trump announced sunday that patrick shanahan is his pick to replace james mattis starting on january 1. shanahan was previously with boeing, where he worked on missile defense and commercial airline programs. most recently holding the position of senior vice president for supply chain and operations. he was also a member of boeing's executive council. an advanced degree in mechanical engineering from the massachusetts institute of technology. and as a native of aberdeen, washington. here are some programs coming up tonight on c-span. next, q and a with wall street columnist holman jenkins.

at 9:00 p.m., prime minister's questions. after that, a discussion of race and racism in america. ♪ >> this week, wall street journal columnist holman jenkins. he talks about his work in politics in america during the trump era. jenkins, when did you decide you wanted to be a writer? guest: i think i knew early on. my teachers identified in maine a talent for writing that they call journalistic. my father was a political science professor. our house is full of books. my mother said i got the writing

gene from her. host: where did you grow up? guest: in philadelphia. host: when did you get the first tent that writing would be your life? was it high school or college? guest: i think it was in second or third grade. they had us wrote an essay about what if our shoes walked off without us. and i wrote something so charming that they published it. to putthem i was going on my sneaky sneakers and sneak off after them. host: where did you go to college? guest: hobart in upstate new york. host: and then what? guest: i moved to boston for a while with my college cronies. none of us had any money so we did whatever we could. once i got enough of a nest egg, i applied to journalism school. so i spent a year in chicago. host: when did you know you

wanted to be an opuionist? guest: i knew early on. i aspire to be the kind of writer. host: where do you get your bases? i remember the 1968 presidential election. my dad was a new dealer and democrat. we went up to the humphrey headquarters and got all of the bumper stickers. made morethe and sense given the chaos of the time. early.nd of diverged i saw some political show about regulations and how they don't make the airlines effective. that is what i thought.

you: how much credit do think jimmy credit gets for being a deregulator? guest: none. he gets it for me the. he talked about what a disgrace the tax code was. i think jimmy carter in a lot of ways was a businessman and understood the domestic economy. people on my side of the aisle are reviled because of the cold war and the soviets going into afghanistan. but in those days, you could be a deregulatory and a democrat. ted kennedy was the one who helps the initial hearings about why airline regulations were failing and how the regulation be better for the american people. host: how would you characterize the democrats today on deregulation and why? guest: they are pro-regulation

because they are pro-big government. i subscribe to the public choice school of economics. who is supporting their? i think the democrats don't have a philosophy now. they are the indiscriminate defender of big government programs, whether they are working or not. that is what obama ran on in 2012. he was the protector of every big government program. and mitt romney was a threat to them. i think that is what the democrats have become. their constituents are so important. unions. host: what about the republicans? guest: there were ideas. doing.at trump is he is not a man of ideas.

he is creating a new coalition. you cannot have entitlements if you do not have growth to pay for them. that is why medicare for all is such a loser for the democrats. older voters65 or think it will hurt them if you start to give medicare to everyone else. host: you say you are not the republican. guest: i voted for the first time this year since 1980. all during my career as a journalist, i did not vote. i was a republican leaning democrat. now i am a republican leaning independent. host: wino voting -- why no

voting? guest: i was moving around constantly. and i thought i get my say 364 days a year. i felt like i did not need to participate. i had enough of a sense of participation from what i did. started writing the column, i had to write it on tuesday. that means writing in early, before the election and a second column after we know who won. host: where can people find your writing? guest: on the op-ed page of the washington -- wall street journal. host: i want to go through some of your columns and read back to you a couple of things and let

you expand on them. saturday,e from november 3. the headline is we are a homicidal species. guest: that is not a controversial statement. and they done studies see that human beings, unlike other mammals, are six more times likely to kill their own. during hunter gatherer and prehistoric times, our gilad stella's that the -- archaeologists tell us that homicide was the main form of death. host: what led you to say this? guest: the pittsburgh synagogue shooting. tax -- attempted bombing bomb attacks.

