closed. he wants a wall. he is not anti-hispanic at all. , if i wasmy country going to mexico and i'm a black person, if i went over there and i go in a legally, they will put me in jail. it is just not right. you come in here legally and that is fine, but if you are ill legal, it is not right. host: thank you for your time this morning. karen is up next in annapolis, maryland. give us your reason. caller: this is sharing. host: hi, sharon. media, politicians, and very rich are out of touch with mainstreet. mainstreet is this -- the who are going out, working the nine

to five, paying their taxes, coming home dead on their feet. i mean dead on their feet. all they can do is get their dinner, sit down, turn on the television, and hear about how this and that and this and that. we do not have time to go up to d.c. and fight. we do not have time for the things that maybe other people have. changed.t has it is two types of people, the very poor people who can barely for a rent -- pay rent, and the rich on main street are this. they are the people who can maybe pay rent or pay a mortgage. they can afford to have medical insurance. they can put food on the table, pay their basic bills, and if they are in mock, they can have

a savings account -- are in luck, they can have a savings account and maybe take a vacation. that is the new rich person on main street. the media keeps saying, what is trump's thing? they called him a clown, said he was running a carnival. now they changed their tune. now they still keep saying, and main street is wondering, why are they saying this? they keep saying, you do not understand. he is talking like people in mainstreet. host: we are going to have to end it there. another wall street journal article about donald trump, trump rivals convention site. ac, and thatt cp

will be live on c-span on saturday. tonight, carly fiorina is speaking at cpac and we will be live with that and 9:00 p.m. tonight. james is in victorville, california. why are you supporting donald trump? caller: i am supporting donald trump because number one, from the very moment he entered this campaign what he said he was going to do is write. . just like all the other callers before, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. we have heard politicians before, seeing what the super pa cs have done to our vote. borders,o seal our need to know who is coming into our country.

right on foreign policy. he is right on trade. host: you said you are sick and tired of being sick and tired. tell us about yourself. caller: i am retired military. i have been from vietnam to desert storm, quite a few countries in between. donald is right about how these other countries use our military to protect them and we get nothing for it. women aremen and being placed all over this world , dying in other countries, and what do we get? we get very little. he is right about illegal immigration. he is right about the v.a. illegals in some places are being treated better than our veterans. host: we are going to have to

leave it there. i want to thank everyone for calling in this morning and we may return to this question later on. about going to be talking the apple and fbi debate over the encryption issue and privacy issue in just a minute, with eli dourado. after that, presidential historian richard norton smith will be out here to take your calls. look at campaign 2016 but we are going to look at it in a historical sense. richard is always a lot of fun and interesting to have on the program. that is coming up. this weekend, regular viewers of c-span no that book tv and american history tv take over c-span2 and c-span3 every weekend. we have 48 hours of book tv on c-span2 and 48 hours of american

history tv on c-span3. cities and look at their literary history. we are going to anaheim, california. preview, theck mayor of anaheim talking about the history of the city and tourism. >> anaheim is really in the heart of southern california. it is the largest city of orange county. when it was first founded, i think it is very interesting, there was a group of germans from san francisco and they were winemakers. they were utopians so they were looking to create a colony. they found that anaheim had the ideal climate and soil for growing grapes so they came here. they dug a canal to water the grapes from the santa ana river.

this initial colony was one northeast by northeast, and started growing grapes. they called it anaheim. heim in german means home and ana means by the river. other city or small area in the country that gets as many visitors. we are known for disneyland worldwide and we also have the largest convention center on the west coast. we are home to the angels and the ducks hockey team, angels baseball team. this is a place where a lot of people come to. it is fun when i travel across the country and meet a lot of mayors.

if you are a mayor of a regular city, many people have not been there but if you are the mayor of anaheim, so many people come to anaheim. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is eli dourado from george mason university, director of their technology policy program. should apple unlock that phone from san bernardino? guest: i think it would be a terrible precedent to set to unlock, not just unlock the phone but developed a tool that would undercut their existing security measures. badmain reason it would be is it would set a global precedent, and it is not just the u.s. government that would be making these requests, it would be governments around the world. governments of china and russia and other authoritarian

countries who may not use it with the best of intentions. host: james comey testified this week. i want to get your reaction. jobs, toe two investigate cases like san bernardino and to use tools that are lawful and appropriate. our second job is to tell american people that the tools you are using are becoming less and less effective. it is not our job to tell the american people how to resolve that problem. we are not some alien force imposed on america from mars. we only use the tools given to us under the law and so our job is to tell people there is a problem. everybody should care about it. costs and how do we think about that? guest: i think that director ey is right that the fbi

has the obligation to use the tools that are available and under the law. i think there are reasonable arguments that this particular tool they are asking for is not available. apple's brief in the case is quite strong, and we will have to see. i think ultimately this is a question for congress to decide. i think that congress, based on what was said in the hearing, i think congress has shown an interest in accelerating their involvement in the encryption issue, and i think that is what we will end up saying. nationalt about the security aspect, that this was a terrorist and there could be some information to stop another terror attack? guest: i think it is unlikely that there is information on the

phone that the fbi does not already have. phonesrorists used other to plan the attack and destroy does. this was their work phone. it does not appear that he used it for this purpose. he had personal phones that he used for that purpose that were destroyed. the other reason is the fbi has sought from apple and apple has cooperated and given the fbi the icloud back up. apple has turned that information over to the fbi. reseti made a mistake and the password on the icloud account so we do not have the very latest information from the account. the other reason is the fbi has sought from verizon, the carrier associated with the phone, the

phone call and text messaging data from the phone, even for the period that is not covered by the icloud back up's. the fbi has quite a bit of information on what is on this phone already. i think this is not being brought to further this particular investigation but i think it is being brought as a test case, because the facts are so conducive to the issue that you talked about, the public opinion, does this is a very rare terrorist case, national security case. it is the kind of case that is most favorable to the fbi. at the same time, over the same period the fbi made a similar argument in a case in new york and a judge ruled they did not have the authority to ask apple to create a back door into the iphone. that case was a drug case and i

think that is much more typical. law enforcement does not spend most of their time countering terrorism, however important that might be. theirpend a lot of investigative resources on much more petty crimes, including drug use and drug distribution. it is more about, i think, law , thecement wants this tool broad range of investigations it does. host: you all are familiar with the issue we are talking about, the fbi-apple debate. we have divided our lines a little bit differently. if you support apple, if you support the fbi, and all others. if you are supporting apple's position, (202) 748-8000 is the number for you to call. if you are supporting the fbi and the government, (202)

748-8001. we have our third line as well, (202) 748-8002. the wall street journal saying it is technically possible to unlock a lock iphone without apple's help that would be expensive. what is the downside of opening this one phone? not creating a master key, just opening this one phone. guest: the downside would be the precedent it sets. of apple isg asked for them to develop a new version of the ios operating system. it will take them a few weeks. that operating system will then be loaded on the iphone in question and the fbi will be able to crack the phone in half an hour or so after this is done. let's suppose that the operating

system has been destroyed. case, then in future cases there is nothing stopping the u.s. government you need to take the weeks it takes for us to use in this case. it could happen again. it is not just a slippery slope, this is legal precedents. it is not about -- it is not , i don't think it is a stretch, or a progression. it is impossible to keep the president -- president just this once. paul from tennessee. what is your view on this issue is m?

days beforeited 30 i could get a chance to talk. . would like to ask you i have a question for mr. dourado. simple.pretty this is madness. i would love to see donald trump in the office today because they would bus that phone open. families that live in grief because of a terrorist attack. let's look at fort hood, chattanooga, all the things around the country going on right now. muslims want to kill our people. has told the fbi to not get in this man's phone.

line is a very fine andeen what this man does treason. the president of the united states is muslim and he is going to make sure these people are protected. host: we are not going to address the erroneous comments that the president is a muslim. that,ke this first point hey, these are terrorist attacks. guest: there have been terrorist attacks in the u.s. the latest statistics i have seen it since september 11, there have been nine jihadist in the u.s. and 45 people have died. that is very tragic. blessedly rare that we have terrorist attacks.

