xby. -- robert bixby. richard norton smith compares the occupied protesters to pass political movements. ♪ host: good morning and a happy thanksgiving. thank you for spending part of your holiday morning here. new romney is leading in hampshire. russia is planning on withdrawing a deal.

there are plans wto withdraw -- al absallah has left his rule after pressure from the united stats in saudi arabia. we have your thoughts on a heated exchange last week. it is between don young and professor brinkley. a lot of media outlets have picked this up. who is right? if you want to see exercise in futility, it is this hearing. this side has made up its mind.

this is garbage. >> rice is the anniversary. you said in his chair and be quiet. >> i will tell you right now. >> i will suspend and remind -- >> i work for the private sector. you are invited here for testimony. you have time -- >> he called me mr. rice. >> mr. brinkley. >> we see a lot of people here. we make faux paus. to interrupt breaks the comedy. you have seen the disagreements. we try to do it in a way that is civil. >> you would do that in a way if

you were called that. >> mr. brinkley, please, follow the rules. >> we want to get your take on that exchange. democrats, republicans, and independents. start dialing in. one headline out of that exchange. c-span battle. historian shouts down congressman. it says the "washington post" caught up with both of them after the hearng. a spokesman for young says it was a publicity stunt. the witnesses are invited to answer questions and not

interrupt. that is what don young's spokesman had to say. if you look at his bio on wikipedia, it says -- the , he is the sixth most senior representative, and the second most senior as a whole. he worked in the infrastructure committee from 2001 until 2007. this is from 1995 until 2001. he started his career in 1973. he began his political career in

1964, when he was elected mayor. that is more on don young. we have brinkley, the rice university professor. i was curious about what kind of response that you got. guest: thank you, and everyone listening. i have received thousands of supportive letters, less about the issue that about the broken congress and how absurd young is, bullying people who have come to testify. the fact i was able to stand up for myself, and the basic rights as an american citizen. the statements coming my way.

>> can you quantify this? >> i would say that right now, probably about 5000 e-mail's the i am dealing with. young angered a lot of people, people upset at congress, and he has made snide comments to scientists. i am hearing from people from the science field. astro-chemisitsts. he said camping is for elites. many people who go camping aren't elites, they are just enjoying local wilderness parks. building constituency, not based on democrat or republican

lines. >> was this intended, going into the hearing? >> no. i don't go in wanting my testimony, asking for a memorial for dwight eisenhower in the arctic to be called garbage. how would i intend to be called mr. right? if i had an intention, i talked to a few people who were terrified about how they were treated. they came all the way to theirgton and red theiad everything wasy, and humiliating and insulting.

i was someone who stood up to the bully. he has been doing this a long time. some of the emails come from people bullied by him in the past. if anything, i hope we have taken don young down a notch and told him to cool his jets and treat people with decency. host: is this a long-standing fued? guest: i have written a book on alaska. i don't think he read it. one of them was the super- commitee breakdown, a frenzied feeling. i saw soem congressmen in a heated exchange before i

went in. i think other things were going on. congressman young feels this should not be engaged, they don't see the national wildlife refuge as yosemite. in the vein of what i had to say -- his tactic is to dismiss them. he calls environmentalists "unamerican," and uses this rhetoric, as a bully-boy type of acting. i stood up to him. i got letters saying, "thanks for standing up." host: scott casey said you were invited as a witness and there

was a certain protocol. do you have any regrets? guest: i am being called mr. rice. my name is brinkley. i have to correct it, so the transcript isn't wrong. it isn't right to have somebody call me by the wrong name. i corrected it. and i got a blowback from correcting my name. le in alaska are writing me. alaska is a beautiful state. i have great times up there. i was a victim of this, in the sense that young has the power and knows he has the power. he is refusing to treat the

people paying his salary some basic decency. and so, believe me. i am the flare-up moment. he has done this to people that come before the house, national resource committee. >> dave brinkley, happy thanksgiving. guest: have a blessed weekend, you take care. host: that was professsor brinkley. we told you about the statement from don young. they felt brinkley did this a sa s a publicity stunt. witnesses are invited and not allowed to interrupt. mike, the democrat in seattle?

caller: good morning, happy thanksgiving. taking a look at the segment you played, and before, it is clear mr. brinkley was the right person. although he was invited as a witness, it was not for him to be treated as a victim by the congressman, or for the congressman to use that word. he was right. i would -- i was glad to see he was not muzzled or quieted down. there was an indignant anger that rose up and he spoke back to the congressman. that would be my first point. my second is that this is the type of anger mr. brinkley --

many people are feeling -- want to express to those in the congress. to see you not muzzled and not become victimized, to talk back, is exactly what i think is happening across the country, especially in the "occupy wall streeett" movement. there is a push for no major shopping, to turn the system around. mr. brinkley, thank you so much. we appreciate this. host: the exchanges continued through the part we showed. it was about anwar. the alaskan refuge.

it took place november 18. if you are interested in seeing more, go to c-span.org. go to the video library. if you type in don young, in the video library, or doug brinkley, you can watch this. don is an independent. caller: good morning. happy thanksgiving. brinkley can add 5001. he has my support. congressman don, i hate to share hsi first name. he epitomizes the reason there is a 9% favorable rating for congressmen. has the journal considered

invited him on to defend himself? 3:15 in alaska. we've invited him. caller: i i will not keep you any longer. i did not hear any unfavorable comments and i do not expect to. host: congress returns next week. the caller mentioned the unfavorable rate of congress. it is at 13% according to the latest gallup poll. the 2% -- 82% approve -- 13% disapprove, i'm going to get this right.

13% approve of congress, 82% disapproved of congress. there we go. richard in north carolina. caller: the problem with congress is career politicians. they get in there and they think they run the country and owned the country when it is our country. they should be listening to the people of the country. this is a big reason why we need term limits. that is all about i have to say except have a happy thanksgiving and vote them all- out in november. host: is that what you plan to do? caller: yes, ma'am. host: do you know who your representative is? caller: jones. we have kay hagen, she ain't

worth a flip. host: you may be interested in this. "congress stubborn but safe." "political peril for incumbents ." host: alabama, robert, democratic caller. caller: how are you this morning? i am a 75-year-old african descended and i was born in eatontown, alabama. -- uniontown. and we have --s

alabama has always had two bigoted senators. a wonderful young lady, educated from the seventh congressional district. we had one senator, howard heflin. this guy is a former oppressor. imagines black people living under this kind of oppression. this is a very intelligent guy who could stand toe to toe with this big get. imagine what would happen 75 years ago with his big hit in alaska -- this bigot. caller: happy thanksgiving. about this guy young.

this guy is a prime example with what is wrong in congress. he would probably do pretty well in south carolina, considering the crazy politicians. 00%.pport brinkley 1 he does not deserve to be treated like that in the halls of congress. host: what about setting a precedent? protocol.certain they invite witnesses to testify. let's say it had been a democrat on the other side of the aisle. caller: it would not matter to me if was a republican or a democrat. they don't have any right to treat witnesses like that, the wake brinkley was treated. host: do you think there should

be a type of particle at these meetings? caller: the congress people need to follow it as well. we have extensive anti-bullying programs at our school. this guy is a perfect example of a bully. this should show our students how not to act. happy thanksgiving. i love your show. host: we want to give you some more headlines after that exchange between don young and professor doug brinkley. the chief is stepping down. the official in charge who became a symbol said that he was resigning.

he will step down at the end of next week. you probably heard that james murdoch, the son of rupert murdoch, has stepped down as director of two subsidiaries that published murdoch-owned newspapers in great britain. the leader in yemen after 33 years has stepped down after pressure from the united states and saudi arabia. here is the headline from "the miami herald." front page of "the washington post" has a story of military families joining food lines. they are lining up for turkeys and free groceries this season.

host: tamara is black friday, the beginning of it at -- tomorrow is black friday. a divide on the front pages of "the new york times."

host: michigan, eugene is a republican. what do you think of this exchange that we just showed you? caller: yes. i do not understand when you get four out of five people that call and your station are uneducated in relationship to their governments. in a relationship to douglas brinkley, he is a hack. he is a left-winger. he is out there to try to make the republicans look bad. that is all i have to say. host: robert is a democrat from california. caller: 4:30 my time.

i believe that across the board respect is in order. i'm a small business owner. i get my apparel and a boutique which benefits abused children. some is second-hand and some are brand new. host: we will be talking about black friday tomorrow. from anderson, south carolina. caller: i wanted to reference the earlier caller and support what he was saying. he was talking about the anger that was taking place in the dispute between young and brinkley. i just wanted to give my

perspective -- anger is usually when things are not going my way. there is a type of anger " righteous anger where it goes beyond the so-called protocol or these policies that are in the congressional forum. there is inappropriate anger that is right to anchor where the behavior of a member of congress -- that is righteous anger. the behavior by brinkley is right to stand up for and sell. it is a matter of right and wrong. the goes above and beyond the protocol in congress. i wanted to put the point out there. host: we're talking about the exchange last roddick at a hearing before the natural

resources committee talking about anwar. we covered here on c-span. a lot of media coverage has been focused on a it. even nbc nightly news did a segment on it. >> a hearing about oil-drilling. what you're about to see is an exchange between congressman don young and the witness, the historian and author dave brinkley of rice university. it goes very haywire very quickly. the men don't agree and not like each other. pay special attention to the young female aide sitting behind a congressman. >> he made up his mind. this side has made up its mind. the garbage dr. rice -- >> race is a university.