people say this kind of thing does not happen in america. it happens a lot. our sensedo more with of being human them with our politics. you said that at least those readers are well served to on hearing of last weeks but frick synagogue murders, said to themselves yes but how does this ?ffect the washington post he wrote a column saying that this is not the america i recognize. i just did not know how he could find the life of our country from the beginning to today, there is a history of showing up and killing defenseless people. whether it was native americans. for the french and english

fighting each other. these mass shootings, we make it easy for these things to happen, but they obviously come from human nature. homicidal,any ways a insane species toward each other. host: had a we make these things easy to happen? guest: anyone can get a hold of a automatic rifle. gun control is a tricky issue. but nobody is going to say these are not the instruments used in these atrocities. host: do you have an answer to that? cut off accessot to guns enough to stop these. we seem to be much more relaxed about surveillance. i think the technology is within reach that we can have public surveillance over public spaces. use face recognition to know who is coming and going.

and use social media presence to know people are threats. how do you do that and protect our civil liberties? that is a big question. that the chinese are far down this road already. they have a public ranking skill -- scale. you get the merits if you jaywalk. that business is coming. store, theyup at a are monitoring what counters you linger in front of. it is not like this stuff is not going to be developed and used. to protectuse it ourselves better may be a worthwhile question. host: from time to time, you take a little shocked at some of your journal as competitors. and unconscious assumption of people who populate sunday morning talk shows goes like this. the arc of history is pointing toward human perfection. we will get there when we have freed ourselves from corrupting

ideologies and believes, much like the specimens on sunday morning talk shows have already done." explain that. did my total of into deep water philosophizing there. that goes back to resell -- rousseau. i think a lot of people think human nature can be perfected with the right kind of institutions. my feeling is that human nature will always be what it is. we have to learn how to live with it to make ourselves say from each other. host: what is a columnist do everyday? guest: different columnist do different things. i am not one who runs from tv studio to to tv studio or gets paid for speeches. i read a lot. i listen to what people say. i write multiple drafts. i have lots of ideas going on.

i am looking for the thing that i say that needs saying that won't be set if i do not say it. host: how do you get there. give us an insight. sometimes i call into meetings are go to editorial board meetings. but i spend most of my time reading and thinking and talking to people whose ideas i want to plum. host: how do you know you are having an impact? guest: i am not sure i am. the world is so noisy. there are so many voices out there on cable tv, on blogs. i'm not sure i'm having an impact. as long as think i am serving the purpose that i just described, saying the things that i think needs to be said and no one else will say it, i think i am earning my keep.

host: what is it like to be on the editorial board of the wall street journal? how many people are on the board? how often do you meet? how often do you write editorials that do not have your name on it? guest: i have not read it -- written an editorial in a long time. i am feeding into the gestation of ideas. i cannot tell you how may people are on the editorial board. they meet on tuesday morning. i have not been to one of those meetings in a long time. i am doing my own thing now. i'm not sure i would add much if i was there anyway. my columns put ideas into circulation. by emails put ideas into circulation. of the to say it is one few editorial pages and the world that actually sells newspapers. the style goes back hundreds of years.

it is a great institution to be part of. it has so little changed from its core mission. from the ideas of free people and free markets as the best way forward for human civilization. what is the difference between the journal's editorial writing and presentation and the new york times or the washington post? had he explain it? was a time when most newspapers try to have conservatives and liberals. philosophy and you would not want to come to work unless you really bought into the general philosophy of free people and free markets and economic growth. host: do you get feedback in any

way on the columns the right -- write? guest: sure, i get the mouse and people. comments. past, whate recent anything with trump in the headline. you really take your career in your hands if you do not write about trump right now. there is a real appetite to understand this unusual presidency and this unusual time. " like anyaid, journalist, i keep a list of every off-color poorly timed said."trump has guest: don't we all? he is an agent of chaos.