the real question that we need how much will cracking this iphone do to stop those attacks? this is the first case where anything of that sort has been suggested. i don't think it is true that this will help solve anything. the information on this phone has already been obtained by the fbi. think this will help the investigation at all. there needs to be weighed against the cost of ruining the security of the iphone more generally. forrmation security billions of people around the world, everybody who has an iphone or any phone, because apple is not the only company

that encrypts their phones. cedentms of the pre that it says, it is going to roll in encryption. -- it is going to ruin encryption. have is the potential to access to the private information on the device of this information leaks. we are weighing it against a that it willbility help the investigation against a potential identity theft, potentially prostitution of authoritarian regimes, spying on journalists, increasing the incentive to mug people to steal their phones as you now have access to information on their device as well.

i don't think it is as obvious as the color suggest. host: next call for eli dourado 's george mason university clearance from casper, wyoming. what is your deal -- view on this issue? government should not require apple to do this. when they are doing it, they aren't saying it is just for this stone, but i have heard nine other cases that have nothing to do with terrorism, but murder cases. backdoors it creates a for this, they will want it for everything else. guest: i don't even think the cases,ases were murder they were drug cases. the new york county district attorney testified this week saying his office had 205

iphones where they wanted to use a similar tool. the fbi story that it is just this one phone has not lasted very long. this toear they do want become routine. host: the political lines on this issue are all over the board. guest: absolutely. host: jill in maryland. -- joe in maryland. have copiesfbi does of verizon's records. they do not know with the content is. there could be a text message from one person to the terrorists saying, you know, i will leave the gun here. it the fbi will not know until they get into the actual device. the fact they have the records is not useful because they need to look into the phone to see what the messages were. that is the first thing. encryption, apple had

the capability was doing it themselves. that was proprietary-only software. to encryption as a business procedure because they did not want the burden of hundreds of thousands of law enforcement being sent to their offices to download phones. it is a business decision by apple. icloud goes, the icloud is only obtained if the person selects it to be backed up. to phone cannot be backed up the icloud upon your discretion. you have to agree to that. you seem to know a lot about this. why is that? i amr: put it this way, very familiar with apple and their devices and i am intimately aware of law enforcement's concerns.

only suspects we cannot access, it is victims. family victims whose members do not have access coats and are unable to give it to law enforcement. we do not know the intimate details of their family member'' death. this is a major issue. thank you for your perspective. eli dourado? guest: it is true that the verizon data is metadata and not necessarily the data. very often enough to follow up on new leads. they would know for instance who the shooter was texting with and so on. the leads are preserved to the verizon data. again, it is true that icloud

backups are optional. apple walks you through a process when you set up the phone and the default option is to academic to icloud. in this case, that is what the shooter had done. then, so, as far as this phone it is noted, particularly a concern. i think the fbi does have all the information that it's going to get. even if apple were to crack the phone. host: how did you get involved in this conversation in this business? i have always loved technology and my background is in economics. have age mason, we center that this academic isearch on policy issues and -- hadlled to have been

the opportunity to join the four years ago and i now leave their technology policy team. phoneopening this compromises all of this security. this is a tweet. we talk about issues involving technology ended on public policy. this weekend, we are talking and senator ed markey former senator jack field. they wrote the 1996 telecom act. it is still an effect. we talked about a variety of issues, but we asked editor markie -- senator markey about the fbi issue. there is how he responded. >> in my opinion, the apple officials should work with the government officials to open that iphone. at the same time, to keep that

code complete secret so that it does not jeopardize the security of every other iphone in the united states, or the world. here.e to find a balance bill gates has not taken that position. i understand tim cook is on the other side. it is a debate that we have to have because otherwise many of these devices can be used for the fairies purposes. there is a mckinsey in quality to all the technology. and worst the technology simultaneously. it can be great and dbase. eli dourado. guest: it is true that technology has lots of dual use. encryption is a dual use technology that can be used for good or for evil. general canone in

be used for good or evil. the issue with encryption is that it is not just about privacy, it is about security for all kinds of information that americans might have. people keep their medical information on their iphones. they keep making records. -- banking records. we are in a world where we need that kind of security. is a barely this complicated issue. i think that congress will ultimately have to decide it. i think there is moment come behind the idea of an encryption commission in congress. there have been proposals for such a commission. host: an encryption commission? guest: yes, that would solve the issue through a study that congress would commission.

instead of in the courts, right? there is an adage that bad cases make bad laws. the precedentant to be sent in this case versus a careful, deliberate study of the issue that might come up with a different -- host: how quickly would congress get to this issue? proposedere is a bill to create the commission. i think it would have reasonable a time period for study, two years. host: a couple of years before we get to a legislative -- guest: i think that is right. tweet saying why did the fbi changed the password?

instructed the san bernardino police department to change the password. weren'tthey just thinking. i think they made a mistake. they did not consult apple about the question. apple said they would have advised not to change the password because then you could take the phone to the wi-fi network and then it would automatically do a new update. kerry int call is akron, ohio. you are on the line with eli dourado. we are talking about the apple/fbi issue. caller: good morning. i have been following this debate for the last several weeks. i see a lot of issues that are being missed the need to be addressed. plan toa comprehensive

deal with the situation. that't say anything at all addresses that. started with the terror attack in san bernardino. the first situation that came out of it was a big rush for gun control because -- on?: which side you fall caller: i follow on the apple's side because it goes to what i was talking about. of what thean issue phone is going on. every time something like that happens, there is going to be a rush to have us give us our privacy. you so much. loretta lynch, the attorney

general, was quoted as saying in a speech in san francisco, she -- apple isas -- is subject to a social contract on this issue. true, butt may be there are a number of national security officials who have sided with apple. the former director of the msa thinks the u.s. is better off with strong encryption. o'connell,ssor, mike thing.e same the same with the department of homeland security. this is precisely what the issue is, is what is in society's best interest? there are a number of national security officials who think , notwithstanding the

difficulties that law enforcement faces, it is still in the national interest of strong encryption. it means u.s. medications can be more secure. it means foreign governments will have less access to american data. -- theot just about national security is a comprehensive issue in terms of putting the need for cyber security for preventing identity theft, foreign espionage, etc. host: here is an article from ." terday's "new york times as carter says he is not in favor of a data back door. barbara in new york. what you think of this issue? even believe't this should be an issue. i believe apple should release all the information on the phone to the fbi. host: why? caller: because it is a terror

attack that happened and they should have access. host: barbara, what if this was a murder case? what if this were a drug deal? should apple release that information to those types of issues as well? caller: absolutely because we are in so much trouble here in the united states that i believe they should have access at all times to anything -- murder cases, anything. i don't think apple should be doing what they are doing right now. they should release all the information regarding that phone. host: think you, ma'am. eli dourado, if this were e-mail they were trying to get or phone old wirelineom an phone, are those different issues? guest: i think it is different. maybe the color does not understand that apple has turned

over everything on the phone. but the court is asking apple to produce something that it doesn't have. asking apple to take its engineers, put them in a room for four to six weeks, creating a new operating system that it does not have that apple believes is too dangerous to create, and then after having that team of 10 engineers working for six weeks, they would have this tool the fbi can then use. , justple has turned over as other companies turnover .-mails when it is a warrant other companies turnover records that they are ready have when there is a proper subpoena. this is not a subpoena, this is an order to create a neutral. host: robert tweet sent, not collocated at all.

fbi can go to court, get a search warrant to search a home or confiscate your computer, same thing. the opposite of what i was just saying. it is not the same thing. again, this order is a fairly unique court order. it is not a subpoena at all. it is not technically a subpoena. a subpoena is when you go to court ended on the court says, the order you to testify, or we order you to produce evidence you already have. this is a court ordering apple to do work that it does not want to do. jeff, maryland, give us your views, jeff. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. the first thing i want to say is that it is very disappointing for the guest speaker will be talk about terrorist attacks in our country that we downplay them because one, it is too

many. failure ofws us the our government. its greatest responsibility to americans as deemed by our founding documents, which is to protect us. the second point i want to make is the most important aspect of all of this is the fourth commitment. americans -- fourth amendment. americans forget that the fourth amendment protects us. ist we do and what you see the control through fear. as the one caller said, let's wait and see when it is your family member that is murdered. calls, the calls is liberty. if my child was murdered, i would not expect americans to give up liberty to solve that case.