>> you just be quiet. you be quiet. >> i pay your salary. >> i work for the private sector. >> mr. brinkley -- >> nice to hear everybody getting along. that is pretty much how the rest of the hearing when. host: we're getting your take on that exchange. give us your thoughts. you can watch the full hearing. go to our website, c-span.org, and you can watch the rest an hour of video library. caller: before this clip, i never heard of the representative or the professor. based on the clip, the only

person that seem to come across well was the chairman, who seem to be -- in his response to the situation. host: ok. caller: that is my comment. host: mark, if you want to learn more about doug currently, this is from rice university's website. he is a professor of history at rice university. "the reagan diaries," which he edited. the recipient of robert f. kennedy prize and a finalist for the los angeles times book critic award.

a frequent contributor to "the new york times." he has written a book about alaska. let's hear from pat in south carolina. caller: good morning and happy thanksgiving. i hope all lot of them -- i did watch that, and there were very nasty. all them were, to that man. you were saying they were having the black friday. you should have had that today. people should stop and think. look into what you're buying before 5:00 a.m. this morning and see if she needed or wanted. -- or want it. host: joseph from minnesota.

caller: i saw this exchange and it is troubling to say that a congressmen would actually in dignify himself and congress by addressing a person in that matter. that was on call for -- that was uncalled for. i concede mr. brinkley -- i can see mr. breeden was probably not a happy camper to begin with. the congressmen should tell themselves above that. he basically dragged himself into the dirt. i'm looking at the video. he started out by introducing

him as garbage rice. he was trying to column by his name, which is dr. brinkley, by describing him as garbage brinkley. mr. brinkley jumped in. regardless of what he did, telling a person you are invited to congress to shut up is just dead wrong. this is what congress is and this is what they have such a low rating. it is not acceptable. host: people are weighing in on her face but page -- on our facebook page. you can go to facebook.com/cspan.

host: if you want to go to facebook, facebook.com/cspan is our address and you can post your comments. or you can go to twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj is the handle. caller: i saw the exchange live when i saw it. the congressman simply misspoke and both guys lost their temper. it should have been, "sorry, i misspoke." this guy is so full of himself. how many times have we seen people go in front of congressmen and be paraded --

berated? at least briefly was not a coward -- at least brinkley was not a coward. "oh, professor brinkley is wholly. we must treat them like religious figures, like the pope." this is a wasteland in alaska they are trying to protect. we need the oil. host: in politics, we mentioned a new poll coming out of new hampshire showing moronic has a wide lead -- showing mitt romney has a wide lead. newt gingrich has that is the latest poll at of

new hampshire. in iowa, here is the headline this morning -- go to c-span.org to see our coverage. mitt romney just open a campaign headquarters in des moines. next to that, a sidebar story about former speaker newt gingrich's comments at the debate the other night about immigration saying it is drawing fire in iowa. steve king, republican of iowa called his position "a form of amnesty." it was echoed by mitt romney. it was asking if he would not support gingrich. he said "he moved a little bit away from him last night." that is also the headline in

"the washington post." he faces a backlash in iowa over those immigration comments. "the washington post." that was also in "the "new york times." in the senate races, a democrat in ohio facing a tough challenge in that senate race, leading in the polls by 15%, but being out raised by his republican opponent. mr. brown's 2.3 million to 1.5 million in the quarter that ended june 30 and 1.5 million to 1.25 million in the next. he is falling behind when it comes to money. that might be a race to watch in ohio. back to the phone calls, democratic caller in new york. we will hear from you next. what is your take? caller: first of all, people should check this out. when jimmy carter was president,

he opened up most of alaska to the oil drilling. you cannot do that with these gritty republicans in the oil people. anyway, i remember senator max cleveland, a war hero who lost two legs and an arm being called a terrorist sympathizer by republicans because he opposed the war in iraq. let's not forget and culture calling a widow of the men who died in 9/11 jersey whores. and rush limbaugh, saying they are stupid. >> that was said democratic caller in new york. president obama gave his weekly address yesterday, focused on thanksgiving. >> we're grateful for the americans for taking time out of their time to serve in soup kitchens, making sure their neighbors had a hot meal in a place to stay. this sense of mutual responsibility, the idea that i

and my brother and my sister's keeper, has always been part of what has made our country special and one of the reasons the thanksgiving tradition has endured. the very first thanksgiving was a celebration of community during the time of great hardship. we followed that example ever since. even when the fate of our union was far from certain, during the civil war, two world wars, a creek depression, americans drew strength from each other -- a great depression, americans to strength from each other. we're grateful they did. as we gather around the table, we pause to remember the pilgrims, pioneers, and patriots who help make this country what it is. they faced impossible odds and somehow they persevered. weeklyreston obama's address focused on thanksgiving. -- president obama's weekly address focused on thanksgiving. with about 10 minutes about anwar.

caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. i think this exemplifies the problems be are facing in washington, d.c. congressman young was clearly off base in his comments and i think it shows the disrespect for the people represented by mr. brinkley. was mr. brinkley bright and challenging him? no. but i think we have to say mr. young, is congressman we have put into office, congress should not be a career of an opportunity to serve and serve our country. we have forgotten the people. it should be the government of the people, for the people. i think congressman young has lost that. we have forgotten where our focus should be. it should be making a better and stronger america, and it is lost to the rhetoric of this trying

to beat our chest and congress to show how important we are. especially in this holiday of caring, i think congress has lost the caring in the holiday. host: before you go, why do think it was not right for douglas brinkley to challenge him? caller: i think there's a certain respect for elected officials. i think mr. young brought himself down as a previous caller and said by his comments and showed his disrespect for his position, more than his disrespect for mr. brinkley, using the word garbage is probably not the professional word i would -- with a few disagree with mr. brinkley or not, it was not the proper approach of the situation. the question was lost. should we have drilling for oil in alaska or shouldn't we?

is it a waste land or not? no land is a wasteland. especially the pristine beauty of alaska, should never be considered in those terms, especially for a congressman represents the beautiful state of alaska. host: we should do what president obama had to say about thanksgiving. republicans have their address focused on thanksgiving, this one given by sandy adams, republican of florida. >> fellowship is important part of our character. it may be the first element to realize dreams of freedom. to survive, they had to lend a hand to one another. with every house they raised, a shining city on a hill is being built. those settlers understand what we do now, that there's no substitute for compassion and determination of a free people. after a plentiful harvest, they gathered for a feast to give

thanks for the bounty of nature and peace for their neighbors. this tradition was formalized in tough times. it was during the civil war that president lincoln declared a national day of thanksgiving so americans could come in his words, implore the almighty can to heal the nation and restore it. this message of perseverance remains within our reach thanks to the generations of buried patriots who preserved the blessings of this land we love it -- of the brave patriots who have preserved the blessings of this land we love. host: we want your take on this exchange between don young and the brinkley. caller: good morning. i agree with the last two callers, the lady and gentleman, completely. i watched this, i think it was

live, and i just could not believe the way young acted. but the one i really had a problem with was the chairman hastings. he should have stopped young right then and there and put a stop to it. i totally blame him. but it shows total disrespect for the citizens of this country. even like grover norquist he contumely have on, he has no respect for the citizens of this country. he is a greedy, arrogant that tries to control the country right now. host: he was our guest recently. this week, we will be talking to a progressive democrat raul grijalva this sunday.

next, republican in florida. caller: good morning. happy thanksgiving. greetings from sunny florida. both of those individuals, the representative and a professor, are very thin skinned. i think if i were the professor, i would have allowed the representative to continue calling me by my incorrect name and just let him shoot a hole in the bottom of his boat and make it that much bigger. anyway, we should all lettuce the heat -- notice the hearing rooms are set up so the congressmen and senators are elated, and you are a much lower level. there is a lot of body language involved with that. if i was mr. brinkley or professor brinkley, i would have stated my or answered the questions respectfully.

like i said, i don't know what happened to mr. young for him to be like that, but that is another example of why we feel about congress the way we do. i wish you could dig out of the archives the howard hughes witness when he was testifying before congress. that is extraordinary for it to make a comparison with this. it was much more volatile. i believe howard hughes had the last word and left, just departed congress -- the hearing without being dismissed. anyway, i do admire you all, your hosts, and sometimes it is amazing how you all can keep a straight face with some of the callers that call in. have a happy thanksgiving. keep up the good work. thank you. host: john is a republican in

new york. caller: independent. host: sorry about that. caller: that is one of the problems. i do not want to be labeled and one of those factions. the guy in connecticut kind of stole my thunder. the subject matter does not matter. whether we need will drilling, it could have been about parks or birds or anything -- the subject matter of the debate has nothing to do with the civil protocol you're supposed to learn before you enter the halls of congress. the other guy from california was right. they should not be doing it to the businessmen, either. these guys are getting away with it. they are there forever. people are getting fed up with it. protocol is protocol, the part of protocol is treating someone with respect that are invited

into the halls of congress. you cannot just sit there and the rate the guy -- berate the guy. that is why this guy stood up. it is just ridiculous. that is why there's a 13% -- you have read the statistics. part of protocol is treating your witness with respect. host: republican, phoenix, arizona. you will get the last word. caller: i think the problem is not necessarily -- we're talking about the semantics, who is right. what about the issue at hand? alaska, if we're taken over by china financially, it is not going to matter -- i mean, the

problem is we are always getting caught up in who is right and wrong about the issues. host: ok, that was steve, republican, phoenix, arizona. president obama continued the tradition of pardoning a turkey. liberty the turkey was in its new pen after being pardoned by the president yesterday. a little history. it dates back to the lincoln days. lincoln's stun but his father to ride out a presidential pardon for the burden for the family's christmas table. arguing he has as much right to live as anyone. lincoln at u.s. trade president kennedy said, we will just let this one grow. a little bit of history.

in 1948, president truman said he would take the gifted turkey home to missouri or his 25 relatives "require a lot." a little bit of history about the pardoning of the turkey. here is president obama yesterday at that event. >> from our family to yours, i want to wish everyone a wonderful and happy and healthy thanksgiving. since liberty and peace have been so patient, it is my privilege to grant them the official pardon. i have to give them a little symbol. [laughter] are you ready? all right. here we go. [laughter] you are hereby pardoned. give them a round of applause.

[applause] >> ""washington journal" continues. host: here to talk about the debt is the committee's failure an impact it will have on the economy. that may began this morning with "the washington post." a different take on this so- called super committee's failure. into. but the panel's failure provides material for a deal. will the supercommittee turned out to be a useful failure? two days after an idea, the last committees chance to matter. there's hope the debacle could pave way for new areas of common

ground. what do you think? guest: i think it is true. the super committee was a failure. what can you take from it? there were some quasi negotiations between the sides. i think it clarified were the issues were. i think was relatively clear before going and what the sticking points were. to make it a successful failure, the opportunity exists to pick up the pieces and maybe some of the members might want to join with the gang of six and keep working. the problem is still there, so they're really just need to keep going and maybe some time during the year, they can come up with a package of $1.2 trillion and substitute those for the

automatic spending cuts. host: why the said the problem is still there? guest: it is the unsustainable fiscal problem, projected spending far outstrips projected revenues. eventually, we are on a course were there so much borrowing, that no one would lend us money. we're not there yet, but we can see what is happening in europe when countries get to that point. we have an opportunity to take actions now that would present -- prevent that. the fiscal path is unsustainable as ever, so they're going to have to address this one way or another. host: what are the big factors? guest: the factors driving federal spending over the long run are mostly the entitlement programs, medicare, medicare, social security. those make a 40% of the federal

budget. they are projected to grow quite a bit as the baby boomers retire, health costs continue to grow. we will have many more beneficiaries. if health-care costs continue to grow, it will be more and more expensive. those programs are the main cost drivers of the long run. shorter-term, increase disk -- increased spending due to the wars, bump up for stimulus and unemployment compensation, things like that because of the recession. those factors will fade away as the economy begins to recover. host: in the short term, why cannot the situation be you count the savings from the drawdown of the wars in afghanistan and iraq? guest: that will happen anyway. it is a savings, but not something to dedicate to another purpose because it is not really

money we were ever going to spend. in other words, the projection of the so-called base line, the official projection, assumes we will spend the same amount of war spending every year for the next 10 years. well, nobody is suggesting we actually do that so to say that we're going to take that as a savings and spend it on something else, is really disingenuous because -- we should not count that money for anything because it will happen anyway. host: what about the bush tax cuts? let them expire. does that solve our problems? that is $4 trillion. >> that would go a long way in the short term. you still find the entitlement programs would exceed revenues, even if extended with the bush -- let the bush tax cuts expire. it does not let you off the hook. if we did that the tax cuts expire, it would bring in a lot

of new revenue. the two parties actually agree on extending most of the tax cuts. what they're arguing about is extending the tax cuts at the top end of the income scale. sometimes i think there's confusion when people say, well, why don't we just let the tax cuts for the rich expire? that would bring in $4 trillion. no, that is letting all the tax cuts expire for everyone. right now, that probably would not be good for the economy. however, when you get beyond the slow economy right now, we are going to have to look for new revenues. i do think having the tax cuts on the table as well as everything else on the spending side is necessary. host: would austere spending cuts be good right now? guest: no. i do think we need to have tight spending constraints over the long term, but right now -- i

mean, it depends on what you're spending the money on. if you want to spend the money on things like unemployment compensation, i think that is an expense we probably should extend. there certainly are types of education or infrastructure spending that might contribute to a stronger economy in the long term, but it does not mean you just throw money at the problem willy-nilly. certainly, even in this time -- particularly in this time, you can go through the budget and see our their wasteful things that we do not need to spend that do not have any economic justification? can we cut those back? i think that sort of activity should go ahead. host: robert bixby is our guest. as he says, there could be a revival of the so-called gang of six. one of the members, senator richard durbin, is quoted in

