attack on a former russian spy. and then, henry olsen talks about his book "the working class republican," and the future of the republican party. ♪ good morning everyone on this friday, march 16. we begin our conversation this morning on russia's aggression here and abroad. the treasury department sanction two would dozen russians and spy agencies for meddling in the 2016 presidential election. the president also joined the united kingdom, france, and germany in blaming the kremlin for an attempted assassination of a formal double agent in double agentrmer in britain. does this go far enough? what is your view of the trump administration's russia policy? democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can go to twitter as well at @cspanwj, and you can also join the conversation on facebook.com/cspan. we want to know what you have to say. your view of the trump administration's russia policy. for your calls. in the meantime, here was the president yesterday. he got a question from reporters about the sanctions and the attack in britain. [video clip] >> [inaudible] it looks likep: it. i spoke with the prime minister, .nd we are in deep discussions a very sad situation. it looks like the russians were behind it. something that should never, ever happen, and we are taking it very seriously, as i think are many others. the wall street journal has the story this morning, the trump administration slapped

moscow with its first sanctions for meddling in the presidential campaign and waging on related cyber attacks on critical u.s. infrastructure, punishing the kremlin's intelligence agencies and russians already special counsel robert mueller. the officials used the russian attacksnt for ongoing on the energy grid and manufacturing facilities. it was said those attacks give moscow access to the control utilitiest runs u.s. and factories. russia also targeted u.s. nuclear facilities. what is your view of the trump administration's russia policy? james, independent. caller: god bless you, and god bless our viewers. i like listening to them. we're talking about with trump, and i will keep it real.

after rodney king, how long ago was that? we lost hope in our law enforcement agencies. [indiscernible] peter the great started the kremlin, do you know anything about russia? i hear all the stuff about russia, russia, russia, police killing kids, kids killing kids, a drug war. i may politician, i cannot even host: get on board. -- even get on board. host: do you believe that russia interfered in the 2016 elections? caller: what do they have possibly have done? what could they have possibly done to meddle with the elections? is a little, it district and they are playing games. this is ridiculous. we are americans.

c-span, i love c-span because everybody in the united states listens to it. c-span is a beautiful thing. people can voice their opinions in a respectful way, but it is a wonderful thing. host: i am going to move on to other callers to see what their view is of the trump administration's policy on russia. before we do that, the hill newspaper has this headline about senators john mccain and -- calling for a coordinated nato response to the poisoning of the x russian spy. john mccain and others are calling for article for in nato voked to speed up the response. the letter was sent to the defense that were terry, deputy secretary of state john sullivan, and current cia director and secretary of state nominee mike pompeo.

a joint statement was issued earlier thursday of accusing russia to use a military grade nerve agent to carry out the march 4 attack on that former russian spy and his daughter. roger in hurley, virginia, good morning. your view? caller: good morning to you, good morning, america. i would like to understand why the republican party -- are you there? host: we are listening, the republican party? the soldier men that got killed in nigeria. we have not had one hearing, not one visible hearing on this topic, but benghazi is always heard. showed, al you guys benghazi hearing day after day after day. host: do you have any thoughts on the of minister nations actions on russia?

-- administration's actions on russia? caller: how long have i had those sanctions ready to go? six months? eight? given authorization last year, in a vote of 98-2, authorizing the president to sanction russia. caller: i do not know why he decides to do it now. i do not know why he decides to do it now. host: should he do more? caller: absolutely he should do more. he comes in office, what does he do? bring russia right into the oval office and gives them the grand tour. look at all the people around him who are getting felonies and pleading guilty to this end guilty to that. ofdo not know the entirety what mueller knows, so i'm very concerned, yes. host: roger, the washington post says sanctions yesterday were the first such action that was

passed last ear by congress, and followed months of criticism that the white house has been slow to counter russian aggression. the steps taken thursday fell well short of the whole penalties congress authorized and focused on a narrow list of targets rather than the broader range of individuals and entities believed to have played a role in russia's efforts to interfere in the election. the article goes on to say that the lawmakers have been telling the white house for once -- four months that russia continues -- plans to continue meddling into the 2018 midterm elections. chris, in tennessee. independent. share your thoughts with us? i grew up thoughts is during the cold war, and russia has never been our friend. i think something is missing in the conversations with china. i put them in the same boat. as far as the sanctions, anything you can throw at russia is fine with me. host: so tougher action?

you want to see more? caller: absolutely. they have never been our friend, they have been meddling since the russian revolution in u.s. politics. anything you can do to them to hurt them, take them down. host: go to war, chris? i don't think russia is a big enough threat to go to war with. financially, i think we can ruin them. host: do you know how? caller: what is their number one export, energy? host: right, right. ewat is david ignatius' vi this morning in the washington post. he said putin cannot talk his way out, and this is what david ignatius proposes. the saudi arabia and crown prince mohammad bin salman will visit the white house next week.

they have a deal with moscow to keep oil prices above $60 a barrel. keep --ants to reciprocate trump's friendship, he should suspend this oil deal to punish russia for its own acceptable -- an acceptable actions. leader's military should stand with his american friends, and qatar, one of the world's biggest gas reserves, canopies trump and show the west it is a reliable friend by playing the energy card as well -- russia'sand gas customers deals that are too good to refuse. moscow betrayed the syrian kurds, it's longtime allies, when it through its forces -- withdrew its forces and allowed turkey to attack kurdish forces there. the slaughter of civilians in afrin has been a must as grim

as in east of damascus. incredibly, when asked about chemical weapons use in syria, putin told kelly "one wants to say, boring." the united states is serious about -- if the united states is serious about altering russian behavior, it must organize a new coalition of the willing. for nato allies in israel, participation should be mandatory. emma in stockton, california. democrat. caller: good morning. -- it is allking confusing, but it seems like trump has allegiance to russia, because he has never tried to chastise them for anything. the basis is that all of a sudden, now that russia has made an attack on britain, allegedly, but you know it was russia with

the nerve gas and everything, now all of a sudden he is saying something. there are so many things falling down on him, and all of a sudden they will find out this man is a con man, you know? gab.s got the gift of he has a lot of people thinking he will do something for them and he is not. all he wants is support to get his agenda established in everything. because he left so many positions unstaffed. it is like he is taking all of the gatekeepers off of the gates, and there are so many openings for foreign entities to come in here and maybe hurt us or whatever. havee does not want to anybody that is going to tell him how to do it. he believes he is the one, like you said, i am the one. he is not. stanley in florida, independent. what do you think? caller: the reason he put these

sanctions on is because mueller indicted these people. he had no choice but to do it. these are all the same people mueller indicted. this was not his choice, this was done by mueller. all the same people, and what he is doing right now is getting rid of tillerson, other guy, and he is now going to get rid of mattis and put in john bolton. i can think of the name of that country, not israel, the deal that obama made. host: the iran nuclear deal? yes. caller: he is going to break that up. he has been mad ever since. he is putting a war team together. maddux is gone -- mattis is gone in the next week or two. host: i think you mean mcmaster. caller: mcmaster, yeah.

he is looking for a good spot ad is trying to go out as three-star general. he is looking for a good spot, going out, and then going to put in john bolton. because israel wants us to fight we will break up the iran deal and look for more trouble. you mark my words. within a month, he will rip up the elan deal -- iran deal. he hates it. host: how does this all play into russia? caller: it does not, but he cannot do anything without someone telling him what to do. he is pulling out the whole team so he can get rid of the toronto. he is not a businessman, he is a con man. host: the wall street journal front page -- president to oust his mcmaster, who serves as national security adviser. the rumor is that he would be replaced with john bolton, but sarah sanders tweeted last night "just spoke to the president,

and contrary to reports, they have a good working relationship and there are no changes at the nsc." that is what the president had to say through a spokesperson yesterday about that. front page of the washington worry,- world leaders wondering about six more years of putin. of questions and concerns over what vladimir putin might do with another six-year term in his pocket and the string of unresolved confrontations with the west. zones, russians are widely expected to give the 65-year-old kgb officer a fourth term in office, as a time when the tensions with the west have skyrocketed to levels not seen since the cold war. let's hear from frank, myrtle beach, republican. hi, frank. caller: hi, how are you doing?

i think allegiance to russia is always going to be some kind of connection with the u.s. to russia, whether we like it or not. the fact is we would be under german domination right now, and not these would be in control without russia. i, russia lost 10 million soldiers. in world war ii, they lost 20 million. compared to what, our 200,000? the reality -- people need to understand our connection with russia. it is always going to be there, until all the old people die out, i guess. just think we need to look at that, and it is always going to be there. host: rob in new york, democrat. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. if my memory serves me correctly, at the end of the cold war, our oil companies went

in to russia and helped them develop their oil infrastructure. result, more, as a billionaires than any other country on earth. but putin is doing everything he can short of a real military war , cyber war to undermine democracy around the world. i think that the seven months that have expired since congress , until oursanctions president puts them into effect, they have let these oligarchs, i thought there were 19, somebody said there were 13. that robert mueller indicted. the president sanctions 19 members, 13 were indicted.

caller: i am sure some of putin's billionaires were in the group. it has given them seven months to retrieve and secure their assets. the last thing i am dying to say is that i really resent when i hear our president or anyone tell me what television stations to watch to tell me what is fake news. this is all self-serving. i am not an educated guy, but i have enough intelligence to news is supported with evidence and what is not, and i would challenge my republican friends that are listening to try and spend an hour or two each day watching what is real news, not fake news , to our president says watch msnbc, cnn, they are not fake news. russia's response in the

moscow, russia to expand the blacklist of americans in response to the sanctions andled on those individuals five spy agencies yesterday. they said they will response to a new set of u.s. ancient by expanding its blacklist of americans, this is from the russian foreign minister. the u.s. treasury slap sanctions 19 citizens and five entities on thursday. the russian response, according abc, from prime minister theresa may's reaction, moscow saying they will, in retaliation, expel british diplomats in the poisoning standoff. that is the headline on abc's website. georgia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? a very interesting program. i wanted to mention what nikita khrushchev said.

everyone in the early 1980's know what he said. he said we will bury you. i think that we forgot what he said. he is one smiling, happy camper with putin and trump. another thing as well, we have to remember that as americans, we have to come together or he will bury us. thank you. host: michigan, republican. hi, jean. caller: hello, how are you? i would like to say that ima trump supporter and not a russian, and everything that inmp has run on and done over the last year now i am very grateful for. need to act carefully and thoughtfully, and remember that our president is in the best position to make the decisions on what to do about sanctioning. if congress voted to sanction them one year ago, it may have been not the right decision at the time, which they would not

have the knowledge of. well, members of congress have access to the same intelligence information, some members of congress have access to the same intelligence information at the presidencies. caller: yes -- as the president sees. caller: yes, but he is the commander in chief. at any rate, he indicted them, mueller's people and others. host: yes. the front page of the new york times this morning, robert mueller demand trump's company surrender files, the court order document -- the court order heks documents on russia as moves nearer to the president. trump'soena, which lawyers once assured him would be completed by now, will continue for several more months.

mr. moeller appears to be broadening his inquiry to examine the role for foreign money -- the role foreign money funding mr. trump's political activities. the front page of the new york times, another newspaper with that story this morning. renda, indiana, pennsylvania, a democrat. are talking about the trump administration's policies towards russia. what do you think? caller: i think that his policies toward russia are very, very weak, considering how much he criticized president obama for not using the term "radical islamic extremist. trump has only had praise for putin. he has called him a very strong and decisive leader, which i guess you can be a strong, decisive leader if you kill your critics.