was no one whore ever ran for president who is more known to the public been president trump. he has been known as a character and a bit of a blowhard. and a person who ethically, is not presidential material, because of the way he carries on his personal life and highrolling business ventures and all of those bankruptcies. -- he wasw who they when they elected him. i am not as offended as others about all of these off-color things he says. -- that is who they elected. that is who they wanted. i did not think he would make it very far in the primary process. but i thought it was interesting what voters saw him. that this guy, this business man and be veryn

disruptive. host: what do you think israel politics are? guest: i don't know. i think his politics are primarily he wants to be the center of attention. i do not think he is a racist. i think he looks at people as either friends or enemies. and you can change categories are easily. the america first thing is an idea that i think he holds dear. that our country has been shortchanged with dealings with the rest of the world. and trade policy and immigration policy, in the minds of many of his supporters in middle america, this has hurt them. host: you closed out that column e abundant paradox

of trump is the way he entices so many others to shred their reputations. builtlitical existence is on the media to rise mechanically, predictably, to debate every time/" guest: isn't that the case? business. jim acosta do you think that is making trump unhappy? he loves that. he likes having the press as an enemy. it works not only with his base but it is part of who has been his whole life. he is the subject matter of every hour of cable tv on three tv channels. cnn was quotedof as saying if we are not watching up -- talking about donald trump, the audience is not watching us.

it has been an unbelievable blockbuster. host: what do you think of television journalism? guest: i would be the last one to ask because i have stopped watching pretty much. host: when did you stop watching? guest: in the last year and a half or so. i like the business channels. it is what everybody says. --is extravagant extractor exaggeration and polarization. it is not really where the american people are. it is entertainment. i am more it's that people out there do take a step too seriously. like people who go into synagogues and send mail bombs to presidents. but i think it is just an entertainment business now. " america has yet to take

stock of what happened in 2016. and the strange circumstances that make mr. trump and answer for refreshing our political culture. a place to start is recognizing his singular contribution. sayable." things question nato, which we aresacrosanct, basically the stand and military for all of these countries. that has to change. we cannot have people drawing us into wars that they do not want to fight. i think trump's are successful with that message. on climate change, we are at a dead-end. toerals are committed policies that are expensive and bureaucratic that have no affect. is if we basis of this

have these expensive and trivial policies at home, other countries will somehow have an international agreement. that has proved not to be workable. with pulling out of the paris agreement, trump got rid of all of the. that clears the field for something more sensible down the road. -- you were to advise people where to get their minds active besides your column, who do you respect? is there a list? guest: there is no list. things. lot of the london review of books. george will is a columnist i find regularly interesting. there are not many others i would say that about. andrew mccarthy writing in the national review.

there are a bunch of people in there.out a blog called streetwise professor. there are so many smart people out there writing and doing it on their own time. the hard part is finding out who is an interesting person on a certain subject. host: when you are younger and in college, whether people you followed? philosophers? economists? wills i was a big gary fan for years. andthen he became a viral -- virulent left-winger. i used to read memoirs a lot.

i was interested in journalists and the lives journalists led. those things sparked my interests. but i am not someone who has .ccurred -- a guru host: what kind of book are you most likely to read? guest: a biography. i cannot remember the last time i read a book and to end. host: back to your columns. "a loophole that trump uses it is a tax cut to the altar wealthy.- ultra

it also happens to be a favorite of the sulzberger owners of the new york times." done a bigtimes had expose on his tax avoidance. tot they called a giant gift the wealthy in the form of tax avoidance on inheritance, the new york times also uses that to keep control of the family that runs the newspaper. heirs totock to their make sure it is not taxed away from them. we have this inheritance tax system that would break up all of these family businesses

because they would have to sell to pay the that -- taxes. we want to say we are taxing the rich in this punitive way. so we don't really want to we carve out all of these loopholes. the times reporting said the trump family was using the same experts is all the rich families were using. host: what is the difference in the power between the new york times and the wall street journal? guest: i think the new york times is very influential in new york. the wall street journal is influential everywhere. i will put it this way. "mr. trump is not really a conservative. for 40 years he deliberately peddled an image of himself that his garish, high living "playboy" businessman.