"the washington post" saying there could be a revival of the informal bargaining between the two parties in said, he is going to try to revive an effort by gang of six senators to craft a budget cutting plan rid wichita, kansas. caller: i have a couple of comments then a question. i did not think the committee or the super committee was going to accomplish anything from the get go. it was not set up that way. why is it always $1.2 trillion when all we're looking for is $120 billion in a year? host: let's get an explanation. guest: on the first point, i do think the super committee had some challenges going in. i was not over the optimistic, try not to predetermine failure,

but i think there were challenges the way it was set up. anyway, why $1.2 trillion? that is the amount over 10 years. they could have done it in any particular way. they could have back loaded the cuts so they do not affect the economy right away. anyway, that is why the total is referred to as $1.2 trillion over 10 years. host: our debt is close to $15 trillion. to make any sort of progress on closing the gap between revenue and spending, what do we need to cut or save over 10 years? guest: a lot more than $1.2 trillion. even if the super committee have been successful, they would have a long way to go. a lot of this depends on what you think deficits are going to

be over the next 10 years. we're running about 1 $-- $one trillion. without making changes, continue to do that. the size cuts people have been talking about are more like $4 trillion, sort of a benchmark for what needs to be done. that is just to stabilize the dead, the gdp ratio, to keep it from getting any worse, to try to get it back lower would require even more cuts. host: in the black. guest: you'd have to have more cuts than $1.2 trillion. host: at the end of 10 years, are you still in the red? guest: deeply. it was always just a way station and we failed to achieve

in that. we really have a big problem. that is why i say congress will have to get back to it one way or the other. it really depends on what you assume is going to happen. if you did that all the bush tax cuts expire -- let say congress just went home and let the tax cuts expire, spending cuts happen will happen, doctors on medicare get cut about 30%, the budget would be a lot better shape. you would go far more than setting as $1.2 trillion. you would get a long way to where we need to go in the short term. but the thing is, people want to extend the tax cuts and do not want to cut the doctors by that much, do not want to cut defense by as much as they say. a lot of it is political desires, not making hard choices.

host: what about peril tax relief and then implement benefits? guest: i think that will get nasty. the super committee sort of left everyone in the lurch. things that need to be addressed right away, the two you mentioned, i think that will be tough. those are things that ought to be done really ought to be doner the good of the economy, extending the payroll tax cut and the enjoyment compensation. but they are expensive. they would add to the deficit unless they are offset. it depends on what the terms are, but it could be $200 billion. so, ideally what they should do is extend those policies and find offsets that would not keep in right away, that would keep in after the economy recovers. or, find some spending that is not terribly high priority in this environment or raise some revenue from people who can

afford it. host: the deadline for payroll tax relief and unemployment benefits, december 31. this is a "the wall street journal." maria, independent caller from new jersey. caller: i have a couple of comments that i want him to address. i feel that foreign aid is being put into almost all the programs in our government under the guise of defense, do we nation- building and putting schools up in afghanistan when our own schools have water dripping. and state department, and the trade agreements above all. in the trade agreements are ruining our economy. the president announced he would bark -- aggregate -- is a bag the president announced he would abrogate all of them in six months there would be a turnaround. and if we could put an import

tariff and redirect funds to our government, i think we would seek immediate relief. i hope people would look at ron paul's ideas. he is not 100% correct but at least he goes back to what our founding fathers have said and we would not have a federal income tax but an import tax to address our needs. host: two issues to address -- trade deals, the economic impact of them -- and the situation with social security. we hear that a lot from callers, that it has been raided. guest: it has not been. social security has gotten everything that it is supposed to get, which is the cash that comes in goes out to pay benefits. when there is an excess, as it has been the past 30 years, that money is credited to the social security trust fund.

those are the iou's that everyone talks about. that is what you get in the social security trust fund. they are backed by the full faith and credit of the government. when it goes cash--- cash negative as it goes down, they could say to the treasury to pay up and people's benefits are paid. even though social security is running a cash deficit now none of the benefits are cut because they can cash in the bonds. what is a surplus for social security has to be made up by the treasury. actually nothing has been rated from the trust fund. it has got what it was supposed to get, and i you which the government makes good on. i understand because of the accounting confusions why people think that something has been taken from social security. but it really has not.

we have a long-term problem with social security because the money is not sufficient to pay the benefits going out and it will get bigger and bigger as time goes on and it does not matter if there are bonds of trust on or not. the treasury has to come up with the money to make good. that is one of the longer-term problems we need to address. deals, i did not profess to be an expert. i do think things that tend to help the economy grow in the long term should be in coverage, and i think trade deals are part of that. and the united states wants to drive a hard bargain with trade partners but we don't want to throw up barriers and not deal with anybody. we just don't live in a world like that anymore. host: a tweet this morning. guest: happy thanksgiving, we

may well be. i don't like to say it. but that could well be. i think that is one of the real concerns, is we have been counting on a buoyant economy to cure a lot of problems and if we don't have a buoyant economy, if we had a subpar economy, these this problems get even worse. so, it really is important to look at our fiscal problems and economic problems in tandem. we do want to get the economy back on track. on the other hand, and this is the number, while the short-term deficit indeed can be helpful for the economy -- the negative consequences. like taking in medicine, you could take medicine that helps you over a short-term but over the long term it is not good for you to keep taking the medicine.

trying to come up with a fiscal policy to help in the short term, the compassionate in the short term with the unemployment rate, but at the same time be taking steps now that can be phased in to bring the longer term fiscal policy under control. that would be the safest thing to do but it is not always the most politically easy thing to do. we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. host: more deadlines for you. in january 2012 -- january 15, 2012, the across-the-board spending cuts are triggered, but they did not go into effect until january of 2013. then obama it issues is no budget request in february.

congress has 15 days to disapprove a new increase request for the debt ceiling. december 31, 2012, the bush era income tax rates and other breaks are scheduled to expire for all earners along with current 35% estate tax top rate. connecticut, george, democratic caller. before you got to it -- george, you got to turn the television down. i have to put on hold. atlanta, georgia. bill, republican. caller: basically i want to make two comments. number one, social security is actually bankrupt. it costs $49 billion in this year to cover the debt -- the bonds, as you describe them. if you look purely in a business sense, it is a negative cash flow.

what a lot of people do not understand about the deficit, secondly, is $1.40 trillion in deficit. people don't understand where we spend our money. just one item alone, medicaid, nursing-home care for people, the average person spends $3,000 a month for nursing-home care, you are talking about, doing the numbers, 1 million nursing home patients, $36 billion a year to cover their benefits to lie in a nursing-home. this is the way to get the real deficits. guest: i think that the caller is right to look at the major entitlement programs. i don't know the implications of the less common -- do we want to throw everybody out of nursing homes to solve the deficit problem? but we do need to look at the cost of health care, not just in the federal programs, but overall. we have an aging society and

more and more of us are going to be consuming a great per-share, diverting -- devoting more and more income nationally and personally to health care. we really need to go back into health care reform and figure out a way to control costs, and that also is no easy bargain because it will require imposing some limits and changes in the way that we provide health care, the way we pay for it, the services we expect. so, those are some hard choices. but, yes, i certainly agree with the caller that social security is running a cash deficit and that is something to focus on. and the health care entitlements are the biggest cost driver in the future. host: robert on twitter agrees.

we will go next, back to george, democrat from connecticut. caller: good morning. happy thanksgiving to both of you. basically one question for bob. since our elected officials low long-term listen -- no longer listen to the will of the people and the trade agreements have really sabotaging our industrial base, if -- is there any way if this committee goes back into session, can't solve this economic budget problem and enable this country to get back on its feet? guest: well, the committee is over. that's it. they are out of business. this committee has no more jurisdiction to do anything. so, that is off the table. host: referring to the -- guest: so-called super committee. that was a once-in-a-lifetime

deals of they are off of the table. i think it will be important for congress to address all sorts of things to try to keep the economy going over the longer- term. it will have to come from a different committee now. host: massachusetts. charlie, independent caller. caller: i have some ideas that i would love to hear your guest comments on. i have taught some courses on this topic over a number of years, the topic of taxes, and here is my questions or bad ideas that i would love to hear comments on. iowa view taxes as the portion of our wealth -- i new taxes and the portion of our wealth the government uses to fund certain portions of our government. if you view taxes that way, the

question is how should the government take the portion of the wealth that is being used. if you look over history, our wealth as a country has grown quite nicely, say, over the last 100 years, well has multiplied by over 1000. the problem that icy and the reason why i think there is a problem and one that cannot be solved is our income, of course, has not grown at the same rate. our wealth, but not our income. the reason is fairly complicated, but -- but the basic bottom line is that we have over history taxed income and not taxed well. host: we will leave it there and get a response from bob bixby, executive director of the concord coalition. guest: i agree with the basic premise that we need to look at the ways in which we collect

revenue and tried to do that in an economically efficient way with the least disruption to the economy and fairness in mind. also, income has been stagnant overall in the past decade. decades. in the income tax would not grow as fast and revenue would not grow as fast. however, the projections going forward, we are going to have to come i think, had higher revenues as a percentage of our economy. 18.5% to gdp, we will probably need to get it up to 20% or higher. even with some of the drastic spending cuts. it is important to find out the best and most economically efficient way to do that. the way a lot of folks are talking about, from the bulls-

suitland commission, the ribbon commission -- bowles-simpson commission and the alice rivlin commission, to have fewer deductions, credits, loopholes, whatever you call them, that would actually allow you to that a more efficient tax system and have more revenue with a lower rates. the super committee did not agree on some flights that but i still think it is the way forward on revenues. host: joe, next, a republican. you are on the air. caller: every time i turn on the television -- you still hear me? every time i turn on the television the first thing these people in their holler is medicare and this stuff. i live in south carolina. this big conglomerate talked the

federal government into renovating these textile mills. the one i live in has 14 foot or 18 foot ceilings and then. -- in them. we are poor people. you all have been getting increases in your money. we have not had the increase in our money in three years. ok? not only that, but this conglomerate that should be taking care of our building, we pay for our light bulbs now, we have had -- host: i think i get your point. income disparity. just talk about that a little

bit. guest: there is growing income disparity and that is something that can be addressed through the tax code as well. you listen to the mix of callers, and it is easy to see why congress finds it difficult to address this. it sounds like both sides are out to lunch. people have legitimate points of view. people worry about the government being too big, and some people worried about the government is not doing enough and all the benefits are going to a particular segment of society and leaving the poor behind. i think that if you listen to both sides with an open mind, you find that both have legitimate points and it is reconciling these things that we really need to do.