at thisee with apple moment in time. host: thank you, sir. eli dourado. this isn't a fourth amendment issue. the shooter is that in this case. the shooter does not have any fourth amendment rights to privacy. virtue of being a dead person. so, in this case, just the legal issues center around other 1789 is thet justification that the fbi is using for this. apple is opposing the order on lawground of a clinton era on obligations of communication providers to law enforcement. and on first and fifth amendment grounds. i would caution the caller that is -- that this isn't a fourth

commitment issue. privacy is that's not even the issue. this is often being framed as privacy versus public safety. securityhat it is data that is drawn the objections and most -- from apple other people who support apple. host: would we have this conversation with an android or phone?ft guest: it is very possible. android phones have a form of encryption as well. in the android case, the operating system is written by google and the phone is made by different manufacturers. it is not clear exactly how it would apply, but a similar case could be brought in the future. host: the government has said this is a so-called marketing ploy by apple. is that fair? guest: i don't think that is

there at all. when the judge issued a preliminary order, apple asked the judge to do it under seal. apple asked for it to be in secret. they do not want to have this fight in public. they would much prefer to do it in private. that is not consistent with it being a marketing ploy at all. and again, it is the fbi really want to have this battle in public because of the facts of this case are so favorable to them in the court of public opinion. supports terrorism -- nobody supports terrorism or has any , orathy for these shooters their privacy. it is astounding that anyone would care about the privacy of someone who has obviously committed a terrorist act. ploy by is a marketing

the fbi more than a marketing ploy by apple. journal" "wall street -- apple is right on encryption. they write, we found no one on program that waxes and wings on political surveillance. this case is not about privacy. it is about engineering security and its implications of security on all americans. anthony in maryland. when you come down on this issue? caller: thank you very much to speak to you on this channel for the first time in many decades i have been listening to you guys. i support apple. grounduation on the and anreate momentum interesting situation across the globe. it will not be limited to the united states, it is everywhere.

what they are asking is a upnket injunction to open the floodgates. throughybody can go anybody's phone, no privacy, no nothing. i am surprised. it is creating a political divide to address this issue. this is about everybody. the situation that they are -- it will be a situation where nobody has privacy. i do not support the government's position. host: thank you, sir. mr. dourado. guest: i think anthony is absolutely correct. this is serving going to be a global issue. we should be clear about the that the u.s. is asking

something that no other government has asked for. if the u.s. government succeeds in asking for this from apple, it is going to be -- every other government will find cases where reasons, there are either good reasons or bad perspective, our to ask apple to do the same thing. of course, apple, is a multinational company. it operates in china, russia, drop the world. and if illegitimate court in the , or order apple to produce this backdoor operating system, then a court in any of those countries will be able to order apple to do the

same thing. apple will face a choice potentially between having to produce it there, or leaving that country. terrible precedent to set. anshould be supporting oppressive regimes who don't want to have the government have access to all of their information. host: mr. dourado, have any cases, to other countries like this? guest: this is the only time in history where the government has asked apple, or another computer programmer -- another for computer -- another computer company to produce something like this, a backdoor to their system that does not exist. are -- ourtweet 10,

devices spy on us, track of, collect info on less, or they are on crackle fortresses. devices toan use our track ourselves and upload data to the cloud. if that data has been uploaded to the cloud, those companies do need to produce it. my --duce it when asked when asked by a lawful court. we also have the option to use these devices in a very private manner. we don't have to upload everything to the cloud. we don't have to allow the tracking to occur on our devices. and as far as that is the case, i think we are better

and of course there are always going to be some ways that we can be tracked. right now, cell phone towers are still being used, are still collecting data about where we are. law enforcement has access to that data about which cell phone tower you are connecting to, even if you lock down your phone otherwise. it is a bit of both and it depends on how you use the phone. host: daniel, columbia maryland. caller: i just want to speak about the technological aspect of this debate. it seems as though apple has come out with a proof of concept where we can no longer break the encryption and know what people are saying to each other, what data we have. whether or not we legislate and make a legal solution or a law

enforcement, government, solution, thisty technology is out there whether it is apple or another american company, or in the case of a foreign company who is not subject to american laws, they can create communication standards that are not subject to this fbi federal judge ruling saying, you have to unlock this. it is here. we are dealing with encryption standards that cannot be broken means, so how do we as a society deal with that? we move forward understanding that communications are going to be encrypted, we are not going to be able to see them, people are going to use this. daniel, he seemed to have more than a second level of understanding of this issue. do you work in this area? caller: i do.

i went to school for computer science and i have since moved on to government thinks. host: thank you, sir. guest: to some extent, the toothpaste is out of the tube. encryption, even if big companies are subject to court orders, there are open force projects. anybody now has access to these sorts of encryption tools and indeed apple, i would not be surprised if the next generation of iphones is something that even apple cannot break into even if they want to. this is really the future of how we engineer devices, devices that you own, that nobody else can access without your permission. using encryption to enforce that restriction. i think it is really spitting into the wind to try to undo

that legally in the short term. host: this tweet, this is a government phone, we are talking about. it is not his private phone, for heaven sakes. does that make a difference? guest: if it were not encrypted, it could. government would not need an access therder to contents of the phone. but of course, this is encrypted so in practice it does not make a difference. or not the government in san bernardino county want apple to open it, they still need a court order. host: one more call, adrienne in suffolk, virginia. i come down on the side

of the government. i think apple should open the phone. host: why is that? caller: because 14 people were the shootersthink were connected to a terrorist group, and i think the fbi needs all the help they can get to solve that crime. herenk this case right will be the future of crime solving as phones gets more -- phones get more danced. -- more advanced. adrienne, what about in other cases? what if this were not a terrorist case? murder,it were a robbery, drug dealing case, do the same standards apply? caller: i think so, yeah.

i think they should open the phone for those cases, i do. i do not think we really have any privacy anyway. google and apple, i that they collect our information, our activity on our phones. nobody really has any privacy anymore and everybody's social security number is out there. host: thank you, sir. view, this ise's a very dangerous tool and they think it is too dangerous to create. you can imagine that even if they created this, and even if the fbi only used it appropriately, you could still see hackers from foreign countries, from foreign governments hacking apple's system, stealing the operating

system, being able to load it onto the phones of people they want to spy on. this is not just about lawful requests to access data. this is about, should we have a presumption of security on our phones? as other national security officials have said, we have other interests besides making law enforcement's job easier. i fully recognize that what apple is doing makes law enforcement's job more difficult, but we do have other interests that need to be considered. host: the final comment comes from jody on twitter, if you want your correspondent secure, write it down, put a stamp on it, and mail it u.s. postal.

thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: a little over an hour to journal."hington richard norton smith, we will look at 2016 and compare it historically, and god only knows what richard will talk about when he gets out here. an article from politico, grassley calls for support in the supreme court's role. charles grassley is the chair of the judiciary committee of the senate. the top democrat is patrick leahy and he is our guest this weekend on newsmakers. here is a little bit of what he had to say. is there anything in the constitution that guarantees a nominee hearings and a vote? >> the constitution says we shall advise and consent.

that is usually interpreted to be, you can vote no, but there has never been a time, never been a time -- >> but if the advice is wait until the election? hearings.t have the there has never been a time, never been a time that the supreme court nominee was denied a chance to have a hearing at a vote. we have even had supreme court nominees that were defeated when members of the president's own party has voted against them in committee so they did not have a majority vote. let them go forward and let them have a vote of the whole senate, because we are not elected to vote maybe. we are elected to vote yes or no. this is a very critical position. i do not think the american

people are going to take very kindly to the united states saying, we are not going to do our job, we do not have the courage to vote yes or no. >> one of the things the democratic leader, senator reid says senator grassley will go down as the most obstructionist judiciary chairman in history. he was comparing it to the judiciary khmer men during -- judiciary chairman during the civil rights. >> i will let them speak for themselves. when i remember when i was chairman of the judiciary committee, i made a decision when names would come up and when they come up for a vote, and i made sure they did. this is not what is happening now. >> washington journal continues. host: the numbers from the bureau of labor statistics just came out.

