in public health. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook commons, text messages and tweets. washington♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, february 21. support for a third political party in this country is at a high point. the democratic and republican parties continue to look inward, asking questions about their own roles and their futures. the question for you this morning -- does the united states need a third major palooka party? if you agree, call (202)

748-8000. if you think not, call (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text. (202) 748-8003 is the number there. leave your name and the city or town you are texting from. you can post a comment. facebook.com/c-span. here is the headline -- a comment that facebook.com/c-span. here is the headline from gallup. it says that american's desire for a third party now sits at a high in gallup 's trend. that is an increase from 57% in september. we will talk in a bit with the

editor in chief at gallup. here is the former president donald trump while he was still president making his final remarks to supporters at andrews air force base. [video clip] >> the things we have done have been incredible. just a goodbye. we love you. we will be back in some form. [applause] >> again, i want in leaving to thank our vice president mike pence and karen. i want to thank congress because we worked well with congress -- at least certain elements of congress. we have gotten so much done that people did not think possible and i want to thank all the great people love washington, d.c., all the people we worked with to put this miracle

together. have a good life. we will see you soon. host: coming back in some form, said the president. the major political news this weekend that former president trump will speak at cpac, his first public appearance since leaving office. this will happen next sunday in florida. he is expected to address cpac on the 28th, his first public appearance since leaving the white house. he will attend cpac on the final day of this four-day event. he will speak about the future of conservatism as well as comment on president biden's immigration policies, so president speaking a week from today at the cpac conference. does the u.s. need a third major political party? that is our, question for you

this morning. we look forward to your calls. two phone lines at the bottom of the screen, one for yes, one for now. -- 14 no -- one for no. " trumpism is an increasingly popular phenomenon that wants to transform the existing political order. their anger is not directed at democrats. it is aimed at fox news. they believe they have sold them out. and at the republican party they now feel has betrayed them. they will stop at nothing to destroy it. there is demand for a new patriot party to 'take our country back.'" that was freddie gray at cq magazine. we are asking for your opinion

on this new gallup pole. here is a short piece of video for you about the potential for a third party. at the university of chicago, heidi heitkamp was asked about a possible middle-of-the-road third party emerging in the u.s.. >> there are a lot of people who think there will be a new middle-of-the-road party. if they thought they could entice someone like me to join them, i think they would feel more conservative democrats and form a center-right or centerleft party. i think it is hard to think about winning electoral races by splintering the current party. even though you have republicans against trump, you have the lincoln project, you have all these groups vary engaged against trump, and now they are engaged against people who are complicit in things like

marjorie taylor greene, i do not really see an effective third party movement yet in this country. i think the republican party will have to sort it out. if they do not sort it out we will see the democratic party recruiting again more white college-educated suburbanites and businesspeople as opposed to a third -- to our party as opposed to a third party. host: we have one call coming in now from andrew in alexandria, virginia. andrew, are you there? we do not hear andrew from alexandria, virginia. we will continue to get some more calls in. lots more to talk about as far as the parties go today. the parties right now are looking inward, trying to figure out the best path forward.

the democrats are featured in the new york times today -- " for all the success, democrats ask what went wrong? democrats emerged with full control of the federal government and a pile of lingering questions. they have been wrestling with a quandary -- why was president biden's victory not accompanied by broad democratic gains down ballot? a number of begun analyzing the -- has quietly begun review of the party's performance in the 2020 election with and i toward shaping democrat -- an eye toward shaping democrats' approach to next year's mid term campaign.

there is a particular concern among the democratic sponsors of the initiative about the party's in house districts with large minority relations including in florida, texas and california. the review is examining tactical and strategic -- republicans took back 14 house seats, including a dozen the democrats had captured in an anti-trump wave just two years earlier." kurt is calling. you say it is time for a third major political party. tell us why. caller: absolutely. i believe what has happened with the major rep -- parties is they have left a lot of the values that the major citizenry hold.

that causes a rift. i think it is time. host: what about getting a third party started? a big effort, right? you need money, need infrastructure. how hard would it be? caller: it is a major undertaking. it would have to be someone like a trump or someone in that category that would be able to undertake such a major thing. host: do see president trump making that effort? caller: i would hope. host: thanks for calling, kurt. host: joanna is on the line from new hampshire. yes, it is time for a new political party. tell us why. caller: i have been an independent my whole life. i have voted for democrats, have voted for republicans, but

mostly i have written in votes. i do not believe a two-party system is good for our country. they are private organizations and they are run in the back by the one per centers. host: have you felt that way for a long time? was there a point in time, an event or election that changed her mind? -- changed your mind? caller: no. i think i was born that way. [laughter] caller: i was always bringing home cats as a child wanting to help them. i think -- i feel that anybody who has a heart feels a calling to become a politician. they may go to their local, state government into the first thing they are approached by his

-- is " what party are you for?" then you're inundated. you are part of this party. there is a head of this party, and the party comes first. it takes the place of people. the constitution was made for people. it was made stronger by lincoln who said " this should be for all people." right now i believe the republicans and democrats are for the companies, ceos, and for the richer. the middle class keeps getting poorer. voting for a party is voting for " you are with us or against us." that is not how america should be. host: thank you for calling from new hampshire. we will dig into the gallup poll

more after this call from henrietta, calling on our "no" line. how come, henrietta? caller: if a third party starts, they will lose like 12 election. they will be behind the eight ball a long time. if you are a democrat or a republican, start using candidates that are for me. both parties, democrats and republicans, have destroyed our country. how did they do that? they took our middle class, they took our jobs, and they are flooding our country with people who really should not be here. it is not helpful to the american people when you have a two-party system, although i am

for a two-party system. either party have to get rid of candidates who are destroying our country. currently right now we have a democratic party who believes that our country should be last. i believe our country should be first. it is disgraceful, completely disgraceful that we have the situation we have. i am flummoxed about it, just flummoxed. host: comments from henrietta in fort pierce, florida. here is the gallup piece after the poll they did. joining us now is the editor in chief gor -- for fallup -- for

gallup. how long have you been polling on this question and what is unique about this most recent poll? guest: we have polled on this question going back engine -- ba ck for generations. we asked " do the democratic and republican bart -- parties do an adequate job of representing the american people or do we need a third party?" back in 2003 we started with 56% of americans saying " they're are doing an adequate job." since 2012 we have seen the majority of americans consistently in favor of a third party being established. in january, when this specific

poll was conducted, it was a new high. 62% said they needed a third party. it is a historic high, but a continuation of a majority since 2012 that have seen a need for a third-party. host: what is your sense of what is driving the drop -- the jump? guest: what the data tell us is what has shifted in this poll is the majority of republicans joining the majority of independents. analyzing along party identification, looking at republicans, independents, and democrats. there has been the least change among independents.