host: for those wanting new tax increases -- they say for every dollar brought in to the government, they will spend it. the american people cannot trust that congress will take that money and tried to pay down the deficit. guest: no question that people don't trust the government. that is a big problem. you see something like a failure of the super committee and you understand why. host: is there any legislative means to ensure that it happens? guest: yes, you have to have spending caps on discretionary programs, going through the appropriation process. and they did enact discretionary spending caps. and there have to be social reforms. you have to change the underlying laws in the entitlement programs because they run on autopilot and are

not appropriated every year so congress has less year to year control of them. changing the benefit formula, the tax formula for social security is important. changing medicare payments is important -- doctors, hospitals, or patients, giving new premiums. you have to change the underlying laws. all the tax side, you have to have enough revenue to pay for all of this. so, you shouldn't just say no new taxes or take a big chunk of the budget and say that is off the table. i mean, you could do that in a mathematical sense but it does not work politically. i do think we will need new revenue but at the same time it is important that the people understand the new revenue is not just throwing after bad, after old.

host: another tweet from suzanne. guest: we do. there is not a job switch in the basement of the capital or the white house. i don't mean to be flippant, and it is very important to create jobs. when people say we need to create jobs, as if there was some formula that people knew how to do that. and that the government can create jobs by sending checks to people, that has a short-term stilted effect but it is not a longer-term solution. i do think that we need to look at short-term policies that will help support the economy and longer-term policy that will keep us from racking up some much debt that the economy will choke.

host: democratic caller from atlanta. are you there? caller: i wanted to comment -- there was a caller that called in about 20 minutes ago and i think they identified themselves as a ron paul brodeur and they raised the question of aid, i am assuming external. i notice mr. bixby responded to it and talked about trade. i would like to hear him talk specifically about aid and also about looking at multi-year budgeting where they are not just looking at one year at a time, but going back and maybe doing a historical sampling so they can look at trends in terms of growth and evaluate what kind of value we are getting within each segment of our government for the expansion or, on the converse, where there have been

deficit problems that have arisen because of a contraction in the budget. guest: on the subject of foreign aid, that is everybody's favorite program to cut. two points i would make is that it is a very, very small part of the federal government, so you could eliminate it and you have done virtually nothing to address our long-term fiscal problems. the other point i would make about foreign aid is that most of it is considered to be in our national interest. some of it is humanitarian. a lot of the more expensive stuff are the things the government considers to be not just in the interest of the country we are aiding but also in the best interest of the united states. i do think, like everything they looked -- everything else, foreign aid should be evaluated

to make sure the money is serving a productive use. but really, it is such a small part of the budget, something like 1%, that it is not going to get us the bang for the buck that we need to solve our fiscal problem. the longer-term trend -- there are a lot of studies, actually -- the congressional budget office, the government accountability office, lots of others, that have looked at long term trends and how the economy affect the budget and vice versa. clearly there is a lot of uncertainty in those things because there are so many factors that go into it. it is important to take a long- term look and not look at just one year to the next. that is what the super committee and the gang of six, bowles- simpson, the medici, all of the group's looking forward to try

to get the budget back on track. not just 10-year numbers, but it is important to look at 20-year numbers. obviously there will be a lot of uncertainty about 20-year numbers but when you are dealing with programs like retirement and health care that were supposed to be a around for a long time, it is important to look at long-term trends. and we talked about taxation. one of the trends in it -- what are the trends in incomes and how will we taxes -- somebody mentioned wealth before. we get a lot of money from payroll tax. what are the sources of growth of revenues and will they be enough to catch up? i would put in another plug for tax reform and say that we can look at some of the long-term trends in the so-called tax expenditures which are the credits and loopholes and deductions and find out what kind of revenues are we bleeding from those and how much can we

recapture if we broaden the base, lower rates, and get rid of some of the exceptions and look at them to seeing if they are really doing any good, are they doing the purpose we wanted them to do? host: george from mission, texas. independent caller. caller: i am a little bit nervous. [laughter] host: don't be nervous, go ahead. caller: thank you so much. happy thanksgiving to all of you. two thoughts come real quickly. -- two thoughts, real quickly. at the first time i saw this super committee, i knew it was going to fail. i don't know how you could have a bunch of wolves on one side of the room and jackals on the other. i don't know why, if they were

sincere about this from the start, they did not pick out people from outside of the government -- economists, intellectuals, whatever -- to give the allies on this. these people will never agree. each one has an iron in the fire. each one is worried about an election. host: george -- that it did happen. they had a bipartisan commission set up by the present with outsiders and the deal they came up with did not get a vote, either. caller: [laughter] just one other question, ok? quickly. i watched your show every day, as our neighbors do. and we just love you, greta, and we love paulo and susan. you know? we don't know anything about you. i think it would be wonderful maybe if you have a christmas show where each one of you would get in a little round table and

tell us about yourselves -- where you are from and your education. you are all very intelligent or you would not handle these calls. the number of children, and your most interesting interview, and that type of thing. and then let people call in and ask you questions. i think it would endear your show so much to america. happy thanksgiving to all of you. host: thank you very much. same to you. republican, go ahead. caller: a lot of questions about these programs -- one thing i would like to know is -- i am not talking about also security. what percentage do we pay on welfare? i'm talking about the giveaway programs. guest: there is actually nothing that is called welfare per se.

it means-tested programs -- the means-tested programs, you talk about medicaid, may be about 10% of the budget. then you are talking about food stamps, and there is some aid to families. so, the means-tested part of the budget is less than 25% certainly. i'm pretty sure -- pretty sure about that. host: steve, democratic caller. caller: good morning. how were you? i have been watching and listening to everything for many years. and it concerns me because in the end, this all really is, this whole decision of free market has brought every county, state, town, even the world, almost to its end. there was a law that mr. reagan got rid of called 60-40, which meant in america if you were an

american company you had to have 60% of the product built in this nation and the other 40 could go outside. i agree, that was a little hard. but we do not create jobs, not forced to have manufacturing in an industrialized nation, you cannot have an industrialized society. i don't understand the problem. host: any thoughts, mr. bixby? guest: well, the structure of the economy is, of course, important. and it is a little bit beyond my area of expertise on that particular point you raised about the difference between the foreign and domestic manufacturing. i will just say, obviously the more we can do to stimulate domestic manufacturing, the better. host: this tweet -- he wants to know what you would like to see happen tax wise?

guest: what i would like to see is something much like the alice rivlin-pete domenici task force imposed, particularly because i was on the task force. but the basic premise was to look at the tax expenditures, the exemptions, credits, and deductions, and severely cut back and eliminate a lot, maybe cut back on others. and it that way we would bring in more revenue and that would allow us to have lower rates and a simpler tax system that i think people would be less suspicious of. the big tax expenditures by the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance, the home mortgage deduction. it is not just corporate jets.

we have to be realistic about that. these are entitlements as well. they run through the tax code but they are entitlements. they tend to benefit upper income people. so, you could do tax reform along the lines that i suggested that is progressive. we made sure in our plan thatthu would not want to continue to provide some support for, particularly on the savings side of the budget. we want to encourage people to save. on the other hand, a lot of saving incentives incentivize those at the upper income to say what they would have anyway. i think we need to bring in more revenue, bottom-line, then we have in the past, because we will have a more expensive government. people do not like to hear that.

with social security, medicare and medicaid already taxing 40% of the budget, and the population aging, you look at the projections and we do need to cut -- control costs. they are going to grow by a huge amount. we're not going to be a to cut the heck out of everything else. that is what people are doing now. that is the strategy now with these sequestered cuts. we will not appeal to sustain that. -- we will not be able to sustain that. it is important to do really was tax reform that ends up with more revenue at the same time we're doing the intimate reform. host: you are a familiar face to our viewers. what is the concord coalition for those who do not know? guest: we were started by a

democrat and republican. we advocate for fiscal responsibility. we're here in washington, around the country, we have a lot of educational programs as well where people can make these choices we're talking about this morning on their own. we ran an interesting one and iman, iowa last week. -- des moine last week. host: we appreciate your time. happy thanksgiving. coming up in the last hour of "the "washington journal," we will talk about the history of political encampments. up next, the mission in afghanistan. we will be right back. >> there was a flood. people were filling sandbags.

air force one stopped. they had a motorcade to the flooded area. took off his jacket. by memory is, he filled three sandbags. he got back in the car, went back on the plane did that night, what was filled with the airwaves, it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> sam donaldson, andrew mitchell, and chris dodd talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. new york city mighmayor michael bloomberg and arianna huffington. john glenn, neil armstrong, buzz aldrin are awarded the congressional gold medal. for the entire schedule, go to c-span.org.