this is their unemployment report, and these are always numbers that a lot of people follow. february remains at 4.9% addedoyment rate, jobs 242,000. that is brand-new information just out. richard norton smith is an author and presidential historian and friend of c-span. you have been on this network for years and many times, so we invited you back to talk about 2016 and put it in a historical context. smith, two names keep coming into my head watching 2016 and i want to get your thoughts. the first one is william jennings bryant. the second one is wendell wilkie. guest: wilkie i understand right away. he was in some ways and even more improbable figure perhaps

then donald trump. york utilitiesew executive who for campaign purposes was rebranded as an indiana farm boy who came out of , where however it must be said a major assist from the all aroundnt media one issue. a sense of urgency, of abnormality about that year as perhaps there is about this. of course the issue was the world war. the so-called phony war had ended and hitler had successfully invaded france. it was only a question of time, many thought, he for england was next to fall. -- before england was next to fall.

you have this once-in-a-lifetime set of circumstances that came into play as this once in a lifetime candidate, former delegate to the democratic national convention who was at 3% in the polls early on. scaleso, on a more modest then donald trump had been introduced to the people by a show called information please. wilkie had a little bit of a following, but the establishment press boomed him. was runnings who he against, a young, experienced district attorney, a gang buster, 37 years old and very green, particularly where considered.cy was robert half, arthur vanderburgh.

it was a fairly weak field. , the time the convention met in philadelphia, had literally overtaken the establishment candidates, if you will, in the polls. went on to win on the sixth ballot. ran a historic campaign, charismatic figure, lost to franklin roosevelt in november, and was soon disowned by the party. host: was it a catastrophic loss? guest: everything was relative. andwon by 11 million votes wilkie cut that in half. the republican party, by 1940 was on its way back. in 1936, there were a

number of people who thought this was the end of the republican party. no one thought that, even in the wake of wilkie's defeat. what many people thought was his finest hour, he blocked them as a bipartisan issue. roosevelt wanted to ensure churchill that american support was forthcoming. wilkie became a committed international as he wrote a book on -- "one world" graced based on his global travels. particularly isolationist republicans ran him out of the party. 1944, lostn in abysmally in the primaries. host: tom dewey. guest: tom dewey was effectively drafted for a nomination he did not want, and wilkie died before the election.

it is fascinating, with all the drang surrounding the trump insurgency, maybe it is the historian and they, i am more interested, why, why is donald trump doing as improbably well as he is? this was an insurgency waiting to happen. go back to ross perot in 1992 or pat buchanan. the same year, a year of economic anxiety. we were in a recession, post-gulf war and the debate over america's role in the world was white-hot. you had pat buchanan, who ran an antiestablishment campaign, a populist campaign and remember nafta had not been passed yet,

but a campaign of economic nationalism. a campaign that tapped into the anxiety of a lot of blue-collar workers, reagan democrats, people who had migrated into the republican party in the 1960's and 1970's in part for cultural values. they felt the republican party youblishment, call it what will, the country club republicans, what was the ghost of the old eastern establishment , basically had written them off , had very little to say to them. buchanan tapped into that anger and that resentment and ross perot in many ways built upon it. t had an overriding issue, the deficit to justify his candidacy and even though he lost in november, he won the debate because of course bill

perhaps eager to prove that he was an unconventional democrat in some ways, they deficit reduction among his top priorities. to be fair, the first president bush with the 1990 budget deal started the country on the road toward deficit reduction. host: i think you get an idea where this conversation is going. richard norton smith can answer just about anything when it comes to history. the numbers will be on the screen, so go ahead and die out in and we will grab you to participate. the reason i said william jennings bryant is because of ,he speech giving, the populace i do not know, it just struck me. guest: to me, i think one of the elements of the trump phenomenon that has gotten too little attention and you can look at wilkie or perot, 100 years ago

henry ford was being boomed for the presidency against warren harding. every once in a while, particularly in times of economic anxiety, what you might call the celebrity businessman comes along. after all, there is a very large element of voters out there not exclusively, but predominately may be republicans, who believe that government should be more businesslike and it should be run like a business and it should be more rational, it should be smaller, less costly. and they think management counts and it is not surprising that they have drawn to someone they think of first and foremost as a successful businessman. at the state level, ironically mitt romney's father is a classic example of a citizen

politician who left his a job with american motors selling ramblers to become a very successful governor of michigan, and briefly a serious presidential prospect. these are unconventional who, when they get elected, they continue to be polarizing figures. to thet they bring contest, if you will, is the fact that they are not politicians. they are not the usual. and whatever skills americans associate with successful business, that i think is a real large and largely uncommented on part of the trump appeal. host: from a historian's perspective, could donald trump win in november? guest: sure. me ofscinating thing to

course is the struggle for the whole republican party that is happening right now. reagan-ford in 1976. ins is goldwater-rockefeller 1964 when a complacent eastern establishment went too late in the day to something they did not understand, to a grassroots ground insurgency that was about to take over the party. really, it is barry goldwater's party today and 50 years later, we have insurgencies every while. eventually, insurgents and revolutionaries become the new establishment, and that is why periodically you see uprisings like this. host: i want to show some video, and i will have you tell us what it is and give us a perspective on it before we go to calls. in 1964, united states

every day caret a political tone. it was presidential election year. rockefeller led the republican hopefuls against area goldwater, a dynamic conservative senator. but no effective coalition of republican leaders like george romney or former vice president richard nixon could stop the goldwater drive. was tooitch effort little and too late. goldwater refused any concession to the defeated moderate. he accepted the nomination with these words -- >> i will remind you that and liberty is no

life. let me remind you also that moderation and the pursuit of justice is no virtue. richard norton smith. guest: that is the night the modern republican party was born. things, first of all, barry goldwater was always much more interested in purifying the republican party, in making it a purely conservative party then he was personally living in the white house. he was rather ambivalent about the presidency but was not at all ambivalent about reading the rockefeller liberals out of the gop. secondly, a story that sums up that year and may be relevant to what is transpiring as we speak,

at one point very late in the day, the remnants of the eastern establishment gathered literally at thomas dewey's law firm. said, it is very late but maybe we can put together, as taft ininated ike over 1952. everyone was given their assignments, given a list of people to call. they all made their calls and came back and discovered they no longer had a hand on the levers of power. people were dead or retired or politically dead. time in realized that effect had passed them by. do we did not even go to the convention. it was the first he had not attended since 1940, but that , ifsymbolic of how quickly

belatedly, the realization can dawn on a party establishment that it is perhaps no longer established. speechitt romney's yesterday, here is an article in the hill newspaper. cleveland going to be a rubber stamp? guest: it all depends on two states, i think, and i am new and -- no pundit. onhunch is it all depends .hio michigan and other states are coming up next week. trump to continue to prevail, ted cruz on his heels. if trump wins florida, it is feet in for marco rubio.

beyond that, you cannot measure in advance that mysterious thing called omentum, which is more than -- momentum, which is more than numbers. stopped, say 100 votes short, then you have this extraordinary thing. the last time it took a republican convention more than one ballot to choose its nominee was in 1948 when do we defeated --ewey defeated taft. it is hard to imagine in the current emotional framework any of the three candidates who are part of the stop trump coalition prevailing. it is hard to imagine anyone of them. they will have served their function and stopping the front runner. then the question becomes, who can we draft that will be

acceptable for the entire party? "deprived" of the nomination there will be a lot of very unhappy folks. someone who has not gone through the gauntlet line of the primaries, someone who has not subjected themselves to the fire of the process is going to have a credibility issue to begin with. there are not a lot of folks out there, off the top of my head, who are enthusiastically -- who will enthusiastically bring everyone together. on the other hand, hillary is a uniter rather than a divider rather -- where the republicans are concerned. if she is the democratic candidate, that will have its own unifying effect on the party that can agree on nothing but it's disdain for barack obama.