what a colleague once said about him was that his basic value is making money, money, money, and collecting women." guest: that is the donald trump that the american people knew. they understood him not as a person who had strong policy to put hiss going imprint on the country and some structured way. he was an agent of chaos. and they had some touching faith in our institutions and e leads and the press to recognize the message photos were work to shape this moment into a realignment of our political system and parties in a way that would go forward and deal with the problems american people with -- dealth with.

from day one the effort was to delegitimize trump. host: what do you expect in the next two years, with the democrats in control of the house? think the productive moment of the trump presidency is over. and it will be nasty. maker.s a deal he has been open to some interesting deals with democrats. we might see that donald trump coming back. he and chuck schumer go way back. who knows what might happen. hesitant toi was give him the presidency. you don't know where he is going to go. host: you say you have to write about them all the time because that is what people want to read. write about him columnist,: i am a

so i can write about whatever i want. but there is so much interesting thing to be said. much when thato needs to be leaned against coming from the rest of the media. host: give us an example of what you need to lean against. guest: this whole thing with russia. it is a scheme to delegitimize important representative figure that the voters gave us because they were tried to tell us something. there is an aspect of it. now i have a few people who are on board with me on this. but the most important way russia influenced the election was in jim comey's decision to intervene. that may be the single moment

that changed the outcome of the election. there is polling data that suggests that changed enough votes to give trump the presidency. there are a lot of people who say that. what has never been understood is how much comey's original action was driven by this piece of russian intelligence that we still have not been told any details on. the press reported a little bit on it. , he alluded to its a little bit in his memoir - comey. there is a classified annex that we are not allowed to see that discusses russian intelligence and its role in sparking comey's behavior. adam schiff, who will be the chief of the house intelligence

committee, has admitted that if had a major impact on the election, this was the most important with. that is a story the media ignores. chait hasthan written about you that you flipped on russia completely as soon as donald trump was elected. him or whatnot know he says about me. an early critic of putin. all through this trump era, i have continued to write about putin. he is a threat to america and a threat to the world order.

i have not flipped on russia. that is not true at all. people write these things on the spur of the moment. it is completely meaningless. column.ck to your "a column like last saturday's will catch fire on twitter and then 24 hours later abusive emails start showing up in my inbox from people who did not read it and probably did not have access to the journal pay wall. often these emails quote one line out of context." what is the pay wall? guest: it is a pet peeve of mine. it is what we have to do to pay the bills. people should pay for it.

but there was a time when the opinion page was outside the pay wall. i had everyone on the internet as a potential reader. now there are 2.5 million journal subscribers. he have to attend to what they are interested in pretty closely. host: why don't you read twitter? guest: i do not have time. i thought about it early. i signed up. i sent a few tweets. but i realized it could be a time suck. what kind of impact do you think it has when the president tweets and that people are tweeting? guest: i think it is magnificent for the president to be able to control the nation's agenda without being able to get out of his bathrobe in the morning.

he can get up in the middle of the night and send a tweet and that is all we are going to be talking about the next day. i have encouraged them to stop doing that. but it is a powerful tool. "finally we come to the compulsive splitting of all things and people between good and bad. it is seen as a symptom of borderline personality disorder. to such people as often seems the central purpose of mental life. now it's widely understood to be the way of the human brain." guest: the first two things come from psychology. , a bloggere media talks about it is all about raising and lowering ideas and institutions and people and status. who should be thought well of. who should be thought badly of.

there awful lot of punditry about that. it does not interest me. schtick.tly a it gets people through their day. but it is so darned boring. host: where do you live in new york? danbury area. host: you have a family? guest: no. no kids. host: how long have you been married and where did you meet your wife? guest: i met her in 2001 in new york at a party. i saw her and thought, beautiful woman. host: what does she do? guest: she works for an industrial gas company.