the story of the civil-rights movement cannot be told without birmingham, alabama. this weekend, but tv and american history look behind the southern history. a bomb rocked the 16th street baptist church, killing four young girls. that story to the eyes of a survivor and friend. even under the hazardous working conditions, people fought to work at the cotton mill in jacksonville. rick bragg on the day after the mill closed. on american history tv, stanford university history professor jonathan bass on how martin luther king jr.'s letter

from a birmingham jail set the tone for the civil-rights movement. a tour of the furnace is open in 1881 which produced fire for nearly 100 years. sunday at 6:00 eastern, the curator continues with a discussion on birmingham during the great depression. this weekend on c-span2 and c- span3. ""washington journal" continues. host: patrick quinn is the news director for the associated press for afghanistan and pakistan. we want to get an update on the latest on the ground in afghanistan. can you tell us what is happening? >> good evening. it is relatively quiet for afghanistan today on this thanksgiving. the taliban has carried out one major attack in the western part of the country and ambushed a nato logistics' convoy and killed seven afghan private security guards and wounded another 10 before the were driven off by the afghan

security forces. there were no u.s. or foreign troops involved. this is just the latest in a campaign of violence by the taliban to overthrow president karzai's government. host: what is coming up in afghanistan we should be watching for? guest: 10,000 u.s. troops will be leaving the country by the end of the year, part of the first wave of u.s. troops that will start drawing down on the orders of president barack obama. a total of 33,000 u.s. troops will be gone by the end of next summer. the international community is trying to get this country to work and function on its own without foreign troops involvement and too much international aid. the ultimate goal of having pulled all the international and u.s. troops out of this country by the end of 2014. host: what is the status of the

karzai government? what do you hear on the ground? guest: the karzai government is having a number of problems, mostly due to corruption. he did manage to convene a traditional assembly here which endorses plans to try and reach a negotiation or an agreement of sorts with the u.s. government for a long-term strategic security plan that will allow the united states to keep operating in this country past 2014. the karzai government, as i said before, is not extremely popular. it is perceived as being quite corrupt. but it sort of ponders on. host: patrick quinn, it is thanksgiving, evening time there, what are the troops doing? guest: most of the troops in

this country are fighting. the major concentration of u.s. troops is in southwest afghanistan, in and around helmund province. soldiers and marines are battling the taliban insurgency. the other really big hot spot is eastern afghanistan on the border of pakistan. u.s. troops are fighting not only taliban, and al qaeda elements, and insurgents sneaking across the border from pakistan. a number of troops did take time to have turkey today. we visited with some in kabul. for the majority of the 100,000 or so troops in this country, today is just another day. today is another day when they're coming under attack here in afghanistan. host: any surprise visits you have heard about from americans or otherwise? guest: there is a senior marine

general in afghanistan, meeting with the troops in the southwest. we do not know too much about where he is going for security reasons. we hope to learn more about who he is seen later in the day and tomorrow. right now, i think his summer in the southwest with a majority of american troops located. he is sure the explicit purpose of joining the troops during this -- here is here with the explicit purpose of joining the troops during this thanksgiving. host: how long have you been in afghanistan? guest: i have been here 13 months on this tour. i was first in afghanistan when the u.s. invaded and spent a considerable amount of time they're giving like i said, i have been here now for about 13 months straight. host: how are you and other journalists celebrating

thanksgiving, if at all? guest: a number of us will be gathering in my home tonight. we have managed to locate a turkey. not a very large turkey, but we still managed to find a turkey. hopefully, the pace of the news will allow us to sit down together for a change and have turkey. many of my colleagues are embedded in the east and south with the troops. but we hope to take an hour or two this evening to sit down together and have thanksgiving dinner. host: patrick quinn, happy thanksgiving to you, your colleagues and the troops as well. joining us is jason campbell, so sit with rand corp. and also the former co author of the afghanistan index report. you just heard from patrick quinn on the ground, the latest, the fighting continues. what is the mission in

afghanistan? guest: to try to create some semblance of stability that will last not only as a combat operation draws down between now and 2014, but something that will sustain. right now, we have 10,000 troops living by the end of the year and will rise to 33,000 by the end of next fall. they are trying to do a lot in a limited amount of time to try to set the right atmosphere for transition. host: it includes about $2 billion a week being spent by the united states. where is the money going? guest: any number of things. much of it is being focused on developing the security forces in afghanistan. that is an area for a number of years in our involvement, there was not a lot of resources devoted to it, not a lot of coordination among the international community. we have had to make up for lost time in that area because it

will be vital of the transition. numerous developing programs going on, governance issues, try to help grow the rule of law -- so the money is being spent and a host of ways. host: we learned afghanistan will need aid for years, the report warns. the world bank pulls the figure at about $7 billion annually after nato pulls out. expenditures on the security forces, basic services such as health and education, the bulk of the money will be needed for an army of police of 3 1/5 to 2000 people. where are they in that goal? host: as far as growing the forces, they're on track. they hit their goal for where they wanted to be by the end of october, early. they are trying to grow the goal or the forces to 352,000 by next fall. they seem on track to do it.

who is going to provide the funding and the post 2014 time frame? it will take a real international commitment. just to put it in perspective, we talked $7 billion. we're spending $2 billion a week right now try to put it in perspective. i'm not advocating for one way or the other, but compared to what we're spending now just to keep afghanistan somewhat stable going beyond 2014, the costs are comparably less than what we have devoted thus far. host: we're talking about the u.s. mission in afghanistan with jason campbell, the associate for rand corporation. we want your thoughts and questions this morning. we also have lines assigned to

veterans as well. the first phone call comes from a democrat in pennsylvania. caller: my opinion is, on afghanistan, we have been there so many years and we are making progress because i see certain things turn around -- i am sorry. osama bin laden has been caught, but he was not even in that country. i believe he was somewhere else. money is constantly pouring into it and putting more into the deficit problem we have here. we gave tax cuts to the rich and we're not paying for it. it is constantly adding on as we go through the years. host: how you decide -- to find success in afghanistan? caller: the women are being treated equally. second, they have the right to vote for the representative or

whoever the president is going to be. and they're able to walk around freely without having to worry about if a tyrant is going to come in and take over their homes or force them to do things they do not want. host: so a stable government, a stable economy, stable society. are you willing to pay the price tag of $7 billion annually after the nato troops leave? caller: that is why i feel we should not be in there. putting so much money in there. i do not see that happening. watching the news, i do not see that happening. i just see more and more problems piling up. guest: we certainly have been spending a lot of money there as of late. but when you think about afghanistan, remember, while we have been that for 10 years, for seven or eight years, it was decidedly more commonly referred to as an economy of force

effort. it was overshadowed by iraq for many years. it really has only been since late 2008 and into the obama administration with the commitment both in troops and dollars has been escalated to the high levels we see today. it is a valid question to ask, given the cost, is it worth this escalation of our commitment? when thinking about this problem more broadly, i think we need to keep in mind, what would state failure in afghanistan look like? that would have regional publications, certainly be a threat to the strategy in the security of the united states. it is a complex issue. there are a lot of details here that need to be considered. host: afghanistan is our topic and other news, egyptian officials say the court has ordered the release of the three american students that were

arrested this week during the unrest in cairo. we go to steve, republican, mississippi. caller: thank you for taking my call. over 10 years of reading about afghanistan, the war on terror, etc., my assessment of our situation in afghanistan is an illusion, a farce, and you might as well do this -- let's take that $7 billion, back into my house, and i will unloaded and put it in the toilet then flush it down the toilet. thank you. host: do you want to comment? guest: his sentiment is not unlike many americans who are having trouble deciding what our commitment and afghanistan should be. if we cut ties, what would be the ramifications? we consider the broader picture and understand this is really more about just afghanistan and

the security and the very tumultuous region. if afghanistan does not succeed in some way beyond our commitment there with troops, we're going to find ourselves again and perhaps a very bad position from a global, strategic, and security standpoint. host: and "the wall street journal," thoughts on defining victory in afghanistan. the american debate on afghanistan seems to be framed by two diametrically opposed definitions of success. one says we effectively have won the war already, the death of osama bin laden, the increase of of drone attacks. explain that a little bit more. is that a success? guest: yes.

striking a blow this the international terrorist is always going to be a success. i think sometimes we are too quick to start counting how many members of al qaeda are operational in afghanistan and sort of focus on al qaeda, where in reality, we have a number of other very motivated organizations that are willing to continue to support al qaeda or even take up the mantle of being the lead on international terrorist operations. focus on the killing of bin laden is certainly a huge victory for the west and the world, really, but there are others out there who are just as motivated and could possibly take his place. host: the other view holds that success is impossible. the goal of a stable afghan government in control of its own territory is beyond our reach. your thoughts on that? guest: it comes down to whether or not the afghans themselves

want to be able to do what is necessary to sort of put a stable society together. there's only so much that we the international community can do for my support standpoint, from a funding. this will ultimately be up to the afghans and whether or not they're willing to make concessions that will be necessary to foster greater peace. host: they say this -- both views lead to the same results. a premature abandonment of afghanistan that could return the control of taliban. it would allow a cut and others to begin sanctuaries. even targeted drone strikes would be much less effective without the human intelligence needed to support them. guest: i would agree with that assessment broadly. we have somewhat the benefit of the historical knowledge of what happened after the soviets left afghanistan and how that sort of eventually plunged the country to civil war.

fashion society going after resources. politics -- it is not out of the realm of possibility, even likely, that state that is in afghanistan would lead to a similar situation we saw following the soviet withdrawal. and that environment, you'd be able to vision them having sanctuary. host: and update with the u.s. pakistan relations. we learned the ambassador pakistan to the united states was forced out because of accusations he sought american help to rein in the powerful pakistani military. "washington post" headline. former journalist is known for her human rights work. it says the appointment of a prominent former journalist surprised observers who expected

a choice with the more obvious step of approval from the powerful militaryrehman was close to but is your bhutto. also one of pakistan's few local opponents of tolerance. caller: been morning, c-span and america. i am trying to get mine care together. i have wondered, what does rand corp. do? they're more of a think tank and anything else. they send these guys out here to make us care about afghanistan, to tell us our security here in america is threatened by these people way across the world. and that if we pull out, the evil taliban will take back over. well, so what? so what? people are writing in the streets. people do not have food and jobs, and you on medicare on thanksgiving morning for these people in afghanistan?

-- and you want me to care on thanksgiving morning for these people in afghanistan? 10 years of war and nothing to show for it. there is nothing we could do as americans or military force to change anything. it is not one to be a pretty outcome in afghanistan, no matter how much we spend, how many people die. i do not know where you think a good outcome would be. i am going to hang up and listen to what you think a good outcome would be. guest: grant is a think tank. i'm a researcher there. i hope you're not thinking i'm advocating for one policy or another. what i'm trying to convey is the decisions we make now will have ramifications going forward, not just within the borders of afghanistan, but the region. i think we need to keep that the mind we discussed the drawdown and the overall commitment of the international community, particularly, beyond 2014.

again, i think it is a very complex and complicated issue. it is very expensive. it is costing us a lot both in treasure and blood. it will be hard decisions on the horizon. i think we'd have a more complete picture of the situation on the ground and what some of these alternatives to these decisions will ultimately mean. i understand your frustration. like some of the other callers, it is a pattern you are seeing. to tell you the truth, there has been a good amount of progress made in parts of afghanistan. the big question now is, are these going to be sustainable as we start drawing down and the afghans have to start taking over? much remains to be seen. host: according to the afghan index, from the total fatalities from october 7, 2001 to october 31, 2011, 2007 hundred 81. that includes u.s. and non-u.s.