seven in 10 consistently now have said a third party is needed. the democratic party, interestingly has taken a bit of a dip. 52% in 2020 said we needed a third party. the real shift was in republicans. we went from 40% to said third-party was needed in 2020 to 63% in 2021. i want to point out though we are focusing on the republican party, but the democratic party has challenges from within the party itself. it is masked now. we are in the cycle of presidential elections where a new leader has come into party -into power- and the party is -- come into power and the

party is rallying around the leader. when you think back to the primaries, there was turbulence, ideological differences. it is easy to pick on the republicans at this point in time, but these challenges sit in both parties. the other knee-jerk thing to keep in mind is the are dealing with president trump, someone who took on the traditional republican party's leadership as an adversary at times. that is something we have not really seen in our lifetimes from either party, where the president was coming to the platform to challenge a lot of the attitudes, postures, positions of the leaders of the party he was leading. in another poll we asked whether trump should continue to be the leader of the republican party. republicans preferred that trump

remained the party leader. it is not surprising that in a time when most republicans, at least as of a few weeks ago and after the incidents at the capitol one to deceive former president trump remain party leader. obviously his statement about senator mitch mcconnell, recently -- host: take -- host: take us deeper into this number i read. 50% of americans now identify as independents. has significant of a figure is that now? guest: it is the highest percentage of the preferred independents or identified independents we have ever measured in a single poll. it is a historic point in history. 50% are saying they want to

identify as independent. in that same poll we got perceptions of both parties. the democratic party did slightly better than the republican party. it really does support this notion that folks are frustrated. one thing that happened recently was the landing on mars of the rover was on -- that nasa delivered. to put it crudely, americans love winning and they hate infighting and not doing anything. one thing we do at ask every gear is --one thing we ask every year is " what makes you proud to be an american?" nine in 10 say it is technology. six in 10 say the political system does not make them proud to be an american. americans are really down on

national politics. there is a widespread frustration with national politics and the perception of corruption in national government. perceptions of local government remain strong and positive even through this endemic -- pandemic. it is it historical for americans to have a more negative view of national versus local political life. host: mohamed younis is the editor-in-chief of gallup.org, a couple comments. here is twitter -- "yes, third-party, but i would rather have term limits. each politician only cares about the next election." let's catch up on calls here.

we go to jacksonville, north carolina to the "yes" line. caller: i have been a proponent of a third-party party in this country for some time. i would really appreciate being able to vote for someone. thank you. host: thank you for calling. david edwards calling now from charlotte, north -- edward calling now from charlotte, north carolina on the "no" line. caller: the gentleman -- if we had a third-party, if it would be anything like the republican party have now, it would turn a blind eye.

we all see it. february 6 -- the things that were born. if we get a third-party there, that would truly do the right thing for the people. host: edward, what would be the right thing for the people? what you want to see done? caller: do not turn a blind eye to justice. no one is above the law. what was done -- and also the people he had behind him in the republican party. the only thing they want to do is hold onto power, just hold onto it. host: understood.

edward calling there from north carolina. let's go to oxford, massachusetts. carl is on our " yes" line. caller: i think we need more parties. it goes along with freedom of speech, freedom of expression, even if it is a communist party or a neo-nazi party, people have to have dialogue rather than ostracize or persecute certain groups. people can exchange ideas and vent frustrations. you will not have so many protests, and riots, hopefully. it goes along with freedom of expression. host: carl, have you always felt this way? caller: for quite a few years now. i am what they call an :" on enrolled -- an " on enrolled

voter. -- an "unenrolled voter." i do not know how that differs from independent, but it ended better to me. -- it sounded that are to me -- it sounded better to me. host: " the authentic left is virtually unrepresented within our system. yes, we need a third party. a labor and people's party." there is a" reason we have only had the two major political parties. it is majorly expensive --

building a party from scratch is incredibly challenging and massively expensive. while the two major parties have systems in place to ensure their candidates end up on ballots, parties have to scratch and claw to stay on the ballot year after year. the logistical heavy lifting managed id party apparatus is extremely hard to re-create quickly or at all. people like the idea generally speaking of third parties." our next caller is calling. talk to us. caller: i think we need a third party. i think donald trump was the third party. i think he was elected by democrats. both parties are so into their money. joe biden just got started and

he is not listening to the public. the few things that trump did that i like, like getting out of the who, getting out of paris -- we are and snarled in corrupt, non-american values around the world. i don't even think our country has a view -- our politicians have a worldview and not an american view. there has not been, aside from donald trump, there has not been a personality who could start a third-party. host: would you advocate mr. trump do that? caller: think he is going to -- i think he is going to. i believe that bernie sanders

probably would have won if he had done that. the party, democrat, and the democratic party, they have their far left-wing people, and they keep their voice, but the people who support issues that really affect american people, it gets swept under the rug. host: colleen, thank you. to roger in middletown, ohio. roger is on our line for "no." how come? caller: the democrats went a third-party so they can split republicans, and that way they gain more votes. mr. biden has had years to learn how to be a con man in washington.

the problem is mr. trump was probably the greatest president we have ever had. the last four democrat presidents we have had were disgraced in the white house. they snuck up on trump while he was trying to do things. they kept him busy fighting the fight while they were digging up dirty ways to get in the white house. i think biden is the biggest con man who ever lived. host: how come? caller: all the crap he has done. all the crap trump has done -- he has saved us billions of dollars. biden is mentally not capable of being president. host: roger, do you think two

major parties, when you look at the hail and the white house, will -- hill and the white house will be able to work together? caller: i am 87 years old. we need to clean out the junk going on in the white house. if you have a third-party, it is going to be a communist party, and we do not need that. the two has worked for hundreds of years and we have had some great democratic presidents, but we have also had bad ones.right now biden is the worst president we have ever had. he is screwing up everything trump made. think of all the billions of dollars trump saved this country.

every democrat has gotten us into a war. we do not need any more wars. host: roger does not think there should be a third-party. stephen on facebook disagrees. stephen says " a third, fourth, a fifth and so on." joyce says, " term limits! where else do you work where you give yourself a raise and perks! these political criminals represent the lobby and not their constituents!" here is paul from charlotte, north carolina on our "yes" line. caller:, good morning,

listeners. the last time i thought a third-party -- voted third-party in a debate was ross perot. that is challenging because there was a different point of view. both sides have their talking points. then you have this wrench in the motorworks that happens with a third-party. it brings people to talk about what america and the center is wanting to hear. i believe it was a partisan decision to kind of make it really difficult for a third-party to even be in a national general election presidential debate. the framework has been kind of made difficult or -- not to be

too crass -- sabotaged to keep a third party from gaining traction. i also feel that maine is a good option. i can't remember the name of the style of voting -- if you're number one vote does not go, your vote goes to your second favorite -- if your number one vote does not go, your vote goes to your second favorite. it brings them to the middle. because they still want to know they can get that second vote. host: we have melvin on the line

from richmond, virginia. melvin is another "no." caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. in my humble opinion, i chose know because i think it will never happen. in my opinion, corporations run the united states. money is what runs the united states. if money is what is running the country, why would they need to have their money split, between three people when they could split it between two people? host: one of the earlier colors said money aside -- callers said money aside, if the right personality came along this process would be easier to get going. what do you think about that? caller: the bottom line is money, ok? donald trump happened to slevin

because in the primary process -- slip in because in the primary process, it only took a fraction of republicans to win the primary process. the republican party, in my humble opinion, has always been the type of party that caters to the people who are against social freedoms. if -- you always hear about the base. the base are ignorant and racist, in my humble opinion. the problem that they had is it only took 30% of those people to get the nomination. so that is part of -- host: thank you for weighin in