host: richard norton smith, began as a speechwriter, worked for the -- for bob dole. member of mr. hoover's presidential library. eisenhower,d the reagan, and ford presidential libraries. served as executive directory -- director of the abraham lincoln museum. where are you now? guest: there is an acid test for success in illinois government, and that is to get out for political indictments. back here for nine years -- i finished the rockefeller biography. then i have moved to grand andds, michigan to research write a biography of president ford. host: which is what you are working on now. guest: i have about six years to

do it. i'm about one third of the way through the process. it is a much more interesting story than i think most people suspect, and i think a lot of people are going to be surprised. host: his museum is in grand rapids but his archives are to you. guest: what base -- what a terrible decision. it is solomon splitting the baby. you give the museum to your hometown where it sparks a great wave of renewal. if you have been in grand rapids, and i invite the audience to experience it, a town of 200,000 people, it has an extraordinary array of amenities and it really began with the decision to put the ford museum downtown. host: right there on river. guest: so it made sense at the time.

one problem when people create presidential libraries, the wave of enthusiasm that creates them precludes people from saying, what about 20 years from now, what about when we are gone? to the obama organizers and whoever is the next president, learn from my lesson. host: stephen, windham, connecticut, you are on with richard norton smith. caller: thank you. , i do notcampaign know if you all saw the gop debate last night, it was quite a heated debate. it reminds me so much of the jacksonian insurgency and i do not want to get into jackson's peccadilloes, but the race between john quincy adams in 1828, jackson took ohio, georgia, new york, and almost new hampshire.

it was a statistical tie in new hampshire. that race got so nasty because jackson'sbecause jackson's wifea divorcee, and john quincy adam'' team just said the nastiest stuff about rachel. when he won, they say he died of a broken heart. are you, stephen, seeing parallels to today? caller: i am seeing the jacksonian populist campaign against the establishment. jackson went out in 1824 because they did not want him. they did the runaround. right, let's hear from richard norton smith. guest: people talk about outsiders, the year of the outsider, and the fact is outsiders have been running against washington and the political establishment since jackson. you're absolutely right. jackson was a populist before

the term existed. i mean, his specialty of "us vs. them" politics redefined and in many ways democratized america -- a relative term, i admit -- in the 1820's and 1830's. is no accident that he is only one of two presidents to have an age named after him. host: keith, florida, republican line. hi, keith. caller: good morning, gentlemen. can you hear me? thank you very much, mr. smith. i hope you are recording your knowledge. i may visual person, and you are great. now to my comment and question. my comment is this old, stale, conventional thinking one out the nano second of january 1, 2001, the actual start of the 21st century. the thing with trump, i think

people are looking at him -- they should be looking at the people more. they are tired, for example, of big government, the feds directly or indirectly protecting poppy fields in afghanistan, and here police are trying to figure out how to save recorde record amount -- amounts of hair when overdoses -- heroin overdoses. nobody is being held accountable. now to my question on history repeating itself. is it hard to look at history because of america's uniqueness with the constitution? likenow, i do see things gangsterism-- is not a color. host: we need to wrap this up. caller: i have not heard "gunned

down" in the media until recently. anything you want to respond to there? the constitution is a unique and incredible turning point arguably in the history of the world, but americans are human beings. american exceptionalism, however you define it, does not, it ares to me, free us -- we better or worse, the whole nation of globalization, which by the way, i think is significant for the trump movement. again, another parallel with pat buchanan. worldis a sense that the is becoming smaller, that the american economy is undergoing -- the american culture is --ergoing what speed change,

warp speed change, and a great many people feel left out, and they look for, somewhat say a scapegoat, somewhat say simply -- some would say a scapegoat, somewhat say simply explanations. they look beyond our borders, they look inside the beltway. the fact of the matter is the political process, among of themings, too many have become irrelevant, to some have become an enemy. they're tired of being condescended too, which i think is a significant part of the divide that is going on within the republican party right now as well fear the very people -- as well. the very people that ronald reagan brought into the party paid the price for globalization. there is a tendency on the part of establishment republicans to dismiss their concerns. that feeds anger.

that feeds insurgencies, and here we are. host: a little bit more video from 1964. tell us what this is. [video clip] are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever and it has been set if we lose that war, in so doing, lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with greatest astonishment that those who have the most to lose give the least to prevent it happening. i think it is time to ask ourselves if we know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers. not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from castro. the midst of his story, one of my friends turned to the other and said we do not know how lucky we are pure the cuban said, how lucky you are? escape to.place to

in that sentence, he told the entire story -- if we lose freedom, we have no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth. in this idea of the government told into the people is still the newest and most unique and all the long history of man's relation to man. this is the issue of this election. whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the confess that a little elite can plan our lives for our better than we can plan ourselves, you and i are told increasingly we have to choose between the left and right. i would like to suggest there is no thing between a left and right. there is only up and down. man's old age dream, the ultimate and individual freedom consistent with law and order or down to the totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who will trade our freedoms for security will

embark on his downward course. host: richard norton smith. guest: yeah, that is a landmark speech, certainly in modern america and political history. that is called "a time for choosing," and it was delivered in the closing days of the 1964 campaign between lyndon johnson and barry goldwater. of course the story behind it, because it was actually a fund-raising appeal -- phenomenal and successful speech -- and had great impact, it has become legendary in retrospect. but there were people in the goldwater campaign who did not want to run it. they wanted to rerun a rather anodyne broadcasts of barry farm,ter and ike at ike's and frankly there was concern. "ronald reagan, he is just an actor." even among the goldwater revolutionaries, they did not appreciate their own revolution. they did not appreciate reagan's

special qualities. goldwater overruled them. they ran the speech. the rest is history. and also, actually, i think it draws a parallel. people forget -- ronald reagan, by the time he ran in 1976 against gerald ford, you know, had a 30-year relationship with the american people. millions of people saw him as a good guy in the movies or the host of "death valley days," or less we forget, ronald reagan ushered in the new year as the host of the tournament of roses parade. now, the host of the tournament of roses parade cannot be a dangerous radical. it does not figure. reagan went into politics with the wind at his back, a likability factor. mp does not have that.

his brand is very different from reagan's, but not underestimate the cumulative impact of "the apprentice," for example. i mean, millions of people feel they know donald trump in a way that quite frankly they do not know most politicians. myers,ennis, fort florida. thanks for holding your you are on with richard norton smith. caller: good morning, richard reid good morning, c-span listeners. i'm calling you from almost sunny florida. the thing that struck me the the frontgards to runner, mr. trump, when he started out -- i started thinking and going well, what does he remind you of? one, it kind of came to me that he was like the court jester of old -- not the movie -- because he was able to

go tell the king the bad news like, oh, by the way, the fleet. sunk your then later on, he started to gather people. people started to come. that i thought back to my days when i was young and i worked at a carnival. he reminded me of a carnival geek because what do people do? they put down their quarter and went and saw the geek, and he did his thing. .his man has come oh. now he is the flimflam man. not to take anything away from george c scott and his film. but he is out there, and he is basically done what he is learned by doing television, by doing marketing. basically, he is the big mac, and he is the whopper. let's face it. host: all right, we got your point, dennis. richard norton smith? guest: there are many people i

think would agree with the caller. on the other hand, ronald reagan succeeded by being underestimated. you know, "he is just an actor," is too old to be presidents," "he is too right-wing to be president." anyway. figures asgests that unusual as donald trump do not come along often, and it is natural to resist the thought. not know -- we do and we won't know, that is the great thing. the difference between journalism and history. years to comefor whether this is in fact a breaking point, a turning point, or a blip. from a rush limbaugh transcript from yesterday, half a century later, the ghost of

nts theer hautn establishment. he said yesterday on the air that they loved conservatism getting creamed back in 1964, and that is the democratic and republican establishment. guest: that goes to my point. beware of making sweeping judgments, myself included, based on the immediate evidence. lots of people woke up november 4, 1964. devastationat the brought by the goldwater candidacy, and they assumed logically that this could never happen again. you know what? two weeks later, george gallup to the poll, and he did not ask

people, "did you vote for johnson or goldwater?" where'd you consider yourself on the political spectrum? are you a liberal, or are you conservative? 49% of the american people two weeks after the 1964 election identified themselves as conservatives. to me ashat suggests we have a natural tendency, and we always have, to focus on personality. for example right now, there is an intense focus on donald trump. we would doest better to sort of setbacks and look at the movement, the insurgency. what are the forces behind it? what are their historical antecedents? because if you do not understand the past, it is unlikely that you can predict the future. host: jerry in tampa. hi, jerry. caller: good morning.