i believe that trump laundered money from russia when he sold the palm springs estate to a russian oligarch, and i believe we have a multibillion-dollar advertising proves that people are influenced by what they see and hear. so the russian meddling in our election, people were influenced by what they saw and what they heard. like i said, for all the criticism that trump has heaped on everybody, he has praised putin for being a strong, decisive leader, even though putin has proven that he has killed critics. i'm curious to know how many of the 13 russians that were indicted, i wonder how long they are going to live. that's all, thank you. host: the sanctions that were

levied yesterday go after one of the intelligence agencies that targeted, that used social media platforms to influence the presidential campaign in 2016. inthat company was targeted the sanctions. it says the sanctions also targeted to other organizations and six individuals in response to various cyber attacks, dating to march of 2016, including a previously unconfirmed attempts to penetrate the american energy grid. this story is from the new york times. we will go to california, independent. good morning. good morning, let me make my full statement before i hang up. first of all, i like to make a statement about all those children are marching up out of fighting theon

message of guns, when these kids , liable to go to school from k to 12. once they go to college, it is an issue of picking and choosing. they should be marching for mandatory college, and those who can note to go to college will, those who know they are not ready for it will not. host: let's stick to russia and our conversation here. caller: let me make my statement, and this is the statement for russia. russians are vikings. they are strong people. they just want to defend themselves from the germans, who race dominant, superior who want to run the world. russia is defending themselves like every other country, and that is all it is about. putin -- likelike spoon because putin has a level

of intelligence that is better than any other leader, including leaders in the united states. the congressional building right behind you, the architects made it so people can see. camilla, georgia, democrat. good morning to you. kick -- outeed to of the military, they are over there fighting every day. everybody gets praised except the military, what a good job they are doing. they do not let politics or anything get involved. they do not look at themselves as democrats or republicans. they do not look at themselves with different nationalities. they are over there fighting and putting their lives on the line. all of us need to be doing the same thing in the united dates of america. host: so titus to russia? caller: russia, you see what

donald trump is doing. putin meddled in our election, he got invited with two oligarchs to the office. we cannot deny this now. we cannot let this one man take us into a serious conflict, this country is trying to get over everybody but america. host: speaking of the oligarchs and russia's aggression abroad, the new york times, britain ints at tougher blows to russia. as she probes for russia's vulnerabilities during a week of deepening crises, prime minister theresa may does not have to look far, within a number of blocks of number 10 downing street, she could find opulent homes owned by vladimir putin is inner circle. one apartment is registered to a deputy owned by first

prime minister igor shuvalov, with the value estimated at $16 million. if former member of the russian parliament and a longtime food and associate lives opposite kensington palace, and a house whose value has been estimated -- $1632 3 million million. suggested that since 2006, around $125 billion has britaininto through secret offshore transactions, much through russia. a capital migrated, the subculture known as london grad grew in size and influence. 2009, a former kgb officer and his son bought a controlling share in the evening standard, one of london's oldest daily

newspapers. in recent years, russian expatriates have begun to build networks in british politics, making large donations to the conservative party. freeze --y to promised to freeze russian state assets were ever they might be used to threaten the property of u.k. nationals or residents. she said investigators will crack down on serious criminals and corrupt elite. she also promised wednesday to introduce legislation similar to the magnitsky act in the united states, allowing these is to be denied to russians are located in human rights violations and freeze their assets. before, the british government had elected to not follow suit. is the trump administration going far enough, or do you

agree with their russia policy? marilyn, -- belkin, maryland, a republican. welcome to the conversation. -- thank you.e i think he has gone far enough. look at the obama years. he did nothing. russia marched in, took over , killed about 300 something people. obama sat down there and did nothing. the democrats forget about all of that. i will go one step further. onto any of these resorts the east coast, atlantic city, new jersey, ocean city, maryland , virginia beach, myrtle beach, during the obama years it was all russian kids working the arcades and the rides. what was the big deal with russia then? the democrats, it is laughable. they forget about all of that. they will go down there this summer and these democratic mayors will have the russians down there working the arcades

and the rides again, like nothing ever happened, just like when they helped take on that commercial airliner in the ukraine. host: so do you believe that russia is a bad actor and needs to be dealt with? caller: i think they need to be the list, like the gentleman said earlier. they fought in world war i and world war ii right alongside us. we cannot forget that. host: so what should be done? well, that is the million-dollar question. i assume that the president has more facts than what we have, but you cannot get past attacking obama when he did nothing. these democrats want to say oh, trump is not doing enough. it is ridiculous. host: jd, the president has been in office for a year. do you think he has done enough? caller: i think so.

i think he has to tread very lightly. russia is a superpower. the big denial over the years is that the senate democrats try to theynce everybody that want a superpower. that is the problem, greta. host: jd in maryland. jeff, independent. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this morning? i have been listening , and they state their opinions on russia and the united states and germany, and i just want to start off by saying i think the biggest problem with the protesting and politics today is that i am 30 one years old, and i believe the generation before me probably as well is not educated correctly on what socialism versus communism versus democracy is. we woulds in school,

say the pledge of allegiance and you would say under the republic for which it stands. not democracy. when i checked last, russia was a republic as well. just to kind of go over world war ii, it was against socialism and communism, hibbler against stalin, and a lot of remnants -- against stalin, and a lot of those remnants are going on today. a lot of the citizens do not know the difference, and i think that is one of the biggest things that need to be addressed , so we can start understanding what politics we are speaking of. when we open our mouths with --ch strong opinions host: do you believe that russia meddled in the 2016 elections yet what do you believe they are trying to undermine democracy here and in other countries? say they arenot

undermining democracy here, because we are not a democracy here. andi will say that russia everybody in every part of this continent is messing with other people's elections. it is the only way to play politics today, is to be the best friend to your worst enemy as well. ok.: let's listen to chuck schumer, the top democrat for the party in the senate. here is what he had to say yesterday about the administration's actions on russia. [video clip] shouldpresident further sanction prudent and anyone else involved under the biological weapons control and warfare elimination act. we are still waiting for president trump to direct intelligence agencies and the state department to use the resources we provided to combat russian cyber attacks. whoave heard from officials

are in charge of cyber security, they have no direction from the white house, no orders to do anything. we are still waiting for action to part in our election security, and we are still waiting for the president, president trump, to utter one word of public criticism for what putin is doing to the u.s. and democracies around the world. host: your view of the trump 's russiaation pos policy. keep joining us. you can also go to twitter and facebook as well. let washington know what you think. in other news this new morning -- this morning, and the r's reporting a u.s. military helicopter carrying seven people has crashed in iraq. according to an update before 6:00 a.m., a spokesperson says the u.s. military helicopter crash after hitting a power line in iraq. all seven aboard are believed to

have been killed. that's from npr this morning. there is also the story and many like it in the papers this morning, four killed in that university bridge collapse in florida, cars passing on freeways below were buried under tons of falling rubble. updated to has been six, i have just learned, six killed in this university bridge collapse. the washington post has this headline this morning -- aclu lawsuit says trump administration is illegally jailing asylum-seekers. the lawsuit filed in the u.s. washington on in thursday alleges the trump administration is illegally jailing asylum-seekers with credible cases for months on end in attempts to deter them and others from seeking refuge in the united states. the aclu and other groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of nine detained asylum-seekers haiti, venezuela, and other

countries. they are asking a judge to order the ministries and to allow 2009 policy -- administration to allow 2009 policy that allows officials to release foreigners while they await their immigration court hearings, a process that can take years. and rumors that h.r. mcmaster might be fired by the president, and john bolton put in his place. this headline in the new york times this morning -- gone from from a nominal team, how many more to go? john kelly, the chief of staff, , thester' h.r. national security adviser, are on thin ice. of state rexy tillerson was fired this past week. fox news personality pete --, a conservative voice on policy,

has emerged as a leading candidate to replace secretary of veterans affairs david shulkin. he is the cohost of fox and weekend show. by the way, dr. shulkin testified on capitol hill yesterday about the trump administration's requests for the veterans affairs department. he was also asked about a potential firing and ethics violation. you can watch that hearing on our website, c-span.org. jamestown, north carolina, democrat line. we are talking about the ministries and policy toward russia. what do you think? -- administration's policy to russia. what do you think? from marylandller who said democrats have not done anything? we are forgetting the history. democrats are member that president john f. kennedy challenged and voided a nuclear

-- and avoided a nuclear war. i was a young man when khrushchev took the shoe off of his foot, banged it at the u.n., and said we will bury you. to go further, the russians have always been our adversary, ever since world war ii. remember that hibbler wanted to sign a nonaggression pact prior to going into russia, but then he went into russia -- h itler wanted to sign a nonaggression pact prior to going into russia, but then he went into russia anyway. and in 1976, the boycott not only of the olympics, but the boycott the united states took regarding human rights violations by the russians, those are two democrats right there. host: do you think that did more to punish russia? caller: absolutely.

john f. kennedy, president carter, and president obama i think could have done more. he told putin to quit it. remember, putin is a former kgb agent. putin is dictating the cyber attacks we are having and the oligarchs have compromised donald trump, and you only have to follow the money. the sanctions should have been stronger, and i am sorry that theident obama, during run-up to the election, did not say more about russian meddling. and look at where bob mueller is going. all thebpoenaing financial records of the trump organization. that should tell you volumes. thankhink c-span -- c-span for being one of the best forums to exercise our first

amendment rights to our opinions and free speech. god bless you, and i pray you have a blessed weekend. mafiathe author of "make -- mcmafia: a journey through financial criminal underworld. she writes that in 2016, his predecessor david cameron -- kurt -- made's predecessor david supporting a referendum, and then found himself out of power. mrs. may probably -- after she took over, she postponed introduction of the legislation, claiming she needed further consultation. she has her own reason for not going forward with the law. brexit has not only polarized public opinion, but also created bitter divisions in her cabinet.

it's economy faces serious problem, including a serious overreliance on oil and gas. mr. putin seeks to bolster his domestic popularity by looking he sows discord with the west. the financial times that of london this morning has the piece about russia's energy sector, and how it has escaped the pain of sanctions over the years. since washington, brussels, and a handful of other western allies began imposing sanctions in 2014, a response of the annexation of the crimea largest energy industries have largely carried on unscathed. oil and gas production is growing and the economy is steady in a blow to western governments that hoped a painful reaction would force the kremlin to the negotiation table. it is a potential lesson for the u.k. government as it waives further retaliation -- as it

waives further retaliation for of a formerd murder spy. caller: i believe in the collusion. both for donald trump, but let me play devil's advocate for a second. ronald mcdonald trump is input and posy pocket, -- is in putin posy pocket -- putin's pocket. $1 billion a year in state financing, they get to weaponize ice, send them to all of our companies and all of our facilities in our country instead of doing the border. ,he emergency management system you can override your governor and your mayor. go get private pensions now and use that for

infrastructure, to fund that. and we won't even talk about the with thecollusion electoral college. if they were to infiltrate our guysion system, 250 control the account. host: david in yonkers, independent. good morning. caller: yes, good morning and thanks for c-span. as the previous caller said, follow the money is the key, whether it is calls to putin representing the oligarchs in that country or perhaps in many ways, mr. trump primarily representing the superrich that do nots recognize political or national boundaries or sovereignties. that is the bottom line.