-- weighing in. former president trump wrote tha t " the republican party can no longer be respected with ' leaders'like mitch mcconnell at the helm. mcconnell's dedication to business as usual together with his lack of political insight, wisdom, scale and personality has rapidly driven him from majority leader to minority leader and it will only get worse. at the democrats and chuck schumer play mcconnell like a fiddle. they have never had it so good and they wanted to keep it that way. we know our america first agenda is a winner, not mcconnell's beltway first. agenda"

-- beltway first agenda." " an unspoken will has governed donald trump's calendar -- to sit down with him you must belong to his posh palm beach club or know how to contact him directly. four weeks he has been rejecting meetings with nikki haley, gop candidates via yang for his ear, preferring to spend his days binging cable news, golfing and basking in standing ovation's whenever he arrives for dinner." someone close to him has -- one person close to the ex-president has said he has become ' unreachable'to anyone outside his limited circle.

he will start vetting candidates and make sure every open seat in 2020 has a -- " according candidates at mar-a-lago who are eagle -- eager to fulfill his promise." caller: we need a third major political party. it is so obvious the two party system is not working for the people. decisions are being made based on political party. they are partisan decisions, and that cannot be in the best interest of the people. if we did have other your political party -- a third major political party that would -- i think better decisions by our government would be made.

i hope we have a third major put ago party. host: the challenge of money, several colors have brought up -- is there -- several callers have brought up, is there enough money out there? caller: trump with money behind him -- there is plenty of money to go around. if there is a very serious major third-party it will benefitour party-- -- it will benefit archon -- will benefit our country. host: twitter rights --

twitter writes that " it third-party is a great idea center, however, both state and federal laws protect the duopoly." caller: there used to be three major networks, but you see what happened to that. that happened -- fell by the wayside with cable-tv. major league baseball, should there be a third pennant? i am looking at the prospect. \ you loo at the history of the republican party -- you look at the history of the republican party. it is an amalgamation of other parties.

whigs and other political fashions made up the republican party. democrats, underserved communities changed their focus to a more inclusive type of political party, but a third-party -- host: was there a point in your life where either party spoke to you most clearly in terms of what you are interested in and what they had to say to you? caller: that is the thing about it -- i look at my experience as an american growing up in the southern part of the united states mainly, some of the people who helped me the most, i did not know their political affiliation initially they just helped me because it was the thing in their spirit to do,

whether it was giving me a job, referring me to a job to better me as a citizen of this country. it had nothing to do with them being a republican or democrat. the issue is, when we look at reputation, do not worry about your reputation. that is who people think you are. as dr. king said, it is the content of your character. the people voting off of party ideology should look at the content of their character individually as the constitution allows us and as we have these inalienable rights. host: thank you for calling from new orleans. we have 18, 19 minutes left. washington post reminds us that president biden has declared a disaster in the state of texas following the storms there in

the past week. they shifted to assessing blame for the damage. president biden signed a major disaster declaration allowing texas to tap vast amounts of aid. millions without power across the south. when you look at the new york times, they have a giant spread hear about the texas storms. they show traffic here in texas on interstate 35 ground to a halt, folks waiting outside their truck to see what is going to happen. lots of other pictures, but there making the point that these pictures are exposing a country primed for catastrophe. " the signs of risk posed by --

one third of oil production in the nation was halted. it drinking water systems in ohio were knocked off-line. vaccination efforts in 26 states were disrupted. about crisis carries a profound warning. as climate change brings more frequent and intense storms, it is placing growing stress on the foundations of the country's economy, its network of roads, it's drinking water systems, electric grids and even homes. failure in one sector can set off a domino effect of breakdowns in hard to predict ways." that is in the new york times this running. it the president is expected to head to texas sometime this week. we will give you details. we go to paula in union bridge

maryland -- union bridge, maryland. paula inks the united states need -- thanks the united states needs -- paula thinks the united states needs a third major political party. caller: a third-party, which the people whether be able to vote and get what they want. i think it was an unfair election. we had a virus, vaccines done in record time. our vaccine -- military was made strong again. our supreme court failed us. our freedom is what needs to be spoken for. make stronger america. take care of our vets.

take care of the people and their needs. whether the blame goes to where you put it, and i am not the one who is voting, but our system has failed us. freedom of speech is in the constitution. the supreme court and all of them failed us. republicans did not stand by their commander in chief. as the president, they normally have it where you would be criminalized for doing anything against the president, nothing was done in the senate with the other party. know everything that is being done, the party is divided into the republicans did not stand by because of what happened because of their actions. the blame is not to be put anywhere. there were all different groups involved. host: on to gary now in fairfield, new jersey on the " no" line.

what are your thoughts? caller: good morning.. i have listen to your program this morning. i appreciate you accepting my call. i want to say something about myself. i am from jamaica. i have been here since i was 11 years old. i am now 52. this is my country. i do not think we should add a third party. this is not an issue about parties. i believe in my heart the problem is who represents the people. these people in office making all the laws, they are the ones who are not real to me. i'm thinking in order to clean up america, all our leaders need

to be -- how would i put it? to put it in my words, i'm thinking all their leaders should always do a polygraph test. host: gary, let me ask you, since you have been in this country, who have you looked up to in politics over the years you have been here echo -- been here? caller: i looked up to bush at one point. clinton was ok. i did vote for bush. host: the first bush or the second bush? caller: the second. with trump, at first when trump came to power, i thought trump

was trying as a businessman to build this country up. i did believe that. all of us cannot be -- all of us in this country are not the same people. some people express themselves by cursing, a lot of bad words. some people may express themselves by being very humble. that is how this country is built. from the judges up to the supreme court, they need to take a polygraph test every time you go to vote to be in the office to represent our country. host: thank you for calling. danielle, fort lauderdale, florida on our "no" line."

what is your thought? caller: we do not need more government, we need less. what we do need is to reform our election process. we need to get rid of the electoral college. we need the majority population to win. we need citizens united removed. we need to implement term limits . those are the things we need to do and i think things would run a lot smoother, steve. host: color there daniel from fort lauderdale, florida -- caller there daniel from fort lauderdale, florida.

" there are already several smaller parties. let one of them become major. instead let's allow independents access to the ballot and make candidates stand on their own two feet." merrick garland for attorney general, his confirmation will be here at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. on tuesday javier becerra, former congressman from california, nominee for hhs secretary will be on the hill for his confirmation hearing, one of his -- one of two hearings this week. some big hearings beginning tomorrow extending into tuesday and a busy week elsewhere. the house has unveiled a $1.9 trillion relief package.

a lot of activity this week. it is $1.9 trillion. we look forward to this bill coming thursday or friday. we wanted to point out some of the details in this bill for now. some of the provisions advocated for by biden are in the bill, including stimulus payment up to $1400, extending supplemental unemployment benefits and boosting them from $300 to $600 a week. other provisions -- $14 billion to research and distribute vaccines. most controversial provision of this bill is an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an

hour by 2025. we will see what happens in the house this week. it is likely to be changed in the senate before they can get to final voting on this thing. more to calm this week. jesse hanging on in holland, michigan on our "yes" line. caller: since we have the democratic party and the republican party, i believe we should have a third-party. this is the reason why -- i have heard the callers say some things about " they have failed us, the elections." they have secured their generations. what about our generations?