have any of the presidents in n citizens of other countries or had dual citizenship of other countries like ted cruz, and you think his eligibility is a settled issue? i will hang up and listen. thanks. welcome of course, martin van buren was the first american president born in the united states of america. that is to say after the constitution -- you could say the first half-dozen presidents had, if you will, dual citizenship. they were subjects of the british crown at some point in their lives or for most of their lives. there has only been one first lady -- here is the daily double. host: julia louisa adams. guest: absolutely. host: daily double question. [laughter] guest: who is the only foreign

-born first lady. i'm not a lawyer, and i have no idea, and i suspect we have not heard the last of the debate, but there are some interesting things being argued back and forth. twitter, jd running wants to know what is mr. smith's opinion and historical analogy, if any, of the democratic superdelegate? guest: gosh, you have go back to the reform effort that came about after 1968. effort,s a significant which, by the way, went away in 1970, to the nomination of george mcgovern and the nomination of primaries, and, critically, remember the famous scene in 1972 when jesse jackson and his insurgent delegation succeeded in attracting the mayor, the ultimate power for many, many years? there was a backlash after the

results in november, and there was an effort made later on to find a happy medium to allow for establishment democrats, officeholders, members of the national committee, professional to beats, if you will, part of the convention family along with those that were selected in the open primaries or had caucuses. outgrowth ofly an a reform movement that went awry in some ways. host: we were talking about first ladies a minute ago. you were at a first lady event last night. susan and i did an event looking at the history of american first ladies, beginning of course with martha washington. and i think that will be re- broadcast -- host: it is.

it will be on 7:00 p.m. on c-span saturday night, eastern time. regular viewers know c-span did a series on the first ladies, i think it was last year or 2013, 2014. and a book came out of that as well, a good-selling book, and richard norton smith participated in last night's event at mount vernon. that will broadcast at 7:00 p.m. eastern time on saturday. the next call comes from ringwood, new jersey, republican line. yes.rcaller: host: please go ahead. caller: good morning to mr. smith, yourself, and to the "washington journal." question goes to the so-called migration of democrats to the republican party. i think you are wishy-washing

that a little bit, and i think the reason you're doing that is because it was a conflict within the democratic party between governor waters of alabama and john kennedy, then president, that cause that migration but i want to know if that was a legal migration or an illegal one. if you would expand on my comments, thank you. guest: profound changes took place in the 1960's. a lot of republicans became democrats in places like vermont, and a lot of democrats became republicans in places like georgia, alabama, and mississippi. the goldwater candidacy was -- the civil rights act of 1964, quite frankly, was what started all of this. ,nd the fact of the matter is the solid south went from being solidly democratic to being solidly republican in our own ti me.

-- lyndonly race johnson famously said when he signed the civil rights act , "there goes the south for a generation," by which he meant by embracing the cause of civil rights, by enacting the civil rights act and in the voting rights act in 1965, the democratic party in effect was writing off the region, and history has borne out his position. -- his prediction. but there is another factor, going back to the mid-1960's, and you think about riots in the cities, tumult on college against theotests vietnam war -- this is a country that many people felt were andng apart at the scenes, a love people felt what they would call traditional values, cultural values, the place of the family, quite frankly, the place of women in the culture --

that was all they felt coming under attack, and richard nixon 8ppeal very skillfully in 196 and began the process of aalignment that led to period of conservative dominance in american politics ever since. host: david is in washington on the democrats line. you are on the "washington journal," david. caller: yes, i think the -- i guess this has been mentioned before -- was definitely a disruptive campaign for the democrats. i think this time it is going to be about the same thing for the republicans. it is going to be very disruptive. that year, general wallace got killed, and there was blood all over the streets of chicago. they were beating these young

kids, and you cannot be later. host: governor wallace was not killed in 1968, david. thet: you did have assassinations of dr. king and bobby kennedy in 1968. host: what do you think about his thinking that the republicans could be -- guest: the scenario is being written as we speak, but certainly you can imagine a situation if trump is nominated and if a significant part of party structure and the conservative establishment very publicly refuses to go along with them. it could obviously impact the results in november. but again on the other hand, polls in particular, at least up until now, suggests there is a rough equivalent between republicans who would never vote for trump and democrats who feel the same way about, say, hillary clinton.

but again, that story is still unfolding as we speak. ask me again in three months. host: richard norton smith, have the establishment ever been in favor by people outside of the establishment? guest: [laughs] there are periods of calm. it is hard to believe, but there in americanof calm politics. think of the 1950's. there was certainly consistent. in 1960 campaign, which a lot of point went to as the -- to as the model campaign, and the consensus nation, they did not disagree on very much. why was it a consensus nation? because we had all been through the depression. we had been through world war ii, and we were going through, together, the cold war. the fact is we had more combined together. we could build an interstate highway system. we could announce we are going to the moon, and the nation

would rally around. the fact is, 1960 was probably consensus election for a number of reasons. but there have been times when the establishments has been accepted uncritically. host: that election was really 50/50 when it came down to voting. did both nixon and kennedy -- did they run solid campaigns? guest: they did absolutely. that is one reason why, again, it is kind of a classic campaign. and again, if you have not read it, and i noticed subject to some criticism, read theodore thee's classic account of making of the president, 1960. still one of if not the best books ever written about a political campaign. new york city, republican line. thanks for holding. you are on with richard norton

smith. guest: good morning, gentlemen. mr. smith, i want to thank you for your audio work, and i look forward to your presentation on president gerald ford. guest: thank you. caller: good stuff. you know, as to the republican primary, it is called the tr phenomenon -- the trump phenomenon. they were screaming at each other all over the place at a constitutional convention. this is really nothing new. it has always been tumultuous between the parties and within the parties. it really is the same thing as always. people making a big noise about george heck, president herbert walker bush when he was running against reagan referred to his approach to the economy as "voodoo economics." as a vice president, four years as president, so these things have a way of working themselves out, and the republican primary will. trump, you know, i am going to

say that his appeal is multifold. i will quickly rattle off a few things -- one, he is the master of the soundbite. we live in a world of sound bites. he nails that down well. two, he has all of his own money. he will not be beholden to anyone. that is a double-edged sword, but that is a big part of his appeal, that he has got his own money. he -- andthing is is a lot of people are against political correctness. host: rob, that is a lot on the table. guest: i think that is a true analysis your he should be on cnn and set of happy people that are. host: we asked people why they were trump supporters. there are at least 30 articles in this morning's papers, not to mention what is on tv come the

internet, etc., but with his picture, his name, a headline with his name, an op-ed -- guest: let's go back to winter will keep -- when dell wilke. created this phenomenon in many ways. it just so happened to fit very much the circumstances as they were unfolding, the increasingly desperate situation in europe, about thealization champ, remember, running for third term, breaking with tradition as well, in order to know, the usual bullpen was not adequate. you had to recruit someone to the team, and that is exactly was they did, and willkie

a charismatic -- really a powerful, appealing figure. plain focused, tell it like it is. there are some real parallels. certainly by the time of the convention, he enjoyed as much media attention as trump is accustomed to generating during this campaign. host: was tr someone who was in the papers? thet: oh, yeah, tr invented modern media presidency. part of it was he was a gift from the gods. i mean, he was colorful. up until then, presidents were people -- we saw their names, but we had never seen what they really looked like. figures. remote perhaps they were more revered because they were remote. tr was colorful. upmade news, he shook things , he understood instinctively he had a sixth sense for the

theater of politics, and he played it brilliantly. host: victor in cartersville, georgia, democrat line. we have a few minutes with our guest, richard norton smith. how are you? caller: i am fine, and i really love your book on the white house. i have got to questions. -- was there is any president other than james k. polk that left office with a perfect record? and there is a private office off the oval office that the presidents use a lot. include it in their libraries? guest: that is an interesting question. as far as polk is concerned, there are historians now who manifest destiny and american

exceptionalism have become supportive. yourspute about characterization very but for most of our history, polk has been perceived as a very successful president. that is a very interesting question -- you are absolutely right. we re-created the situation room, and we have re-created air force one and other parts of the white house. maybe you should talk to the planners of the obama library. host: were you responsible to getting air force one out to the reagan library? guest: i was not, but i tell you, it was a massive stroke. you know, people want to go somewhere they cannot go. everyone knows about air force one. how many of us will ever step foot on it? brilliant,w, it was and i think it has been a big, big draw. host:

they are reopening tune, completely renovated. thestaircase on the top of embassy in saigon, and a lot of people said, why would you want to remind people of that? the fact is, president ford -- that staircase was a symbol of for those to be free 7000 american and being amazed who climbed it in the end in april 1975 as the berlin wall on display outside. host: there is a website to contact richard norton smith called presidentsandpatriot s.com. mr. smith, what is that? guest: for 25 years, i have been reading what we call presidential tours -- leading what we call presidential tours, so we decided to wrap it up this year. it has nothing to do with 2016 campaign.