unless we really recognize that many of the superpowers east and the firsteast since world war have really committed [indiscernible] david, i apologize. you are breaking up. it is difficult to understand you. carolyn in mount vernon, new york, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to make a comment first of all, and then a statement about your topic. all, if barack obama, when he was president, if barack obama had done all the things that 45 has been doing, you having this the topic of discussion every single day on each thing that he had been accused of. but i notice that with 45, you do not do that. now that he a pass

appeared to make some sort of russian policy. now you want to talk about it. and it annoys me that i hear a lot of you hosts asked the question what has barack obama done as far as russian policy? before he left office, he got -- his policy was to take the russians out of those embassies here in the country. but what did 45 do? he did not do a darn thing. now all of a sudden that he is under pressure, all of a sudden you want to discuss trump's russian policy. host: carolyn, how often do you watch the washington journal? caller: pardon? every single -- hello?

i watch every day. host: and you have not seen us mueller's special investigation, ask any questions? caller: no, you do not go into detail like you would if it was barack obama. you would talk about everything that he has done. host: ok. i wholeheartedly disagree with you, carolyn. -- ink you and others think others will disagree with you as well. i have others on the other side that with a the media, including c-span -- that would say the media, including c-span, goes too far in talking about this. rachel in tennessee, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. yeah, i wanted to comment on our policy towards russia. i am personally very disturbed at how aggressive we are towards

russia and how suddenly all of andproblems, both domestic geopolitical, everything is russia's fault. poisoning in britain -- this alleges britain,ng in ely guilty,mmediatly along with no investigation. the government and the media have basically been judge and jury. and i find that troubling. host: rachel, i want to ask you and others who question this or who have questions about this, keep watching. at 8:30 this morning, we'll talk to daryl kimball. we will talk about this nerve folksthat was used that

point to as coming from russia. it was invented there in the 1970's. we will have a deeper discussion about that, coming up on the washington journal. a program note for all of you, make sure to tune in this weekend to book tv and american history tv. c-span's cities tour will explore the american story, and will travel to winston-salem, north carolina. here, the winston-salem mayor joins us to talk about the tobaccoon from a manufacturing town to a tech industry. counties,two and and winston -- salem winston, and in 1913, the two cities came together after

several missed rise. we were the largest city in the state, and we had about 242,000 area, aboutmetro 1.6 million. we are an old factory city with tobacco, textiles, and furniture. we have a ball, into a city based on knowledge-based industries, -- evolved into a city based on knowledge-based industry and technology. a friend of mine has a statement that says the closer you get to the guillotine, the more focused you become. we became very focused, because we were losing jobs out of the ledger and had to find a way to add them back. the knowledge-based industries were our clear choice to move in that direction. we have about five colleges and universities that are here, and the interesting thing to spread around the city geographically. see our downtown areas, it is that neutral melting ground, if you will. we were encouraging students to

come down, have a neutral venue to come together. university is extremely important for us as we continue to build on our innovation and background, and we do this didn't providing fuel -- we see the students providing fuel for us to move in that direction. host: tune in this weekend as we travel to winston-salem, north carolina, and to watch video of winston-salem. to see all the cities we have visited, go to c-span.org/ citiestour. you can see it there. a couple minutes left in our conversation on your view about the trump administration's russia policy. we talked about h.r. mcmaster and the rumor that he could be replaced by john bolton. yesterday, he gave a speech in washington at the holocaust museum, where he said russia was complicit in what is going on in syria. here is the latest from that country. with this picture in the

washington post this morning, a child sleeping in a bag in -- in an eastern suburb of damascus. saidursday, the government 10,000 people have fled to government held territory, and an equal number of people had moved in the other direction. it was said that the people fleeing in the other direction raced across fields to remain behind rebel lines because they bye afraid of being detained the federal government. this event came as syria marked the seventh anniversary of the uprising against the side, which started with peaceful protests before mutating into a raging war. is fight for eastern ghouta turning into one of the bloodiest battles yet, with at least 1540 people killed and nearly 6000 injured.

the syrian network for human rights said in a report several hundred thousand civilians have been killed since the first peaceful protest in march 2011. the conflict has drawn in foreign powers to a scramble for influence over the strategic country located at the heart of the middle east. james comey is coming out with a new book. this is an exclusive to their website this morning. call me to come out hot on book tour to correct lies. to come out hot on book tour to correct lies. his new book is out april 17 from flat iron books. we are told that james comey has been quiet for nearly a year, fired by president trump on may

precipitating the appointment of special counsel robert mueller eight days later. he did not want to be in this position, but is embracing it. there will be more announcements about his book tour soon, but he is eager to go to where his critics are and take them on. he has seen three presidents up , barackeorge w. bush obama, and donald trump, and will compare the first two he served to the third. take a look at the book tour , here is the first look at where he will be. april 18 in new york, april 19 as well. then he goes on to chicago, portland, seattle, boston, washington, d.c., miami, and los angeles. rob in louisville, kentucky, independent. and thank you for taking my call. as far as this russian thing, i do not think russia is the

enemy. they have to start looking at the lawbreakers in this country. -- sanctuary syrian mayors sanctuary city mayors and governors that are breaking the law, they know that, and they are cloaking the ones that break the law. what they are going to have to do is try them for treason. get them for treason and then deport them. host: you have made your point. chris, democrat, new york. we are talking about your view of the trump administration's russia policy. caller: good morning, good morning. host: what do you think, chris? caller: my situation is i just wanted to make one point, and i hope it kind of settled in to the minds of the american people. very quickly, [inaudible] host: we are listening. caller: why is it the situation much onare basing so

that famous quote, that famous quote, making america great again? the situation that is going on right now with russia. if this is the white house we nottalking about, we are going to focus on blaming our leadership. the circus going on in the white house, how does that look? how that looks as america. i am proud to be an american, i love my country, my people, my family, the military, but we are being so vulnerable and and and separated? what does this have to do going back to 1940? host: we will go to illinois, republican. hello, thank you for taking my call. i think the trump administration is doing fine with the russians. i think the obama administration did fine with the russians.

our government's handling them just fine. i do not agree with the sanctions, because i was looking online and found out that the russians make 32,000 rubles a month. if you was to take that and convert it into the dollar, the average russian makes about $555 a month. that is not a whole lot, and we keep hitting their banks and their financial institutions, and i understand we are going after individuals and their government, but their government goes after their people. the russian people are not the problem, the government is the problem. let's establish that first. we always do this to their government and we cannot wonder why they are going to hit. they are going to have to hit us. the japanese hit us in world war ii, we sanctioned their oil and kept doing it, then they hit us at the harbor the philippines, they hit us at one. at pearl harbor, the philippines, and they hit us at guam.

this goes back to world war i. the british king, i do not know what his name was, he was the cousin to the last czar of russia, nicholas romanov. he asked the british king for asylum, and the british king said no. that led to him and his family getting assassinated. that led to the russian revolution. so the british kind of helped out with the beginning of communism, with lenin, stalin, so it the british want to launch a cyber attack, not one american should go and defend that kingdom. not one. the monarchy is the problem. the russians are not the problem. host: rich in jacksonville, florida, independent. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i do not agree with trump and his policies. from my understanding, this talk of -- the way he talks about our

politics, he talks about our newspaper, the fbi, the united states police department that governs our police in the united states, and all of his derogatory stuff. they are the same things that russia would say about us given the opportunity. , and thisd about us has been going on for all of this time. to me, when trump got into toice, him even suggesting use the russians to hack united email to finds' out the truth -- we do not even support doing that to our own people. to having a foreign country do that and even suggesting it? i think his policies are not in line with what the united states policies are.

collusion is getting in bed with somebody to cheat for your own good. that is what i see from the sky and why i do not like his administration. it is chaos. that is how i feel about it. other quickle of stories for you. tentative steps have been taken in the pennsylvania 2018 special election race with conor lamb and rick saccone. rick saccone's attorneys have asked for an immediate release in court after a campaign observer was not allowed to .bserve the counting of ballots tentative steps have been taken towards a recount in that special election race, and the , the gopet journal rubberstamps the senate banking bill. house republicans are leading leave their mark on a bipartisan

banking bill. said on thursday that the house would not rubberstamps the senate measure, which was approved 57-30 one on wednesday with the sport of 17 members of the democratic caucus. this is the follow-up to the dodd frank financial we will take a break. and we come back, we will talk with education week and assisted editor, who will be discussing the school violence act and effort to increase school safety . later, derek campbell discusses the situation in the u.k. with the russian spy. ♪

announcer: this weekend, the debut of 1968, america in 20 oil. we will look back 50 -- in turmoil. we will look back 50 years. leftise of the political and right. this sunday, the vietnam war from major military, diplomatic developments. with vietnam veteran and former virginia senator, author of the and the memoirel "i heard my country calling." 1968, america in turmoil, lives

sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's washington journal. and on american history tv on c-span3. this weekend on the c-span networks, saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, america history tv on c-span3 with daylong coverage for the annual abraham lincoln symposium with annex -- anna holloway. william harris, author of "lincoln in congress." lincoln and the " abolitionists." sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, book tv on c-span2 is live from ,he new museum of the bible discussing the bible's influence on modern literature.

we will also take your calls during the program. watch this weekend on the c-span network. announcer: washington journal continues. here to talk about school safety legislation in the house. what did they pass? it is about training school employees and others, including law enforcement to identify potential threats. this could include funding to spot students who are raising pose a threat may to other students or themselves. the house bill, along with the senate bill revises the program. anonymous also find

reporting systems to help people report to the proper authorities someone they think could be a threat. >> this will be a federal initiative with federal money? >> yes. couldnot a lot, but it help some school districts with those training programs. >> who will lead this effort? >> the department of justice actually. a lot of the training would be undertaken by local groups. sandy hook promise does training programs around the country to help communities prevent gun violence. this involves a lot of training with health professionals who could also be involved in

working with grant programs. i think there are a lot of community groups that could be in the position to help schools take this on. >> it would create a coordinated reporting system. teachers, neighbors worried about the shooter there. this do?d how would a coordinated reporting system work? >> it has bipartisan support. this part does address concerns .rom a republican lawmaker not enough was done to share information about the portland shooter nikolas cruz. based on his behavior at school. the school district has said that they did not see any gaps or mistakes and how they handled him. broad desire for

schools and law enforcement to work together to identify potential threats early and to help crisis intervention team's work with the students. greta: we are talking about school safety this morning. in.nts and students dial start dialing in with your comments or questions. how does this legislation compare with what the senate is thinking about doing? andrew: they are roughly similar. the senate bill is more generous in terms of how much would be available. it would provide $100 million a year. put -- it would allow grants to go to physical infrastructure improvements,

surveillance cameras, door locking systems. a lot of the things that parents and about when they think about school security measures. those infrastructure improvements for school safety can be very expensive. there are assessments that run into the hundreds of thousands theollars, depending on type of school. a lot of security provisions mibtel -- might be popular without work for certain schools. the senate bill says put an emphasis on that and what a lot of grants do. greta: what efforts are being to deal with level the nation's schools and how to make them safe to report any t any kind ofwar

gun threat? this was the result of a lot of compromise. i think rick scott might not have signed the bill under other circumstances, but given the pressure put on him by parents and family of the parkland victims and others, i think he felt he had to sign it. the age limits for purchasing firearms and allows districts to arm school employees and give them training and firearms. that is a very controversial position. mandated would not be to do that, but they would have the option to arm or not. it will be interesting to see how that plays out in florida. there is additional money in the new law for mental health services and provide more school resource officers at florida's schools.