? the founders of this country, -- it is the most prolific constitution on the planet. perfect. people should understand, it is not about trump, it is not about the democrats, it is not about the republicans, but we need a third party. the two parties went to destroy the constitution. i use to be a democrat, then i went independent, then i saw trump come down the escalator in new york and he made all these statements -- i am a veteran of this country. everything he promised he would do -- promises cap. -- promises kept.

i believe politicians have failed us. the laws that govern that we get away from this, we will lose -- host: on to ontario, a province in canada there. kevin, what is the perspective in ontario? caller: we actually have three major parties, sometimes four. i don't think it will work in the states. instead of voting for something, you end up voting against what is already there. often you vote what is against what is there instead of what you are -- you vote against what is there instead of what you are for. host: has the third party system

been successful in canada? caller: people would say there has not been much success. in the u.s. you have a whole range of the democrats vote against to the democratic party. you cannot have that here. if you are a member of the conservative party you have to vote for your party because if your party loses the vote and they are in power, they have to have an election. i think what i would like to see in canada and the states are people relying on independent candidates beholden to the people they represent rather than the party that is providing them financial support. host: kevin from ontario. jordan is on the line from beverly hills, california. up early! caller: the color before this

last one spoke exactly what i was -- caller before this last one spoke exactly what i was thinking. when he said " the supreme court has failed us," she meant white people, the supreme court failed then. trump lost because of his gross -- the supreme court failed then. it trump lost because of his gross incompetence -- the supreme court failed them. trump lost because of his gross incompetence. the last caller spoken eloquently. the democrat and republican people have us.

the hill did a survey. 50% people believed that we need a third-party in order to have an effective political system. it was broken down by 58% of white people and black people were 68%. black and brown people feel the need for the change more so than white people. i feel it should be changed. the republican party has spoken for itself for the last four years and it continues to be a fiasco. i have been a republican, i have been a democrat into now i am an independent because i have no other choice -- and now i am an independent because i have no

other choice. i voted for h w bush. we need represent americans. host: thank you for sharing your experiences with us. here is a text from linda in concord, new hampshire. " we need a green socialist party. i continue to hope that -- we need to kneel parties, a moderate republican party and a democratic-socialist green party. i hope that bernie sanders will lead the letter." caller: i do not think we need a third-party. what we need is an honest press.

that is what we really need. we also need term limits. i am a vietnam era veteran. donald trump upheld the constitution, which is really what we need new matter what party is in power. they have gotten away from it because of the distortion from the mainstream media. doug shown -- doueg schoen in the impeachment showed how the media edits things. host: where do you go to get days? caller: newsmax, america's voice. i do listen to msnbc, fox and local news. hearing california, even local channels are distorting more

towards left of center.it is host: one last call from jackie in arlington, virginia. are you with us? caller: i'm here. i am calling to say i agree with the guy from fort lauderdale. if these politicians have term limits, they will change how they support whatever they are supporting. they would think about us, the people that vote them into office. about us to decide how they will support us. right now they are supporting the corporations and other countries. they are not looking at what we americans need. the other thing i would like to say is i am tired of

african-americans calling in saying they are black. i'm african-american, not black. asked them how they are black. we all have ancestors from somewhere. minor from africa. -- mine are from africa. please stop calling yourselves black. who are your ancestors? host: we have one more. tony from spring, texas. you get the last word for this hour. caller: good morning. i think there shouldn't be any party, because all the things republicans come up with, all the things democrats come up with promote separatism. there is a fight. you use fox news. they spew republican. ms nbc spews democrat.

get rid of all parties so americans can vote as americans, not as a democrat, not as a republican. maybe, just maybe this country can get healed. host: thanks to everybody who called in. it is 8:00. sunday, february 21. we will take a timeout and then we will get to our guests. coming up, kevin baron will talk to us about any report on efforts to keep extremists out of the u.s. military. later, history professor rana hogarth will talk to us about the history of racial inequality in the area of public health. that is her specialty. we will be right back with more of your calls in a moment. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3.

exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. today at 4:00 p.m. eastern, the 1934 newsreels on california governor campaign produced by mgm studios to defeat upton sinclair. 6:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion with bigoted general charles mcgee, looking back -- regular general charles mcgee -- brigadier general charles mcgee. it :00 p.m., -- at 8:00 p.m., a reenactment between benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson in shaping revolutionary war era america and the government it produced. exploring the american story. watch american history tv today on c-span3. >> here is our live coverage.

tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, to senate confirmation hearing for javier becerra, hhs secretary nominee. on c-span2, the confirmation vote on tom vilsack and debate on linda thomas-greenfield's nomination as u.n. ambassador. jerome powell, chair of the federal reserve with his semiannua monetary report to congress. on c-span.org, the confirmation secretary for debra haaland. also on c-span.org, a joint oversight hearing to examine the security failures that led to the u.s. capitol breach on january 6. watch live coverage on tuesday on c-span, c-span2, c-span3, and c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app.

♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is kevin baron, executive editor at defense one. thank you for joining us. we wanted to talk about extremism in the military. here is one headline that caught our attention recently about a pentagon report. inroads white supremacist have made in the military. we can dig into that in a second. start us off of the definition. what exactly is extremism when it comes to the united states military? what does it look or sound like?

what is the current situation? guest: when we ask military leaders, like eddie with lots of demographic qualities of the military, they say the military is a reflection of the society of pulls people from. there is extremism in society and there will be extremism in the military. it's been a problem perhaps for the entire history of the military. in the last 10, 15, 20 years, stories come up about some troops, some incident of violent crime, a revelation of online chat groups or a version of facebook that looks like it is meant for neo-nazis. all these questions pop up again. for a lot of us reporters this is not a new issue. once again these surfaced in a

humongous way because of the events in the last year and put more pressure on the pentagon leadership to do something about it that might make a difference. the pentagon is trying to define extremism, saying -- they are asking to take a pause, talk to unit commanders and talk to their soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and talk about the issue. the rules of extremism in the military are different than other society. one big loophole is that you can belong to an extremist group and still be allowed to join the military and stay in the military as long as you don't act on those beliefs. that difference has really caught the attention of lawmakers and reporters who are wondering what the pentagon will do about it. host: the phone numbers for our

guest, kevin baron, founding executive editor of defense one. we are talking about extremism in the military. republicans, democrats, independents and active military. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. a separate line for active military as well. we look forward to hearing from you folks for kevin baron. the pentagon report revealed inroads white supremacists have made. you say it has been there for many years. what is the most recent study saying? what are the current conditions? guest: the study puts out new numbers. it rehashes an old case.

they soldier who had been exposed for extremism and was living with a few other people. one of the roommates murdered two of the other roommates. that drew a lot of national attention. they dug into this soldier and there was quite a bit of online presence that revealed this person was that had extremism leanings. neo-nazi names. online groups. also had a tattoo. one of the recommendations was military leaders have access to things like the fbi database of extremist tattoos so they can screen people out. a lot of recommendations that caught the attention of lawmakers. the report only happened because it was in the last year's

defense authorization bill. congress required the pentagon to do it. a lot of times u.s. the military for data. they don't have it. it is not necessarily nefarious. congress did not tell them to do it. it was not a mandate. now lawmakers are looking at it. it is the little recommendations that can make a difference like having access to tattoo database. without knowing the intention of individuals, military leader say it is hard to screen them out or find them when they are in the service or have anything to do with them when they are out of the service. host: your calls for our guest, kevin baron. what is a standdown order? we want to show a short clip of the defense secretary's talking about a standdown order. what is a standdown order?

