with a look at conservative politics. we will be joined by robert merry from the american conservative and matthew dallek. ♪ host: good morning. when congress returns, the missile strikes in syria and a new debate over the war powers act. it is sunday morning, april 15. u.n. ambassador nikki haley says the u.s. remains locked and loaded" if there is another chemical attack. 105 missiles striking three key targets over the weekend. we begin our discussion by asking you what is next for the united states military and our allies. was the mission accomplished, using president trump's words? tuesday, the deadline to file

taxes, the bill that would make it easier to file your tax information front and center in the house of representatives. the president traveling tomorrow lago, where he will meet with the japanese prime minister. we begin with our question on syria, was the mission accomplished. for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independent, 202-748-8002. join us on facebook at facebook.com\cspan. send is a tweet at @cspanwj. thank you for being with us. later, looking back 50 years ago, "1968: america in turmoil". the washingtonof post, this headline, trump syria.s victory after this from the bbc, "president donald trump has warned serious

government that the u.s. is locked and loaded if it carries out chemical attacks. the warning came as the u.s., u.k., france, struck three syrian sites in response to a suspected chemical attack a week ago. chemical useany and says the attack was fabricated by rebels. a united nations security council vote to condemn the strike was rejected. that development yesterday in new york. a wave of strikes represents the most significant attack against president bashar al-assad's government by western powers in the seven years of serious civil war." about this morning from the bbc. we will get to your calls, comments, and tweets at @cspanwj , and on facebook at facebook.com\cspan. joining us now is a columnist for the hill newspaper. what is next from your standpoint for the president and our allies, most

notably france and great britain , with regard to syria? guest: as far as the united states, the strikes in syria have already taken place as a something of a one-off in the since there is no appetite to get deeply involved in the syrian conflict. you mention the comments by nikki haley. those part of a pattern suggesting the u.s. and its allies want to this to be an ongoing deterrent to further expansion of chemical weapons, so that is where i think the thertainty arises if government of bashar al-assad continues to use these weapons, then where does it go from there? host: this is the headline from the london daily mail, a debate in great written in the u.s.. prime minister may facing backlash for snubbing mp's over

syria. vocal,ne has been very under two presidents, barack obama and now donald trump, congress needs more of a say with the authorization of military force. where is that debate heading? the moste of interesting things about that debate in this country is the fact that some of the more libertarian wing of the republican party have raised similar concerns to those raised by senator kaine. two republican members of congress suggesting what took place is in their view unconstitutional because congressional approval was not sought. in fairness the president i think we have to make clear some people do not agree with that. they think the president has the right to make, do one off

noions essentially, and that congressional war powers are sought for an action of this nature, so that debate will continue. as it will in the united kingdom in a different way with theresa may, who has received criticism on this issue come up but also -- issue, but also president trump unpopular in britain, so the idea of a british prime minister tying herself to him is problematic. host: this is the headline from the dallas morning news, the president tweaking yesterday, mission accomplished! reminiscent from what we heard from president george bush, who later regretted using that phrase. why is this important, or is it important? guest: well, it is important because in saying mission accomplished you find yourself in the situation bush did, which is it turns out the mission is

not a congress after all. the problem you were trying to resolve research -- reasserts itself. even some people close to the peoplent, former spokes like ari fleischer, have suggested president trump should not have used those particular words. yes, on one hand, it is a washington dc debate. on the other, as we saw with the banner behind push, it can -- bush, it can come to be seen as an iconic moment in the wrong ways. host: we are talking with a columnist at the hill newspaper available at the hill.com. another story we found this morning that is part of our discussion with congressman jim mcgovern, the ranking member on -- aheadline is

ranking member. the country seeking to revamp -- syste can you explain what this is about. guest: this a just and that there should be new regulations like work requirements imposed. obviously that will draw considerable criticism from liberals and centrists who see it as a move toward eroding that safety net or taking some people off of it. and that is where i would assume the political battle will lie. host: the hill newspaper and a columnist, work available at the

hill.com, thank you for joining us on this sunday. we appreciate it. we want to get your phone calls. was the mission accomplished in syria? jared from minnesota, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say no, the mission was not accomplished. the mission was never accomplished after the first 2-3 times they bonded. they kept on happening again and again, which is allied to begin with, because if anybody knows history or the news come of people know the whole war is , a trillionline dollar pipeline, and bashar al-assad doesn't wanted to go through there, but the u.s. military and saudi arabia does, and not to mention, you know, the u.s. military has dropped thousands of radioactive depleted uranium bombs in syria? also known as chemical weapons. host: this tweet, anyone know

what the mission was? wes from jim, oh, goody, will slam mr. trump for saying mission accomplished. jerry, good sunday morning. thank you for being with us from overton, nebraska, republican line. caller: the news media is so hung up on that mission accomplished statement, but when that come out that was not done by bush. that was done by the crew of the aircraft carrier. they put that banner mission a comprehensive because they participated in that activity. i don't know why the news media so concerned about that one statement. thank you. to herark, you are next from franklin, pennsylvania. caller: yeah, i think the american people need to be a lot more skeptical about what is going on here. dayw an interview the other

with a former u.k. ambassador to syria. i don't recall what his name was. 24 or either on france another station. not atw was that it is all certain that syria was responsible for the attack in the first place, the chemical attack. i think he brought up that first of all syria is really at this point in the war with the rebels , really had nothing to gain from it, that they more or less won the war, and also that the material evidence we have about the attack all came from the rebels anyway, and which would seem to reaffirm that the rebels

claim, or serious claim, that it was staged by the rebels, and then there are all the politics ,ith trump, stormy daniels mueller investigation, and the fact that israel would like to get the u.s. more involved in the middle east militarily. as far as mission accomplished the legitimacyn of the mission. host: mark, thank you from the call. this tweet, the mission will be accomplished when people do not have to flee their country in fear. 202-748-8000 four republicans. 202-748-8001 for democrats. president treating yesterday, mission accomplished great we want to ask you with regard to syria and our allies great britain and france, was it accomplish? what is next following the strike of the weekend?

emily in san francisco, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. happy spring to everyone. i am just calling to say i believe the mission was accomplished, especially when our allies came through and prime minister theresa may, she 100the feeling that after years of this law being instituted we have now obeyed it, because russia was accused of attacking people with chemical weapons. , allowed to talk about the allowed to talk about the people on the other side like russia and china, a little advice, can i say that? host: this is your forum. absolutely. caller: years ago i gave advice to china on the telephone and through our wonderful c-span, and i had said, why don't they spent all their money and time

on trying to become capitalist? so that work. however, there are so many millions of women on farms when their husbands go to the city. why don't they try capitalism with the wonderful thing chinese can make? these women can have little stores that benefit the country and get more than $100 a year, because that is all they are making, and so china too. china should start to have shipping and cruises. it is just a terrible thing that they are not taking advantage of capitalism. stop with the weapons. we know russia has gone into syria so they can have their weapons there. china has made islands so they can have their weapons preparing for another world war. please we ask for peace from them.

someone should approach them on that. how about peace? thank you. host: emily thank you for the call from san francisco. we will watch this as president bashar al-assad yesterday arriving in the palace in damascus. [video clip] >> it is little more than a move. the 68-year-old arrives -- host: uc president bashar al-assad as he walks in, apparently all things normal. that was tweeted over the weekend. adam is joining us from burlington, wisconsin. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. mission accomplished, i don't understand why people can see what they did they accomplished. so their mission was just what they did and it was accomplished, so i can see why the liberal media attacks another conservative, so i don't see a problem with that. the welfare part can i don't see

a problem with people working if they are able to. it is like there is no more common sense in this country and we are always fighting over some stupid, stupid thing. host: adam, thank you for the call. this is from the chicago tribune, an analysis piece, trumps mission accomplished tweet and that premature declaration that haunted george w. bush. in an interview with him at his library, he said he regretted that banner was behind him because he indicated the mission in i rock 2003 was not accomplished. in sierrao james vista, arizona, republican line. good sunday morning. you are next. caller: good morning c-span and thank you for this forum and disability to actually say what is on my particular mine. isil the sharp al-assad gone, the mission were not the accomplished. -- bashar al-assad is gone, the

mission were not be accomplished. as long as russia is backing the sure al-assad and he is involved, the mission will not get a congress and it will get more dangerous as time goes by because we are doing this pretty much basically on our own. allying ourselves with great britain and france to do these kinds of things, but until we get a coalition and move these people -- remove these people from office, the mission will never be accomplished. it would just get worse and worse. thank you for your time. mission accomplished? yes, distraction from the nonstop white house coverage chaos for a day or so. this, a new push to in the syria's chemical weapons following a strike is available at cnn.com. president trump has warned the

syrian government that the u.s. is locked and loaded in terms of going after syria. u.k., and states, france pushing for an irreversible into serious chemical weapons program, amid furious recriminations from russia over the effectiveness and legality of a wave of u.s.-led military strikes on syrian targets. write, united nations diplomats sharing with sienna resolution backed by france and the u.k. calling for an independent investigation into the suspected chemical weapons attack inside syria that precipitated the cruise missile strikes unleashed by the western allies friday evening. the french and bassett or to the united nations saying serious must be dismantled and what he called a verifiable and irreversible way. the story at cnn.com. us on go to aaron joining the democrats line in albany, new york. what is next? caller: top of the morning to you. thank you for taking my call.

