. what james watt does, he took an awkward contraption and made it into the engine of the industrial revolution. then you could take steam engines and put them anywhere in bulk to drive the machines in the famous porcelain factories, for instance.

the first is in the late 17th century, and in the early 18th- century -- >> what was next? >> mining, and then textile making. cotton was a lot easier to mill than wool. and then the power loom, these various inventions improved -- the spindles that can be run at

the same time with the same engines, and greatly accelerate the output. most of england's industrial workers worked in textile factories. that is one of the most poignant moments in american history and the 19th century, is that in the civil war, the english were cut off from cotton. they refuse to recognize the confederacy. the workers are all thrown off. there were no jobs. there was pressure to get the government to recognize -- from the manufacturers to recognize

the south. even though they were suffering, they did not want to help slavery. lincoln wrote a wonderful letter to them. i'm getting off the field but there are so many fascinating stories. >> i was surprised only because you do not normally say things like that -- a historian does not say things like this -- why did you put that in -- all of a sudden you have labeled yourself. >> i thought it would be well for a person to know who was talking to them and telling them the story. as i said, i wrote it for a general audience.

people are serious when you do with a subject like capitalism. i went on to say that i very much wanted to write this with characters of black hats and white hats. i just wanted to give an account -- i interpret the facts all the way through to be coherent. >> historians will say that they are just a historian, not one way or the other. let me just probe you a little bit on left-leaning liberal and libertarian. what makes you a libertarian? >> welfare reform. you say what that has got to do with libertarian. i dislike that dependency implicit in our welfare system.

and i say that as a libertarian, i want people to be free of this dependency. there are quite a few issues in which freedom would be more important to me than social justice in some instances. social justice is very important. what was the reading about today, an issue -- this issue about the school, hastings argued before the supreme court. hastings told the christian group that they could no longer have facilities because they excluded people whose sexual life they thought was a moral. and i was thinking that they ought to have the right to exclude. it is not a free association in

it does not seem to me -- i know that may not seem like a libertarian issue to you, but i was against the institution. left-leaning is a lot easier. i am really concerned with social justice. i think it is abominable that we do not pay a living wage. if we started paying a living wage to workers all over the world, half of our social problems would be gone. there are a lot of people who endure. it is not a lot -- it is not a small number. the living wage is different from not wanting welfare. i want people to work to be able to earn a comfortable living. and i think that if you had this unequal society as we did, that government has to put money into the public good like concerts for kids and arts education and parks, things that

they cannot get from a middle- class parent, the government should be enriching the child. >> where do you come down on capitalism, for or against? >> i am for capitalism. it has a great wealth generating capacity. we have to learn the delicate balancing act of making it regulated where it needs to be but not killing the incentives. we didn't do such a bad job after the depression. all of that deregulation was a mistake. i think we can get our financial house back in order. i think that there will always be panics or bubbles burst. the reason why is that capitalism is a system in which

no one is in charge. many people have lots more power than others but no one is in charge. it can be like running off a cliff and not knowing. >> going back to contemporary capitalism and its critics, you talk about greed -- go back to that whole area that you're talking about.

>> i made a little list and that comes in part from people who were fighting against capitalism, who are critics against capitalism. all of those are charges that are made against capitalism, anti-globalization people. i thought it was important to get all those out there because i think there are problems with capitalism. we could address every one of those, maybe not the rewarding aggressiveness. aggressiveness is important to capitalism. but what we lack is the political will to make these changes. we've been sold a bill of goods that the economy is an independent system.

it is self correcting, works on its own, it is like the weather, do not interfere. but it is a cultural system. there is much that we can do to shape it. and this is what i would like to say. >> is greed good or bad? and what role does it play in capitalism? >> 40% of graduates going in to finance -- is wanting a very high salary greedy? no, i do not think that greed is particularly good. i think that moderation, the golden rule is the desire to live comfortably, to work to achieve that, but i think where we see greed is where other human values are out of bounds, because the greed is so dominant.

you're not thinking about the time that we had to enjoy our family. that is what politicians always say, but people do want to enjoy their families. so i think greed is in excess, yes. >> we talked about germany, great britain, the dutch -- who else in the world has been great capitalists? >> some very unusual countries. india and china. they are coming along -- and the other is japan, much earlier. japan is a small island, not that populated, and they were the number two economy for a while. and the triple tigers of singapore, korea, taiwan, they have modernized even faster than japan. and they all did with a highly

directed elite. one of the things that all those countries did, too, is that they had agricultural reform. they took the land out of the hands of passive land owners, put it in the hands of farmers, poured that money into education, and bought off in the critics, because the farmers were doing for a while. and then those leaders knew what they had to do to connect with, in this case, the emerging roles of consumer electronics and information technology. >> you describe two printed works in here, or three -- the wealth of nations, common sense, and the declaration of independence. tell us about adam smith and

the wealth of nations. >> it is the central analysis and synthesis of capitalism in 1776. he was a scotsman and there was a lot going on in scotland at the time. he had the capacity to amass separate facts and bring them into an organized story of a "free economy." he did not call it capitalism. he explained how capitalism emerged with a long accumulation of capital, and in the division of labor, and hence production, and it made the back -- it laid the basis for economics from other people, but it also laid the basis of the self correcting economy.