guest: we all went, what you mean a standdown order? it means the defense department sent out to all commanders and civilians often to take a pause, have meetings with your team, your troops, your unit about an issue. have a talk. the question -- a lot of veterans went, we had those. what is that going to do? that was a problem with sexual assault. asking senior commanders to talk to troops, that is a hallowed method of the military. it also is requiring people to report directly to their commanding officers, which often they don't want to especially when a commanding officer is a violator of the issue. going into an anonymous reporting system or directly to military justice officials, but it is not nothing.

it is a major order coming from the top, from secretary austin within the next 60 days. we will see what happens in these meetings. host: a little bit from the defense secretary about the order. [video] >> is a time for us to educate leaders in terms of understanding those signs and those symptoms that can indicate we could be developing an issue within our ranks. let me say up front before i go one step further that i really and truly believe that 99.9% of our servicemen and women believe in the oath, they believe and embrace values we are focused on, and they are doing the right things.

i expect for the numbers to be small. quite frankly, they will probably be a little larger than most of us would guess, but i expect for them to be small. small numbers in this case can have an outside impact. host: kevin baron, anything else you want to say about what the secretary said? guest: 99.9% of the military are not pure at heart. the facts and data shows that. neither is 99.9% of society in america. that is why he said the numbers might be larger than you expect, maybe 10%, 15%, 20%. what is the metric? if you ask the recruits, you can ask if they are a member of an extremist group. and they can

still make it in if they hide the information. or they can get in and become rat allies -- radicalized in the military. at what level to someone who have thoughts towards one political end of the spectrum, when does it come the extreme and that is too far? -- extreme that is too farend? they have a lot of studying to do as much as educating. host: a couple of calls for kevin baron. don in salinas, california. caller: hi. what i want to say is i do not trust the motives of these people who are looking for "extremists" in the military. i don't like what they are doing. after the fort hood massacre, there was no standdown order. that happened to kill a lot of

people. there was no standdown order while they sifted through all the muslims in the military. after this january 6 riot, they investigated police. they investigated the national guard. all of a sudden we are looking for right-wing extremists. i'm thinking the extremists are you people who are looking for extremists. and you want to get people out of the way that you don't trust. you are grabbing a hold of our military. you are acting like a standdown order is nothing. a standdown order is telling the entire military we don't trust you. put your head down until we sift through your ranks. you are not military until we tell you you can be military again. host: thanks for calling. any thoughts? guest: that last line is actually true. the military decides he was in the military. they make no bones about it and they should.

i know the line of question. it is permeating right wing media right now. several of the leading national cable talk show host's are pushing a line that this is a purge against free speech, against right-wing views, against mainstream conservativism. to be frank this is not an effort being led by democrats. this is being led by the uniform military command, of which secretary austin west general austin as of two months ago as a retiree. it's a little apples and oranges to talk about fort hood versus the january 6 riot. the fort hood massacre was treated as one of two things. there was a mass shooting in an era of mass shootings when there

were several around the country that were perpetrated by people associated with or inspired by overseas islam violent terrorism. it was dealt with and the military did put into place lots of ways they screen and look for radicalization by terrorist groups, by overseas foreign terrorist groups in their ranks. they absolutely already did that. it is not true to say they didn't do anything then and they are doing something now. what is going on now is absolutely right. they are trying to find veterans of law enforcement and military who are involved and trying to find the association of what turns somebody from a normal citizen to an extremist. we will hear a lot of pushback from conservatives of all stripes. this is what they are hearing.

frankly, when we talk to veterans of all stripes, left and right, nobody is surprised there is extremism in the ranks. more than anything i think there is a question of the military, not because of left to right, but is it being unfairly scrutinized right now about extremism in the ranks just because there were an outside number of capital rioters with military experience. host: diane in cranberry township. is that pennsylvania? caller: yes, it is. did mr. baron serve in the military? my next question is, do you consider pro-life christians -- christianity extremism? host: let's hear from our guest. guest: i did not serve in the military.

i was an employee of the department of the army as a reporter for stars and about three years. -- "stars & stripes" for about three years. for the other question, i make no judgment whatsoever. host: let's talk about the pervasiveness. heather williams at defense one wrote this piece. how to root out extremism in the military. figure out how pervasive the problem is. what is the focus of this piece? guest: that is a commentary piece. it is one of several pieces that tries to get to the heart of when do you ask questions, what do you do with the information, and how do you purge those offenders. it involves several steps along the way. frankly, same kind of actions that happened in the military when it comes to educating about

sexual assault, about racism, inequity, you name it. there were military -- the military skews young. you go when when you were 18 years old and it becomes a pyramid of lesser and lesser numbers as you rise the ranks. the same things you might hear on a college campus are the same kind of social awareness programs troops will go through in the military. sometimes it is much more heightened. the difference being it is the military. they have to have unit cohesion and good discipline. there are a lot of steps to put out there. host: paul in bridgewater, connecticut. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran. i served as an intel officer. i had a top-secret clearance. there is no question that there

are some problems right now in the military that need to be cleaned up. the thing that really steers me in the brain is we have a real problem with general michael flynn. a serious, serious problem. the man is out there professing qanon. he clearly was behind the scenes actively involved with coordination of the insurrection on january 6. he was there on december 18 at a meeting, leading the charge with trump, etc. always saying don't forget you have the authority to call in the militia. take back this country. what is real possible, the man was pardoned but he clearly, and i hope it's being considered, can be called back on active duty and court-martialed.

there are a lot of people concerned about this. the man should be court-martialed and quite frankly face justice. he needs to be removed. he is still actively out there coordinating bs behind the scenes. it is definitely predicated with white supremacy, as well as pure fallacy. i would love to see this done. have you, sir, paid much attention to this? guest: thanks for the question. we have heard lots of reporting about -- a lot of us know about general flynn. we covered him when he was in the service. recalling an officer and active duty so they face court-martialed for actions they have done, it is not going to happen. it is a long shot by far for

lots of reasons. one is not of his offenses are directly related to military service. it is a technical thing. lots of folks want general flynn to face will bring up. there is zero talk at the pentagon of that happening. mike flynn's brother -- mike flynn retired as a three-star general. his brother is now the head of the u.s. army in the pacific, a four-star command. his name pops up associated with the wrongs of his brother which is just an association. did anybody know mike flynn held these views wealthy was in the service? but almost all accounts the answer is not really. he was once technically fired --

he was stopped from being promoted further. he reached a level of a three-star commander of a defense intelligence agency. that is a major command. that's an important intelligence community command. the story was mike flynn was a revered field operator. by the time he became a commander of the entire agency he was past his skill set. then he became a private citizen and his extreme views came out. that is a question a lot of us reporters deal with. pentagon officials, we talked to four stars and three stars. that is mostly where we live. how do you know somebody who has been in the military for 20, 30 years has annexed -- is an extremist? is there someone for that kind

of power but holding onto these views? and is there anything wrong with that if they are doing their job? mike flynn could have been a member of any party or movement as long as he is not acting on it, and that's ok per the military rules. caller: yes. i think extremism in the military is more fake democratic news. we no longer have a draft. people are there for one reason. defend our country and our constitution. extremism is in the media. we have two medias, democratic and republican. we have no media to tell us the facts. i tried to get through on the earlier line about the