fatalities. dave, a republican. are you with us? you are on the air. caller: i was concerned with this guy said about being so expensive for us to stay in afghanistan, $2 billion a week. it's a lot cheaper at $7 billion for wright foreign aid. i got the impression by saying that, it is just another $7 billion we can waste. i agree with the previous caller. we have been there long enough. i do not know what possible reason security there is for staying in afghanistan. i was a 26-year veteran. i do not see the logic behind maintaining troops and spending much money over there, for what? host: this tweet --

guest: for the tweet, that is a common view held by many people. that is true. the fact is, a lot of the leadership of these insurgent groups are rooted partly in afghanistan and also the tribal areas and other parts of pakistan. as long as they can function there, they're going to. without a shadow of a doubt, many are operating there and will continue to do so as long as they can. as far as the cost, look, i was just try to put this in perspective. people say $7 billion. it sounds like a lot and is alive. but currently we're spending $2 billion a week. if we determine the cost of keeping fairly stable and viable afghanistan going for it is going to be $7 billion a year, and i do not know the answer to that, because of a lot of issues there, governance issues in

particular, that maybe that $7 billion is not going to do it or no amount of money is going to do it. that certainly is a viable opinion. but i would say, again, i was just try to put it in perspective. whatever decisions we make, we need to keep this -- what is going to happen if afghanistan collapses? i don't think he did it to creative to come up with a scenario that there is going to be a place, again, a lot of the surgeons are going to prefer to talk -- insurgents are going to want to work in safe havens. the: we're talking about u.s. mission in afghanistan. the number of u.s. troops, about 100,000. nato troops, 130,000 rid the cost of the afghan war, $444 billion spent by the u.s. in the past decade. $118 billion estimated spending for fiscal year 2011.

democratic caller, white plains, new york. caller: what is most disturbing to me is it appears those that are in a position to make genuine decisions about this venture in the middle east in the context of historical perspective or present analysis to determine what i write and what went wrong, i think logic would demand -- dictate those in the position to make the decision have not made one mistake. it is truthful to them. that is disturbing. it will continue until it is no longer truthful. it is scary. guest: thank you. i do not know i agree with that. this has been a big issue, going back to the 2000 election in afghanistan, a big issue -- from

the 2000 election, from the obama campaign at that time, afghanistan was the right war and what should be focusing our resources toward rather than getting involved with iraq. i think there certainly has been a general acknowledgement over the years that we did not provide the amount of resources we perhaps could have to afghanistan early on. and we have tried to make up for that in the last two or three years. i do not know that anyone thinks no mistakes have been made. but there is a lot of uncertainty around, what is the administration's strategic gold both between now and 2014 and beyond? what is the commitment? in the u.s. and also in the region, causing people to hedge their bets. we have sort of a security transition in place and mapping that between now and the end of 2014. as far as economic government, what is one to be the continued strategy moving ahead and what is the commitment of time only

the u.s., but the international community? host: president karzai had meeting with elders. what was the point of the meeting? what will be the sticking points for the u.s. and afghanistan? guest: it was a bit controversial. it brought in 2000 delegates that are largely from reports, handpicked by the demonstration, the cars that administration, to be brought in. most were known supporters of karzai. they were a way to give political backing behind two key issues moving forward. one is the strategic partnership agreement with the u.s. and the other is the issue of trying to reconcile taliban leaders and find a way to bring them back into the fold in afghanistan. these are too touchy issues in afghanistan. president karzai stated it was consultation only, but afterward said, he heard the views of the afghan people and felt he would

proceed with some of the findings of that jurga. even though it was somewhat controversial because it was seen as a way to potentially circumvent the afghan parliament. host: here is another tweet -- guest: this is always a contentious issue when he sort of set the date at the end of combat, which now is the end of sort. it is a double edged of it helps to motivate and to the afghan government and overall society sort of moving toward the goal, understanding that they're going to have to start doing things on their own and the sort of passed the mantle. that is something we sort of fostered in afghanistan. one coalition officer said, it was a shocking culture of

dependency. we're trying to get them to take more of a responsibility. the flip side to that is, that creates uncertainty. i think they can be a hit to morality, although, i was in afghanistan for a few weeks in september myself and i did not get the sense in talking to coalition officials that morality right now was a huge issue. oh ultimately, the drawdown is being conducted a little bit faster than they would have liked, but there the military. the performed incredibly and will do the best they can with the resources there given. host: back to the meeting president karzai had with afghan elders. the associated press reported he told the elders in the meeting that the partnership with the u.s. is conditional and end of nato night raids. democratic caller, you're next, manhattan. caller: afghanistan is starting

to seem like a tombstone. the british tried, the russians tried, and i think the americans are getting more wary of this. there was a movie called "the mouse that roared." a country attacked america. we have to protect our interests. i understand that. if a cut attack this from afghanistan -- there are filled countries all over the world. thank you for giving me my comment. host: you are an associate at rand corp. focusing on international security. counterinsurgency and measuring progress. how did you get into this? guest: i came to washington a few years ago, a master's degree in international affairs. i was fortunate enough to be given an entry-level opportunity

at the brookings institution and was there for about three years for i worked on the afghanistan index project among other things. two years ago, i accepted an offer with rand corp. and have been doing this ever since. host: what is the afghanistan index project? guest: it was built off the model of the iraq index, which was established in late 2003. essentially, it is supposed to be a population of a host of quantifiable metrics to provide a tool from which to begin to judge the outcome. it is not meant to confirm people's opinion, but a base of data out there, sources, and use this to sort of help shape your opinion and asked the right questions as to whether or not we're making progress.

by design, it is void of any sort of analysis or other opinions of the authors. it is just a resource for people to use to begin to start thinking about whether or not we're making progress in these wars. host: republican, florida. caller: my name is mohammed. i want to suggest something that could be a long-term plan, but will help everyone. i suggested a 10-year-old kid from afghanistan, pakistan, and yemen. they should come to the united states and learn how things are done over here. i am sure if they see for themselves, it will be a good impact for them and they can go back to their country and run their country. this program should run about 10 years.

i went to churches and synagogues. [unintelligible] host: we will leave it there. the rain, independent, florida. -- lorraine. caller: i hear numbers thrown around like absolutely nothing. $2 million, $7 million. host: to be clear, we were saying billion. caller: oh, my god. people are getting poorer and poorer. all they want to do is kill an intact and invade. we should not be in afghanistan. we should be in america. we should concentrate on america.

as someone said, we have 100 bases all over the world. why don't they leave people alone all over the world and take care of our own country? host: robin, republican, chicago. caller: good morning. happy thanksgiving. how much to the purchasing of the twin towers cost america? how much to the pentagon damage cost america? we're there to protect our country. in my opinion, by being there we are showing that we're taking care of our own. i understand it is a lot of money, but our national security is the key issue here. host: can ask a question? some say the key to success in afghanistan is talking to the taliban, that they need to be brought into the fold. what do you think? caller: i think maybe some of

those folks would be open and not conspiring, but the mentality of a certain set of people there -- i believe there are people there that want to live in a peaceful environment. but because you have the taliban that believes the religious beliefs that we are evil, that we are destructive, that we need to be destroyed -- you know, we need to protect ourselves over there. host: are we talking to the taliban? guest: part of the problem is initiating these talks. you have a lot of the -- a lot of players involved. you have the u.s., pakistan, who undeniably has a lot of influence in this region, and what has prevented us thus far from making a lot of progress in talking to the taliban leadership is really getting

the first of agreement to what are the parameters of these talks? what are the things we will be able to discuss with them? and are the taliban interested in conducting these talks? are the genuine and wanting to sort of come up with some peace plan? right now, if decidedly looks like they are not. there's a lot of talk going on back and forth. you hear reports leaking out about rumors of who is talking to whom. there is not sort of a set schedule or program for how we're going about talking to the insurgent leadership. however, there is a plan looking at how to integrate local, low, and midlevel fighters at the village and district levels in afghanistan. that is just getting off the ground. for that to be successful, you have to come to some sort of accommodation with the taliban leadership. host: this is another tweet --

guest: excellent question. that is for the sanctuary become such a big issue. if they can get some more and felt comfortable, going back to the soviet era in afghanistan, you have a lot of people who over that time learned a lot of useful things as far as bomb building and tactical maneuvers and things like that. that has been passed on amongst the sort of militant islamist groups for decades. you have a handful people who are very good at training and very willing to train these militants, and a big part of the ability to do so is having sanctuary. host: san diego, california, independent caller. caller: a comet or observation. i think what strikes at the heart of the issue of foreign aid or the militarization of other countries is the fact when

we talk about -- congress has had discussions or investigations on this in terms of the war spending and the contractors, and how the abuse when you look at the cost outlays and there's no accountability. so when i see these wars and how they're being perpetuated and how often times you look in the past how once they were our friend and now our foe, we seem to be on a level where we are finding both sides of the war. we keep this war machine going all while the contractors, which have no accountability, are making all this money and we do not know where any of it is going. that is a big concern for me. i want to throw in there, is it the rand corp. -- don't they have ties to the contractors in that regard in terms of the military? host: let's get a response.

guest: the rand corporation is a nonprofit research organization that is focused on all sorts of policy. we do do some level of contract work with government offices. again, we're strictly non- profit and provide sort of a research capability and do not get beyond the kind -- i think you're referring to some of the security contractors and logistic contractors that we have been working with in afghanistan. over the last year or so, it has come to light the oversight, if it existed of all, the vermilions if not billions spent or wasted to some of these organizations. we have had to learn a lot just recently, and are trying to make amends for that now. it mentally, it has been a very difficult struggle. the -- and it has been

difficult struggle. we've had to make accommodations for unsavory figures on the ground but it is just part of providing logistics and supplies to upwards of thousands of troops, not to mention the additional 35,000 or so additional international troops. >> many contractors from 2007 to 2011 has been on the rise. it was nearing 3000 back in september 2007. in march 2011, all promising to contractors nearly reached 20,000 red -- the number of contractors to the rest 20,000. guest: caller: the way to do it, cut it off, bring our children home. our parents, our brothers.

i am sick and tired of seeing our children and families going out there and trying to find someone that is never going to be our friend. they will never be our friend, and a -- no matter how much money we spend. i am a taxi driver. just looking at their eyes, they hate us. host: we hear your sentiment. guest: that is shared by many. it is not a simple as just trying to build a stable afghanistan for the sake of helping the afghans. there are some strategic issues that are potentially vital to u.s. security. we need to look no further than what happened 9/11 to see with an unstable region can do as provided the century needed for terrorists that are looking

internationally. i am in a position to say that would happen again, but these are the types of environments these groups thrive under. some of these less covered or uncovered areas are exactly where many of these groups are from and will continue to operate in as long as they can print it is not that simple. host: limit go back to the contractor chart. has the rise in contractors since june 2009 to march 2011 been in correlation with the troop withdrawal? guest: in closer correlation with the troop buildup. let's remember the end of 2008, we only had about 35,000 troops in afghanistan total. by the end of 2009, i believe it was around 65,000. we have only been at is really high levels of troops for these last eight or 10 months. host: so the search corresponds

with the amount of contractors. guest: roughly speaking. we put thousands of troops in, it takes more to support them. that is just the fact. a thousand more troops requires more support people to provide supplies, logistics, communications, all sorts of capabilities that the troops over there need. host: bill, republican, you the last word. caller: happy thanksgiving. i would say given the president of the in the states is the commander in chief and command of the mission in afghanistan, we can see that obama's policy has led to going from 35,000 to over 65,000 troops. he has expanded the war in afghanistan. let's reflect on where the republican presidential hopefuls stand. my question, why of all the

president republican hopefuls ron paul, with his bring the troops home policy, is receiving more donations from military people who are actually fighting mission in afghanistan than any other republican candidate? i would like your comments. happy thanksgiving. guest: i do not know a whole lot about that. i know that ron paul has come or achieved some celebrity in certain circles. i had not heard that u.s. troops are supporting him over any other republican candidates. i will say, yes, there are a lot of people not only in the military, but those in the u.s., who are having doubts about afghanistan. some of that is very well justified. that is not to say, however, just or when we pull out that we will leave behind in afghanistan that is going to be, if not stable, then something that is

not going to be on our international security or strategic radar for the next foreseeable future. it is just a very complex issue. there is only so much our military can do to help support this afghan government. it would not shock me hear someone in the military -- some in the military are starting to see that it will take more than just their efforts to create stability. host: for more information, go to rand.org. a lot of discussion as of late on occupy wall street for and against the political encampment. coming up next, author and historian richard norton smith will talk about the history of political encampments. we will be right back.