adam smith had the idea of the invisible hand. it is from the self interest to compete to produce a better product at a lower price, and that is how we benefit. that is been the central tenet of capitalism ever since. there is an invisible hand that makes competition work for us. adam smith had wonderful anecdotes. manufacturers need to set the price of wages, but workers were conspiring to set the price of wages and were sent to jail. adam smith knew exactly what was going on. the subject of adam smith is wonderful.

>> when did you read the book first? >> i guess early in graduate school. i read extracts in college so i could take some economic courses. i must have been in my early 30's. >> did you have to read it again for this book? >> no, because this is not about economics. it is about the development itself, the actual transmission -- not transitioned but the actual conflicts the monopolies, innovations, struggles that gave shape to capitalism that we have today. >> back in 1776, what impact did adam smith's book have and has a grown in importance? >> very little impact on the united states. alexander hamilton said that the ideas that markets can run themselves is one of those paradoxical notions that has

grown in strength during the revolution. that had nothing to do with it. but it was important in england and became the basis of economic thought. and then economic changes in the 19th century, and you no longer have a labor theory of value. value comes from demand. at any rate, adam smith has not been important in modern economic theory except as a godfather, as a totem, as a symbol. i am sure he is taught in most economic classes. >> the second is thomas paine's "common sense." another brit.

>> another american immigrant, too. they did not know that we were going to have all these wonderful revolutions that would send them back to europe. paine makes such a powerful attack on privilege and political conservatives and traditions. he was such a nemesis that he really did open people's eyes to the incongruity of being ruled by idealists or a hundred years of political arrangements. and he had an impact on the american revolution because he came here and the first thing he did was write an attack against slavery. and then he produced "common sense." i want to make the point that this 18th century, the century of increasing technological virtuosity, was also

accompanied by a new concept of human nature, human possibilities, and the proper ordering of government so that everyone would flourish. that you have an paine and the declaration of independence, drawing on that. >> in 2000, you were an advisor for thomaspaine.com. how are they doing? >> they are still active and they are working on a television series. but they are still active. they write letters to the editor. >> we did a feature on thomas paine and one shrine to him up in new york, not so much

criticism of him and that he does lack a lot of support. you've been active in history for years and one of the few in both the organization of american historians and the american historical organization. give us your view of history right now in this country and where people -- what is the american people's view of history and how has it changed? >> you probably know more about than that i do. i think that history, judging from the books that sell, i just came from the l.a. festival books, 100,000 people there or more listening to people talk about their books. i think there's a lot interest

in history. i worry about higher education in america. i think we have achieved an absolutely first-class university educational system, taking public and private together, but we're resting on our laurels. the same universities are losing more and more students. they're more like private institutions. california -- it used to have a good free education and it is pretty expensive now. the way it affects history is that there is underfunding of scholarship. it is very hard to promote an intangible like an understanding and appreciation of history or of art or literature. it is fundamental to people's grasp of the world they live

in, putting their world into the stream of time. in that sense i am worried about history. >> one person just won a pulitzer recently and she's talking about history and historical. she says that america is -- in 2006, the intercollegiate studies institute -- the average senior fellow with a score of 54%. >> they have been doing these things for a long time. what do you think if they would do it -- it is a tribute to history that they did, but where would the school be if you tested their knowledge of biology or history? that does not bother me so much. something that bothers me is the stuff going on in texas, and that is not university but

high schools and elementary schools, where they are writing the textbooks along a particular ideological line. that is troubling. it shows you how important history is that people would take the time to try and put in their ideas of what the revolutionary period was like, what they think. >> they think that history is telling the story incorrectly. how do you get around that? >> it is a problem because everyone thinks they know history. but no one can say, look, mr. chemist, you don't have the slightest idea of the periodic table. let me show you what goes in there. and it is the accessibility of history that makes people "expert." you can confront people that talk about the writing of the constitution, people do know

the documents. but what you're trying to do is persuade a third person -- you will not persuade the historians that they are wrong and these people that they are wrong but it is the spectator that needs to be convinced, and they can only be convinced by doing this. >> she said another survey -- it is that same thing. are they relevant? do they matter? >> when it comes to history, yes. i think it would be nice if students -- let me give you an