third-party. second to last caller -- the extremists are in the media. host: in the media, he says. what is your response? guest: i understand the sentiment but i don't think the facts hold up. the pentagon inspector general is conducting their own survey of extremism in the ranks. look, often it may seem like the media is driving the storyline. the facts are with the media is following. those of the capitol riot have been arrested. there is a large number of them who are former military. it is a larger percentage than the general population. that becomes a story that says extremism in the ranks is a big problem. the national guardsmen who were sent to the capital, it was

determined they needed to have one extra screening to be sure anybody coming in is not affiliated with extremes and groups. a handful of them were. i relative handful to the thousands that showed up in washington. i think this is a story that's a little overblown to the facts based on the capitol riot and the response. it does not mean it is not a problem. like the caller before said, extremism in the ranks, racism, hate crimes, violent crimes have been as old as they are in the united states, they are in the military and have continued recently. absent the media, all i can say is -- we all know there are differing medias right now. there is journalism and then there is everything else.

if it is not objective journalism, it is propaganda. i will leave it to the callers to decide where they get their news from. host: we heard from the defense secretary lloyd austin about this stand on order to educate folks -- standdown order to educate folks. the inspector general doing their report. what steps do you see the pentagon taking in this area? guest: besides the standdown? they are looking at their procedures from the moment of recruitment all the way through. how can the better screen recruits for example? what do they need to be asked? how much data can be found? can they get that data? it is similar to what's going on with sexual assault. the military is doing a full review because of recent high-profile cases, of pressure from congress. i think secretary alston personally wants to know more

about this. it's the same questions. how do you know what is in someone's head or heart when they come walking through a recruitment office door? if the military has access to fbi databases, taken find out more quickly. these studies, if they can have the data shared, it would help. background checks are done by fbi and private contractors. whether you have top security clearance or just a private coming in. having better access to that data in real-time, having better screening methods of the online presence of people who sign up, reviewing that rule about joining -- of membership in an organization that is unknown extreme is unknown extremist group versus actions or words. i think the defense department can change with the stroke of a

pen from the secretary as a directive to the force. it will have to require a change of law from congress and the next defense authorization bill. you will not see that until the end of this year at minimum. there is an assumption there will be a lot more reviews as soldiers and sailors and airmen go through the ranks for their promotions. those promotion board meetings and reviews, everything about this people will be looked at on the way up. host: just under 15 minutes with kevin baron of defense one. ralph on the democratic line in michigan. caller: hello. this whole discussion and this whole program is very disappointing in the sense that the country is so racially polarized. i guess that is going to be reflected in the military. i keep seeing confederate flags

in the -- in the january riot insurrection. they were confederate flags there. i am seeing nazi flags occasionally. i live in michigan and there are confederate flags flying in my town. to me it is extremely disappointing. extremely disappointing to be an american and i have to be fighting -- still fighting the civil war. i have a picture of the guy who gets into the capitol office building with the confederate flag. it is very disappointing. i blame a lot of it on trump. he just released this racist -- what you call it -- sentiment in the country. now it is out of the bottle.

host: thank for calling. kevin baron, he loops back to something you said earlier. this is a reflection of what's going on in society. guest: i'm glad he raised the confederate flag issue. that is related to all of this. there have been policy changes on the way quickly that are worth mentioning. i thought he was saying our discussion was disappointing, but i think he means the fact we have to have this discussion is disappointing. the military has banned the confederate flag and is changing based names that were named for confederate figures. it is going to happen. if we want to do a quick refresher history, a little more than a year ago, the new commandant of the marine corps surprised folks and put out a directive saying they're banning all confederate symbols on the marines. you can't have a sticker on your

car, a coffee mug in your desk, a keychain. if you're a federal employee working on a base, unless your home is on a military base, you cannot fly a flag. that surprised people. he gave license to the other services to quickly follow suit. it has raised the issue of the confederate based names, which had been lurking in the background for a long time. with all the summer protests this issue jumped to the four. re. president trump personally stopped his defense secretary and chairman of the joint chiefs from making these changes. he said we will not ban anything. they created this weird loop around to say the only flag troops are allowed to fly at installations or military flags, or the p.o.w. flag. that's a way of saying -- people

complain because he can't fly the washington nationals flag outside. gay troops could not fly the pride flag when they have pride festivals just like for asian americans and african-americans, you name it, christmas, whatever it is. it did not work too well. everything was put on pause until the election. the defense authorization bill, the president threatened to veto it if it had language requiring the military to change based names and get rid of confederate names. the workaround was that congress, with full support of republican said we will require the pentagon to have a commission to study it. everyone knows what that means. it will change. it is four members of congress and four people the defense secretary can appoint. trump's secretary rushed four

names in january. that slate was wiped and secretary alston put his people on there. he really stacked the deck. it is a pro forma study. the members are michelle howard, the seniormost ranking black naval officer in history, a four-star admiral. corey shockey, head of defense studies at the american institute. general neller, the previous commandant of the marine corps who wrote an article saying i should have done this myself earlier and blasting anyone who flies the confederate flag as a supporter of slavery and putting humans in bondage. i will try to think of the final one. it is slipping my mind, which is unfortunate. the head historian at west point, who famously had a viral

video explaining how it was only one reason for the civil war and one reason alone and that was slavery. he blows through any argument against it. he is now a retired one star general. this is just a matter of time. the caller was right. i have family up in michigan and wisconsin myself. i can vouch for myself there are confederate flags. i grew up in florida among plenty of confederate flags. now you see them around the country. in the south there are still a contingent of folks who from the believe they are not racist. they just like the idea of southern pride as a symbol of their culture. for most people, that is not why they fight the flag. especially outside of the south. the caller was right about that. it is unfortunate we have to have the conversation. host: david from kansas. good morning to you, david.

caller: thanks for c-span. i have no scientific evidence about any kind of racism or white supremacy or that in the military. i was in the military. 82nd airborne at fort bragg, north carolina. i saw more than my share of it. i knew guys that were kkk members, christian militias, guys in all kind of hate groups. i saw nazi memorabilia, swastikas on arms, legs, backs. southern pride stuff always cloaked in racism. i saw my share of it. i saw it every day. i even walked into my room one

time. we had a black guy in my room. somebody hung in effigy of a black eye hanging by his neck over his bunk. i know it exists in the military. it runs rampant. the more testosterone there is, the worse it is. delete groups like the airborne you see it all the time. -- elite groups like the airborne. you see it all the time host: as congress looks to deal with this, what advice would you give them? caller: start with checking all the military personnel for tattoos. that would be my first start. then i would say start checking their vehicles for bumper stickers, nra stickers, and start watching these guys. those of the guys -- they have these 'don't tread on me' fl ags.