>> this past july 4, a sermon in boston harbor. simon winchester, and author, became an american citizen. >> i decided i would take all the necessary steps and the exam. i have to confess, i got one of the questions wrong. >> which one? >> i rang up another and as with when she got -- about which one was wrong. she said, not about which color is the white house? i feel a full confessing it to come up but the national anthem. i said "america the beautiful." watch the rest of our interview

with simon winchester sunday night. >> and the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, i draw the line in the test and toss the garment before the feet of tyranny and i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> for most of his life, george wallace was a supporter of segregation, outspoken against the civil-rights movement rid the governor of alabama ran for president four times and lost. one of those efforts cut short by an assassination attempt. this week, george wallace on "the contenders." live, friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. host: we're back with richard norton smith, author of presidential historian.

the history of political encampments. the first march of poor people dates back to win? guest: 1894. there are striking parallels with the headlines as we speak. the year before wall street crash, up until that time was the worst time of economic contraction in american history. there were scattered grass-roots protests, but shape in the spring of 1894 in the unlikely place, ohio, and the likely shape of a man who partly for political reasons and partly out of waiver unrest, partly for religious revival, set off at the head of about 100 plus unemployed fellow citizens who

called themselves the army of the common weal of christ. they were not the only army that set off for washington. there were others on the west coast, but never got as far east as this man did. he was accompanied by about 40 members of the press. which is one thing that has not changed, either. they had a specific program. the one of the federal government to do what it had never done before, to intervene in a pro-active way, specifically, one of the federal government to spend half a billion dollars of what it called the good roads program. looking ahead to what we would call infrastructure development in our own time. you have to remember until that time, both parties, particularly the democrats to occupy the white house at this time, believed in the jeffersonian notion of a less government is

the best government. they tended to look upon what we call depression's as acts of god. the boom and bust cycle was built into capitalism, and respecting that government could do. so coxey arrived here with his ragtag band at the end of april, 1894. there was a rather sterile and thing. on may day, he was arrested for walking on the grass at the capitol. the political system needless to say did not respond immediately. but he had the last laugh. 30 years later, president elect president roosevelt meets with jacob cocci in georgia. ideas abouts,coxey's building roads were to be incorporated into the new deal,

and eventually, the interstate highway system. host: 1894, who is the president? guest: grover cleveland. i guess you'd call in the last conservative democrat, jeffersonian democrat. a man who believed very much in the idea of limited government and who wrote some famous vetoes against any kind of involvement by washington in addressing the needs of states or individuals. host: if you read on with the pita, and references "the wizard of oz." that it was interpreting this movement. guest: it may be an urban legend, but it certainly is something that has persisted over the years. the author of this story army marchingy's

on its way to the washington. and there are those who find political elements in the ox stories for the scarecrow represents the oppressed farmer. the tin man, the oppressed factory worker. it is not accident dorothy is on the yellow brick road, representing gold, which the left viewed as oppressive economically and politically. her ruby red slippers were originally sold for. coxey wanted unlimited coinage of silver. they wanted paper currency. at that time, was not common. there are those -- the cowardly lion has been compared to william dennis brian. who knows? host: and there were on their way to see the wizard.

guest: in this case, the wizard was grover cleveland in the white house. at least the wizard agreed to see them, eventually. grover cleveland did not extend that courtesy. host: 1932. what is happening? guest: the deaths of the great depression -- depths of the great depression, 25 percent unemployment, the economic output is down 40%. there's a real sense of despair that is taking hold, hopelessness. but only about the present, but the future. america's world war i veterans organized to campaign for the payment of a bonus that have been promised them in 1945.

they wanted it now. it began in portland, oregon. it grew. by the time what became known as the bonus expeditionary for the bonus army in short camped out south of the capital, across the river. there were close to 20,000 people. they were here for a couple of months. they came to lobby congress, to move up the bonus. the house passed legislation to do that. the senate overwhelmingly rejected it. at the end of july, violence erupted. president hoover, who had secretly been providing tents, food, supplies, madison, but he

refused to meet with the delegation from the bonus army at the request of the washington, d.c. government, sent troops to clear out buildings on constitution avenue that have been occupied. unfortunately, the whole thing got out of hand. douglas macarthur took it upon themselves to treat this as not a police action, but the last battle of world war i. used violence that had not been authorized by the president. it proved in many ways to set the seal on hoover's defeat in 1932. it came to symbolize, for millions of people, the failure of his depression-era leadership. host: are there comparisons to

that to occupy wall street? guest: we don't know. certainly, there are some parallels in the sense an organization that is seemingly come out of nowhere, although they may not have a specific agenda, 7-point programs, clearly has a guiding philosophy, has a viewpoint. the anger they're tapping into reflects the feeling on the part of many who may not add to be members of the movement, the income disparities in this country have been steadily growing. there is real resentment on the part of many toward wall street as the agent of our current problems.

yet singly rewarded rather than punished. there are a lot of political and economic parallels. we do not know, obviously, where it is going. we do not know with the ultimate influence will be. host: and also in 1932, hoovervilles. guest: that is an important part of the backdrop. he was a miracle worker in many ways. and by 1932, his reputation was in tatters. his name entered the language, in world war i, it entered the finnish language, hoover meant to help. in 1932, there were hoovervilles which were shanty towns where the homeless and jobless assembled because they had nowhere else to live. there were hoover flags. those were empty pockets turned

inside out. there were hoover hogs. those were armadillos that people caught and ate because they had nothing else. he had become the personification of economic hardship and the perception of callousness on the part of the government. >> will you call the hoovervilles political encampments and how long did they last? >> i don't think -- the people who went to live in hoovervilles did not see it as a political act. it was an act of desperation. the -- certainly not -- not in the sense that the bonus army setting up an encampment. that was a political act. they had a political agenda, they had a specific list of things they wanted from congress. they came here to lobby for that. that was a political act.

hoovervilles came to be -- to have political connotation, particularly in 1932, to the extent that they fed this image that the people had of a failed presidency. host: we want to talk about other past political encampments but i want to get some phone calls here, too. john, a republican in miami, florida. ahead. john? caller: i'd like to know if mr. smith believes that the occupy wall street movement will gel, if it has any legs, and will it get a political foundation some day, formation, and something coherent. i'll listen to your answer. guest: i don't mean would be evasive. i'm not a pundit and i'm not a prophet. it's a good question. what history suggests, at this

point it reflects a mood that is perhaps larger or more inchoate. who is, for every person on wall street or the other camps around the country, there are a great many who are in sympathy with their position. now, whether that organizes into a formal -- what argues against it is that as i understand it, the leaders of the movement have been quite even-handed in a plague on both major political parties' houses and so at least so far there's not much evidence of them morphing into a conventional political party endorsing candidates, or the like. host: carmen in hamilton,

montana. caller: i'm strongly with the people that are with occupy wall street. i was in san diego a few days and tried to help them out as much as i could. they are some free thinking, critically thinking people, that are educated and we need more people like that in the united states to troy to understand how complex this absurdity that's happening to our democracy, to our constitution, where are all our rights eroding and especially the ripping off of the american public, i mean, going way back. some people can remember the s&l crisis and later on, the free trade acts and everything. these people are realizing they're economically enslaved. references the constitution. think back to other movements, comparable, that we've talked about. was there a reference to the

constitution? guest: in what sense? host: some have said, or as the caller said, that it's not -- congress, the government is not following the constitution. guest: i think it's even more visceral than that. i think it goes beyond any document, however revered. i think there is -- frank capper movies where jimmy stewart, you know, embodies fairness, basic american decency. the idea that if you work hard, then you will succeed, that you will deserve your success. and i think that sounds terribly simplistic but i think there are a lot of people in this country who believe that those traditional values have become terribly warped and it's all about money, it's about the

money that flow into this town, money that many people believe buys both political parties. one of the sort of unanswered questions is, given this movement, and given the widespread dissatisfaction that many people feel with the status quo, it's reminiscent, in some ways, of 1992, when ross perot came out of nowhere and created a third party around economic issues, around the need to get a handle on federal spending. that's one issue that congress appears to be ducking. so the larger question, it seems to me is, is this the year when a credible third party, whether it's of the left or of the center, enters the ranks.

david washington on twitter wants to know, from a historical perspective, what needs to happen to sustain the occupy wall street movement or what has worked, i guess, if you want to talk about past .ovements guest: history suggests that the odds are against them. if you look at what happened to the bonus army. now, it is true, they got their bonus. they got it early. they got it 1936. f.d.r. opposed the bonus as did hoover. but within the larger context of what the new deal was spending, the bonus didn't seem to be as outrageous as it appeared beforehand. coxey was a joke for a very long time and yet, as i said, 30 years later, his ideas found their way into the mainstream. guess what i would say is,

stay tuned. go to late 1968, the poor people's campaign. what's happening? another effort, it seems to me, that has striking parallels. in the fall of 1967, dr. martin luther king touched off a debate within the southern christian theership conference and civil rights movement generally. remember, the civil rights bill had been passed, the voting rights bill had been passed. a lot of the legal impediments to integration had been knocked down. dr. king believed -- as he said, it's one thing to integrate a lunch counter. but if you can't afford to dine at the lunch counter, what's the point? by 1967, his growing opposition to the vietnam war merged with

his awareness that beyond legal segregation, there were fundamental, deep rooted questions of poverty and economic injustice, and so he said the civil rights movement was moving into a new phase. and he eventually persuaded his colleagues to undertake what became known as the poor people's campaign. tragically, he was not around to lead it. he was assassinated as we know, in memphis, in april of 1968. but it was decided to go ahead anyway, out of tribute to dr. king. not far from the lincoln memorial on the mall, there rose a shanty town. at one point, close to 7,000 people inhabited what was called resurrection city. they came to d.c. with a

specific political and economic agenda that included, first of all, a greater priority for the war on poverty as opposed to the war in vietnam. talk about, guaranteed annual north income, for example. without dr. king to lead them, had some severe problems. the weather was terrible. the camp was almost lost in the mud, which, by the way, is something that happened to the bonus army in ancostia, as well. bobby kennedy was assassinated at the beginning of june, and, frankly, they were almost ignored. they found it difficult to engage the attention.