i am a little disturbed with the sole matter at hand. i feel like we should have a national law with the united nations or who ever to just let the world know that if you take a life, to her life should be , that and the last caller is the next one point it we need to get rid of bashar al-assad. somebody should assassinated -- assassinate him. you should treat him like hip there. life, our law is your life should be taken. you should not be allowed to ontack people behind an ir golden gate. it is not at democrat, independent, republican issue. this is a humane issue. although we appreciate donald something really needs to be done to put an end to the fact that any president can take

lives at the drop of a hat. we should have a law that once this happens, the president and any country life should be taken. we are all human. we all have to be punished for our wrongdoing. call.thank you for the denise says this, this war is a crime against humanity. russiacking thing as goes to the united nations security council to stop this act of aggression and those butchers refused the request. bashar al-assad, russia, and iran had defeated isis and most of al qaeda there. here, omg, bashar al-assad walking into the palace unscathed is the biggest middle finger to those who dropped the bombs. al-assad carol, shar is a cruel and vicious player and will do whatever russia tells them. from donna, all countries need

to put pressure on bush al-assad, saying he is a monster. republican line, richmond, virginia. good morning. caller: yes. how are you doing this morning? host: caller: fine. the mission was absolutely accomplished. it kind of disturbs me when i hear these people, a lot of people don't understand the geneva convention outlawed chemical weapons. something else was accomplished too. do you realize our military is way superior than russia? that those two people from the pentagon stood up there and told a lie that i was very pleased that the young woman and i was very pleased that the general that spoke. just because donald trump made a

statement that was similar to george bush's means nothing to me. i think what ever trump says, he is the president of the united states, is kind of irrelevant to me. i'm saying a whole reality when you're talking about bashar al-assad, his father did the same thing. we did not see what he did because we don't -- didn't have the ability in those years to assad's fatherat was doing, so we see now, but the mission was accomplished. , don't be so skeptical. andomebody say something all this computer crap ap,ebook and all that crsa

please don't even look and listen to it. the mission was accomplished. we are not in a regime change. assad has a civil war. whether a solid is right at -- right against his people, but genocide is the term. host: thank you for the call. this is the photograph as they break occurred yesterday. what those u.s. and allied tomahawk missiles were able to do from the uss cole in the mediterranean. the headline from the new york times, u.s. strikes took out the heart of assad's chemical program. to seelowing tweet, good the hawks on the left out this morning decrying the fact the attack did not focus on a side -- assad. from kiki, the first bomb should have been on a side. only is ait

distraction from the personal issues of the day. independents, robert from lynchburg, virginia. in syria, was the allied mission accomplished? caller: good good morning. i am not with president trump's policies all the time. when you kill someone like that -- hello? host: you are on the air, robert. caller: ok, when you drop chemical weapons on someone like should be taken out, and i applaud president trump for doing that. what? going to move on. thank you for the call. james in louisiana. this headline from the daily mail. good morning, james. caller: good morning. i support what the administration did because the mission was accomplished.

remember, the mission was to go out there and dismantle these chemical weapons plants, and , withid a lot of that further consequences if he continues to produce come so if he continues to produce, then we will have to go after him. he did something that no other orsident had the balls whatever to do, and i am sick and tired of these countries that hate us and we don't fight back. we fought back, did a good job. thank you very much. host: thank you for the call. from the washington post, russia signals the airstrike did not cross a key threshold. there has been a back-and-forth between the trump administration and the kremlin on what a potential attack would have meant for russia and our allies. next, ithaca, new york, democrats line. good sunday morning.

c-span.good morning i have a couple of things i want to say, so bear with me because i have a very hard time getting through on a lot of the issues are bring on. i first want to say i love c-span. you do an incredible service. spectrum just got rid of one of our pbs stations. i just want you to know i hope you stay on the air forever. you do a wonderful job. so these are the things i want to quickly say today. one, i think we have devastated the middle east. ,e have no right creating making the middle east go to rubble. i think a lot of issues are not ringing up, fourth -- bringing up fourth -- i don't believe assad use those chemical weapons. i think there are other factors and the truth is not being known

, but we have no right making the middle east go to rubble, and the humanitarian crisis that we have created. as far as england is concerned, my parents are from greece. when greece wanted to eggs of he euro, england was furious, and now england did that. the other thing i want to say, of electronic voting machines, we have to be mindful. that is not being talked about with all the hacking going on. our electoral system is in danger. in new york state we fought very hard to have paper trails. we don't have the electronic voting machines, and that should be national, that we have the paper trail instead of the electronic voting machines. the other thing i wanted to say is i was watching the facebook hearings, which i wanted to get through, and i couldn't.

i really wish i could get through more easily to c-span2 share my concerns and the but facebook and google and apple, these are becoming too big to fail. i cannot stress that enough. when i watch the hearing with facebook, i was really disgusted. host: thank you very much for the call. you can send us tweets at @cspanwj and join us with your comments on facebook at facebook.com\cspan, and the hearings last week or on a website. thank you for joining our conversation. this is from the new york times sunday magazine, being black in america and why are black mothers and babies in the u.s. dying it more than double the rate than white mothers are babies? the story from the new york times sunday magazine. from cq weekly, stand by your man and the gop's parentless union. the weekly standard, jeff sessions and his enemies. a rare left-right agreement in

washington disliking the attorney general. finally the new york times sunday magazine, a vindication of dennis kucinich, former congressman in ohio democratic politics, the story from the washington post sunday magazine. ambassador nikki haley yesterday in new york with the following comments. haley: i spoke with the president and he said if the regime uses this poisonous gas again, the united states is locked and loaded. when our president draws a redline, our president in forces the red line. is deeply states grateful to the 90 kingdom and france for its part in the coalition to defend the prohibition -- united kingdom and france for his part in the coalition to defend the prohibition of chemical weapons. complete agreement. last night, our great friends and indispensable allies shouldered a burden that benefits all of us.

the civilized world owes them thanks. in the weeks and months to come, the security council should take time to reflect on its role in defending the international rule of law. the security council has failed in its duty to hold those who do's chemical weapons to account -- who used chemical weapons to account. that failure is largely due to russian obstruction. we call on russia to take a hard look at the company it keeps and live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the council and defend the actual principles the united nations was meant to promote. host: that from the u.n. ambassador nikki haley. a couple of tweets. joe has the following statement. mission statement such as the one that allow assad to return to business as usual coming killing his people in a what if it relaxes the killers? ad kills more people

with conventional weapons than chemical weapons. will trump responded that question what will he drag us into another middle east civil war? a lot of you responding on our facebook age at mission was topanhe says if the bomb syria without any confirmed information on whose gas was used, absolutely. umf, itsays no, no a has been reported the u.s. has refugees from1 syria to enter our nation. we are still running for the greatest purveyor of violence award. karen says syria is intended as a distraction. when you warn your enemy you are going to attack them so you -- so they can prepare is the dumbest move. caller from virginia.

caller: there is no political solution in syria. we have thousands of islamic extremists. ,e have different players, iran russia, america. it has been going on for years. what have we accomplished? iraq we have in been there 17 years. world war ii was finished in six years. what are we doing? held accountable but if you look the other side, they keep company with saudi arabia. obama failed when he did not establish a no-fly zone. bush failed when he do not establish a secure border against iran.

it is all about selling the military-industrial complex. we do not have the cold war so we have crisis -- so we have isis. i do not know when it is going to end. it has been going on for 17 years when hibbler -- when hitler had six years. this is not about decency or humanity or anything. i do not know what we're going to accomplish. nothing was accomplished. it is going to keep going until we find a solution. if we cannot we should not be involved. we failed when we let russia, in we are failing now. this is chemical weapons,

whether you're killing people with a chemical weapon or conventional weapon it does not matter. host: this is the headline from "the guardian." the pentagon's large body of evidence that steered trump to the syria strike. joining us is the world affairs editor for the guardian on the phone. let me point out to you reporting on the gas attack that took place in douma earlier this month and what evidence we saw leading to the strike. guest: the u.s. is saying its main evidence for regime eyewitnessity is testimony on the day of the bombing. regime helicopters were circling over the area and eyewitnesses

a weapon theping regime uses daily. the bombs had been identified on the ground as being the most likely source of the chemicals involved in the april 7 attack. symptoms point to the of the victims, which they say are consistent with chlorine and the nerve agent sarah and -- the nerve agent sarin and they talked about the lethality of the attack which was unusually high for a chlorine attack which leads them to suspect that sarin was also used. they say the last remaining recordion group has no of the making or being able to use chemical weapons.

they also point to other kinds of evidence they may have. information that syrian military officials were coordinating the chlorine attack before it happened. whether that is on the basis of intercepts or other channels is not clear. u.s.is the case that the and the u.k. and france have both -- have made for the argument that it was the regime responsible for that attack. host: you also have a piece available on the guardian website that breaks down the key players. we saw the video of president assad walking into his palace yesterday, appearing that business is normal inside syria. you write the following, syrian issident bashar al-assad increasingly confident of his survival in office.

can you explain? that has been clear for a couple of years now iran andh ironic -- russia have waited on his side and have been unflinching in their support for assad. russia resisting any criticism of assad at the security council. he has now the weight of the military forces behind him. air with russia and in terms of ground troops the shiite militias which are iranian backed. he has, over the last couple been rolling up the rebel held enclaves in the west of syria and is continuing to do so. a couple daysuma

after the chemical weapons were used is the latest example of a rebel enclave falling to regime controlled. he looks, militarily, to be almost impregnable. whether he can reconquer large swaths of the rest of the country in the east and north is another question. we are talking with the world affairs editor for the guardian. what other part of your piece, with regard to iran, you write that iran sees syria as an essential buffer zone. the rise of a sunni regime would be a strategic nightmare for them. can you explain? iranian revolution was traumatized from birth from coming under attack by iraq which to use chemical weapons,

which used missiles on the city, it is essential in terms of their outlook that they do not have power on their borders in syria or iraq. they also have a more offense of aim in syria, and that is to establish a military command lebanon wherento their client militia, the has below -- that would put them an extremely strong position vis-a-vis israel. it means israel would have to think twice about threatening program ifts nuclear the current nuclear agreement signed in 2015 collapses, as it threatens to do if president trump walks out.

a standoffbring nuclear program back and iran is bolstering its military position, hedging its bets and taking out insurance by laying down a permanent military presence inside syria. world affairs editor for the guardian joining us in washington, d.c. thank you for being with us. guest: pleasure. host: back to your facebook comments. another issue that seems to be driving your comments on facebook is the situation in flint, michigan. tom wrote that if the government really cared about children being harmed they would send a fraction of what those missiles cost to replace the pipes in flint, michigan.

responded, a hundred and 25 tomahawk missiles launched in $224 millions total. the cost to replace flint's pipes, $55 million. us.e is joining was the mission accomplished? caller: i believe the mission was accomplished. the question i have is do we learn nothing through history? killed millions of people for years before we entered into the war thanks to japan. had japan not bombed us, how many more people would have died? suppose to let syria gas its own people? where will that end?

will he not use the same chemical weapons on surrounding countries? countries we have a military presence there? host: this is from "the washington post." details emerge on chemical facilities hit by u.s. forces. joe is next on the republican line. caller: a couple of comments. -- in 2016 was one of the secondly, this was not just about the chemical theons, where they make chemicals, but to send a message to russia and iran and north that it willers

protect its people. thanks for the call. we are getting a little bit of breakup, i apologize. let's go to jennifer out in california. caller: i would say mission accomplished because technically it was accomplished. politically, nothing was accomplished. we have had sanctions against syria for years. the more you try and hurt the country the more they try and survive. if mr. trump is going to go to north korea and talk to jim he could certainly -- and talk to kim he could certainly talk to assad's people. the answer, just when the opcw was on the cusp of having the specs. it does not make sense. at u.s.,are looking

astish, and french personnel part of those strikes. over a hundred missiles that hit key targets. all of the weekend developments, including the president's speech is on our website at c-span.org. "the washington post" with this headline -- u.s. and french leaders facing a backlash at home. mike, democrats line in roanoke, virginia. caller: i do not think the mission was accomplished at all. involved in a is situation it is not going to be good. vladimir putin is a treacherous man. now we are saying that our mission was accomplished in syria.