we have two trips coming up, one in may in the midwest called churchill, harry and ike, the 60th -- 70th anniversary of the speech -- exactly, so we will be doing all of that. october, we will return to our roots. days.sidents in 10 we will go through the valley, new england, fantastic trip. roosevelts,e's, kennedys, you name it. host: up and down the east? guest: the hudson valley's gorgeous and the time of the year, and the mountains in vermont. anyway, anyone who is interested and wants to know more about the trips, they can go online to iots.com orndpatr there is a real live human being

who will answer the phone at and they can provide any information if you are interested in knowing. host: if somebody participates in the presidents and patriots toward, to the get 24/7 access to you and knowledge? guest: i go a long. it is great. it is fun for me. quite frankly, the majority of our followers are c-span junkies and a lot of them come back to return. we take about 30 people. host: it is a luxury motor coach? guest: that is right. waldorf, they all have histories of their own. tour, butve-star there's no substitute for being there. you can read all the textbooks and biographies, but to stand at

hyde park in the rose garden, you know where fdr and eleanor are buried, that is a very moving experience. host: republican, you have been patient, thank you. caller: good morning. i see a parallel. republicanervative and have been voting straight ticket ever since i became a citizen in 1971. i think i see a parallel between donald trump and ronald reagan. a lot of people are saying that donald trump is shallow, not smart, a phony, but ronald reagan was also seen as a likeow person by his peers

nixon. .e saw him is not as bright and ronald reagan became one of the best presidents of the united states. also, i see a parallel on donald i had selected donald trump because he feels are pain by the established republicans, john mcconnell, and i hope paul ryan does not turn out to be one of them. host: all right, we have information out there. guest: as i said earlier, ronald reagan made a career out of being underestimated, and we do not know yet whether that is a parallel that will carry. isay, i suspect the caller

not alone. i think there are a lot of people who probably are trump supporters who feel the same way. ronald reagan's historical significance is that he was a real figure, a transformative president for these 30 years of american politics after reagan. you could argue there was an age of reagan. as [indiscernible] is the great potential. people who support trump want to believe that he is that kind of same agent, that he will root and branch the "washington establishment." history will tell. host: you would not bite on williams jennings bryan for me, what about william randolph hearst?

hearst was, well, all over the place on the political spectrum. the one thing that was constant was his ambition for office, which was never gratified. a great newspaper mogul envisioned him. he was the one term congressman and had the worst voting record out of anyone in history of the congress. we will not going to other there are parallels today. host: cheryl and carmichael, california, the last call. thank you. good morning. i was wondering for mr. smith, campaignink this against donald trump will backfire against him based on the knowledge and i would assume most of us have is that he is not a polished, trained politician, and we actually do not know for ted cruz and marco rubio how they talk behind crew

-- behind closed doors? my other question is, i have heard small talk about obama running for you and secretary general, have you heard that u.n.-- fo rr secretary-general, have you heard that also and is that is -- andary clinton is that why hillary clinton is supported? guest: i think it is in hillary clinton's interest to be the obama third term, if you will, isolatery to bernie sanders as less supportive of obama. whatever you may think of the obama presidency, clearly, within the democratic party, it is viewed very favorably. secretary-general, i

have not heard that perry i would be very surprised, but this year has taught us that anything is possible. the unemployment rate has maintained at 4.9%, 240 something thousand jobs added. last month, historically, a 4.9% unemployment rate tells us what? guest: that is pretty good. host: but politically? guest: we are in this crazy topsy-turvy world on wall street where good news is bad news. butould never do this predict this, 242,000 was the consensusobs and the was around 200,000. they will be people who will say that the economy is in danger of overheating, but that means we raise interest rates, and that is not good, and the market will tank. who knows what happens, but -- youwall street

understand why americans are polarized around wall street. that is a constant. road -- they were as dissatisfied with wall street as bernie sanders. host: richard norton smith, iots.com, ifdpatr you want to get in contact. as always, thank you. guest: my pleasure. host: if you have not been with us since 7:00 this morning, we have opened the program by talking about how much media attention donald trump is getting, and we wanted to hear from only donald trump dealers or trump supporters this morning. why are you supporting donald trump? be prepared to tell us about yourself why you are supporting mr. trump -- yourself, why you are supporting mr. turner. eastern and central,

(202)-748-8000. pacific,and (202)-748-8001. that question is also posted on our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. you can make comments and participate that way, as well as panwj is our handle. only trump supporters the last 20 minutes. >> the american conservative union will host their annual political conference. our three-day coverage continues live this afternoon at 1:15 eastern with speeches by republican presidential texasates, john kasich, sender ted cruz, and dr. ben carson. on saturday morning at 10:00, we continue with donald trump. live at 11:35 a.m. easter with marco rubio. we will bring you the results of the 2016 cpac poll.

for the complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some of the programs to watch this weekend. on saturday night at 10:00 eastern -- >> the first sentence of the book is "the history of american conservatism is disappointment and betrayal." >> afterward, the discussion of republican politics in his book wrong:e right went conservatism from goldwater to the tea party and beyond." he is interviewed by the cohost of fox, "the five." coming up after, jane mayer, her most recent book called "dark money." join the conversation. we will be taking your phone calls, tweets and comments.

, television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: 20 minutes left this morning. we will return to the question we asked at the open of the show . we want to hear from donald supporters only. why are you supporting donald trump. be prepared to tell us about yourself, be prepared to tell us why you are supporting him. the lines are divided by region. if you live in the eastern and central time zone, (202)-748-8000. if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202)-748-8001. same area codes -- 202. richard is calling for minneapolis. tell us a little bit about yourself before we hereby support donald trump. -- here why you support donald trump. caller: i am retired. host: from what? caller: i am 70.

i was an electronic technician repairman at the hospital. i have been studying the plate of jobs from the united states to japan when everybody was drinking their hands about the automakers going to japan -- theging their hands about automakers going to japan, and ronald reagan was the only person up with a quota on the number of cars coming into the united states from japan. candidatesthe other have even picked up on this slightly. getting our jobs back from china and mexico is one of the main things i am for donald trump. and the immigration. the illegals are taking some of the low level entry jobs and not offering a chance to the poor

workers that are citizens here. thing, if donald trump somehow gets close and is not get the nomination and the figures fixed income are probably will not vote republican. host: that was richard in minneapolis. joe is calling from ohio. why are you supporting donald trump? caller: i am an 85-year-old christian. i have been in business and i have done a lot of other things through my lifetime. i think he is a voice for a large part of the american alllation and it trances the races and cultures. more than just himself, it is giving the american public, for the first time, to really express themselves and what they feel about the political system. the news media tries to direct people in a certain direction, and i think it is what i would

call a civil-civil war going on with these expressions. say so,rump, if i make is mr. goldfinger. he is giving the proverbial gold finger to the media political system, and i think it is giving the american population to express themselves. at my age, i am happy to see the activity going on in the american public's mind. thank you. att: joe, our first caller 7:00 a.m. eastern time, jo called in and said -- he says but i am feeling. do you agree with that? absolutely. i think a lot of people are feeling that. people -- i think we do need term limits. whether that will happen or not,