example. when i taught government courses, i would give them a separate constitution to get them to read the constitution. it was purely democratic, only one legislature, and i would tell them to read both constitutions and be prepared to defend which one you wanted. i had to beg people to take my constitution. and they came up with all the answers that were made in the federalist papers. they knew a bicameral legislation was better and why you had to have an independent judiciary. that told me something more than these polls, that there is a general understanding of our institutions, but that is not something that you can spit out

when someone asks you a question. >> i said that you are on these two historical institutions. what is the difference? you were chairman or president of one. >> i was president in 1988-89. that is an organization for all scholars whose field is american history. there are people in germany and japan that study american history. the second is an organization for all historians in america. >> were you president of that? >> yes, trying to think of that. i think it was 1997. >> and what did these organizations do for history? >> a lot of good things for history. i have an annual meeting where there's all kind of panel

discussions on the latest scholarship. and it puts out terrific journals of history scholarship. the american historical association in particular does a tremendous job of defending history in america, whether it might be a historian going to be fired because of some provocative study or access to the archive -- there's been lots of legal issues in which they have become a party to a case, opening up the archives to the public or in the library of congress, and so they maintain their office here and they are always on alert to what it is that scholarship needs and they do a tremendous job. >> on your book on capitalism, how many countries in the world are not capitalistic?

>> well, there are 57 failed states. whether they are not capitalist, i do not know but they are not probably doing it very well if they are failed states. i would give you those 57. >> would you call china a capitalist country? >> yes. in 1978 it started a liberalization program. but when you have that allowing peasants to sell their land and farm individually, which happened there -- in the last 12 years, they said that they could only do it for 30 years but no one thinks there will ever rescind it, that is a major change.

it involves the most people and the most traditional elements of the society. they have expanded their free trading zone. china gets an enormous amount of private money from chinese all over the world, and so they have this as a source of investment. they have money clubs and start-ups. they still run the big industries but even the big industries are now being run on a profit basis. and they are pouring their profits back into the pension funds which they do not have. in the last 10 or 12 years. >> can they continue to be a communist country for very long? >> i think it is going to be hard. part of their communism -- their authoritarianism is controlling information. information is absolutely

critical to capital development. this is a fast-moving technological world and you need have access to it. you don't know where the innovation is going to come from. your people have to have access to these things. i would say that for the foreseeable future, the next quarter century, we're going to see more and more of an easing up. whether they have a bi-party system, i do not know, but they will ease up on the control of individual lives as they are already. >> go back your own interest about eradicating poverty and a more equal society. is there a country in the world that is more equal than this one? >> yes, i think that sweden and finland, i think these countries have a tremendously strong social net. i was looking at "the economist" last night on the plane and it is very low.

and china and india are worse than the united states in the spread of wealth. but a part of that is the function of the fact that there's so much wealth at the top. it is not that the poor have gotten poorer but there are many more well-off people. yes, i would say the scandinavian countries, probably the netherlands, they do a much better job, much stronger support of labor, labor participating on corporate boards, and they are economically strong and getting stronger. >> we are more homogeneous in this country by a long shot. >> yes, that is true. they have some pocket of guest workers that are staying put. but that is an important practice.

i don't think it is economical. >> japan is the same thing. >> they really are xenophobic. uncomfortable around strangers. but we are heterogeneous -- but we're used to that. you go on the ucla campus and i can see every skin color in the world. it is not threatening. that over time -- over time -- we're still having some difficulty with religions and concern about them in some parts of the country. >> you mentioned adam smith and we went to thomas paine and we talked a little bit about the declaration of independence. i want to go back to that time. what role did capitalism play in the creation of this country?

>> this country was tied to the absolute front runner, great britain, so they had been economically active and innovative from the very beginning in massachusetts and virginia. virginia unfortunately had the slave system but massachusetts is much more the plucky entrepreneurs. this fostered the individualism. individual initiative and responsibility, those are the moral bedrocks of capitalism. you have to act for everyone and you have to act on your own. it have a lot to do with causing the revolution. when the british tried to change the rules, they were not at all happy about it and they were not afraid to oppose it. so i would say that economic initiative -- widespread

economic initiative was crucial to the revolution and to the founding of this country. >> what about slavery? you mentioned that in your book. not just in this country but around the world. >> slavery is terrible. there were profits to be made in the tropics by growing sugar. imagine a world without sugar and all the sudden they can get sugar. and then you get this vicious exploitation of labor. it weighed on the conscience of these european countries. what did they do? they blamed this on the slaves. it is their fault and they were meant to be slaves. this left behind a bitter legacy of prejudice. it was put in there to salve the conscience of the slave owners. >> and tobacco?