syria willay that not buy more chemical weapons from russia? host: thanks very much from the call. up onl have more coming the situation in syria and the next move for the u.s. and our allies. are,headline from w m you the abc affiliate -- from wmur, the abc affiliate in new hampshire. trump republicans are trying to chip away at voting rights. dinner in republican nashua. we covered it live. here is a portion. [video clip] rights challenges of the past are back. there are people who want to take away our right to vote and we have to stand up to it as a party.

that is why i started let america vote over a year ago with the mission of creating political consequences for politicians who perpetrate voter suppression. it is time that politicians who make it part of the vote find it harder to get reelected. [applause] new hampshire is ground zero for this fight in 2018. we have to show the country that voting suppression is not going to fly here or anywhere else in america. [applause] >> i volunteered to serve in the protectause i wanted to the rights and the freedoms that our nation has to offer and i home --dammed if i come damned if i watch trump take those away. a growingn kander

number of democrats looking to challenge for 2020. moment, morejust a on syria. maura connelly is going to be joining us from new york. she is a career diplomat. later, "1968: america in turmoil" our series continues. last week we focused on the democrats and liberal politics. we turn our attention to republican and conservative politics. editor of will be the american conservative magazine, robert merry. the democratic congressman from massachusetts, now the ranking democrat on the house rules committee, and among the issues we talked about, the snap program and changes to other entitlement programs. the full interview at 10:00 eastern time.

here is an excerpt. [video clip] >> there've been so many hearings on snap. these ideas and these changes and the so-called reforms, none of them were reflected in any of the hearings we held. i do not know who wrote this. i'm the ranking democrat on the nutrition subcommittee. we do not see this language until a day go. this is the typical republican pattern when it comes to snap of trying to get the benefits. what i would like to see is an expanded benefit. the average snap benefit is about the dollar per person per meal. this extravagant benefit that they demagogue is a dollar -- $1.40 per person per meal. i was he that more people who are entitled to the benefit can get it. i want to address the issue they seem concerned about which is ?ow to get people off of snap

the majority of people who were on the benefit are not expected to work because they are children or senior citizens or disabled. of those who can work, the vast majority work yet they earn so little they still qualify for snap. what we talk about a livable wage, one of we talk about raising the minimum wage, what are talk about ways to make work pay. this is an attempt to go after a population who is vulnerable. i have sat through all these hearings and hurt all the rhetoric, i am fed up with this constant belittling of poor people, diminishing their struggle. democrats are united in opposition to this bill. what they have done to snap his go after the core of this program. we are going to fight.

>> jim mcgovern is joining us on newsmakers at 10:00 eastern time. it is also available on our free c-span radio app and online at c-span.org. host: joining us from new york is maura connelly who served as art representative in syria and the ambassador to lebanon. thank you for being with us on this sunday. guest: my pleasure to be here. seen the pictures of what those tomahawk cruise missiles were able to accomplish by the united states, france, and great britain. my question is what is next? syria is an arena for several different conflicts going on at the same time. the u.s. has various interests and various aspects of those conflicts. the military action we undertook on friday night was essentially towards enforcing a ban

on the use of chemical weapons. there is not any formal enforcement mechanism. the u.s. and france and britain undertook that action on their own. it was a very focused and specific military strike to achieve some reduction in assad 's capabilities to employ chemical weapons. the larger problem in syria is the civil war. in that context, the u.s. has not been willing to employ any kind of military asset. the u.s. seems to lack a specific strategy for getting to and end state in syria that would be in line with our interests. diplomat, asreer you know, there is a debate going on in great britain and the united states. the role of lawmakers.

this editorial from "the new york times." a coordinated attack on syria. here is an excerpt. warr the constitution, powers are divided between congress and the president. in the view of most legal scholars, the founders wanted congress to decide when to go to war except when the country is under attack. since world war ii, presidents from both parties have pushed the boundaries of executive authority and carried out military authorizations without .ongressional authorization legislation should set limits on the president's ability to wage war against states like syria. without that, congress would once again be abdicating its responsibility and seating broad -- and ceding broad powers to an impulsive president with dubious judgment. guest: i think the question of authority is one that was not very well explained on friday.

the pentagon said we were acting as a matter of self-defense. you can make that argument, that the use of chemical weapons in syria provides certain risks for us in terms of our allies in the region, the presence of our own military forces in northern various military assets we have in iraq. the self-defense argument can be relied on, perhaps, in a limited fashion. what was not laid out on friday was whether we thought we had any basis in international law for undertaking this strike and there was not a very clear discussion of whether or not the president intends to seek additional authority beyond the authorization for the use of military force that was enacted after the 9/11 attacks on the u.s.. confirmationhis

hearing, now cia director and the presence choice for the next secretary of state mike pompeo was asked about syria. his comments one day before the airstrikes occurred inside that country. [video clip] >> the other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome. this is a diplomatic task so that we get to the place where the syrian people can ultimately govern themselves. our goal is to make that a post assad syria one day. host: how to we get to that point? guest: even that point is not well-defined. former secretary tillerson provided a speech in january at the hoover institute and he laid out five characteristics of a stable independent syria in a period.ad

it is not clear beyond the elimination of wmd, the elimination of isis, the creation of conditions for refugees and internally displaced persons to return home. it was not clearly outlined what the u.s. wants the future syria to be. there have been, traditionally, some objectives. we would like to see syria engage in a regional peace conference or peace effort. we would like to see a comprehensive peace in the middle east. -- a post-assad government in syria, we would want to seem friendly to such an outcome. the u.s. has relied on the geneva process, which goes back to 2012. it was an effort undertaken by the u.s. and other countries,

european and arab countries to help bring the syrian parties together. never been able to achieve much the that process because fundamentally the gap between the regime and the rebel groups has been -- there is no real trust between them. i do not think that the regime ever saw that its interest would be served by going wholeheartedly into that process. since then we have seen a russian and i romney and sponsored process -- a russian ian sponsored process. we see a selective group of rebel groups, ones who are deemed more likely to be conducive to reaching some kind of agreement with the regime. we do not have a means right now that would reliably lead to peace among the various syrian

parties that would result in a post-conflict syria that would align with our interests and objectives in the region. we are talking with maura connelly, a career diplomat. what is the role of the u.n. with regard to syria? we saw part of that yesterday with ambassador nikki haley, but also russia's involvement as a member of the security council. guest: the un security council has been involved in several aspects of the syrian conflict. it has provided its support to the geneva process. the security council has seized on the syrian conflict for some time now. because of the growing convergence between the u.s., the french, the british on the one hand and the russians on the the security council

has not been able to take a leadership role in addressing the syrian conflict. this council has also been involved in the question of the use of chemical weapons. there is a number of resolutions that the security council has adopted over time. the security council also created the joint investigative tohanism in 2015 in order have a better indication or understanding of exactly what was going on with chemical weapons on the ground, who was using them and the nature of the chemical weapons involved. host: let me jump in. what would assad's motives of been to use this chemical weapons against his own people in duma? guest: i think the use of chemical weapons in a civilian context is a form of state terrorism. he is trying to make it so

horrible for the civilian population to support any of the rebel groups that they will preemptively acquiesce. yes, i suppose the rebel groups are somehow in the civilian population. in another context with different rules of engagement, the state would not attack the civilian population in order to root out the fighters. in this particular context, to have anyot seem compunction about attacking civilians to get to the fighters. your posters over the years have include algeria, jerusalem, also great britain and you have served as the u.s. ambassador to lebanon from 2010 .o 2013 also the affair in syria inside damascus. what your responsibilities there

included what? guest: at that time we do not have an ambassador in syria. we had removed our ambassador after the assassination of the former lebanese prime minister. in lebanon, there was a strong suspicion the syrian regime had been involved in that assassination and the bush administration withdrew the ambassador, leaving the number two position. i went there in 2008, so i was running the embassy. we had a very cool relationship with the assad regime in the later part of the bush administration. there was a limited diplomatic exchange between the u.s. and the syrian regime at the time. after the obama administration came into play, there was somewhat more mutual exploration of what might be possible with the new u.s. administration.

ultimately, we were not able to get far along on any kind of agenda that would have brought syria into a peace process or would have improved relations between the u.s. and syria. there were a number of frictions or irritants in the relationship that the regime was not willing to address. host: our guest is ambassador connolly joining us from new york. for the united states and our allies? also reaction from the united nations and other allies across europe and the middle east. stephen is joining us from connecticut. thank you for waiting. caller: thanks for taking my call. i was afraid of analysis and paralysis. in the future -- the u.s.

special forces own our side of the euphrates river. they should split syria on that river. this is our time. this is our chance to create a new country for the peoples of that area, for the sunnis, for the kurds, we need another country there that can have free and fair elections. this is our chance to do it. i think the west should consider what our allies the u.k. in france of dividing that nation. host: thank you for the call. we'll get a response. ambassador? guest: i understand the temptation that underlies that idea. i would be wary of the u.s. unilaterally carving up countries. we saw during the colonial time that having arbitrary lines

drawn to suit external interests did not necessarily result in stable countries. i think we need to work with syria as it is presently constituted and try to come up with some end state in syria where the country is able to govern itself and live at peace with its neighbors. when i lived in syria, i found it remarkable that there is a strong sense of syrian patriotism separate from regime propaganda or any other sort of manipulation you might see. syrians were proud to be syrians. they have gone through a brutal experience over the last seven years but i would imagine they syrianemain proud to be and attach to their syrian identity. host: this headline from "the as the u.s. says

the strikes took the heart out of the assad chemical threat. tom is joining us on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know how this is going to be any different than removing saddam hussein, removing qadhafi, removing mubarak, none of those have turned out well. none of those have been good for america. our children bleeding and dying in their deserts. tom. thank you, ambassador, your reaction? guest: i understand the concern from the caller. i think in the case of syria, there has been a constant emphasis on the notion it was going to be a political process among syrians that would lead to agreements on how to

reconstitute syria. i think that concern about decapitating a countries leadership and then leaving it to figure out what to do next has been taken into account with syria. unfortunately, we are not at the point. we're still involved in the conflict. this headline from the "dallas morning news." the president tweeting mission accomplished. don on our line for democrats. caller: i was just wondering who has been supporting these rebels and their families, feeding them, clothing them, housing them, furnishing their weapons, since all this began? responsible? guest: the various rebel groups

of a number of sponsors. there has been a lot of financial support from the persian gulf countries. the united states in recent years has provided some support in terms of training. formerly we had provided even some weapons. i think the bulk of the financial support comes from the region. host: jack from minnesota, independent line. good morning. mostr: good morning, mr. patient man. i request there be more varied views on what we are doing in syria. you had a person on yesterday from the so-called institute for the study of war.