greta: as we go to our viewers this morning, we want to show you this stop school violence act. the question for all of you is if it is a good first step. do you think congress should do more? if so, what? that is our conversation this morning. parent student line. caller: good morning. i disagree. i do not think the answer is putting more guns in our schools. guy got ae security bum rap because he hid behind a wall. i think it is human instinct that you either fight or flight. at that moment, he had the flight instead of the fight.

that is our human instinct. maybe we could send dogs in what they do on that cop show. train them to go after the guy with the gun. i have an english mastiff who would be good for that job. we could train the dogs, have two security guys who are actually trained that will probably be able to help. send a dog in with a best on -- vest on. greta: does this school violence act put guns in schools? andrew: know, there are two main things to know. there is no additional gun control in the bills. democrats do not like that. they do not go far enough.

there are provisions in both bills that exclusively bar them people in used to arm schools and train them and firearms. taking both positions into thatnt, i would point out the association around the country that represents the school police officers does not support educators, school employers in general being armed. too many things can go wrong. mind important to keep in that there are several things that do allow school staff to be armed. this is not a new idea. good morning, tyrone. is put law enforcement in a very difficult position did not do young man anything that wanted --

warranted locking him up. when a child is showing dangerous potential to kill or saying he wants to kill kids in , to actually deal with the anger. would put him out the school and wait for them to do something. we do not know that it will escalate to this type of reaction, where the kid will come back to school. if we do not deal with -- just talking to each other and dealing with it. know that we work in conjunction with each other and we all have different aspects of dealing with these students that we have seen. we recognize the challenge. ok.a: i will leave it there. andrew: the caller touches on a

good point. republicans have made the sayment based on what they are his actions. they think nikolas cruz should have had an arrest record and it could have been possible to keep him from buying weapons. controversial position that a lot of people do not agree with. a lot of it is not confirmed why the district. i think there is a broad desire to improve the communication between law enforcement and school officials and others to spot potential threats. there was a study done over the past several decades overshooting incidents. they found that in 31 of them, the shooter told at least one person of their intention.

likeyou have situations that, look back and say why was not more done to alert the proper authorities? there is room for schools and law enforcement to work together to get these students the help they need and to step in to diffuse potential crisis. good morning -- caller: good morning. the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the second amendment. the unintended consequences of arming the citizenry in order to overthrow its tyrannical government is absurd because it would require the citizenry to be armed with all sorts of incredibly dangerous weapons. i think the second amendment should be repealed. greta: ok. greg in ohio. -- what iselieve

happening -- greta: listen through your phone, not the tv. youtube byething on gregory johnson, people just look at that. a lot of the times you kids are being bullied. a lot of times they say they heard these voices telling them to do these things, like a spiritual type thing going on. let's take up that point of bullying. there have been initiatives to deal with bullying in schools. level, it the federal think this stop school violence act, although a lot of the attention around it has been on preventing school shootings and school violence, part of the

idea is to catch these things early. you can start to feel isolated in school when you are bullied. i think that can lead to a lot of trouble and warning signs of people -- that people sometimes miss. i think these bills do help to spread this conversation. i know the first lady is planning to meet with executives from social media companies to discuss the issue as well. nikolas cruz's activity on social media platforms has drawn scrutiny about what he was saying. it is clearly a very difficult issue to deal with in a comprehensive way. inre are various initiatives government and outside government. greta: we will go to clover,

wisconsin. question or comment? caller: comments. i am a veteran. i am all for guns in the school. no law, ever since america started, has ever stopped the killing. no president has ever stopped the killing. no walkout will ever stop the killing. our airplanes. our children are important. i am prior military in a sense that if teachers were trained like we were come they could save lives. like everybody says, the mental condition of a person. he could be bullied. how young students do not talk to each other. we were very open to each other. .owadays, they stick their nose

take them off all those drugs. take the kids off the drugs. give them more mental health in schools. i am all for guns in the school. we will hear from mark in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i will touch on what the other caller touched on. my stepson was put on an and itchotic medicine made them worse. i did research and it was staggering. 90% of school shooters were prescribed these types of medication. as a direct correlation, suicide rates have gone dramatically up. 1990's, that is when all these prescriptions came into fad like candy for

children. eveniatrists cannot diagnose these mental disorders until they are adults. why are they giving them to our children. i think school shootings would drop dramatically. but ing does play a part, go to the psychiatrist for help and they get prescribed these medications. greta: all right. andrew: one thing i should mention is that earlier this week, the trump administration an ounce a school hd task force. -- school safety task force. it is being led by betsy devos. the task force can look at many other things like the impact of violent video games and various other issues that they think might impact school shootings, including media coverage of shootings and how that might

play a role. is one of the things that the trump administration could look at and what the task force comes back with, we will have to see. greta: a few tweaks from our viewers this morning. there are so many issues today that a mental health program would help. first, we need to encourage people to go into mental health fields because there are so few workers. next bills in congress are to worthless. so much more could be done. finally, one viewer says more grant money for school security. already there. it has no teeth. another worthless way to do nothing. caller: good morning. i think it is essential that we help those that we see in

schools are having difficulty interacting. we should support their families as well. disturbedonally children and mentally ill children. i think we do not give enough support to these students and their families. teacher, most children who have mental illness are not violent. occasionally they are, but if the children have emotional who appeareddren to have a good home life but there is something amiss and they get so angry. i think the schools and community needed to work together with the families to help them provide the support they need for the children. greta: do you have any thoughts

on that? andrew: two things on that. there are 1.6 million children in the u.s. who go to public schools that have a school police officer but do not have a school counselor. i think that speaks the priorities over the years. talk about mental health services in schools and getting these students the support they need. it sends a message. would note isg i that after the columbine high school shooting, colorado set up a tip line to help them report potential threats to schools. that tip line has gotten good reviews.

it has stopped violent incidents at schools. someone has notified the proper authorities and gotten the help of debt -- that he or she needed. greta: let's go to kenneth in buffalo. caller: i agree with the previous caller who said the elephant in the room is the second amendment. the second amendment is not sacred. it did not come down from moses. it is something that was made by the founders for a problem that they had at that time. now.problem does not exist when the second amendment says the right to bear arms come what do they mean by arms?

meant aime, that musket. i think everyone should have the right to have a musket, but other than that, they should be regulated. what does the nra think of this legislation? the nra actually supports it. i think they are fine with it. gun-control issues in it, they would not. this coalition has come together .round this bill sandy hook promise does training to prevent gun violence against children. they support the legislation. republican and democratic cosponsors. these programs have lasted

several years. they could have reauthorized them years ago. obviously, parkland, florida has given additional urgency to take action. they do have the benefit of having support from a large friday of groups. greta: good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. people talkinghe about getting rid of the second amendment, they have to realize that the bottom line is it is an amendment. -- we have a bank. they put a guard out front with a weapon. guess how many times the bank got robbed? none.

to arm them, it is very simple. look at what happened in florida. they had the fbi mess up. the police got called 39 times. this kid should have been stopped in january. we could all these issues and warnings. you need to get these things going. all the other things that we can do. i think it is one of the central questions about what happened in parkland, florida. whether it was something that the school sugar did that would have led him to be barred or prison -- prevented from purchasing a firearm. that is a question with no clear answer.

enforcementlaw authorities were told about it. i am not so sure that is clear. it is not exactly easy to prevent someone from buying a firearm but also having some kind restraining order to take that firearm away. the florida law i mentioned earlier signed by rick scott. separating guns from people if they appear to be mentally unstable. no security is absolute. had arkland high school resource officer who did not directly engage with the shooter. he was also outgunned. he did not have any are 15. -- ar-15.andgun

he had a handgun. greta: good morning. caller: mental health assistance is good. -- first people in line arming teachers and militarizing schools is a crazy idea. what they are doing is putting a band-aid on a terrible -- of a wound -- terrible gash of a wound. we should ban assault rifles. that would not solve the total problem. most of the attacks were caused by handguns. if you band -- banned assault

rifles, you would make people realize that you are taking it seriously. greta: so banning assault weapons. on the issue of school and guns, is this what congress is proposing and only going to propose or is there other legislation in the works? there is a bill i think senators are interested in taking up. concern oft is the democratic lawmakers who are worried that republicans are moving to pass a bill like this very quickly. there is the concern that they will do this very quickly and they will be able to say what is

in it? i think that is a concern that some people have. there will -- democrats have made that very clear. that is not acceptable to them. greta: the stop the school violence act was passed. represents the area of parkland, florida. andrew: i believe it is ted deutch who represents the parkland area. rutherford introduced this bill. after the parkland shooting, it picked up many more. greta: sean, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few statements. startedrnment actually

all of this. schoolsk god out of the and tried to take god out of the country. amendment, washington -- over george washington's head is a little silver plaque. meant to bearey are all the people that may be coming. so we can defend ourselves. they knew more than what we know. assistant editor with education week. you can follow on twitter at education and at andrew. thank you for the conversation. i appreciate it.

we will take a break. when we come back, deal couple will join us to discuss the nerve agent attack in the uk's. later, public policy centers aerials olson -- henry olson discusses his book "working-class republican." announcer: monday on landmark cases, the 1896 case of puppy versus -- the 1896 case. the supreme court case decision established the separate but .qual this narrow interpretation of the 14th amendment was not overturned into the brown versus education decision.

michael -- legal historian and law professor at harvard law school and author of the 2004 book. live onlandmark cases monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span , c-span.org or on the three c-spanradio -- free radio app. explore the interactive constitution created by the national constitution center. there is a link on our website. this weekend, c-span cities tour take the to winston-salem, north carolina.

the literaryre scene and history on saturday on book tv. book.thor with her >> they were a rather extraordinary couple in the early 20th century. was the founder of the r.j. reynolds tobacco company. into one that factory of the top 100 corporations in america by the early 20th century. his wife, catherine, 20 years his junior was committed to a pretty progressive way of shaping society for the early 20th century american. an extensive collection of memorabilia from lewis carroll, author of "alice and wonderland -- alice in

wonderland." >> he did not textbooks on this. it was mostly letters. he would let his friends type volumes of poetry. they would type things on it and it was a novelty to reproduce something that was like a printed document. salem,er: a visit to old settled in 1776. hear about the hidden town project that explores the history. of winston-salem, north carolina on c-span twos book tv and on american history tv. announcer: washington journal continues. greta: back at our table this

morning, dale kimball. kimball. how do we know that we can tie this to russia? daryl: this substance is uniquely russian. this is a type of nerve agent that is very deadly. began developing it in the 1970's. they are known to have produced some of this from defectors. this is a uniquely russian substance. what is interesting is the fascination took place in salisbury, england. close tonot occur so that world-class live, we may not have known that the substance was used because what nerve agents do is they

incapacitate the victim. they stop the nervous system functioning. it often produces it a heart attack at a high dose. -- it often produces a heart attack at a high dose. he survived for reasons that are not clear. clearly wanted to assassinate this double agent. the use oft expect this agent. their use is clearly prohibited. there will be consequences for russia. i think they will continue to deny it. greta: some might be skeptical that only russia has this nerve agent. the united states and

russia were developing very advanced types of chemical weapons through the cold war. the u.s. had their secret programs and russia had their secret programs. there were weapons of indiscriminate destruction. 19 --greed in the late 1980's and 1990's. there were eight countries that had chemical weapons stockpiled. 1990's,ared them in the when the chemical convention was coming together. declared bys not the russians, but they have been suspected of having this for quite some time. how does an attack like

this get carried out? , how belongs to russia does it get into britain? this is a highly controlled substance. russia, going to leave it is very clearly, in the view of everyone who has done this, a state change in -- sanctioned action. one formert just russian double agent who was assassinated. that would be one thing. this was a substance that could and threatenedd hundreds of people. that is one of the things that is so egregious. they are suggesting that they need to see.