i think people are expressing that. i think there will be a coalition of the american people a resultre together as of how donald is expressing himself. he is a voice for the public right now and i think that is a big issue. joe, you are calling from ohio and supporting donald trump. what about your governor john kasich? be very happy if john kasich was in because i think he is the combination of the public and political sector and understands it, but i am not uncomfortable with donald. nearly the damage that has been done by the democratic socialist party of the last seven years. host: thank you for your time. sir tom in toledo, ohio. caller: hi, there. i am supporting donald trump. i am a vietnam veteran with a purple heart and i have served two terms in the u.s. peace

corps, which is a little bit of a different animal. i am supporting donald trump because he is the only guy, whether democrat or republican, who is still in the race that is not totally hook line and sinker. he is someone who can be his own man, and you can tell this by the forces against him. whether it is the media, the republican establishments, or the democrats, who are afraid he will appeal to greatly to their supporters. host: thank you for your time. lena in washington, d.c. go ahead. caller: first of all, tell us a little about yourself. good morning. i live in the washington, d.c. area i am african-american and i am supporter of donald trump. i went to say that the hard-working republicans around this country gave the people the

all the power that they needed, the power of the purse, to move the ball forward and they failed. it is time for them to step aside, led a true leader like donald trump help move the party forward. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am a consultant in washington. host: thank you. from rush limbaugh's transcript , itesterday -- he said appears to me that the establishment in washington, both parties, still believe that whatever is happening out here causingountry that is people to support donald trump in large numbers is something temporary. aat it is a favor, it is tantrum, the child that has gone astray and the lecture will straighten them out. themtalking to will show the error of their ways, and that is not what this is as i devil's in great detail

yesterday and on many days and weeks prior -- as i dive oldest in great detail yesterday and in many days and weeks prior. that is rush limbaugh. jonathan is in arizona. why are you supporting donald trump? caller: i am supporting donald trump for various reasons, but the main reason i want to say is that i do feel that he can beat a competent president. i do not think he will launch us into a nuclear war, i do not think you will start a trade war that will start to militarized war. i do trust a lot what he says. dues minor things, ancillary things like trump university and all this other stuff, i don't really care about that. i care about someone that i can trust. we elect presidents based on how we feel, not voting records, income tax returns like mitt romney wants to think. i think what romney did was

stabbing the back and my opinion of romney is trash. that is me personally. host: did you vote for him four years ago? caller: yes. i am african-american black. the first republican i ever .oted for was ronald reagan i have been a conservative ever since, but what has happened to the republican party over the years is they have become fat cats. power tends to corrupt. absolutely. but we have right now is the republican establishment that is so out of touch with me. i am someone who was struggling. i am struggling. i contract and i have recruiters that approach me and will approach with the job and say, we are only paying 35 dollars

and now are. that is roughly twice with burger flippers want. me to believe that i am only worth twice now in the eyes of many agencies around the globe and the united states of what somebody flipping hamburger patties wants. again, there are many problems that are affecting us. our trade deals are terrible. trump is correct when trump says we have people who make very, very bad trade deals like nafta, tpt, all these other deals, it is true. it is not that they are stupid people making the trade deals, it is that the lobbyist and the corporations are the ones behind the trade deals and they make them one-sided, in their favor, and -- c, somebody in vietnam is doing great right now. if you are in vietnam, you have senior wage go from 50 cents a

day to maybe five dollars a day, but for me, and other people around the united states, we see our jobs depleted, taken away. about thened earlier unemployment rate being 4.9%, yet, there are 94 million american adults who are not working, who are not -- do not have full-time jobs. that we haveality just lost. lookedonathan, you have at this through economic eyes, but you have also mentioned you are african-american. we have had a lot of african-american callers this morning on this question. does that surprise you? caller: uh, not really. you have to understand something. i need to say this so that you do not beat me or hang up on me. black or african-american such

as myself, conservative, who has numerous -- i had to college degrees -- chemistry, physics and astronomy, class of 1992. we do not exist in the public --ere, meaning the liberal what i consider them -- the liberal media press does not want to hear jonathan dunbar -- i did not mean to put my last name in their -- but they do not want to hear jonathan do is black and goes out and achieves great things on his own. we want to hear about those blacks who achieve things based on government support, government grants, subsidy, government intervention, and that is the problem. supposedly, no black will ever vote for donald trump because he is a racist, because he called supposedly all mexicans that are coming into the united states

illegally rapists and drug dealers, no. i will be honest. i have had houses and i have gone down to the home depot on the corner and said, you want to work for $20, $30? or id some siding put up will pay you $50 -- you know? no, not all of them are drug dealers and rapists, but there are some who come over. i live in arizona, about a two-hour drive from the border. there are safe houses i get busted all the time in my area, where there are 30 people or 40 people that are held hostage until their families in mexico send money to the coyotes, the human traffickers, to release their people. -- $200 billion, $300 billion worth of drug money goes over the borders. donald trump is right. he is the only person running for president right now, on the

democrat or republican side, that is telling the truth. that is saying things that are real. tot: jonathan, we will have leave it there and we appreciate your time. timothy, thank you are holding. timothy is in utah. why are you supporting donald trump? caller: good morning and thank you for letting me voice my opinion. number one, i want to say america is the greatest country on the planet. we strive to do more for anyone else around the world. over the years, we have lost a lot of our personal [indiscernible] that makes up the country. donald trump hits on an important message that is saying, we need to make america great again. that starts at the very bottom level. , am an ironworker, out of work and i'm not happy about it, but it happens. what i have been able to do, see and listen to is that trump

touches on something important. he wants the american people to feel good about the country again. i am very passionate about that because i believe that our country is falling apart, it is being ripped away from us. we have no control over what we nd do.ear, ad i hope he makes it. i hope you mexico change for this country. and is a good representative of this country and that is why am supporting him. host: next call from noah in maryland. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i would like to support donald trump because i think he is kind of a shot out from the normal establishment and things can be changed. kind of not compromises, but half measures not good in politics and a think he is a wake-up call. i appreciate his honesty and

there are some policies he thought shorts on, some of his policies will be difficult for bipartisan politics, but i think he will be a benefit to the country. host: tell us about yourself. caller: i am a contractor and i have worked for the government must of my life. i have seen a lot of the actual threats to the country, a lot of the decline as far as the fence, theomy, and i just like honesty. i need someone who will be honest and not say, we are the greatest country in the world, don't worry, you know? i went somebody who will say, there is trouble like china eating our lunch and putin is aggressive and we need to make corrections. i do not care about democrat or republican. i just want to be proud of our country and get back to our roots, you know? host: karen in new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you. i am a retired military.

i was military intelligence and i am also a retired schoolteacher in the inner city of philadelphia. i do support john kasich the most but i know he will not make it. i will vote or donald trump. although there was a laundry list of things i do not like about him, there are three very important areas that i do like and believe in him. one of the most important things is that this is a man who knows how to pull people into have different ideas and desires. he knows how to negotiate with them. he knows how to make them feel like they are walking away with something when he walks away with the hand that he wanted. he knows how to do that. these other guys do not know how to do that. is whoct cruz because he he says he is. he is an ideal [indiscernible] just like the president we have

but at the other end of the spectrum. he is not the kind of person that the voters in this country are going to want, so it would be a lose situation if you ran. the other thing i like about donald trump is that he is not the bombastic fool that he presents himself to be. when he negotiates with people for real, he is a different kind of person, but you will not see that person because it would not play well in the race for the presidency. host: karen, we will try to get one more call in. this is roosevelt in indianapolis. you are the last word. by supporting donald trump? -- why are you supporting donald trump? caller: i am supporting donald trump because he is willing to deal with a lot of in-house business. another thing, he is not a self-made man. he was born with money, but he has learned how to capitalize with the money that he has, and

he is not going to be in people's pockets because he does have his own money and does not have to take this, that and the other. i feel that he will bring america back from the inside instead of going across seas, across the china, across the he has to fan from the inside out. when you talk to your friends and coworkers about politics, or you vocal about your support for donald trump? i am very vocal about my issues with donald trump when i speak to my friends. when i talk about donald trump, i feel like they are almost because ig my life feel the way i feel, and yes, i am a black man. host: that is roosevelt in indianapolis.