that is orwellian. it should be called the institute for the promotion of war or the institute for propaganda for war. somebody liket , journalists he who have actually been in syria. second late -- host: let me get in on that point because our guest has not only been in syria but lived there. caller: secondly, i do not believe for a minute that assad gassed his own people. knows just said we do not who did the gassing a year ago. controla is under the

of the terrorists and has been for quite some time. intelligencer agencies for these things is ridiculous. if you remember a little history, bill clinton of the clinton regime bombed a factory in sudan saying it was a chemical weapons factory, it was a factory that produced aspirin and other medications for africa . if you remember the bush regime, they are the ones that brought the premeditated criminal war on iraq on phony intelligence. i do not believe for a minute. this is not about human rights, this is not about a chemical weapons. if we cared about chemical weapons under the lyndon johnson and richard nixon regime we were not of drop agent orange on

vietnam, nor would we have dropped napalm on children. thank you for the call. we would get a chance for the guest to respond. guest: i worked with secretary mattis when he was the commander of central command and i was the ambassador in lebanon. i have the utmost respect for general mattis. he said the other night on television that he was sure the regime had used chemical weapons on the people. i take him at his word. i have no reason to believe otherwise. host: this is from peter baker, available at and white -- at nytimes.com. trump findsident them in a position not all that different from his predecessor. the strike wrought home mr.

trump's competing impulses when it comes to syria. hand, his chest-thumping intention to prove he is tougher on the international block, and the other his deep conviction that american involvement in the middle east since 9/11 has been a waste of blood and treasure. your reaction. guest: the focus on the use and hasical weapons in syria been remarkable. it is a sustained focus. the president was moved undertake a strike last year, he has undertaken a second strike this year. i would note that it is probably not just in the u.s. in january of this year, the french proposed a group called the international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons. 25 countries joined this group.

there is some stronger feeling on thethe united states horrified reaction to the use of chemical weapons on civilians. this goes deep into our own history with world war i. on the other hand, neither this administration nor the last was able to come up with a good strategy for how the u.s. should to help end the conflict in syria. that if weme concern were to get involved it would be another quagmire we were involved in. we would not be would figure out how to get out. we have an ingrained preference these days for military action. there is no feasible way for the u.s. to become involved militarily in syria. diplomacy has been given short shrift by both administrations.

we were involved in the geneva process, but we were not moving anywhere beyond the geneva process. when it did not work, we backed off. i am afraid that the problem in syria is too complicated for quick military action. it is going to take a sustained and muscular diplomatic effort. the u.s. with allies working with the russians and others in order to try to bring that conflict to an end. ambassador connolly's posting in syria was between 2009. ins from the daily mail great britain, prime minister theresa may facing a backlash for snubbing members of parliament over the blitz in syria. interday president assad damascus walking into his palace as if it was normal.

that was tweeted out on president assad's twitter page. we will watch that and listen to dan from massachusetts. caller: thank you for having me. i think it is naive to think each time the rebels are winning a cloudad would produce of poison gas and we would go in particularlyd, when it is incredibly easy for any group to go to a local swimming pool supply store and get the necessary chemicals to make a cloud of poison gas. having takene military action it would have been intelligent to try to find out exactly where this poison gas came from, particularly when each time we go in and bomb, it is the rebels who are in the process of trying to destabilize the country than support it. host: thank you. more questions in terms of who

was responsible for the chemical attacks initially. guest: we have not gone in and bombed every time chemical weapons have been used. they have used nine times since last year. we have not gone in each time. that trying toa assign responsibility for use of the chemical weapons is spot on. there is a team from the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons that is apparently on the ground working there today. who was producing, who was researching, who was weaponize in various chemicals over the past dozen years, maybe longer. it is the syrian regime. that is an established fact that they have done so. means ofy have the making these weapons, i think we have to be realistic in the idea

it is the regime that has the means to deliver them. from your standpoint, does the u.s. have the responsibility to bring in more syrian refugees? this past year we've brought in fewer than a dozen. guest: the united states has always had a strong record on providing humanitarian assistance abroad and in receiving refugees. the idea that we gone from something like 12,000 down to 11 over the course of a year or two is astounding. there are concerns about vetting. all of the refugees are vetted at several stages of the way. no refugee is leaving his country and then arriving in the u.s. the next day. it is a long process, it takes a year or two years. there is plenty of time to

establish whether or not these are refugees or there is some security concern about them. i think the number of 11 is shameful. , the if you are interested washington post and a team of reporters breaking down the decision process for the president and his national security team to launch the strikes along with great britain and france. it is inside today's washington post. is joining us from michigan, republican line. toppled aer since we democratically elected government in iran and replaced it by the u.s. and british terrorists, they have been terrorizing the middle east. a democratically elected government in the middle east means nothing. you have to have a strong man. now we have the same imperialist forces trying to create a new

ottoman empire for the turks. the turks are the ones are going to benefit the most by this destruction of syria. this is nothing but imperialism. bloodthirsty imperialism and we should be ashamed and we should bring in every refugee we have created. immigranthave every in this country and then they can bring the peace and joy they have in their country to our country. guest: i would just say that i agree with the collar regarding refugees. we should bring in refugees. the rest of the premise i do not share. host: we will go to miami on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i just have one question. be an there supposed to independent inspection team to go in there and see what was going on in reference to

chemicals? place,o know that took ambassador? guest: the media is reporting that the opcw team is on the ground in damascus today. they're supposed to have begun their work today. host: what is life like in damascus in the metropolitan area? is it different than what we have been seeing in douma and other areas that have been hit by the civil war? guest: my understanding is that much of central damascus is operating more or less normally. i am sure it is not quite the way it was before the revolution broke out. of central damascus or the president's palaces are, where the government facilities that is essentially unharmed by the war. , or thescus suburbs

damascus countryside, has been much more deeply affected by the battles going on. there have been areas close to central damascus that have been rebel-held and the battles for control of those areas have resulted in quite a bit of destruction. the area that was attacked with waschemical weapon, douma, one of those areas in the damascus countryside that has been a battleground for years. host: our next caller is from georgia, republican line. ofler: we have heard a lot this leftist stuff, we're a bunch of imperialist, warmongers , what we did in 1953. that is when i was born, the

curtain falls and time passes. fact thatcumented saddam hussein killed far more people with his chemical weapons then assad has even been accused of. we go in there and take him out and what does the left say, they run and out into the streets with pictures of george bush wearing a hitler's mustache. i do not understand these people. saddam hussein was a stabilizing influence? this was a criminal war? mass graves all over the country. invades iran, invades kuwait, takes potshots at israel, threaten saudi arabia. what osama bin laden

was cheesed off about because we had troops in saudi arabia to prevent saddam hussein from trying it there as well. host: thank you. ambassador connolly? guest: i am not quite sure how to respond to that. i'm not sure we want to make comparisons between dictators in the middle east to the extent to which they have employed chemical weapons on their people. if they do it once, it is heinous, if they do it 10 times it is heinous. i'm not sure there's a quantitative judgment to be made there. host: tracy from minneapolis, republican line with ambassador maura connelly. guys.: good morning this whole thing has me a little cynical. i am supposed to believe they care about the syrian people. we have chemical attacks going on in this country in the opioid addiction.

strong-arming the palestinians. sometimes we do not say things about certain things and sometimes we do. there is more to these types of situations. we have hidden motives or something. about,do not even talk we are broke. this country is bankrupt. there is always money for these and there is always situations where we have to go in and do this. we do not even have any money. the problem with the middle east, they do not want to central bank system. they do not want to pay interest on money and we cannot understand that. i want to see what she thought. thank you. host: we are getting an indication of just how expensive these tomahawk missiles are, upwards of 1.5 million dollars

to $1.8 million per missile. guest: when you talk about the action we took on friday, it is likely there were other objectives that the administration wanted to achieve by the limited action they took. as a projection of force it was efficient and effective and targeted. i think that is meant to send a message. it is not just that we were trying to avoid civilian casualties. it is also to indicate the degree to which we know where things are in syria and we have the means to take them out if we so choose. whether or not that is useful is open to question because the lack of a larger strategy in which that kind of messaging is being performed. collar -- i share the caller's concern about the

cost. that is a lot of money to take out three facilities. host: i want to go back to this headline from "the dallas morning news." trump referring to "mission accomplished" and reminiscent of george w. bush when he was on the aircraft carrier. the president busy tweeting on a number of fronts including james comey and robert mueller. wasyria he goes the raid carried out with such precision the only way the fake news media could demean was by my use of the term mission accomplished. i knew they would seize on this but i felt it was such a great military term, it should be brought back. use often. back to your phone calls. peter joining us from london, england, this program carried on the bbc parliament channel every afternoon in england. caller: i would like to remind viewers that i have -- that i'm

calling from a country where the russians have deployed nerve gas in the past month. i would like to question those who talk about the cost. how much value do you put on a civilian child's life? i thinkpoint is that the actions should have gone through the united nations. however, both the u.s. and russia have neutered the security council. with a sort of provisions made by bill clinton , ande former yugoslavia the decisions to bomb the serbian capital. of humanitarian intervention. this is not a war. it is not a justification for war. it is a justification for limited, precise military

action. any nonsense about he is taking us into war is purely ventas he. -- is purely fantasy. host: we've have another caller from great britain as well. norma is joining us from hastings, england. caller: i would like to ask your guest about something, the term we keep on hearing, news and fake news and perhaps i can ask her a question on something that relates. having lived in the middle east maybe she can say. many years ago i lived in brighton and i went to the library -- in britain you can read the newspapers. i went in there because i wanted to read different versions of the daily broadsheets.

one article was saying that in afghanistan, where the russians were in afghanistan at that moment, the cia was helping the against thettle fact that the russians were in afghanistan. host: we will give our guest a chance to respond to both viewers from great britain. i would like to respond on a couple of points. one is that i should point out that i am retired. i retired before this and ministration came into office. i have not, as an active diplomat, had to learn to adapt to tweeting as a means of signaling our foreign policy. it is challenging for diplomats. it is not the way we traditionally have done business. the president's tweets before and after the attack are a new frontier for diplomatic

messaging. in terms of the first scholars -- the first caller's concern about humanitarian intervention, that is a doctrine that was talked a lot about at the time of the iraq war. it has been difficult to come up with any kind of international whennsus on how to gauge international action is justifiable and authorized in terms of humanitarian intervention. that is not to say it is not something we should be concentrating on. it is something that is not necessarily on the top of the agenda of these days. making theollar also point about england being hit by nerve gas, making reference to the former russian ambassador and his daughter. guest: right. i think it was a former russian intelligence officer.