tobacco played what role in capitalism in this country? >> tobacco was the underpinning of the southern trade of economy, it was then replaced by cotton which was even more valuable as an export, more demand for it. it gave slavery a new lease on life. it was going strong until 1860. but by this time the conscience of the world and the north was absolutely insistent that it not be spread. that is what the civil war was not -- not about slavery where it was, but slavery spreading. they could not accept that. long term, it had a very malignant impact. in the short term, it was very important to northern prosperity because it

concentrated their land and their labor on cotton. they bought everything else from the north. cheap clothes, cheap shoes, the works. >> unions -- when did they first start in this country and you mentioned this earlier, it is not a very unionized country overall. >> the second half of the 19th century, you have labor, some in 1886, and then you have the wobblies. i think there are lots of reasons why it did not succeed in this country. one of them is that this individual initiative that i am talking about, that is hard wired in the american psyche, a dislike of collective action. it seems un-american.

the other thing is that america had this incredible flood of immigrants starting in the 1880's. they came and took the jobs in the factors and pushed out people born in america into white-collar jobs. to organize basic labor, you had to organize people who are trying to assimilate in this country, learn the language. it was extremely hard. samuel gompers was successful because he specialized in skilled labor and they discriminated against blacks, looked upon women as nothing but strikebreakers, so unions were looking out for themselves. he was a master psychologist and he understood capitalism. what he wanted was more, and when we get more, we're going to work more.

he shrewdly saw that the workers were the best customers for american industries. if you pay them well, you have a great amount of consumers. people did not recognize that. there was this sense that if you are always driving down wages, you are destroying the market. gompers seized on that and that is why he succeed. later we had john lewis and the cio, more unskilled labor. eventually labor unions did well but not until the 1930's. >> if you think about the teachers union and the state workers and all, you have very few. >> 7.5. >> why do you think that happened? >> competitiveness.

the major employers -- walmart, they have made a success with a lot of people in their factory and use of technology but also keeping wages low. it is very different from when wages were higher. america was protected. there was not the same competition and the slow capital around the world. i wish walmart would change its ways and pay more. they should recognize that it was a different economic environment. >> has there ever been a country in the world that succeeded without capitalism? >> from an economic point of view? i do not think so. other countries have succeeded like new guinea, and tribes in

the amazon basin, there are groups that feed themselves and have enough to live the life that they want, and those are economies, but in terms of prospering, getting more goods and enjoying a higher standard of living, no. >> i know you did a segment on walmart. how do you explain walmart and the capitalist system? >> walton was a brilliant strategist. sam walton was a master of introducing efficiency. he was like henry ford, a brilliant organizer. they see the possibilities and there's a lot of squeezing over prices and wages but there is also the use of technology, never sending out trucks that do not come back full. the use information technology

and constantly telling their trucks where to go. they discovered that one system of inventory is not effective as the other. and wal-mart keeps every employee on a tight technological leash. every sale goes through the accounts office, planning, and there's no slippage. >> we're going to get more walmart or less in the future? >> i think we will get more. it's very interesting that home depot and target and one or two others are in the top 50 fortune 500 clubs. walmart has had successful imitators. >> where do you put the stock market in that capitalism system?

>> when they want to raise money, you get an enormous -- it gives off an enormous number of people the chance to participate in the profits of companies. i don't know how you could -- i suppose there is another way to do it but i don't know a more efficient way to share the ownership and to get access to the capital. >> in studying the history of capitalism, where does the recent 2008-2009 financial problems we have had evolve into history? >> i think it is another one of those things, bubbles burst, as a result of the fact that no one is in charge and you have a strong incentive that was pulling people into riskier and riskier investments. you had a government complicit in deregulating the banks.

when you get into these loans with no income and no assets, they have thrown all caution to the wind. this is a convergence. capitalism does not correct itself. it needs regulation. and that is its great failure. as someone pointed out, we had controlled most of the recessions until 2008 and we had done it because our federal reserve system and other regulations we have in place. that was not there this time around. >> who is the most successful capitalist in history? who would you put on top? >> josiah wedgewood. he took a lazy, unorganized set

of pottery workers, he brought them together, he made this lovely china -- the queen of russia wanted 1000 plates with different scenes from greek mythology on them. he was desperate because he did not have the artists to do this. he finally produced the order. he said that i need to have a school and get these teenagers to begin to design and paint. he could see the industry whole, from the beginning of making the product to marketing it. ford is another. not only could he see the

possibility of a cheap car but the possibility of selling his own cars. he set up 7000 dealerships by 1910. i think those are some of the impressive capitalists. you have the innovation of the whole system in one person. tom watson is another. >> there's more that you can read about in the book, "the relentless revolution -- a history of capitalism." we are out of time and i thank you very much. >> i enjoyed talking to you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q-and- a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts.

>> coming up next, there were comments by the new british prime minister. after that, they knew press conference with secretary of state hillary clinton. following that, senator john stone will speak with republican state leaders. tomorrow, lawrence yun from the national association of realtors talks about a decline in foreclosures for the first time in five years. david chavern talks about the efforts to foster job creation turned and george wilson will look at defense spending and what programs may be cut. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. 7:00 a.m. on c-span.