those are dog whistles for i am with you. that is what has to start. they have to start watching these guys. if you don't shut it down, nip it in the bud, it blooms. that is my thought on that. host: finish up, david. caller: i would like to address the woman talking about christians being slated as white supremacist or hate groups. i don't live that far from wichita, kansas. they bombed abortion clinics. they target kelly pham -- killing family-planning doctors. a lot of those people that are christians and antiabortion are extremists. host: thank you for calling from kansas. kevin baron, interesting observations from someone who served and advice on how to proceed. guest: he illustrates the

difficulty of where is the line. just talking about abortion. the woman asked if somebody was pro-life and christian is considered an extremist. he makes the distinction of somebody who bombed the clinic or murders of family-planning doctor. for the military the same dichotomy of acting violently and illegally. just having an nra bumper sticker is not illegal, not violent, not even extreme. have a gay confederate flag bumper sticker doesn't necessarily mean those things either. -- having a confederate bumper sticker doesn't necessarily mean those things either. who gets to decide? it is one thing if he had a tattoo, you are banned.

if you have a bumper sticker, you might not be. you can fly a flag. you cannot fly on your house if you live on base. what about inside your house? what is the line between free speech and extremism? in one sense that is a totally legitimate conversation. if you turn that into a left-wing conspiratorial purging is the right and against pushing everyone with conservative views out of the military. conservative views will be alive and well within the military. conservative views are not extremist views and don't mix them up. host: the words of retired admiral who wrote in time. part of the key to understanding this element is what motivates individuals to join in the first place. that identifies what sociologists described as the guardian culture of a society.

study show segments of a society's adult members want to protect and die for others. police, firefighters, civil servants, military members are exemplars of this. while admirable, this tendency can through poisonous racial filters and political filters lead to toxic behaviors. the vast majority join for the right reason. as extreme as him rises it broadly it will rise in the military. facing the reality of that is crucial and dealing with it will require modeling to right behaviors from the top, alongside new modalities in technology and education. any thoughts there? guest: yeah, i have seen lots of writing similar to this. one thought i've had when i talk to fellow journalist is the idea of fetishism of elite soldiers.

wearing body armor. you see this on the streets of the counterprotesters throughout the summer and black lives matter. he saw them during the capital insurrection by its -- capitol insurrection riots. body armor, as close as they can get to a military rifle. they fly the lou lives better street flag. -- blue lives matter flag. it has become a problem for not just mainstream conservatism that does not want to associate itself with extremism, but also the military. i know a lot of special operators who reject that. who hate these pretenders, these militias, these wannabes who try

to dress themselves up as the real folks raise their hand and actually put their lives on the line, especially overseas. many have given their lives. it is the idea that after 20 years of war, of americans celebrating the military that has gone to do their job, there comes a fan base and a fan boy base with an extreme view of trying to want to be these guys. and you have some who have come out of the military and joint. one of the reasons i think we have seen a disproportionately large number of military folks in the capitol riots are the proud boys and oath. those groups -- both keepers. those -- oath keepers. they tried to get people with military spirits. those two groups were big parts

of that specific incident. finding out exactly how much extremism in the ranks is a problem that is different from the rest of society. the idea of being in the military for a long time, not having that role anymore, wanting to live that soldier-where your life, the outside fetishism of the soldier even those that permuted the country -- ethos that permitted the country, we are wrapped up in that. caller: good morning, c-span. the republicans, and the democrats a little bit, but mainly republicans created this problem. now a lot of them are trying to go back on it. during the administration they invited rush limbaugh into the military.

the military was hearing this everyday. i know people that were in there. it just preached to all of our young people. that had an adverse effect on the military. that was created by republicans. they knew this guy was a hater. they should not let him bring it into the military because they know. the other thing i have to say is the problem started with obama. when he got elected he was hated so bad. rush knew the moment this was the right moment to put trump in there.after the russians elected trump this thing festered. we had a chance to clean this up as black lives matter happened. trump said you can't take down no flags. i will give you 10 years. these people breaking into the

capitol, i don't see a mandatory 10-year sentence. they will give them 10 years for taking out a confederate statues, defaming it. trump pushed this. the man said trump set us back 100 years. until we come to say ok -- one more thing. general flynn. another who spoke ill about obama. his brother was in the white house during the day they took it over. his brother was a general in there. he was in with trump not to do anything about it. there is some investigations on that. we had at general flynn who was a treasonous general, and no one says anything like him like they are scared. i don't know if his brother is the way he is. they went over to russia, gave away secrets, they have pictures of it. this stuff is in the military.

it has been in the military. host: thank you for your thoughts. let's hear from mr. baron. guest: there is a lot there. i will start at the end. there has been plenty of coverage of general flynn, general mike flynn. his attitudes and his deeds. it is unfortunate that his brother has to associate with mike flynn. there is no indication has brother charles flynn has extremist views. they might come out later. the military and the pentagon don't think so. they just promoted him to commit or the u.s. army pacific. -- command of the u.s. army pacific. he talked about rush limbaugh being played on basis. when you travel around the world, any dining facility on a base, you will watch armed forces network television.

sometimes they show fox news. sometimes they show msnbc. during the war years it was a big concern. what are they showing our troops overseas? they would have to rotate between the networks and some of the different shows, including showing opinion shows. sean hannity, rachel maddow. troops have a right to see these things. it is political discourse, whether you agree or disagree with it. the facts are clear whether you agree or not rush limbaugh had extreme views, racism use. he was one of the most popular political commentators in america. this is just another confounding issue for the pentagon of how do you do this. what are the fortunate parts is instead of being so moderate, conservative republican in charge that can make changes, because the democrats are in

charge. right wing political talk has going to hit it as a left-wing conspiracy rather than a vast middle conspiracy of extreme is him. --extremism. there is not as much difference between the left and the right as it is across the broad political spectrum. when it comes to extremism in the ranks i can't find a single republican commentator who thinks it is wrong to try to root out extremism in the ranks. that kind of talk is coming from the far right outside of the national security leadership of this country, left or right. host: kevin baron, executive editor of defense one, defenseone.com. thank you for your time this morning on extremism in the military. guest: thanks for having me. host: another short timeout and then we want your thoughts on

another grim milestone in the history of covid in the united states. u.s. virus deaths approaching 500,000. this is in the new york times. 500,000 in this country in the past year. here are the numbers to call to show your thought this morning. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. if you are in the medical field, a medical professional, called (202) 748-8002 -- call (202) 748-8002. we will come back with your thoughts. ♪ >> tonight at 9:00 eastern, john fortier with his book,

"after the people vote." he's interviewed by tara ross. >> for the most part congress should be counting the electors has invented to them. the states made the decision. i will not say never but i will say it would be extremely rare. we would be wise to not have objections in a regular way as we have been having or in a big way we had 2020. it really is more about the states selecting the electors based on their laws. congress's role primarily is just to count them. host: sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span2. sunday on q&a, author talks about his book, "the sword and the shield: the revolutionary

lives of malcolm x and martin luther king jr.." >> when it came to king, he talks about using nonviolence as early as 1955 to paralyze cities to leverage nonviolent civil disobedience to transform american democracy. malcolm x called for the same thing at the march on washington . he wanted a display of civil disobedience that was going to be muscular enough to end the racial status quo in the united states. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> listen to c-span's podcast, "the weekly." this week and expert on infectious diseases in one of america's leading epidemiologist talks about the road ahead with the coronavirus. >> we have a long road ahead.