thate the point earlier the concern in the united states about the chemical weapons, which did not exist in avoid, there is a strong concern in europe and in britain and france in other countries. i think when we took this action we were taking it in partnership with other countries who are uselly disturbed by assad's of chemical weapons on his own people. point aboutaller's fake news i was not clear on. i do not think anyone has questioned that the cia had a role in afghanistan during the russian occupation. i do not know precisely what she wanted to ask with that question. ahead with regard to syria, what advice would you give the incoming secretary of state, mike pompeo, assuming he is confirmed by the senate and career diplomats who need to deal with this issue? i would hope that mike

pompeo, should he be confirmed, would take a different approach froms career diplomats that taken by secretary tillerson and his immediate entourage. i know my colleagues were deeply thatalized by the distance tillerson put between him and them, almost to the point of appearing to mistrust them. the foreign service is not a political, or politicized service. we serve any administration who is in office. we have a great deal of expertise we can offer a new secretary of state and i hope that mike pompeo will take full advantage of that. the ranks in the state department have been greatly depleted since former secretary tillerson came into the office a puzzling reform

program. i do not think anyone would have said the state department could not have been more finely tuned or better focused, better matchn resources and output, but the approach he took i think ended anduzzling everyone creating a terrible morale situation. she served as our representative in syria, a officer joining us from yourork, thank you for time. of that, and here on "washington journal" on c-span1, we continue our series "1968: america in turmoil." attention to conservative politics. we will be joined by robert merry and matthew dallek.

we take you back to the republican convention in 1968. richard nixon accepting his party's nomination. russia [video] make history tonight. the choices in 1968 will determine the future of america world in thethe last third of the 20th century. can america meet this great challenge? for a few moments, let us look at america, listen to america, to find the answer to that question. as we look at america we see cities enveloped in smoke and ensmes, here sire -- hear sir

in the night, americans hating each other, fighting each other, killing each other at home. to see thesed things, millions of americans cry out in english, "did we come all this way for this?" listen to the answers to those questions. it is another voice, it is a quiet voice over the shouting. it is the voice of the great majority of americans, the forgotten americans, the non- shouters, the non-demonstrators. they're not guilty of the crime land.lagues the they are white, white, native-born, foreign-born, young old.

they work in america's factories, run business, served in government, provide most of the soldiers. they give lift to the american dream. they give steel to the backbone of america. they are good people, decent people. they work, save, pay their care. and they like theodore roosevelt, they know that this country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless it is a good place for all of us to live in. [applause] --this i say is the real voice of america. 1960 eight, this is the message that will broadcast to americans, let's never forget that america is a great nation, and america is great because her people are

great. with winston churchill we say, we have not journeyed all this way, across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies because we are made of sugar candy. notica is in trouble today because her people have failed, but because her leaders have failed. american needs leaders to match the greatness of her people. "1968: america in turmoil." that was a speech by richard accepting the nomination for his party. joining me at the table is robert merry, the editor of the american conservative. matthew dallek from george washington university and author of the book "the right moment

the wrong moment." in order to talk about 1968, i to 1960 four with lyndon johnson winning in a landslide. and many is defeated are wondering what will happen with the conservative movement. what changed between 1964 and 1968? 1964 was seen after the seen as the -- was conservative demise. the extreme right has no home in the center of american politics. the country changed dramatically, as we will discuss today. vietnam, urban unrest, law and order. the republican party ultimately capture the nomination of 1964 signaled where the energy at the

grassroots, ideologically, where flowing.y was it was flowing to the right of the republican party and it was the goldwater-type conservatives that were on the ascendance and prevailed for the most part in 1968. was richardplayer nixon. he lost the california governorship in 1962. that famous speech, "you won't xon to kicki around anymore." that actually made him look like a victim? guest: it made him look like a has-been. there is a rule in american politics, you're not finished until you say you are finished. if you say you are finished, you are finished. in 1962 said he was finished. he thought he was finished, but he wasn't. his backers in california said,

california. this is the scene of your demise. go to new york and you could rise back up. that is what he did. what happened between 1964 and 1966 that laid the groundwork for his primary campaign in 1968? guest: he did a brilliant thing when he gave the nominating speech for goldwater. the liberals in the party were resisting goldwater. in doing so, they were resisting the goldwater constituency. you cannot do that in politics. nixon understood that he could not do that. he managed to maintain his standing in the party. whereas romney, rocky, scranton, and percy all released their standing within the party.

host: nelson rockefeller was the governor of new york. he was in the race, out of the race, in the race. what was this about? twice.he had run before the most important moment to understand in terms of 1968, is said he gotrt merry up on the convention stage and denounced extremism, he was denouncing the direction of the republican party under goldwater. he was detested by conservatives. the leadingas embodiment of moderation in the republican party. he was pro-civil rights. he enacted building projects. he wanted to use the federal government as a catalyst. he refused in the 1968 to reject civil rights. he said, i have to be true to who i am.

when he announced, he announced after martin luther king was killed. he thought robert kennedy might become the nominee and that he could be the one viable republican who could capture the presidency. again, he misread, as he had previously, where the party was. the strength of the conservative movement. he was never much of a force or threat to richard nixon. host: was he in the wrong party? there would bey, no place for him in the republican party today. arguably, he claimed that he was committed to fiscal discipline, and on social issues he was more progressive. he came out of this northeastern tradition of liberal republicans. office as ain

politician in the 1970's or 1980's it would be an easy fit to see him in the democratic party. says in 1964 richard nixon we are rockefeller republicans, goldwater republicans, but we are all republicans. what was he doing as he had his on 1966 for the midterm elections to potentially run again in 1968? position was trying to himself as the one to bring the fractured party back together. because he supported goldwater, and it did not go after him as he managed toand maintain some association with the more liberal elements of his party, he was the one who positioned himself. it is interesting the extent of which the liberals had already been left behind.

all of those people who thought that they could recapture the party from the extremists did not understand what hit them. , the governorrals of new york, the governor of pennsylvania, the senator from new york, nelson rockefeller, the governor of new york, what was happening in the republican party? the 2 factions in the gop? were remnants of moderates. there were elected officials who were moderate. ultimately, that battle had been fought in 1964. what we see with richard nixon is that he is backing republicans on the right, but also in the middle. he gets a lot of the credit in 1966 for endorsing and helping republicans pick up dozens of seats in the midterm congressional elections. seats.46

guest: nixon gets a lot of the credit for that. he is seen increasing lee as a credible conservative. there is still -- he is seen increasingly as a credible conservative. there is still a lot of skepticism. the moderates are a significant minority within the party. if we factor in george wallace, who would ultimately become the embodiment of the conservative coalition, we would see that the moderates are a dying almost spent force. in 1968 to the extent that there wasa threat to nixon from reagan on his right. i think that those battles were fought in 1964 and 1966.

came out on the losing end. host: we will talk about governor wallace in a moment. image nixon had an problem. part was from the press conference we talked about, part if it were elements of his personality that didn't go over well. he interested in the fall of 1966 in terms of campaigning for republicans all over america. he was everywhere. he campaigned for liberal republicans, moderate republicans, conservative republicans. in doing so, he addressed the question of the old nixon versus .he new nixon all of these major publications were writing about him. a sickly accepting that yes, there is a new nixon. host: the first to enter the race in 1968 was a governor

george romney. he was the first to leave in february of 1968. what happened? guest: romney did not manage to graduate from state politics. lot of governors, and it is a totally different situation from being the governor of the state and running for the presidency. the stuff comes at you in a deluge. the margin for error is is very low. mccarthy expressed it pretty well devastatingly when he said, probably a light rise would have been -- rinse would have been adequate. romney, pro-civil rights after the 1964-1965 voting rights act, the republican party

increasingly becomes a party in 1968 opposed to mandatory busing, opposed to federal desegregation efforts, argues that the war on poverty targeting african-americans is a total failure. that it is an example of the government overreaching. that is not the only issue, but it is a central issue. it is hard to see how romney and the brainwashing gaffe, it was hard to see how romney in the 1968 version of the republican party, being pro-civil rights, would emerge as the nominee. it was a very short-lived political effort. host: another candidate whose in 1964, was-- was

ronald reagan. he appeared on face the nation when he talked about the state of the republican party 50 years ago. [video clip] when we talk about the convention and the delegates, estimates range from 38% to 60% of goldwater delegates returning this year to miami. the onlye yourself as hope of the conservatives in the party? they are not going to rally around nelson rockefeller and many may not around richard nixon. where else do they have to go except for you? i want to go along anymore with using those labels. i have been working for two years for trying to get the party to drop the labels. i think that there is a different philosophy or belief in the republican party at the grassroots level and through the pros. i think you will find the republican party today is far ine willing to see good

other republicans in the interest of unity and winning. there is a great desire. we have had our bloodbath and learned a lesson from it. the party was virtually out of existence a few years ago. i don't think you will have that problem. i don't think people are going to this convention frozen in an ideological mold. me ask you about ronald reagan. he was in the race in 1968, but primarily as the favorite son in california. what was his role in a primary process, if any? guest: had just won the governorship of california, his first political campaign. in november of 1966 he did with richard nixon could not do, he be pat brown in california. a boom among some

of his aides and supporters on the west coast that this was the rising star of the conservative movement. this is a more electable goldwater. he had just gotten into office. aides said was that the aides did much more work than reagan did in the primaries. they try to draft him. reagan really only declared a candidate at the convention itself in the hopes that they could deprive richard nixon of nomination on a first ballot. while nixon's forces were somewhat concerned that reagan could be a credible threat, nixon had, before reagan even announced at the convention, nixon had wrapped up endorsements from very goldwater, strom thurman, many of the southern conservatives that reagan would have needed to

take off. -- to pick off. there is not much of a credible threat to richard nixon as opposed to 1976 when reagan almost unseated ford. from tactical moves richard nixon paying off during the primary process, correct? ronald reagan, there is a reality in politics that things happen that are perceived as impossible, inconceivable, couldn't happen. the emergence of ronald reagan is one of those things. the election of donald trump, the election of abraham lincoln are examples. wimp at brown was running against reagan and he dismissed wasan -- when pat brown born against reagan, he dismissed reagan saying he had no experience. never flown an

airplane, but don't worry, i have always been really interested in aviation. immediately, he was i a major figure in american politics. not smearingise of the others run him in various states and picked up 11% in new hampshire and 22%, maybe, in nebraska. and 100% inn california, because he was the favorite son. that gave him a base going into the convention. the only way that he could possibly get the nomination is deny nixon on the first ballot the nomination. in a greatot position of strength going into that convention. it was entirely conceivable that he could have been denied the nomination on the first ballot. he wasn't, largely because of strom thurmond. host: our guest robert merry and

matthew dallek. "1968: america in turmoil," the special series is part of c-span of c-span american history tv. go ahead. 1968 was a pivotal year in american history. to understand that you have to go backwards in time for long-distance and then forward until now. you cannot comprehend the significance that led to that year being so pivotal without toking at the time from 1948 1965 when the wealthiest americans paid and income tax rate of over 90%. yet, the middle class was stronger than ever. host: your thoughts? i was a senior in college

in 1960 eight and campuses were burning up. demonstrations were everywhere. the year before we had race riots in urban areas where tens of people were killed in detroit newark. many people,to appeared to be coming apart at the seams. we have to put that into context , because that was driving a lot of what was happening. what was happening was a reaction to that. nixon was the politician who understood how to thread that needle, how to position himself as the candidate who was not a radical, who is not extremist, the variousstraddle elements of the republican party and take the party, and the nation, forward. in many ways that reagan

campaign was a template for nixon. emphasize lawn order, the idea that the country was unraveling. law and order, the idea that the country was unraveling. the berkeley protests, the antiwar demonstrations, the columbia university unrest. themewas able to hit the that the non-shouters, as he called them, the quiet americans, primarily appealing , middle-class, suburbanites, white weking-class americans, that have to crack down on the supreme court justices who are too lenient on the politicians who have raised expectations who have failed to calm the cities. i think the caller is right that pivot, ae 1968 as a

the post-1945 american worker when the country emerged as the lone superpower, untouched by the bombing. the economic growth, the nonstop expansion, the sense of military strength that nobody could challenge. and, the sense that there was abundance for all. then of course issues of race and gender, which spilled into , primarily race in 1968. we are still living in that shadow. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans.