they manufacture are, nitrogen, co2 and ship it all around the world for industrial uses. if you write two columns a week, is there a way to describe the one you really enjoy? how do you know if you have been successful? guest: a week, is there a way to describe the one you really enjoy? there was a study that showed writers are the most neurotic of the creative classes. i don't think any writer is ever truly happy with his or her work. sometimes i go back five years later and read a column and think dam, that was a good column. that is the biggest reward i get. mine ago, a colleague of came in one day. he had been on the subway late the night before and saw a copy of the newspaper on the seat. he said there was a hole torn out were my column was.

if somebody thought it was worth tearing out and taking him and showing to somebody, that that's only makes me feel good. host: what impact you think it has when you go to college and the professors are saying to read the new york often do you know from your own experience to they say read the new -- wall street ?ournal i think a lot of economics professors say to read the wall street journal. i do not worry about it as much as other people. "victim's status has

become a prized status in our society. it is a base from where to launch results on the -- assault on the dignity and equanimity of others when the need arises. it is also a defense against such assaults that can land on anyone at anytime." guest: getting back to the university, that is certainly true of the university culture that elizabeth warren came up in.-- to here decided it was advantage to say she was native american. speaking about the media, you talk about nbc and the story

about megyn kelly. i know this was some time ago, but why did you want to write about that? yourselfhad a look on -- face that said you were disgusted. there has been this upwelling of very public firings of people in big media corporations for saying things that are not slightly or remotely intended to be offensive. but were not worded in the best way. the social mobbing fang, where if you tweet something that is ill advised and all of a sudden you are despised around the world, that has spread into our companies too. you have to throw those people overboard.

host: what do you think of the salaries that people on television are making? guest: as a free market person, people are paid based on how much money they can make for somebody else. that is how it works. no one is handed a chunk of money because they are loved or because they can generate revenue. 2018 and 2017 have had big impacts on big names in new york city. and television, whether it is matt lauer or charlie rose or less mendez. moonves. what impact will this have? guest: hopefully at some point we will have clear lines drawn

on what is except a board is acceptable behavior. borders this stuff close on rape, and rape should be prosecuted. but you do not want to get into this place where anybody want to get back at, you just accuse them of sexual misbehavior. you write a lot about tax. loopholes. what do you think of the overall code? guest: if the wall street journal has been known for one thing, it is supply-side economics. if you tax something, you discourage it. if you tax work, you'll get less work. if you tax investments and risk-taking, you'll get less of it. i prefer a tax code where the

rates are low and there are no loopholes. elementary good government going back 100 years. "the tax code isn't just loopholes and gray areas. and intelligent person might wonder why it has so many features that work across purposes. unfortunately, a lot of people have an interest in a complicated tech system, politicians most of all." i was writing about why trump and his father worked so hard not to have their company taken away from them by a 40% estate tax. politicians love to be seen and rich.whacking the that is what the public wants.

theyou do not actually want consequences of taxes on productive behavior, because then you will not get the productive behavior. you will not get the new buildings and the long hours that people put in. i am sorry it has to be that way. we know what a good tax code is. low rates. no loopholes. "once a politician was honest about this. when obama said he favored high taxes on the rich. we should applaud him. politicians defended their preferences so honestly, but are surely would be able to make better decisions." it is a clear contrast to bernie sanders, who offers all of these pie in the sky schemes

and says we can pay for them by taxing the rich. was essentially confirming the supply-side thesis. that these high taxes are economically destructive because he favored them anyways to make a moral statement. host: net neutrality. guest: oh no. do we have to talk about this? issue for so big long but not if has dropped off the radar. it is irrelevant. you wrote a lot about the former head of the federal chair of communications. of an he is the head