host: they were ignored by the president at the time? lyndon johnson? >> lyndon johnson clearly was in sympathy with their goals but at that point lyndon johnson was consumed by the war he said he didn't want to fight at the expense of the war he did want to fight. boy that -- by that time, he was consumed by vietnam and the war on poverty, which has had all kinds of criticism over the years. one of the criticisms is that it was underfunded and certainly something people in the encampment believed. they just sort of faded away. the camp was taken down before the end of the summer and it can be argued that the country has not paid much attention to chronic, grinding, systematic poverty in the 40-plus years

since. host: let's go to john in miami, republican. caller: hi. good morning, how are you? host: doing well, sir. history of political encampments. what's your question or comment? caller: i think i disagree with a lot of people about the encampments, especially the current ones from occupy. it seems to me that maybe you're hurting smaller businesses and groups around them than helping. i've heard many stories of small businesses, stores or restaurants, and these people block the entrances and regular customers can't go shopping or buy food and they disrupt the place. and it seems to me that it's more of a bunch of people just trying to go out and do something other than make a concise or a specific stand on some issue. they all seem to want something different. it doesn't seem to be like these hoovervilles where people needed something in particular, like their money from being in the government service in the

military. it's just people out there having something to do, blaming somebody, which, in many cases, is just wrong. maybe they're blaming banks. i heard in miami they went into a bank branch and tried to shut it down. these are tellers and accountants making $10 an hour like everybody else. host: from an historical perspective, is there political fallout from these type of movements? guest: sure. if it's really at odds with the prevailing political climate of the day. the caller asked earlier about their future prospects and whether they would evolve into a significant political force. i think one question that we don't know, that has to be addressed, is, to what extent are they interested, for example, in civil disobedience in blocking the brooklyn bridge to make a statement. that does not, i think, the

caller reflects an extensively held point of view. for people to see the practical usefulness of those tactics. so there are a lot of tactical questions that are waiting to be decided but the thrust behind the movement, at least as i understand it, is something that i think a great many people sympathize with. host: here's a tweet. mr. smith, have the occupy wall street and tea party movements accomplished enough to be remembered by history students in 50 years? guest: that's a great question and it's an unfolding -- we don't know is the honest answer. i'm not sure that's the answer you want to hear. it seems as we're living history, that the tea party has

had a significant impact already, certainly on the republican party. where that goes, again, let's check back on election day or the day after election day. occupy wall street seems a little different. it seems more amorphous uprising, if you will, less conventionally organized, certainly -- there are those who see the tea party as -- and i know a lot of tea partiers will take exception to this -- but many see the tea party as an adjunct to the republican party. i'm not sure there are many people who look upon occupy wall street, for example, as an adjunct to the democratic party. host: scott, independent in wisconsin. caller: good morning, professor smith. i wanted to go back to the bonus army. i guess they must have becauseshed something we're still talking about them.

but i think the occupy folks have such a long list of grievances that we can't boil it down to a seven-point plan but i want to give you two examples. calls came in 100 to one against bagel out -- bailing out the banks but yet people were ignored. the government made a big promise to us regarding social security, we pay our premiums, we can count on something in our old age, but now there's talks of rollbacks and wiping out the program. it's like the bonus army, the government made a promise and back pedaling from the promise. i'm wondering if you could compare those two situations to the bonus army and see if that might not bean -- an applicable comparison. i certainly think you are on to something in the sense that there are a great many people may not be in the streets

but who nevertheless feel a sense of betrayal, who feel certainly a sense of anxiety about their own economic standing or their retirement, you name it. one prediction which i can make and that is, whether we like it or not, american politics, for the foreseeable future, is going to be increasingly defined by a need to balance changing demographics against the very promises that have been made to earlier generations. in relative terms, there is less to go around. and there are more potential recipients. the globalization of the economy redefined market forces.

it redefines competitiveness and politicians who have demonstrated a remarkably bipartysan lack of courage in addressing even the first installment of these issues, are going to find that it's increasingly difficult to evade responsibility. it's a really -- it's an acid test for american democracy. host: do you think that test comes about in 2012? guest: yeah. ening -- i think in 2012 and for a long time thereafter. because even -- even if we went big, quote/unquote. say we cut four or five trillion from the long-term debt. that's four or five trillion off of the increase in the debt. and the demographics are still

relentlessly piling on. it's not a great time, frankly, to be a politician. host: let's hear from a democratic caller in cherry hill, new jersey. rames? go ahead. caller: happy holidays and i love to hear your program. and what i want to ask the professor is, is there better to have a name change on occupy wall street versus occupy capitol hill, because i don't think the problems come from wall street, but come from capitol hill. guest: i think a lot of people would suggest that the problem is shared, that wall street and wall street money has certainly flooded capitol hill, that wall street influence -- we live in what i call the cnbc nation.

this kind of unrelieved cheerleading for "free market forces" that leave everything to the free market. there's no role for the federal government, regulation is a dirty word. and you can see where that got us. i think it's -- the two most dangerous words in the english language are either/or. so to say either wall street or capitol hill, the fact of the matter is, they bottom -- become inseparable and that's part of the probably. host: this tweet, poverty extending well beyond the middle class. dana, republican, in saratoga springs, new york. caller: i'd like to thank the speaker for his comments on capitol hill and wall street being one because when you call your congressman, my congressman, chuck schumer, i

get no response when all of the t.a.r.p. issue came to be, no response from our congressman. i'd like to thank the people on wall street, occupy wall street, i'd be there if i could but i live paycheck to paycheck. i think you very much for taking my call. host: susan, democratic caller in hartford, connecticut. caller: i'm a college student studying the american revolution at trinity college so i'm interested in talking about history relating to today because i've participated in the occupy hartford movement and i'd like to see if you could make a direct comparison between this and shea's rebellion because i are getting involved just like they were involved in massachusetts when they rebuild because it's similar. their farms were getting mortgaged and they had fought this war and they were very patriotic. i think that was one of the

first times when american voices got silenced and people weren't able to express what they thought was right and just. host: all right, susan. guest: thank you very much. it's a fascinating parallel. shea's rebellion actually had an enormous impact, much more and perhaps in some ways unintended, than the rebellion, which, as the caller says, after the revolution, there were mostly farmers but others in western massachusetts who rose up -- many of the economic grievances we hear 200 years later. and it can be argued that the effort to create a constitutional convention and replace the articles of confederation with the constitution got a huge shot in the arm unintentionally in reaction to shea's rebellion.

thomas jefferson famously praised those who took part. george washington expressed profound concern about what this portended for the future of this weak, struggling republic. and the constitution followed. host: when you look at the past movements we've talked about and the role of the president in them, many have made comments that president obama is sort of walking a fine line on whether or not to embrace this occupy wall street movement or not. did past presidents talk about the movements that were happening or did they do the same? guest: it's interesting. again, for much of our history, you have to remember, as i said earlier, presidents really didn't think they had a responsibility in terms of economic management. that's when the division between washington and wall street was

greatest. that really changed in the great depression and certainly franklin roosevelt, although f.d.r. opposed the idea of the bonus, he did something very shrewd. he sent his wife to see the bonus marchers. as it was said later on, hoover sent the army, roosevelt sent his wife. and it was a way of symbolizing his broad sympathy with this movement and with the dispossessed, in the millions, that they, in some ways, represented. host: john, an independent in pennsylvania. you're on the air, go ahead. caller: yes. this is a great topic. i wish c-span would do more of this from a historical perspective because so many people don't know our history. going back even 20 years, we don't know history. my question is, the united

states, this is a continuum. we've got serbia, georgia, ukraine, the fall of the soviet union, the arab spring, now the united states. everybody's being swept along in what's been going to in the world for the last 30, 40 years. and it's our turn now. i think this is here to stay. i certainly hope so. host: those are john's thoughts in pennsylvania. joanne, a republican in san diego. what do you think? caller: i guess why i'm so bitter about occupy is our cities are so strapped, our resources. san diego is practically bankrupt and whereas here we have the tea party which is very responsible, you can gun to the oceanside pier on a sunday even and voice your opinions and i think they did effect the last election cycle so i don't like

the destructive nature of it. concerned about some of the anti-semitic signs i see in it and i think if the people would get behind the tea party which helps all economic levels, if we can just limit the power of the central government where so many the agencies are duplicated in our states and downsize that and basically our federal government should be handling our defense and that's what we're going to cut. host: richard, democrat in haverville, massachusetts. caller: thanks, greta. professor clark, i was a campaigner for barack obama and thought i was voting for a progressive democrat. instead, he turned out to be a cautious, pragmatic, middle of the road old republican. he's so tied to wall street and he gets corporate money, which i didn't think he would be a corporatist and he's the

appointed, eric holder, at the attorney general, also a corporate lawyer. so many people in the progressive community feel alienated from him and our government and if romney gets the nomination, i just feel i have a choice between the two parties because they have such a lock, wall street and the banks are such a lock on both parties. guest: can i ask you a question, sir? you really are the perfect candidate for a third party. would you support a party of the left? caller: absolutely. guest: do you have any candidates in mind? caller: i love bernie sanders and dennis kucinich, russ feingold. i would be interested in any one of those but i know they won't party run. guest: let me ask you because i

suspect there are a lot of people who feel the way you do. if the question were put to you that by supporting a third party of the left, you would guarantee the election of a republican president, what would you do then? caller: the only thing i worry about in difference is of course court judges and appellate courts and lower courts and all that. other than that, i really don't see any really difference if romney wins or if barack obama, other than our court system basically. host: richard, we're running out of time. what did you hear from that caller? guest: i have no doubt there are many people who feel a sense of disappointment, failure or not. i think history will be more generous to the president than perhaps his contemporaries. that doesn't make him unique or particularly unusual but i also

think that the ultimate question that will be asked is, is it really -- is it really the court the only thing that separates the two parties? host: we heard from a previous caller that would like to hear more history segments. we are doing a 14-week series looking at presidential those who ran, lost, and changed history anyway. our guest, richard norton smith, part of several of those. this week, coming up tomorrow, live at 8:00, we'll look at george wallace. give us a little bit about george wallace. guest: george wallace is one of the more important third party figures, governor of alabama, the living emblem of fire-breathing resistance to racial integration. and by 1968, someone who pulled 13% of the popular vote, not just in the south, but in urban areas in the north, p