"1968: america in turmoil." democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am so happy that you are doing this show. that 1968-1972 is a time that conservatives don't want to talk about. we don't teach about it. it was a total realignment of the party. in anyot be discussed context. you can tiptoe around it. what undergirds it are two factors, race and class. when we look at the divisiveness and what is going on in the current administration, it politics,rded by 1968

a southern strategy. i would like these conservative writers and thinkers to really explain the landmine of the two parties, the access of blacks away from republican electoral ot ofucs -- the exi blacks away from republican electoral politicss. --ck young man of the time young men of the time, in urban communities, goldwater was like ouldemort.v guest: that is a very good question to be posing. when lyndon johnson passed the and necessary legislation, the voting rights bill of 1965, he told his close friends, what i have done is i have just lost the south. he was right.

opportunity, win after that had been completed, when the american people came together for the residential el -- the presidential election, we had the emergence of george wallace. he won the five deep south states and to the south out of the democratic party when it was just lying there. affected this realignment that the caller is talking about by bringing the south into the republican party. very controversial at the time. served toely domesticate racial issues in the south to an extent that it moderated them.

obviously, there was a backlash to that legislation. the south was realigned. party, therepublican so-called southern strategy, the democratic lock on the south since the end of reconstruction was no more. segregationist. he defended segregation. he ran, what many historians consider, a racist campaign. that was not the only issue that he appealed to, but he did make it explicit appeals to white voters in the south and in the industrial north, union members. hardlks about these -working police and barbershop workers, beauticians, who were

revolting against not just african-american unrest but the pointy-headed over educated elites. in that sense, it was a very modern campaign that resonates today. we see the republican party today, much of the strength remains in the south, not only the deep south, but also the border states. that happened in the 1960's over time. you do see by the end of the 1968 election, you see the republican party in the ascendance in the south and dominant. host: are there parallels to the wallace voter in 1968 and the donald trump folder in 2016? createit is hard to these analogies because the issues of 1968 were different then today.

for example, trade and immigration. having said that, much of the language -- for example, donald appropriatedon george wallace's themes, donald trump in his convention address appropriated some of richard law and order,of american carnage, american crisis. that i am the voice for the forgotten americans. he used that language and ideas. i do think that some of trump's populist appeals primarily to white voters, i think there are real echoes in the wallace 1968 effort. host: wallace was the governor of alabama in 1968. in the summer of that year he appeared on "face the nation." [video clip]

>> you were quoted once as the way to stop a ride was to hit the people on the head? >> when someone begins to loot and burn's a building down that endangers the health and safety of everyone, that is a good way to solve it. if you let the police hit someone in the head of someone who was assaulting a policeman, assaulting a person on the street, throwing a firebomb, it would get mighty light if someone was hitting them in the head. if i was the president of the united states i would take whatever was necessary to prevent what happened in this city if we had the order to knock it in the head of many people. when you do that, you will satisfy the overlong majority of people of all races. matter of race, it is a matter of and our guests. the government has bow down

to anarchist groups across the state. 1968, "face the nation," robert merry? he had a very significant margin. he held richard nixon down to little more than 43%, making him a minority president. he was a significant figure that wasf the turmoil going on in american politics. we have a realignment, not just in terms of people in the electorate, but also the issues that will be driving politics. mobile, alabama, good morning. caller: i live in 1968 until now. i am older than at least one of you, probably both of you.

from 1968 until now, it has horrified me. in 1968 what you are not talking about is how your party began to civics by using so much dogma. dogma became the deal with the republican party. you are against everyone but what you want done. that is not freedom. andfemales in the south minorities did not have voting rights like the rest of you, and we still don't. there are many problems with gerrymandering and a republican party saying that they win the vote. cheating is not winning. ande are going to have fair free elections from 1968 until now, we must allow all of the population to be included. host: who would like to take that? guest: one thing i will say is ronald reagan goes

to mississippi to launch his campaign in the place where 3 civil rights workers were murdered. he invokes the words "states rights." that is a code for some of the massive resistance to civil rights from the 1960's. efforts, despite the 1965 voting rights act, to suppress the votes of primarily african-americans in the south. ultimately, i would say that the republican party has been dominant in the south primarily because it wins overwhelming numbers of the white vote and whites are majority in the south. the democratic party wins an overwhelming majority of the african-american votes. alabama, jones won in there was a highly unusual

coalition that is probably not going to repeat itself of biracial across racial coalitions. race remains a central fault line. it is not just the south, it is around the country, but we do see in 1968 the issue of race fully. and flower byron on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the reasons why the republican party was able to support richard nixon as well as they did in 1968. inhard nixon did something 1960 that was unusual in politics. you have to remember, he refused

a part ofrward and be a coalition that wanted him to challenge the vote in pennsylvania and illinois. as a result, he lost. if you recall that period of understandyou richard nixon a little better. host: robert merry? guest: nixon did decline to challenge those vote questions. i think there was some stealing of the votes in illinois in chicago. a doing so, he manifested pretty good element of character. he also showed character when he became president after 1968 in

not ever talking about the mess he inherited from lyndon johnson. asnever said i'm struggling, donald trump has done and barack obama did. i am struggling with what i inherited. he did not do that. he was a smart man in significant ways. in these instances he showed character. host: richard nixon campaigning in new hampshire, being interviewed as he is going from one campaign event to another. [video clip] >> why do you want to do this? you have are any put in time and served your country. >> that is a question that has occurred to me too, and it has occurred to my family. i suppose your wife and children feel even more deeply about

and husband being involved in a great battle then he himself does. the man in the battle can fight back, where those on the sidelines have to suffer in silence. on the other hand, the reason k what motivates me more than anything else is i feel this is the period of history in the united states in what we do or failed to do can determine the future of peace and freedom for the balance of the century. we didn't ask for this, but it has been placed upon us because of the power we have and the vacuum of power in western europe. i believe the dangers of world , the dangers of civil

war in a difficult sense of home, and other problems are greater than this country has ever had. on the other hand, i believe never in our nation's history have we had more capability to handle these problems. the forces that can bring peace and avoid war, the forces that can unite and reconcile america, bring progress in our cities, are stronger than they have ever been if they are just brought into play. which we need is leadership that greatake america's harnessed power, on harness -- it to workt and put on unfinished business at home and abroad. host: what are you hearing and seeing? guest: so much of politics is timing. part,hear, at least in

nixon is projecting a sense of calm, of confidence, of experience, which is a dirty word in american politics now. as a citizen ran politician in 1966, but was able to say i have the wherewithal, i have the toughness, to restore the order that has been lost. he talked about a civil war potentially erupting at home. as8 is seen, and rightly so, the most divisive year in the nation's history since the end of the civil war. the other thing that i hear is that he mentioned vietnam. thats really vietnam destroyed lyndon johnson's presidency. that gave nixon and others a major opening. nixon handled that issue deftly

and that he did not talk much about it. he implied that he had a secret plan to win the peace in vietnam. he said that he would bring a peaceful, honorable end to the war there. he was able to offer himself as warnswer to this horrible which had already taken tens of thousands of american lives without divulging what it was he was going to do. to project that kind of confidence to restore order, restore the country's sanity in a sense, as he was implying. joining us is robert merry, the editor of the american conservative, and teaches atlek who george washington university and is the author of a number of books. independent line, good morning.

in 1964, 1970's, it affected me when i was younger. i am 62 years old now. 1964, they separated church and state, then they had abortions. was brought about by mostly republican judges and independent democrats. was the republican judges that made those decisions. when reagan was in office, another thing that affected people my age then, i was 20-something years old, when you apply for jobs they could give you a lie detector test. reagan passed that.

they would ask you if you had ever stolen anything. you might have stolen something when you were five years old, and that would affect your test. eventually they took it out because it was against our rights. they always talk about rights, who is taking our rights away? they need to figure it out. host: thank you for the call. isst: what it invokes richard nixon and other conservatives, wallace too, atta ck the court for chief justice earl warren. the court hadat overstepped its bounds and interfered in american life. the miranda decision, for example, giving too many rights to criminals. that the courts were somehow coddling lawbreakers. that, and this is where it is

very modern because we hear some of the origins of the argument that justices are there to interpret the constitution in a strict way, the so-called strict instructionists. that he would appoint justices who would respect the rule of law and rollback some of the injustices, in a sense, committed by the warren court. it tied into the larger theme of law and order that nixon captain nixon tapped into. issue in american politics today, and has been ever since. governor romney was the first to enter the race in 1960 seven. november 18 of that year the tet

offensive took place. former vice president richard nixon enters the race on february 1. george romney withdraws on february 28. the newsily in hampshire primary on march 12. president johnson announces he will not seek reelection. no and rockefeller enters the race on april 30. richard nixon accepts the nomination on august 8 and is elected as the 37th president on november 5. democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: one thing that i hear when i hear nixon speaking is the threat of what nixon is beginning to craft. along the lines of he cannot speak the words that george wallace is speaking, so he

politics. whistle being able to speak the unspoken thing new southern strategy that cannot be be spoken in a way, but is spoken by nixon in a way that has been picked up by ronald reagan in how we have to crack down on the cities. in the inner those same dog whistle politics have been picked up in our politics today with donald j. trump. host: we still hear about dog , msnbc politics today and others are very quick. there is no question that some of that takes place. thelso have the other side, phenomenon of political correctness. it is an effort to intimidate people from expressing themselves on the other side.