independent commission that was created in the early part of the last century to get politics out of the business of deciding what rules should apply to businesses and how their resources should be allocated. he was well down the road and try to work out a net neutrality compromise that would satisfy the people on the left but also prefer -- reserve the golden goose of our internet. but that he abandoned the plan overnight because obama decided, going into the election, that he wanted to throw his full weight behind a retrograde definition of net neutrality that took us back in the 1930's. host: who really wanted net neutrality? guest: i don't think anybody really wanted it. i think companies like netflix used the political side to get leverage. it was a political battle because netflix did not want to have to pay for the transmission

infrastructure that its users have. but now netflix has lost all interest in net neutrality. those two industries that were at loggerheads are now partners. in 2014, you wrote, "let's have a moment of political truth. one care does not give for the metatron atrocity crowd -- net neutrality crowd. the place prison sometimes go, where america and its people and i are a small indistinct." people idolize obama but

in many ways he was a typical politician. he said were untrue and meant to stir people up and satisfy his base. kind of like trump sending the army to defend the border. it is just a stunt. host: you said he said things that were not true. why is it, if you contrast the way many television networks covered obama than how they cover trump, why is that? guest: they liked obama. he played the game. he knew what kind of things you can say that are not true in which you cannot. trump plays the game well in a different way.

he wants to be the guy who is constantly not playing by the media's roles. rules. different shctick but they are both good politicians. host: let's talk about tesla. you said believers had nothing to blame but themselves for the bubble. guest: it is impossible to justify tesla's stock price on the kind of money you could make selling cars, even electric cars. in that column i talked about in relationet value to each car it produced. tesla is not priced like a car company. it is priced like apple.

company thatlogy is going to deliver something magical in the future that we cannot even define. and the earnings should justify that stock price. they cannot come from the car business. host: why not? guest: you cannot make enough money on cars. it is a very competitive business. there are giant carmakers out there who are capable of making cars that are just as good. you do not get the 40% profit margin you get on selling software. or the 60% margin you get on selling google search. these are businesses where there is no marginal costs to expanding the product. you never get that in the car business. real world, of course, the seldom happens.

businesses keep doing what they know how to do. making small adjustments to fend off competitors and securing a future. eventually, all businesses fail. " is someeople think ge kind of miracle because it has been around for 100 years. 100 years is not a long time. think about new york restaurants. people close restaurants when they are at their peak and take the money and go. and open up another restaurant. businesses do not last. people complain about all of the mergers and acquisitions. and the disassembly of these mergers companies are constantly

reshaping themselves in response to market signals. there is nothing permanent about business. ge has been around forever, but it has been many different companies at many different times. how much does a person have to do with failure and success in business? guest: it makes all the difference in the world. it is also a lot of luck. there are a number of variables that are so important that are beyond any one person's control. but if you have the eye for opportunity and make the right choice, sometimes it is like flipping a coin. you can create an apple. host: you have been writing a column since 1992? 1996. actually since

what did being in hong kong due to your thinking? guest: i knew it was an important story. just the sheer size of it, the energy of it, to westerners, the sense that it was familiar and yet their culture was so different. their history was so different. it was a little bit daunting. it made me think i am never going to be able to take on india because china enough is a challenge. it was a fascinating time to be there. 1994 and 1995. before the handover. the end of the british rule is coming. all of the culture and the politics and everybody is scrambling against -- after their futures. host: does the u.s. have to worry about being number one? does that matter to you?

the things that we do well, we should keep wanting to do well. which is innovating and being open to new ideas and business and creating new businesses. ourink it is so deeply and culture and our dna that we can hold onto it forever if we do the right thing. i do not know if we're going to be the biggest. we will not be the biggest in terms of gdp. that does not matter. large still create amounts of wealth for our people if we hold onto that entrepreneurial nature. host: can you give a definition for artificial intelligence? guest: it is making decisions for us better than we can make for ourselves. host: translates that. who makes it. where does it get made? guest: it is already happening in your car. you step on the gas and there that makes a decision about how