they want to be part of the investigation that is now going to take place. to remember is this is just one incident in the last several years where we see the norm, the taboo against using chemical weapons. has talked about the removal of serious medical weapons in a joint u.s. russia operation. they continue to use small quantities of chlorine in attacks on civilian centers. froma needs to shield detection. this is the second situation that is going on right now were russia is involved in either shielding or using chemical weapons. the word unacceptable gets thrown around a lot.

states needs to respond very strongly in a balanced way, so that we deterred further chemical you -- weapons use again. greta: i want to show you what ambassadors at the u.n. had to say. that this attack could be carried out? how did the person do it? did they put it in what the russian agent was drinking? how to you attack someone with a nerve agent? the details are not entirely clear. i do not know what the exact details are. , if it isagent ingested or spread on skin, it can get into the bloodstream. his daughter was also exposed as

they were next to each other. easier thanunately anyone would like for this to happen, if you have the substance. if you have the will to kill someone with this. this agent was not really designed for individual assassination. this was designed and developed for fighting on a massive scale. once used in combat, they kill indiscriminately and in very horrible ways. any means,leasant by but there are ways of dying that are worse than others. believe more than a dozen people were injured around the surrounding area as well. let's listen to the russian

ambassador to the united nations. a call for action against russia. here is how the russian ambassador responded. again, russiaonce had nothing to do with this. is ultimatum from london something that we consider -- that we cannot pay attention to. we considered null and void. we expect that the united kingdom will act in strict adherence,-- including the european conventional ecosystem of criminal matters and will substances that the u.k. investigation is referring to for joint investigation, since you are saying that they are russian in origin.

. this is a mandatory requirement under the convention. we have nothing to fear. we have nothing to hide. the russian ambassador may not actually know what has happened. he has probably been instructed to deny. there are mechanisms that are established for investigating. what will happen is the organization of chemical weapons will probably be conducting over the next few weeks. they will analyze the substance use in this attack. tosia may be allowed familiarize with the investigation. i think it would be a mistake for russia to be directly involved. the question is, what are the consequences? had do you deal with this? there are limited options.

23 british have expelled russian diplomats. there are other actions the u.s. and other countries can take. some of those people are very old because this was produced a while ago. there are other actions that might be more significant that the u.k. could take in other countries, freezing the assets andussian officials oligarchs. of a lot ofcenter russian money. there are additional things that could be done. they could be balanced in our response. we do not want to get into an escalating tit-for-tat situation. ultimately, the u.s. and russia

need to sit down at a high level and work through a lot of the core problems in our relationship with russia to discuss russia's behavior on a broad range of fronts. that is made more difficult. donald has this unusual relationship with respect to russia. that conversation is nuclear weapons. entered april 29. it was replaced in 1925 which outlawed -- states for the prohibition of chemical weapons. your questions and comments. let's go to fort belmar, virginia. caller: good morning. did you hear me?

i was in the military for 30 years. a nuclear bomb, chemical person. my point being that you made it, it earlier -- maybe comment earlier. in order to stabilize a chemical ,eapon, if this was liquefied you can basically send that through the mail. i order perfume for my wife all the time. they do not open the package. if you stabilize it, you have it was from 1.20. we need to find out what we are going to do to ensure that

russia understands that we are well aware of what they have done. president thinks about russia, we will never get to an end state. this is a question. the question is, if we continue down this road, knowing what chemical and biological weapons are out there, to what end state do we have to look for? the nuclear weapons are taboo. chemical weapons are taboo. thesed to remember that do not last forever without us taking action to enforce them. they are was a great deal of work.

russia destroyed about 40,000 tons of dangerous chemical agents. that has been verified. process ofs in the destroying 38,000 tons. we need to make sure that they .atify that includes egypt, israel and north korea which has 4000 tons of chemical weapons, including nerve agent. we need to make sure that there is international compliance with this agreement. there will always be the risk that there is an outlier, secret production and use on a small scale like this. small things cannot be stopped unless we continually make sure that anybody who does this will be held accountable. that comes back to how we deal with this particular incident.

this will play out over the next week, month and year. how do you destroy a chemical weapon? thel: it depends on chemical weapon. in general, they are chemically neutralized. diluted.be burned, the process can be very dangerous. is u.s. has built facility oficated to the dismantling the arsenals. it is a dangerous operation that has to be done very carefully. most of that work has been done in the u.s. and there is still work to be done. russia has officially finished the destruction of its declared chemicals. this was an undeclared stockpile.

could it happen here? daryl: it could, theoretically, happen here. i think it would be even more reason for the russians or somebody else to do it here. you have to have the means to do , sothe will to do it theoretically, yes. i have a couple observations. that the discussion was not uniquely russian, it was uniquely so be it. could veryrepublics easily have access to that particular item. the portly sea of these types of operations in the the has been to localize

effects of an attack. guy was hit with an umbrella and died or the guy who was hit with polonium. something that can have a lot of collateral damage. ais particular guy had collateral damage like the daughter, the policeman and other people. the second element that was guy was part of an exchange of spies. wear elements such as the palestinian guy or defectors. i think there is a number of cautionary things that people ought to look into.

that is as much a danger to them as it is to the west. let's not draw all these putin orderedat the stuff and that is how it was done. that is a good point. produced during the soviet era, but the russians took custody of the chemical weapons stockpile of the soviet union after the breakup of the soviet union. that is why i say russian. there are other areas are houses, material costs finding its way into england for the assassination of this former russian the legion.

there was some rogue element because, and interest of the , for the russian state be knocking off people who he sees as a threat in some way or another. we have to see where the evidence leads us. the russian state is responsible. this is going to play out in the next few days. maybe we will see more evidence appear. happening march 7, just days before vladimir putin is up for election. the u.k. revealed what it was that killed -- or injured him severely and his daughter. vladimir putin is coming up for

reelection. there has been inflation of whether this was part of his effort to show that he is a in the election. i do not think you have much problem with this election. ista: some say the concern murder china. daryl: they have a voter turnout problem. i think what is really going on is trying to send the goals to some of his opponents and enemies, also to he will and can strike back if russian interests reportsisk areas the this morning about russia penetrating u.s. energy grids and having that capability, just as the u.s. does to penetrate other countries and shut them down.

interdependent, our security is very independent -- interdependent. we have to make sure we have a stable relationship. we have to avoid actions that can lead to escalation and destruction. we will have thousands of nuclear weapons also. i'm interested from the point that your guest has made. it seems pretty convincing what he has been laying out. consistent theme throughout history. that makes me wonder why your problemys part of the is with the instability of the state department and president why do we have such short institutional memory? why not speak to the fact that president obama said --

the cold war had been over for decades. not look?why do we secretary clinton said we have a reset of russian relations. the previous administration began to downplay most of these events, including attacks on journalists and political assassinations. greta: let's take those points. daryl: we have had difficulty with russians for many years. there are a number of problems that we have been wrestling with. the russians interfered with the in 2012, 2013, 2

thousand 14, they were working against interest in ukraine. they invaded crimea. war inthe ongoing civil eastern ukraine. these kind of events require high-level u.s. engagement with allies and partners and russia to try to find a peaceful solution to keep russia within the rule of law. i think it was right for president obama to reset relations. he was not ultimately successful. president trump has also talked about a better relationship with russia. the reason why i say it is difficult now for the trump administration to deal with this is dealing with this particular problem requires organizing our message thatnified chemical weapons will not be

tolerated and there is to be accountability. strongquires a diplomatic push. i think that is harder for this particular stick because there are so many empty slots and partners that have not been filled or replaced. president trump has a lot of major issues in the state department. the questions about the future of the iran nuclear deal, the war on syria and more. need a stateou department that is fully stocked, fully functioning and it is hard to say that is the case right now. caller: thank you for taking my call. cut me off.t i talk a little bit slow. i will try to get it out. i do not think the american

people i don't think the american people are buying russia has done everything they are being accused of because there are people on -- in america that are working against the president. to the point where the f.b.i. is doing things. maybe they had something to do with it. we just don't know. until there is actual facts that come out, and i guess russia needs to have --like the ambassador said, he wants to have his people be part of the investigation. i think that is something that needs to happen. because we're not --russia is not the ussr anymore. it was dissolved in 1991, we all know that. it's not the same country. the kgb doesn't exist anymore. we all know that. host: a response. guest: look, this is not an

issue of whether you support or you don't support donald trump. the question here is whether, i think, the united states and the international community want to ensure that the rule of law is respected. it is quite clear that russia in a number of places is violating international agreements and is a bad actor. now, they have their accusations and their complaints against the united states in the west. and some of those may be fair. i think we have to look at some of these situations very neutrally and we have to understand that this represents a challenge to the rule of law internationally. and to our interests and that of our allies. what happened here is there was an attack involving an extremely ourerous chemical weapon in ally's territory, the u.k.