that is part of american politics. it is a question of how political leaders are going to ,arshall political resources pressures, and move the country forward. host: it is a segue to the republican convention in miami beach, florida. this is the republican platform, newrica urgently needs leadership that will recapture the control of events, mastering them rather than permitting them to master us." "our convention can spark a republican resurgence to face the realities of the world in which we live." as you hear that platform of 1968, what led to richard nixon's choicest burea -- choice as his running

mate? guest: there were concerns that he would take a vice presidential candidate that was not romney or rockefeller, not a liberal. and a lot of conservatives did not trust him. agnew had run as a fairly moderate republican, but quickly established himself as an anti-radical emblem. someone who repeatedly attacked longhairs and protesters, antiwar demonstrators. we heard a talk about anarchists from george wallace. agnew would engage in like-minded rhetoric. the selection in a sense was a shrewd one. it was consistent with the campaign themes that nixon would run on, especially law and

order. agnew later became somewhat known for his attacks, his vicious attacks, on the media. idea thatvery modern echoes in our own politics. nixon had a famously fractious relationship with the media. he disliked and distrusted the media. his office had his enemies list including members of the media. agnew was a hard-hitting attack dog of sorts. that was the role nixon wanted him to play. host: who else did he consider? was governor reagan on the list? guest: governor reagan was not on the list. i believe he had established himself as two formidable of a

politician. he wasn't sure he could control someone who demanded that much support. nixon went into the convention and a somewhat tenuous situation. my recollection is that it took six under six to seven votes for the nomination. he had 26 more than that. that is not a position of strength. reagan came in and at the convention, as soon as he picked up his candidacy, he picked up 19 votes. nixon had to go to strom thurmond. strom thurmond knew that nixon needed him desperately. nixon knew that he needed strom thurmond desperately. and strom thurmond knew that nix on knew. the two main questions were guidelines on racial

integration. nixon favored guidelines. they get sent the question of timetables, photos, and -- and all of quotas, that which was messy at the time. opposed tong, nixon school busing. he finessed the first, assurance on the second, and absolute assurance on the third, which was the vice president. d.c. john in washington, have questions for both. what significant role did the -- wheren party play

they embracing black american voters? judicialrecovery act, protection for defendants of [indiscernible] he cannot have passed the voting act without strong support from republicans. there were republicans in congress and around the country who supported the voting rights. the republican party had a substantial, moderate wing that was pro-civil rights. some of it was in the midwest and northeast. the party was heterogeneous ideologically, as was the democratic party. 1968, three short years, that

position was no longer viable in the national republican party. it was hard to see a path for romney or rockefeller given their pro-civil rights oview and the southern strategy that he republican electoral future was going to be through the south. 1968, we see, for example, negotiations with strom thurmond, reagan's victory and 66 and descendents within the party. on the issuey that of race, even though there were some voices, pro-civil rights voices, left, they were a minority. concessions, his stance, against what he would call mandatory busing is one example. that was consistent with the parties view that the federal

government had overreached in its efforts to enforce desegregation, integration, and ure the voting rights of african-americans. that: it needs to be noted most pieces of legislation were on the books. talking about the difficulty of some people in america, particularly in the south, in adjusting to that. ultimately, they had to adjust. had to adjust.cs we're talking about the process of adjustment and the difficulty some people had, how the political system was going to make its way through that particular period. host: from melbourne, england, you are next. caller: i see the foreign policy of yesterday and today is being

different. in 1968 or 1960 nine, the soviet union was a problem. richard nixon and the republican party were placed to meet that challenge. reagan met the challenge. the problem today is demographics. theou look at all of countries in asia, the muslim countries, as soon as you win a war they would punish the numbers -- they replenish the numbers. you will see that they have 6 s ons per father. a country like afghanistan can defeat russia or the united states. accidents of history, as you republicansing, the became dependent on the southern states, very religious states that oppose abortion and oppose liberal values, some new liberal values. educate need is to

women in the other countries to have fewer children and to support contraception. that the way politics developed internally in america has compromised the ability of a republican president to actually win these conflicts abroad and lead the world? host: does the color have a point? guest: i don't know. it is hard to say. 1968, it was the bloodiest year the vietnam war. there is nothing comparable to what we have today. the united states has half a , inion troops, soldiers vietnam, southeast asia. the war was tearing the country , on theeologically streets and campuses. , i thinkhat that war

that the point the caller was making too, is that the war transformed to some extent and pushed the democratic and republican parties in distinct directions. it made it harder for the united sustain wars overseas. the idea that the country will go to war without majority endless bloodnk and treasure into a place. in that sense it remains the vietnam syndrome or shadow. it remains something of a constraint on elected officials and policymakers. is that theught country today, even though this isn't comparable, but the country today there is no appetite for sending tens of thousands of u.s. troops overseas to engage in combat

anywhere. whether it is syria, afghanistan, or iraq. in 1968, the country was also beginning to support a u.s. however it happened, from vietnam. host: let me ask you about another key player, william f buckley. emerged as buckley the leading voice on the conservative side. he was a young man in 1950 when he wrote a book after having graduated from yale. he took his alma mater to task for its liberal inclinations. became veryater, he young, 30 years old, of the brand-new magazine the national as the which emerged

leading voice of conservatism in america. . knew him a bit i ended up corresponding with him when i was in college. i was in a research project with one of my professors at the university of washington, that he organized. various members of the 1947 commission on media that was underwritten by henry luce. i met with him and a woman -- host: henry luce was? guest: the founder of time magazine and life magazine. i met a woman who worked on the commission who was a close friend of buckley's. i corresponded with her and naive ofwas waxing what was going on in american politics. promptly wrote to me.

over the years i had lunch with him, in new york and in connecticut at his place. and everyone who knows anything about him, he was a charming, funny, amusing fellow. i think if you are talking about 1968, he had emerged on the or mayor ofnning f new york and he had a gadfly campaign that got a lot of attention, very amusing, famous line when someone asked him, what will you do if you win? no one thought there was any prospect he could. he said demand a recount. that kind of wit brought him forward and i think gave credibility and stature to the conservative movement which led into the ultimate reagan administration. steve: at the democratic convention, abc news hired him to debate the issue of the times. here is an excerpt. [video clip]

>> anybody who believes these characters are interested in the democratic process is deluding himself. i was above that game last night, these sweet little girls and their son back dresses the chat between 11:00 at 5:00 this morning from 4:00 -- 4000 was -- the president of the united states and the mayor of this city. ho, ho chi minh, the mls is sure to win. they were talking about their brothers and sisters, their uncles, their fathers were being shot at by an enemy to which none the less we are fighting. i think it is remarkable that there was as much restraint shown as was shown for instance last night by the cops out there for 17 hours without inflicting

a single wound on a single person [indiscernible] and all of american society. steve: courtesy of abc news, and that was william f buckley who was on the program talking about the demonstrations going on in chicago which disrupted the democratic party and in many respects hurt hubert humphrey. national mission described him as a police riot, the police in chicago unleashed by mayor daley beat a demonstrator. there were a handful that were bent on provoking violence, but the majority were peaceful, and this is an grant park and on the streets around the convention center, a reflection of the antiwar student movement, the feelings that the democratic

party, especially by handing the nomination to hubert humphrey and endorsing lyndon johnson hadtegy in the vietnam war, betrayed the hope that the party ford become a vehicle ending the bombing and withdrawing swiftly u.s. forces out of vietnam. and the buckley clip, you hear how articulate buckley is. he was not only a brilliant publisher, but he really was extraordinarily adept at television, at modern communications and he had his hiring line show. these debates he had with garbage all which were heated. were heated. punditry. buckleydebatable, but

did -- after goldwater's defeat in 1960 or, believe in the political process and endorsed nixon in 1968. as he said at one point, one of the most right candidates, the most conservative who could win. there was a pragmatic streak in andhe ran national review his public commentary, but he is the leader of a whole constellation of conservative media voices, which is deeply influential, and that pragmatic streak i think was critical. steve: the book is called the right moment, ronald reagan's first victory in the decisive turning point in american politics. matthew dallek is a professor and robery merry is the editor of the american conservative. as we continue our conversation on 1968, a year in turmoil, america and turmoil, ruth is joining us from illinois.

caller: good morning, everyone. i think my question has been answered. back when lyndon johnson asked for the civil rights bill to be passed, democrats would not vote for it. republicans got to vote in, but before that when president kennedy took us into vietnam, that was a war that i never did understand, but since we were in it, i did, you know, you got to support the united states matter what. so that is about it. steve: thank you. we will turn to robery merry. robert: yes, she is right. as matthew was saying earlier, it took republican votes to get the civil rights act passed,

those various acts of the 1960's. it was a democratic president who took us into vietnam whether you want to interview that to kennedy or to johnson, certainly johnson and to some extent kennedy. ferment thated the was going on in america. of the a reflection state of american politics is in that buckley statement during those debates with gore vidal regarding the violence that took place at the democratic convention. noted, thereatthew was a commission that said it was a police riot. there were masses of americans, millions of americans, who did not believe it was a police riot , who thought it was perpetrated and encouraged, basically created by the demonstrators.

, a chasmay a split that went right through america in those times. you have to really -- to understand this politically, you have to understand how dramatic that chasm was. steve: charles is joining us, miami, florida, democrats line with robery merry and matthew dallek. go ahead. is the rightestion man for the right job, when nixon retired or was retired saidthe presidency, he [indiscernible] no longer will you have me to kick around. his insecurity as a person, as a this think led to most of aboutons about watergate,

a lot of other things. steve: that was from 1962 when he lost the race for governor. matthew: it was really an attack on the media. he said after losing to brown in 1962, you will have nixon to kick around anymore. and i think it was, the reason that moment stock in part is because it was reflected of his resentment towards the media. just how much vitriol he felt under siege by the media. but the caller makes an important point which is richard nixon, who was very smart, had vast political strengths, incredible will and resiliency, and yet really was, and i don't want to over psychoanalyze him of course -- historians get into

trouble when they do that, but it is clear as we have a picture of him that he was, he had these deep insecurities as the caller put it. he was suspicious of the media, of his enemies. the irony in part behind water great is he went on in 1972 this crushing landslide win over george. he got 49 out of 50 states, yet he was so desperate in a sense that he youctory know created the operation that allowed some of these crimes and transgressions to occur in terms of the plumbers and the break-in at the democratic national committee headquarters. ultimately undone by many of his deep-seated

insecurities. if i could add this, it might be worth noting the difference between nixon and reagan. and up the media were mostly liberal, and he was right. therefore, they will be against me, and he took that seriously and took it personally, and he read what they were saying and got outraged at the breakfast travel -- table. reagan thought the same thing, the media were largely liberal and not in favor what i stand for try to accomplish, but he didn't care. he pretty much ignored us. i covered reagan and his campaign and the white house when he was in the white house. he never seemed to pay much attention. he was always cordial, and he would always be very friendly if you are meeting him and shaking his hand, etc., but he didn't worry about it. a little bit of that would have icke a long way for poor d