much power is going to go to the four wheels and a four-wheel-drive. i write a lot about elon musk and he is a doomsayer who says artificial intelligence will someday be our master. we will be to our computers like our cat is to us. we will be its pet. i do not buy that. potential in artificial intelligence for good and ill. host: why have you been so fascinated with elon musk? dude. he is a fascinating twoas created these companies doing spectacular things. he is a little bit off the wall. i love spacex. you need private companies

competing to provide the services that nasa wants to. he is doing an excellent job of that. electric cars are great for people who want electric cars. is an abomination that we subsidize them or treat them as a solution for a climate problem. his reliance on subsidies and politics annoys me. but he understands the world we live in. host: would you buy an electric car? guest: it does not make much sense for me. i do not drive that much. i have motorcycles, and i do not want to have an electric motorcycle. we need a car that will just run and run and run for 12 hours. recharge.have time to

host:host: what is the origin of your first name? guest: it came from my father. he had an uncle who owned a bread company. he was an enterprising guy. host: when did you get interested in motorcycles and why? guest: it happens when you are a kid. my odds took me to bermuda yet bermuda once me to and i hitched a ride on a vespa. i was hooked. how often are you on one? guest: daily, if i can. if the weather is suitable and i can get out. can somebody tell you no?

you cannot write that? guest: no one has ever said no. there are times when people find my use of metaphor a little bit colorful for a family paper. who issually some person highly responsible and i respect and i will make an adjustment. host: have you always been a metaphor person? guest: i think so. ? why? i think my brain has always been spatial. i see things in moving parts. host: do you have a book in the future? guest: i do not think there is. i don't believe in packaging your columns in a book. but it seems like there are enough of my trump columns and they tell an important enough story that i think about doing that. if i retire someday and get a

take historical research project that i am interested in, i might write a book like that. get sose, i feel like i ma readers from what i do in the journal. i get so much satisfaction from it at i do not have the compulsion to write a book. who: if you met someone could not stand anything about donald trump, what is the one or two things you would tell them from their perspective to think about? that you hatengs about donald trump are also the things that his fansite about them. of xe think i disapprove in trump, those people must approve of that. that is not true. they complain about his will gertie. -- vulgarity. they complain about him talking too much. they like him as an agent of chaos.

into 2015, it looked like we would have a candidate named bush and a candidate named clinton. that era is gone now. this one candidate has cleared the field. that is worth the price of admission. host: can people read your column anywhere but behind the table? all?ayw guest: there are ways to get around the pay wall, but is not my duty to tell you about that. i would urge you to subscribe to the wall street journal and pay for it. that is how my salary gets paid. you can read his column wednesdays and saturdays and the wall street journal. thank you very much. guest: my pleasure.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> for free transcripts are to give us your comments, visit us da.org. ♪ >> the u.s. senate, the uniquely

american institution. legislating and carrying out constitutional duties since 1789. on wednesday, january 2, c-span takes you inside the senate. learning about the legislative body and its workings. he will look at it history, conflict and compromise. things andg about kicking them around, having great debates is a thoroughly american thing. andey moments in history unhindered access. follow the evolution of the senate into the modern era. the advice and consent to enrollment and in teaching -- impeaching. productioniginal exploring the roles of this

uniquely american institution. it premieres wednesday, january 2 at 8:00 on c-span. be sure to go online at c-span.org/senate to learn more about the program and watch over original, full-length interviews with senators. farewell speeches and take a tour inside the senate chamber. the old senate chamber and other exclusive locations. the government shutdown will continue past the christmas holiday as they have ended their sessions. nextgislation until thursday. watch live house coverage on c-span. here are some programs coming up tonight on c-span. time ministers questions from the british house of commons is next.

krystal fleming talks about race and racism in america. at 11:00 p.m., q&a with wall street journal columnist. the final question time of the year, british prime minister theresa may took questions on the economy, funding for u.k. public services and brexit negotiations. labor party leader jeremy corbyn pressed her on her leadership and preparing the brexit negotiations. >> questions to the prime minister. mike amesbury. >> question number one. >> this friday marks 30 years since flight 103, the biggest loss