that's not something that we can brush aside or ignore. my point is that we need to respond to this, whoever did it, i think it's the russians. the u.k. government thinks it was the russians involved, to make sure that this kind of thing never happens again. there or anywhere else in the world. host: if the organization of the prohibition of quems investigates this, will it be transparent? will we see the evidence? guest: we're not going to go through the analysis and see the chemical equation that is they used to analyze it. the opcw is a neutral international body that was in order to come up with assessments and judgments about whether states are complying with their obligations

to eliminate and prevent the use of chemical weapons. if there is a body that is to be trusted, i think it's that i the to eliminate recognized by the vast majority of states as the most neutral, independent body able to do this. host: gambrills, republican there. you're on the air. caller: thanks for having me. i wanted to say something about this. everything that's being presented as facts. not being backed up with proof. the american people don't have o be prove anything anymore. we're supposed to rely on hearsay. they say that a nerve agent was used. how do i know? why would russia use a nerve agent developed in russia? why wouldn't they assassinate the guy like usual black ops and make it look like an accident? that's how people are usually

assassinated successfully. host: all right. guest: we shouldn't just base anything on hearsay. this attack took place on march 4. i don't have access to the data that the u.k. government lab has about this agent. but that is one of the best if not the best analytical labs in the world that's widely respected. yes, this investigation should go forward. but as of right now all the signs are pointing to russia as being involved in this at some high level. we need to go ahead with that investigation. and let the chips fall where they may. where they may. i think -- the other thing that's very important here is that the russian state is denying this. russia is also involved in the

war in syria. they have been shielding the syrian government from accountability for syria's continued use of chlorine against civilians in that war. matter where you stand on politics in the united states, i think we can all agree that that kind of behavior by the syrian state is not acceptable. and that russia and other countries should be working to hold the assad regime accountable. right now russia is not doing so. host: your reaction to mccain, senator mccain calling for a coordinated naval response to the poisoning of this ex-russian spy calling on article 4, i believe. guest: that would bring nato together to discuss a response. that's one approach. there is also existing legislation that allows the -- gives the executive branch broad authority to put sanctions in place against any country that

is involved in the chemical weapons attack. that's another option. there are a lot of options out there, a lot of tools. each one may be limited in their effect. these are all things that the congress and the administration should be discussing together with our allies about how to respond in the weeks and months ahead. host: jared next in minnesota. independent. caller: i'd like to say how people always want to attack russia about stuff, but where's anybody who is taking responsibility in u.s. actions or inactions and nato's actions? the biggest influencer of united politics is -- can you read it in the wiki peeda, it's saudi arabia. it says we influence the u.s. congress. what about iraq? two million to three million

innocent people died there on a lie from an intelligence agency. we dropped thousands of uranium bombs that are still toxic today that murdered children. ere's any of the -- there is no responsibility on that. the f.b.i. -- host: i'm going to take your point. it's a point that putin made to megan kelly no responsibility on that. in tn nbc. guest: russia has its complaints west he behavior of the and u.s. foreign policy west and u.s. foreign policy going back a long time, especially since the end of the cold war. this brings us back to the issue of how do we operate in a world with russia which is different interests? how do we coexist? where do we find our points of common interest? how to we avoid conflict? that requires a high level dialogue. we need to do that not just on

this particular issue, not just on syria, ukraine, but also on the bigger issue, i think, of how do we manage our nuke leear relationship? the united states and russia, each possess about 4,000 to 5,000 nuclear weapons, about 1,500 of those are long range missile systems. at any given moment putin or donald trump could launch about 800 nuclear weapons within 15 minutes, and no one else has to say yes. still have a very difficult relationship, and each side has the ability to inflict a great deal of pain. i think we need to have a high level dialogue with them on termed what are strategic stability issues to manage this relationship. right now that's not happening. i would just add for the viewers, i'm about to head off this weekend for consultations with russian experts and european experts on how to manage the difficult

u.s.-russian relationship. the united states, we're well aware the united states has ter strategic stability issues to manage this relationship. right now pursued foreign policy actions that russia and many americans are concerned about, but the question is how do we go forward and manage this given where we're today. host: what do you make given you are about to have that conversation of putin's annual address to parliament recently here he talked about their nuclear weapons? guest: that speech was fascinating. it was a putin boasting session about russia's nuclear arsenal and some of the new capabilities that he says they are trying to develop. i think this was his retort to the united states nuclear posture review, report that came out of the trump administration, about its approach to nuclear weapons. i think what we can take away from both these things is that president trump and president putin are both talking about

increasing their nuclear weapons capabilities, maintaining and upgrading the cold war systems that they had. these are already far in excess in our view to deter nuclear attack by either country on the other. what neither country is talking about is how do we sit down and talk about preserving the existing treaties that limit these agreements, limit these weapons systems and further these excessive arsenals, that's what's not happening. i think we need to be aware of the fact that we may be in the midst of or on the cusp these ow nuclear arms race with russia, in addition to all these other problems. there's one treaty, the new strategic arms reduction treaty, negotiated in 2010, ratified by the senate in 2011, it expires in 2021, february 5. that's the one that limits each side to 1,550 deployed strategic

nuclear weapons. it also has verification and monitoring provisions. if it expires, there will be no limits on the world's two largest arsenals. it will be up to president trump and president putin to decide whether to extend that treaty by five years or negotiate an entirely new treaty which i don't think is possible. that's an important decision the two presidents have to make just to manage this already difficult relationship, make sure it doesn't become more unmanageable. host: for our viewers, if you want to hear what the russian president had to say to the legislature, go to our website c-span.org. his entire remarks are there. we've also been covering the nuclear posture review. there's been several hearings on capitol hill about that. you can put that into the search engine at the top of our website and watch hearings about that as well. steve in florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

thanks for taking my call. maybe you can help me out. i have a question other than hacking voter machines, i don't know how russia could significantly influence any election in the u.s. not through facebook, things like that. i don't understand how they could do t i think it's a head fake by a lot of the agencies in washington that got their hands caught in the cookie jar during the pre-election concerning the dossier and all this stuff. it's about russia was hacking. russia was influencing our election. i don't know how they could have done that. as far as being whose side we're on, it seems to me china is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. we need to create some kind of alignment with either russia or china to get a strength over the 800-pound gorilla. i don't understand how this is happening. i'd like him to explain that. thank you. guest: that's a lot of questions. and the issue of russia's role in the 2016 election might be the subject for a different show

with another guest. that's not my specialty. it brings to mind one thing that's important to keep in mind. the united states and russia and china have difficult relationship in some areas, good relationship in others. we all have nuclear weapons, which have to be managed. there's the added risk of cyber attacks. just this morning there's a report that the u.s. intelligence agencies have assessed that russia has penetrated some of the u.s. critical infrastructure systems order to be able to disrupt those systems. the electricity grids, etc. the united states has that capability. our intelligence agencies have the ability to do that. one of the future issues the united states and russia and china have to manage and make sure does not get out of control is what are the limits, what are the rules of the road with

respect to cyber attacks on critical infrastructure so that we're not moving into a new area of competition and conflict and instability amongst these three global powers. host: richard, reston, virginia, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i've got a point that seldom gets any attention. hat's just the attitude or antipathy towards russia that the media globalists in both parties, there are globalists in both parties, who just do not oft any recognition or value our association with russia. it's denigrated daily, but the point being, what prompts it? let's remember putin removed the russian central bank that was under direct control of sources

in london. and that issue had self has led to a lot of angst and bitterness . it's unfortunate. ussia has several years ago, the russian czar saved america by putting fleets on both coasts when we had our own problems. we forget that they are like us. they are not different. they are part of our origins. yet we have to have someone with a bitter attitude towards them and generating it in the media. host: richard is talking about the russian people. what's the difference wean between the russian people and government? guest: i have been to russia several times. their people, too. they have their interests, concerns. putin is in his view looking out for the russian people. it's clear that they have their interests. we have common interests with the russian people. even with the russian government. we have to find a way to deal

with these issues without them escalating. agree that there is a lot of, let's say piling on about the ills of russia. sometimes that leads politicians and others to think that we should simply punish and not engage in dialogue. one of my messages here about russia is that when we have had difficulty with russia in the past, during the cold war, even during the deepest, darkest moments of the cold war, there has been an effort on both sides to reach out to have a dialogue to avoid miscalculation and to find a way to increase mutual security. that is missing right now. it's very difficult to put it back together. we have to recognize that that is part of the solution. host: viewers want to learn more go to armscontrol.org to learn about the arms control association and their goals for

that mutual security. thank you very much for your time this morning and the conversation. we'll take a break. ethics and back, public policy center's henry olsen joins us to discuss his book, "working class republican," and this group's campaign 2018.and >> this weekend the debut campar series, 1968, america in turmoil. for nine weeks we'll look back 50 years to that turbulent time marked with war, political assassinations, and the space race. women's rights, racial strife, a fractious presidential election, and the rise of the political left and right. this sunday, the vietnam war from major military, political,

and diplomatic developments through the undoing of lyndon b. johnson's presidency. with guests vietnam veteran and former virginia senator, jim webb, author of the vietnam war fire.""fields of and the memoir "i heard my country calling." and pulitzer prize winning journalist, david marines, author of the fire." and the memoir "i heard my country book "they marched into sunlight." 1968, america in turmoil. live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c. span's "washington journal." and on american history tv on c-span3. sunday on c-span's "q&a," colorado college professor tom cronin talks about his book, imagining a great republican, political noflse an the idea of america. >> i think a reading of major american classics is very

empowering in terms of this country stands for something very special, and the great writers like stowe and all these people are reminding, they are story tellers, or tribe wants to do something special. not just a city on the hill. but a city that cares and loves one another and willing to work with one another and understand the politics is indispensable to our progress for as much people as possible. >> "q&a," sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: henry olsen is at our table. the author of this book "working class republican," ronald reagan, and the return of blue collar conservatism. what is a working class republican? guest: working class republican is somebody who puts the needs of the individual above any

particular ideology. and more interested in bettering their lives than in pursuing abstract ideals. host: blue collar conservatism? guest: takes a special focus on the person who is an average skill. person who ronald reagan called american hero, farmers, grocers, the cop on the beat. recognizing that they may need government oversight and government help a little bit more than the person who's out trading bonds on wall street. host: what was reagan's appeal to this group? guest: he understood them like nobody else in our lifetime. he used to say he could appeal to them because he was them. he grew up in a working class family, beset by unemployment and alcoholism. he grew up in a small town where people helped each other but you had to make it on your own. he understood what average people aspire to and the fact that he had ambition that even as a movie actor placed him well

beyond the economic dreams and achievements of anybody he ever grew up with. he never lost touch with his amily and working class roots. he understood what they wanted and he understood what they needed. host: have knows reagan republicans stayed with the republican party since ronald reagan? guest: a lot of the reagan democrats, the people who -- he brought into the party, have not stayed with the party. particularly if they are not strongly religious evangelicals. they went back to voting democrat in national elections for most of the elections after the fall of the berlin wall. t wasn't until donald trump in 2016 that you started to see a lot of the same places and same people, desendants of those people vote for republican for president again. it was quite apaysing. host: did he appeal to them in

the same way ronald reagan did? guest: much cruder way. let's be fair. ronald reagan was a man of soaring rhetoric and 2016 that see a lot of the same sunny optimism. donald trump is neither. what i think he did do that was similar was place his focus from the minute he came down the escalator on trump tower on them. he said you are americans. you have been given a raw deal by the people in power. the people in power prefer foreigners over you. and i'm going to make you great again and that will make america great again. hat's very similar to the sort of positive focus that reagan had and that reagan's boy hood idle franklin roosevelt of had. host: what do you think happened in the pennsylvania special leaks, 18th congressional district. president trump won by 20 points. guest: a few things happened. one, there was a bad candidate. ck saconne was not doing the things he needed to do on the ground in fundraising.