nixon.. steve: another side note, your latest book on president mckinley, architect of the american century. we are also taking your questions and your comments, our website. which party changed the most since 1968? the votes right now with 24,000 casting their votes, saying the democrats changed the most, 56%, the republicans at 44%. go to tony and henrietta, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: i was a high school kid in 1968. in 1972i voted the first time, absentee from overseas for return. i voted republican since then until 2016. i have noticed our party has changed a lot. we have people calling themselves conservative. there really don't conserve a

thing. and the other thing is i would almost venture to say that the gentleman in the white house, our president now, mr. trump, he may just as well have been a democrat as long as our former ,resident, president obama because of the age difference. mr. trump i believe he transitioned or changed to the republican party in 2010 somewhere, not sure. anyhow, the point is politics is changing and converting. we have people that do not understand that conservative values are you conserve. you conserve the union, your fiscal resources, your national and strategic resources. because of politics, we get wrapped up into a political party of right or left or democrat, republican, and we

lose the truth. just like we think about the american civil war as a war between the north and the south, wars aren't usually started by just a people. it is inspired by the military. steve: thank you for the call. matthew: it is interesting that the caller, 2016 was the first time he didn't vote republican. trump obviously was a democrat for many years to the extent that he had beliefs. some of his views now invert the party's for example long-standing support of free trade agreements. but trump is, you know, in some ways he does spring out of an alternative tradition in the conservative movement. there are echoes in george wallace and richard nixon in terms of how they talk about law and order. when you hear wallace talking about the police taking their heads in, that is this idea of

this kind of talk, this incredibly tough talk to crack down on those who break the rules. a lot of people would say, historians say it is racially infused. i think we see that with trump, pat buchanan who ran in 1992 a republican campaign against the incumbent president george h.w. trade.s anti-free he was anti-immigration. he believed international institutions had propped up the united states in terms of its role in the world. those institutions were eroding american sovereignty. and i think there is an alternative tradition on the right that hasn't necessarily always been ascendant, but there are lines we can draw from trump to the 1960's, elements of the conservative movement. steve: i will return to the

general election, but first pamela from maryland, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say an earlier caller is correct about the republican party and particularly the conservative movement, how would his undergirded by race and class. in an anonymous interview in 1981, atwater laid out the southern strategy that was used in 1968. he said in 1954 you could say in 1960word -- n word. you can't. so civil unrest and fiscal responsibility. one of you gets there and says ronald reagan was the electable goldwater, i am listening to the radio so can't see who said that but goldwater was a vocal opponent of segregation and the civil rights act of 1964. he won his home state of arizona

and the five states in the deep south. georgia, alabama, mississippi and south carolina. history does repeat itself, and this fits 3 -- this country have a history of that. steve: thank you for the call. robert: it is a widespread view of what is underlying american politics. i don't agree with it entirely. specific -- he a came later. in the 1980's largely. and i have to say, i will go back to what i was saying earlier that the country was struggling with these issues at the time. we are struggling with these issues still but in a much different way and much less intense way. that represents a certain amount of racial progress. to suggest that hasn't been any progress as some colors are

suggesting -- callers are suggesting isn't historical. steve: what if the electoral college map from 1968 in terms of the popular vote. richard nixon winning with a half-million votes, but with the electoral college vote, richard nixon with 301 electoral votes, hubert humphrey 191 and george wallace at 46. what was the nixon strategy in the general election? matthew: one was to try to not talk a whole lot of specifics about vietnam. he didn't really know. he didn't have a plan for how he the war, peaced with honor for example. he wanted to keep the focus on the unrest in the country and how he was going to be a voice for as he said in his invested address, the forgotten -- his convention address the later

forgotten americans, the silent majority. that included some of the wallace voters, although they went for wallace, but working-class, primarily white americans in the south and the north, all over the country, middle-class suburbanites. the idea that the cities were out of control, that campuses were out of control, that these really a front to a fundamental american values, he tapped into that strain and as well the strategy was that on the left, he could be in the center right. he had wallace far to his right or to his right. he had the democrats including some of the democratic primary candidates who made a part of the coalition, who were antiwar on his left, and that he could alm,al as a center rightc

confident candidate as he argued, he put it, though it turned out to not be true, but he could bring the country together. steve: the democrats and the liberal politics, our focus is on the republicans now and conservative politics, available on our website at the span.org. david in san jose on the line. caller: my question has to do with bobby kennedy, and the historic tremendous view he had with lyndon johnson. when he had been a better candidate for richard nixon to have defeated in november 1968 that hubert humphrey turned out to be? had -- way bobby kennedy i was five years old in 1968. it was far from inevitable in june 1968 that he would become the democratic nominee and elected president in november

and that johnson, johnson would have come through, and on whatever he could have to sabotage him at the convention in chicago. matthew: we talked about nelson rockefeller's being kind of a hamlet, not sure whether he is in or out. a hamlet also. he wanted to run for president. he didn't want to put himself in a position of losing. he thought going against a sitting president, even a very weak sake -- sitting president would be too formidable. so jean mccarthy who was more of a poet and a rock on socko emitician -- rock em sock politician, he did not get a majority but not lyndon johnson out in new hampshire and was going to win big time which led to lyndon johnson to get out of the race area are begot in to

the race and he ran a very dramatic and fascinating campaign, but it wasn't absolutely clear that he was running a campaign that was going to get him into a position theeing able to win even nomination or the presidency. if you look at his vote totals, he won -- jean mccarthy won in bobby, mccarthy -- kennedy in california, but he was succumbing to the shift in alignment that we have been talking about, and he was maybe getting his victories with a narrower and narrower base in the democratic party. that could have been bad for him. steve: in the general election there was one speech, september 30, salt lake city, was that a turning point for hubert humphrey? did that narrow the race between

hubert, wallace, and nixon? robert: where he declares he is his own man. humphrey got support from the unions and they started to organize on his behalf in the general election. that did give him a bump. but then when he declared essentially that he was his own man on the vietnam war, that he was going to support a total stoppage of the bombing of vietnam and essentially breaking from lyndon johnson, that did help him. most historians would agree, and the polls suggested he began to close the gap. thes we discussed earlier, popular vote, the electoral college vote was a blowout. on it big, 300 votes. the popular was less than 1%, 43.5% for next and, 42% for humphrey. one of the reasons he could close that gap was due to that

speech and the sense that he could bring back eugene mccarthy supporters, antiwar supporters. robert kennedy very fascinating, so we will never know of course. we will never know. in some ways it might have been theer for him to have won nomination than the general election because if he won the nomination, he would have had more daylight between the democratic party which he would then lead and didn't -- and lyndon johnson. because he was an opponent of johnson, because he was much more vociferously antiwar, and that great unanswered question electorallysustain a coalition of african americans, latinos, and working-class white voters around issues of economic justice? and we will never know, but that was, that is one of the great

what is the basis of modern american history. matthew: in terms of that debate, is worth knowing those voters were getting very restless about where the democratic party was taking the country and where they wanted to take the country. my view, it would be very difficult for kennedy to pull that off. steve: it was a war because the economy was relatively strong. let's go to jerome in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: i want to ask very quickly about the new political movement that came on the scene in the late 1960's, early 1970's called the real conservative movement. where do they come from ideologically? how did they change the influence of the republican party in 1968? steve: thank you, jerome. robert: it was a significant movement. these were people who were largely intellectual here they were far on the left, many of

them trotskyist on their outlook in the 1930's and going to college at nyu and elsewhere. they came up through the democratic party. but i think they become disenchanted on two things. foreign policy, they felt that america was in prosecuting the cold war as it should. the racial about quotas and those things that are emerging in the late 1960's and 1970's. so they began to move towards a conservative point of view, national view. i think it was 1972. i had an editorial welcoming them to the movement. the headline was come on in, the water is fine. they became significant. they became maybe more significant than we want them to be in terms of their foreign policy. steve: our last call is from

grand prairie, texas. harold, you get the final question. caller: in 1968 lyndon johnson was upset richard nixon sabotaged the peace talks in 1968, and lyndon johnson had come forward and spoke out about richard nixon, what result was that have had? johnson could have played more in that role. steve: thank you. matthew: my view is that is more ambiguous and a lot of historians have given that issue , given credit. but nevertheless it was very incendiary, and they could have blown up, and it would have been detrimental to next and. steve: let's conclude with richard nixon's comments in the early morning hours of 19 via. [video clip] >> i saw many signs in this campaign. some of them were not friendly. some were very friendly, but the one that touched me the most was one that i saw in ohio at the

end of a long day of whistle stopping. a little town i suppose five times the population was there. that is also possible to see, but a teenager held up a sign, bring us together. be the great objective of this administration at the outset, to bring the american people together. this will be an open administration, open to new ideas, open to men and women of both parties. open to the critics as well as those who support us. we want to bridge the generation gap. we want to bridge the gap between the races and we want to bring america together, and i am confident that this task is one that we can undertake and one in which we will be successful. steve: richard nixon declaring victory in 1968.

as you hear that and reflect years later, what is the legacy of that year and for the conservative movement? robert: i think the three most significant figures leading to the election of ronald reagan and the triumph of conservatism, postwar conservatism were very cold water, richard nixon and bill buckley. what richard nixon did reading the coalition that went on to bolster him and lead to that landslide of 1972 that matthew was talking about and ultimately the election of reagan was significant. steve: 50 years later, the legacies. matthew: the republican party became conservative, became much more stronger on national --fense, promilitary, pro- using aggressive military power overseas. the democratic party became much more anti-war in that sense.

the issue of race i think is central to this discussion. the republican party became the party of white working-class americans, much more so than the democrats, really disrupting or exploding the roosevelt-lyndon johnson national electoral coalition. and became the party essentially opposed to civil rights in most instances. i think on those two central fronts and the party of law and order, at least for a while, and i think in those areas domestically and overseas, the republican party was able to gain a kind of, for several decades, a lock on more or less on the electoral college and national politics. steve: matthew dallek from george washington university, graduate school of political management, serving as associate professor and robery merry, the editor of the american conservative. thank you to both of you.

we reflect 50 years later on 1968. robert: enjoyed it. steve: next week, 1968 america in turmoil continues as we look at the women's movement. joining us is a former president of barnard college, debra spark and a fellow for the policy center, veteran of the reagan white house, motor chair and. to those of you watching on "american history tv", more from that year and california governor ronald reagan, from june 16 1968, face the nation. he [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> that conversation from june of 1968 coming up next on -span3's "american history three tv." we're back tomorrow morning with a live simulcast of c-span's "washington journal" and also on c-span radio. a lot to