but the fact is that he would have lost badly -- he would have won with a much narrower margin even if he had been a good candidate. part of what's going on is the republican party is not consistently following the blue collar republican, blue collar conservative message. you have president trump who kind of moves between orthodox republicanism and more of a blue collar republicanism, but he doesn't stick with it. and the party is not with him. the party went into that district and said, tax cuts are going to save rick. they spend millions of dollars on ads about tax cuts. i have written about this a couple months ago. the tax cuts are not what the blue collar person wants. they are doing either -- they either don't believe tax cuts will save their financial situation or they are doing well enough they want something else addressed. they found that tax cut ads did not move the electorate, by the end of the campaign they weren't talking about it. that's a sign the republican party doesn't understand what the appeal of blue collar

conservatism is. until they do, they are going to continue to have problems both in the midterm and elections beyond. host: let's listen to the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer on the floor, and what he had to say about that pennsylvania 18th congressional district. senator schumer: the republican party needs to wake up and realize that giving massive benefits to corporations and the wealthy is never going to be a popular issue for them in the elections because it's terrible policy for the average middle class and working american. it gets to the contradiction at the core of the presidency, the president talks like a populist but governs like a pluto contract. let me repeat that. the president talks like a populist but governs like a plutocrat. he just got rid after wall street executive, gary cohn, now he's putting in as his economic advisor, larry cud low, who has favored the -- kudlow, favored the wealthy, helped the wealthy, and all america will benefit

throughout his whole career. not how trump ran. not what he tells working people when he goes to a big tent in pennsylvania. but that's what he's doing. sooner or later, it catches up with you. host: henry olsen? guest: i think there's some truth to that. as i mentioned the president has been veering between orthodox republicanism and populist blue collar conservatism. one of the things i found interesting about pennsylvania 18 is the last public poll that came out that had connor lam winning, winning by more than he did, but it showed that tir riff's were popular. that a pluret of people, even in a democratic heavy poll, thought the tariffs would be good for their district. and had rick and the national republican party ran on tariffs than tax cuts, he would be having congressman rick saccone and that's because people want direct government help not helping corporations indirectly.

they want help that they know can help them directly. host: the tariff announcement came too late. guest: there also -- it wasn't driven home. the tariff announcement could have come at the right time, but instead of runding the ads, instead of having saccone being the tariff candidate, saying we'll bring jobs back, they are going overseas to china because they are unfair in their competition, we'll level the playing field, bring american jobs back to american communities and wait to do that is the tariff that made america great that. could have swung the balance, but the national republican party does not want to hear that message. think they are probably going to continue with the losing message and then figure out why after november. host: does the democratic national party want to hear that message? will reagan democrats, are they up for grabs? will they go to the democrats? do they have the right message? guest: the democrats do not have the right message, either. but in the midterm election, the way to think about a midterm election is a tennis match, breaking serve that it's a protest election.

there will be a lot of people knowing that it's sending a message but they are not giving control of the government to the democrats who will vote democrat this time. and then to continue the tennis analogy, that gives the democrats a chance to gain serve in the 2020 election. that means they need a message that includes these people and doesn't exclude them again. that's a real open question. the sort of thing that senator schumer was talking about. generally blue collar conservatives do not have a problem with corporate tax cuts. they would prefer something that's more direct that helps them, but they don't buy into the message of this helps the wealthy and plutocrat. that mobilizes core democrats, doesn't speak to blue collar republicans. they tried that message in multiple michigan and wisconsin, gubernatorial races and republicans won re-election because the blue collar conservative want something different than orthodox democrats or orthodox republicans offer. host: hear from some of them. hopefully we'll get some calls here.

democrat 202-748-8000. reagan democrat want to hear from you. republicans, 202-74 -8001. independents, 202-748-8002. join the conversation. we're talking about midterm elections coming up and the future of the republican party. how do you all plan to vote and is there a difference in how you voted in 2016? what does the working class republican want? guest: working class republican want as fair shake from the government. the working class republican wants a government that removes barriers that they can't overcome on their own, and gets out of the way. why is it that a lot of working class voters are upset about immigration and trade? they believe that they can't fairly compete with foreigners, whether the foreigners are coming into the country illegally, which is the concern about illegal immigration, or whether they are competing through manipulating trade agreements. they want the government step in

and protect them. once that happens, they don't want government planning their lifes or directing their lives. it's something that stands between the democrat orthodoxy let the government come in and help you, and the republican orthodoxy of stand back and not worry about t they want something in between. host: what policies -- besides immigration, you mentioned that. what other policies are they looking for? guest: i think what they are looking for is any sort of policies that plausibly can help improve their standard of living and give them a chance to exercise their dreams. that if you are somebody who is 25 right now and you didn't go to college, you look out and you say, i'm going to have to jump from job to job. i may get a good job now but 10 years from now my factory or business i'm in may be bought out by somebody or move overseas. and they would like a little wit more -- bit more stability and opportunity. i think some things they might be interested in are more vocational training. subsidies to move to plays where there are greater opportunities.

anything that goes to them and says, we're going to meet you on your terms. we're not going to try to make to college and live like us. that's not what you want to do. we're going to do -- help you on your terms to be an active part of american life. i think they are less concerned with the policies and more concerned with something that trectly speaks to that need. host: go to michelle in atlanta, georgia. democrat. what's your question or comment here this morning? caller: my comment is that the republican party don't address the needs of african-americans. the man that's in the white house right now has had a war on black and brown people in this couny will never get the african-american vote because i don't trust that man that's up there in the white house. he has called us names. he has done everything. and the reason that we as

african-american democrats see the n.r.a. as a terrorist organization that is organized to kill our african-american and brown people in this country. and they would never get my vote . no one in my family's vote. as long as trump is up there in that white house, i despise trump. i can't even call him my president. host: all right. heard the point. henry. guest: i disagree about the object of the n.r.a. i don't think that they are an organization that's focused on harming people of color. but the fact is the african-american vote has been opposed to the republican party for a number of decades. and it's a great challenge for the republican party. we have african-american leaders like senator tim scott of south carolina. who is trying to address that issue. but the fact is, the republican party needs to meet the average african-american voter on the grounds in which they live. that means dealing with

centuries and decades of past discrimination in a way that republicans have not dealt with before. and also recognizes that the vast majority of african-americans are working class people. it means the same sort of philosophy that a working class conservative, working class republican would apply towards -- out of work or difficult to employ people in michigan should also appeal over time to the african-american voter. i think a working class republicanism is the only way to address the african-american vote once you dealt with the question of discrimination. host: did ronald reagan, would ronald reagan today, if he were running, appeal to african-americans? guest: ronl reagan did not appeal to african-americans -- ronald reagan did not appeal to african-americans. it was something he was very sore about because ronald reagan was a man who was free of bigotry. he was raised by his parents who were democrats to see the good in average people. he was -- went out on the line

for people of color and minorities when it was not popular to do so. he believed that his smaller government, not no government, smaller government through private initiative policies were the best for the african-american community. it always pained him that african-american leaders did not see it the same way. host: you write in the book, contrary to popular belief, reagan was not a supply sider. reagan never argued that fostture entrepreneurship and enacting low taxes on the rich were the primary reasons for his tax cuts. he argued for a humane economy, one which everyone's taxes were lowered and everyone's contributions why valued, in doing this he easily avoided the classic democrat party charge that the republicans are the party of the rich and boss. today's conservatives are sitting ducks for this charge. guest: yep. they levied that charge against ronald reagan. the fact is it didn't stick. the working class democrat who didn't like classic republicans

ofe over in drombs, millions them came over, because they heard ronald reagan speak and knew that charge just didn't fly. now you have today where people, on the republican party, aren't talk that way. they are talking much more in terms of helping the boss will help you. and you're seeing those voters not being willing to support that republican agenda. they did support donald trump. and donald trump didn't talk that way. that is one thing senator schumer is right about. he didn't campaign that way on the campaign trail. he campaigned much more like a ronald reagan in that aspect than like a paul ryan or mitt romney. host: to joe who is in georgia. republican. frequent caller here on the "washington journal." always very enthusiastic republican. hi, joe. caller: hi, glad. i love c-span. been calling you for 30 years. love the network. i have want to say i have never been so fired up in my life. i'm a strong trump person. waste a strong reagan person.

trump is just a pointed leg of chief economic advisor, kudlow is fan taste k. steve morris is his business partner. they wrote the great trump tax cuts. and david perdue, the great senator from georgia is helping him. i predict that the republicans will win the midterm elections by a landslide and trump will be re-elected with the biggest landslide in history. host: joe. you say that because of the tax cuts. guest: i love the tax cuts. i have been a stock market investor for 50 years. my stocks have done great. so fired up, i haven't been able to sleep the last two nights. host: ok. joe, i'm going to leave it there. guest: i appreciate joe's optimism and enthusiasm. i think that -- i'm not opposed to the tax cuts. i should make that clear. but i do think that the average american voter is not quite as enthusiastic about them as joe

and not quite as partisan as joe. and i think we're seeing that on the ground which is that even though people are -- the average family is going to see $1,000, $1,500, touchdown,000 cut taxes in their year, but it doesn't the direct problems they care most about. it will fire up the republicans. aggravate the democrats. those people in the middle who decide elections are not fired up about the tax cuts. they want something else. host: those democrats or those republicans in the middle, the e independents, they also, you are arguing, look at democrats when they say this is just for the rich. ok. what? , right? what else do you have? guest: that's right. if i were a democrat, if i were advising the democratic party, what i what? , would say is that what you want to do is look more like bill clinton and less like hillary clinton. i mean that in terms of policy. which is that when bill clinton

ran, he directly addressed some of the concerns that working class democrats who had voted for ronald reagan had. he said, i'm not a republican, but i hear you and here's my solutions to those problems. those people flocked back to hifment even in the south in those days. -- him. even in the south in those days. mrs. clinton did not have. and i hear your problem anti-classic progressive solution. they want their world view taken seriously. they need a solution to their problems in language they understand and doesn't seem to be exactly what the democrat -- it cannot be the old democratic wolf and the new sheep's clothing. it needs to be something knew. that's what donald trump offered them. not the old republicanism, old democratcy. i think a democratic candidate who wants to deal with that. who wants to address those voters needs to have something similar. host: what donald trump offered them. you write the trump victory may

point the way to a national republican majority but it does not deliver it automatically. he has shown no inclination to develop the type of comprehensive philosophy that drove reagan's political ambitions. he also seems to think of the party as pieces on a chessboard. a value only so long as they are of use. what do you mean by a national republican majority? guest: what i mean is that when you ask people what party they lean towards, the democrats have led for 86 years. that the only question is the size of the margin. are there 5% more democrats or as the case when ronald reagan was elected, 26% more democrats? the republican party will be the national majority party when those are flipped. when the plurality of the people in america say i am comfortable with the values that the republican party espouse, they are my party. i think that blue collar republicanism is the way to go forward. the only time the republican party has significantly gained

on the democrats in that 85-year period was during ronald reagan's presidency. and i think they could have gained more if his successors had understood the message, but donald trump gives them an opportunity to learn from 30 years of error and say, americans want something that protects and advances them. they want government to be on their side when they need it and out of their way when they don't. that's something that if a republican party could deliver they would become the plurality party and build a majority, consistent majority and not simply win when democrats screw up. host: debra in wellsville, new york. independent. caller: i was just wanting to comment i think one thing that lam -- lamb did correctly was that he went door-to-door, face-to-face, listened to people. to learn his community. i don't think we get enough of that from our politicians anymore. we have to go to them in stadiums and they just talk. we listen. there's not enough of them

knowing their own communities. to really represent us. i'd like to see more of the old-fashioned way of getting out there and winning the vote. that's it. guest: i think that's absolutely right. one of the things i think people reacted against, both in the sanders candidacy and trump candidacy was the sense that politics is manufactured and artificial. that there are people who are out there, who are selling you a product. people can be very articulate. you have had a lot of people on. you know what media training is. everyone comes on, they know how to deal with you. what sanders and trump offered was something that was authentic. it could be crude. in trump's case it could be loud. sander's case. when you listen to them. you knew they were speaking from the heart. and that they were speaking not

because somebody had given them three sound bite bullets they were and supposed to work into every 30 seconds' worth of speech. i think social media gives people a wonderful opportunity. when connor lamb goes door-to-door he can't meet 600,000 people, he can film every interview he has door-to-door and people can see it and download it and look at it. you have an opportunity with technology to be real and open and honest in a way we haven't had a chance in the last 60 years. i think if more politicians did that more people would trust their politicians. host: in the democratic party do you see as the next leader who is what you are describing? guest: i think there are people who can be the leader. the question is do the democrats want them to be that leader. that the democratic enthusiasm, much after barack obama the republican enthusiasm passed over to the tea party. that pushed the republicans in a direction that took them out of commune -- took them out of contact with the center that was willing to give them a chance. the democratic enthusiasm's on the progressive left. i think they run the same risk

of doing that. i think somebody like a mark warner, who is a little dry, but sort of person who has that centrist approach, who understands the needs and respects the needs of real people. could be that sort of person. i think a tim kaine, the virginia tim kaine rather than the vice presidential campaign. both are from virginia. there is a reason for that. virginia combines both aspects of the democratic constituency. the highly educated, inner area of northern virginia where you have to deal with democratic party activists, but a lot of rural and suburban types, people less ideological, who just want get out of the way but help them when they get down. they get elected and understand. the democrat who ran more like they are running in virginia and less get out of the than manhat better job of winning the presidency. host: in washington, d.c., democrat. caller: how you doing. i'm a african-american scientist.

i'm pleased to speak with you again. it's been a year since been on c-span. i am ashamed of this president. he was not elected by the popular vote, he was eleched by the electoral college. i'm a scientist, retired. goddard space flight center. clean obama was -- had bill of health when it come to indictments. one of the worst was richard cl bill nixon. i think donald trump is going to surpass him. the thing here is our country is looking very poorly across the nation right now. the world is wondering what's wrong with america? we're opening a door with china. china is going to take off like a rocket. i have worked at nasa goddard space flight center and the state department. i understand the intelligence business. being a ph.d. scientist i speak german. was in germany.

when i studied looking at america from europe, america looks very terrible from europe right now. we're going backwards in the climate changes, all this stuff that trump is taking us backwards. look at the education, department of education. betsy devos is taking education n this country backward. i think your guest is very intelligent and i want you to help us, you can help us, maybe you can do some things to improve the republican party towards african-american people. host: i have to leave it there. guest: i think there's a lot of interesting points there. certainly trying to combat the chinese rise is something that the president is trying to do. i do think the president 23450eds to -- needs to deal with the sense that there is impropriety either in his business dealings or in his or his associates' dealings with russia.

that's what the investigation that special counsel mueller is looking into. will determine in some way. think the president needs to not come clean, but i think he needs to be given a clean bill of health if he's going to really be the sort of leader he wants to be. that's not entirely within his control. host: bill in pennsylvania. republican. hi, bill. caller: good morning, greta. mr. olsen, i'm really happy to hear your words today. you are like a breath of fresh air here. a lot of times the guests are the same old people. and your message is right on. i hope donald trump is listening to you right now because if he wants to win a second term, i think you've got the playbook. i like the term that you are using, blue collar republican. i can consider myself a blue collar republican. even though i have a master's

degree, i understand that the working man, if we're going to get our country back on its feet, it's going to take more than $1,000 tax cut. that's good. but it is going to take tariffs. it's interesting i just had a discussion with a libertarian friend and he's telling me that the tir riff is a tax. --tariff is a tax. i said to him i much rather have tariffs funding our government than federal income tax on individuals. i have and the question i have is what type of risk does the republican party have right now in that a jeff flake and mitt romney are going to try to break apart of the an question i have is what type of risk does the republican party have right now off before the next presidential election and pirate enough votes away to prevent the republican party republicans fr winning the white house in the next election? host: interesting question. guest: one i get asked quite a bit about. working class republican party

needs all different parts. it can't be built entirely on blue collar popularism. that's steve ban none's error, if he could get rid of these establishment republican types, you have a different republican party. no you have a different minority party. what the flake types don't understand is the majority of republicans don't want the old answers. that they don't want immigration without restriction. they don't want trade without mutual responsibility between the two parties. and i would urge them to work within a republican party to build a new coalition rather than commit off, because i do think if they were to commit off they would have a great chance of giving the election to the democrats. and that's probably -- that would not mean that they would suddenly be able to make the republican party -- the party of their dreams, it would mean that they would then come to the reality four years later of

trying to deal with the republican party that disagree was them on principle. that is this is not a question of donald trump. donald trump is the vessel of people's concerns not the creator of their concerns. if he were to pass from the scene tomorrow, flake, romny, and other people upset with trump would find they would have compromises in order to be part of the republican party that they have to make with trump. host: senator jeff flake spoke about his retirement, what he wants the fuhr of the republican party to look like -- future of the republican party to look like yesterday in washington. we covered that, if you go to our website you can listen to him in his own words. thomas in daytona beach, florida, democrat. caller: thank you for your show. got a couple of comments, one people need to remember, ronald agan and mr. trump were both actors. they both are people that knew how to manipulate the media. both people that -- i know how

to tell you what you want to hear when you want to hear it. let me tell you, i'm a truck driver by trade. 34 years. i am the definition after blue collar man. let me tell you difference between a blue collar democrat and blue collar republican. a blue collar republican, he don't know how to figure out what's really good for him and he shoots himself in the damn foot. give you an example. this tax bill that just put through there giving all these breaks to the companies. them companies are going to turn around and they going to invest that money in china and nexto and india and other places. who is that helping? host: tommy, you still there? caller: yes. ost: ok.

we're listening. finish your thought. caller: i just feel like down here, i know people that are republicans, and they we're listening. finish your thought. caller: like immigration, they whine, cry, pitch about it all the time, and go around and hire three or four people from mexico to cut their grass and cut -- to work for hem. they are hipocrites. host: what's a blue collar democrat do? caller: somebody that can figure out what's good for them and not shoot himself in the foot. it's like these people that are all behind trump, trump ain't doing nothing for the working man. he ain't doing a thing for the working man. he's out for the rich man. that's why he made them tax incentives permanent for the corporations. host: henry olsen, react to what you just heard there from that caller. also talk about what has president trump done for the working man or woman? guest: well, first i appreciate that gentleman's enthusiasm as much as i appreciate joe's enthusiasm.

i understand these partisan. he values the things that democrats value. i would venture there are a lot truck driving american men, most all truck drivers are men in america, who love donald trump. what has donald trump done for the working man? i think the first year in office he was pretty much an orthodox republican. i think that was a real problem. i think it is not quite a riverboat gamble, but it's not clear to me that the cuts in the corporate tax rate will flow without more government intervention down to the working person. because there is a lot of trends in the economy that's devaluing what that person brings to the table. i think this year he's trying to right that more by focusing more on immigration and tariffs and the theory being if you face less competition from foreign cheaper workers, then that

provides more than incentive for businesses to invest in the american. and puts a higher pressure upwards on wages. it will be interesting to see whether or not he continues with that under fierce republican party pressure. host: michael, walnut creek, california, democrat. caller: yes. good morning. let me say i'm a labor democrat. i don't trust my own party. when they elected let me say to under nancy pelosi, under chuck schumer they seemed to be more interested in daca than they are real solutions. as far as the president goes, the promises he made, lowering back regulation, even though it's a small tax cut, it is a tax cut. he made these promises and he's absolutely kept them. so i don't see how you can be upset. as far as your scientist from washington, d.c. talking about the previous president. i think he better go back and reflect on his history as far as

the previous president. we had several incidents where he should have been indicted but wasn't. the attorney general would never appoint a special counsel. these are just my thoughts. i'd like to hear your guest's comments. host: ok, michael. guest: there are a lot of blue collar democrats who feel the same way as you do. illegitimate an concern to worry about the effect on your job wages and community because of people who are here without legal status. but there is a large perception that the leaders of the democratic party care more about daca than care about the working person who is a native born citizen. i think part of what's going on is the idea that i was born here, i was -- i am an american. as a citizen that should count for something more than where i pay taxes and who i vote for. and that impliesity contract has

been broken. -- impliesity contract has been -- implicit contract has been broken. that we have a common bond in pursuit of something else. when republicans don't worry about offshoring, that triggers one way. when democrats don't care about the legal status of people who are coming into a community, that triggers a different way. and the blue collar person, person in the middle, would like something different than either side. host: byron in cleveland, tennessee. independent. caller: good morning. i was wondering if the guest has ver read the communist party documents. what i have read -- gather is they have taken over the democratic party. some republicans also because what they are espousing is they are targeting certain groups of

people, the minorities, women's groups, things of that nature. they actually come out and lay heir plans out what they are strategy is for the coming elections. what people don't realize, we have a socialism and communism are exactly the same thing. they are just the communists are more militant than the socialists are. people need to be aware of that. host: ok. henry olsen. guest: i can't say i have ever read communist party u.s.a. documents. read the manifesto. it's an interesting piece for its time. i think what people in america have always wanted read the is government that's on their side but not on their back. well before socialism and communism was introduced, you had people calling for tariffs, you had original republican party platform was one of direct government subsidy of railroads,

of education, of arkansas to get the economy moving again. -- of agriculture to get the economy moving again. that's what americans have always wanted is a government that can remove barriers they can't remove on their own and get the heck out of the way. and sometimes that can sound like socialism, it isn't. it's just a very natural human desire to be treated as a free and equal individual with different sets of talents and aspirations. host: joe in new orleans, democrat. caller: good morning. i have always thought that donald trump won the election with the so-called working class, which is, to me, white working class. is because they were afraid of losing their white privilege. all along that time you heard it s told to them, that the united states was turning brown.

that white people will be the minority coming 20 whatever. they voted for donald trump to their appealed fears. they were also resentful for the act that president obama won two terms. so it was a backlash against hillary clinton because she was ssociated with barack obama. the natural prejudices between races came to a head and that's why donald trump won because of ear of losing control, fear of osing white privilege.

the united states -- i really believe the united states would have been better along economically and whatever if the republicans had tried, had put forth a little effort in working putting ident obama in forth programs and issues that would have benefited everyone. host: we're running out of time. guest: that's a very common view among democrats that donald trump won not because of legitimate concerns about the future of the economy or about competition but because of racial resentment. i don't happen to share that. i think it's difficult to square that with the fact that about six million of donald trump's voters are people who voted for barack obama twice. i think it's difficult to square that with a lot of poll questions that show that people

of that background generally have racial -- accept racial equality and they have policy difference was the left, but that doesn't mean they are racist or afraid of losing white dominance. i do think it would be a good thing for the republican party to remember that -- who those voters are and that they were promised that things would get better and the government would their side and directly champion their values. if they were to do that over time, i think you would i find -- you would find a real working class republican party will do better among hispanics, will do better among their side and asi better among african-americans because over time what they will find is that those people will vote for a party that's willing to give them hand up. what those people tend to believe right now is that the republican party wants to have hands off and consequently they look to the democrats.

host: henry olsen is ethics and senior fellow at the ethics and public policy certainty. the author of the book, the "working class republican." ronald reagan and the return of blue collar conservatism. thank you for this discussion. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: we gri bring you to a discussion about the supreme court's decision whether california's reproductive fact act can require pro-life pregnancy centers to notify patients of state subsidized abortion options. live coverage at the new see yum right here on c-span.