i can say without any doubt at this point expect more curveballs to be thrown at us. if we had this interview 10 weeks ago, we would not have been talking about variants the way we are now. look what we are at today talking about the severe challenges they present. i would expect the unexpected. it is still out there. there is much we can do. at this point this is not going to be over with anytime soon. >> c-span's "the weekly" where you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: here is the headline in the new york times this morning about this grim milestone. u.s. virus deaths nearing 500,000. that is just in one year. more than in three wars. cities, towns, restaurants, homes and hearts. they write a nation numbed by

misery and loss is confronting a number that has the power to shock. 500,000. roughly one years since the first known deaths in the u.s., and unfathomable toll is nearing. the loss of half a million people. no other country has counted so many deaths. more americans have perished than on the battlefields of world war i, world war ii, and the vietnam war combined. the milestone comes at a hopeful moment. new virus cases are down sharply, deaths are slowing and vaccines are being administered. there is concerned about emerging variants and it may be months before the pandemic is contained. each death has left untold numbers of mourners. each death has left an empty space in communities across america. a barstool where a regular used to sit. one set of the bed on slept in -- unslept in.

parents, neighbors and friends to nearly 500,000 coronavirus dead. those of the first few paragraphs of that new york times story. virus deaths nearing 500,000 in one year. we'll keep the phone lines on the bottom of the screen for you. who want to hear your thoughts on this grim milestone, 500,000. we will hear from president biden for a moment. on friday, he visited the pfizer plant in kalamazoo, michigan where they make the vaccine. here is what he had to say. [video] we are on >> track to >> have enough vaccine supply for all americans by the end of july. it does not mean it will be in all americans arms but enough will be available by that time. these orders allow facilities like this one to plan ahead, accelerate production schedules. it was what else we did.

we discovered the vaccine manufacturers were not being prioritized when it came to scrutinizing and securing supplies they needed, we fixed that problem and got them what they needed. we also used the defense production act to speed up the supply chain for key equipment, like pumps and filters, which has helped increase production. on our tour today, they showed me a critical piece of machinery they did not have before. now they do. it allows them to ramp up production. as we increase supply we are carrying out a clear plan to get shots in the arms of 300 million americans or more. i know people want confidence it is safe. well, i just toured where it is being made. it takes more time to do the check for safety than it does actually make the vaccine. that's how fastidious they are.

listen to dr. fauci. he assured me the vaccines are safe. i went through the rigorous scientific review. that is why i took my vaccine shot publicly. host: here is the cdc covid tracker. you can read it at covid.cdc.gov. cases in the u.s., 27 million. that's approaching one in every 10 americans. total vaccines administered, 61.3 million. deaths, 494,008. michael is calling from covington, tennessee you are up first, what are your thoughts this morning? caller: my biggest concern is the fact that, like at the local

hospitals here in tennessee, if a person goes in the hospital, and no matter what the reason they are at that emergency room and they end up dying, they are automatically a person dying from covid-19 when the cause of their death would be something else. like a previously existing condition or even a person that was shot three times in the back of the head. i can't understand why. to me that puts some false-ality out there. to think about a person with three persons to the -- three gunshots to the back of their head died of covid-19. host: what are conditions like because of covid-19 there?

as life changed? caller: other than the mask that the majority of her wearing, the majority don't have that big of a problem with it. if you read the back of the carton on the mask they tell you they don't protect you from any die -- virus or disease. there is some false-ality there. host: let's go to mike in marion, ohio up. you are on the air. caller: i just want to say that my grandmother in law passed away, she had covid. they gave her her first vaccine and she was fine, and then later on she caught covid again, and just after that they gave her another vaccine and she started complaining about her throat.

i think that they should be doing autopsies on some of these people in care homes to find out why the vaccine is doing to them what it's doing. i think that it could be a lawsuit because they are not giving american citizens, who are protected by a constitution, the option to get the vaccine or have their loved ones pull them out of the care home and take them home with them. they are not giving that option and i would like to leave the people with that. thank you very much for being there for us, and i'm drinking coffee out of your cup right now. host: thanks for calling, mike. on to brian. brian is on the line. 500,000 americans killed or dead from covid in one year, what are your thoughts? caller: my thoughts are, the

people that still want to spread this information about what everybody is finally resigned to the science of, an example would be everyone wearing masks, or a majority, and how we are kicking the flu bug in the butt even though we are not out hunting for -- we are loaded for bear, so why are we worried about the squirrel. it's impressive how the flu virus is they are talking about almost nonexistent and that would be to people cleaning up their environments, handwashing, the stores that we deal with, the schools and institutions. people have tripled up on housekeeping. it's a positive deal and i put it out with people still talking

about every death being pegged as a covid death when i can say, the three deaths i have been associated with in the last eight to 10 months, of family members, of physicians. it's more, but those come up. either one were tagged as covid. they had other symptoms, and that's what the death report reads. i'm still running across people i thought were high iq, respectable opinions that are saying, everything is being tagged as a covid death, and it's not. i try to tell these people that there are lawyers that are waiting to go back to work, and if they can go sue somebody for fraudulent signature on a death affidavit they are going to do it. there is money to be made for

the criminal acts, the fraud. and we all see it at the end of a document with our signature on there. if we are signing something in fraud we are held to an rcw and a felony charge. host: brian, thank you for calling. wade is calling from washington. caller: you know what, i go on facebook, do face time, i go on outlook, i go on different sites. it's funny to me, i ask somebody if they believe in the q, and all the people that believe in it are the ones that are not getting the vaccine. they say this is a government conspiracy. the whole things a conspiracy. they don't believe there is an actual problem. host: that was weighed from

washington state. a special section in the washington post on this sunday, the 21st of february. they go to various parts of a community, the coroner, the reservation, the hospital, the daycare, the cemetery, hospice nurses, the virtual funeral, the priest, the parents. spending some time with those people at those places and they report that every 28 seconds in january an average of 3100 people in the u.s. died each day , every 28 seconds at two per minute in a nation still partially sucked out -- shut down. in hospitals and funeral homes, living rooms, and cemeteries across america the torrent of death was inescapable. the washington post reporters and photographers fanned out across the nation to capture the stories of the people --

special section in the washington post. we go to pittsburgh. martha who is a medical professional as we continue to look at the post special section. caller: i spent 50 years working in radiology as a medical transcriptionist. my job was from one doctor to another doctor, i would type papers. i had to understand medical language very easily. i know the doctors work extraordinarily hard. and they work with all the doctors in the hospital, because the x-rays, mri's, and the ct scans, all of that. to the doctors, i give credit to the doctors. all the other people that were

with them. as far as trump didn't do anything, trump was elected in the vaccine for the coronavirus, trump was working on that when biden was hiding out in a bunker. trump was a doer. he was working on things when biden was hiding out in the bunker down there. host: thanks for calling. debbie from novelty, ohio. what you think of these figures? caller: i don't think the figures are great, i don't think they are horrible. the cleveland ohio veterans medical hospital -- they have done a phenomenal job of taking care of covid patients and keeping them isolated from the rest of the population and administering vaccines. it's unfortunate the united states government has not utilized military or air patrol here in ohio to help people in

rural communities get to appointments whether it's at a pharmacy, health organization, whatever. i think that their military services are being way underutilized that could bring people for those vaccines. have vaccines in ohio and it's difficult for the elderly especially rural communities to get the vaccine points. host: tell us more about how life has changed in your part of the country? caller: in ohio there is a big problem with mail delivery in the cleveland area. people being informed on things. it is rated third worst in the country for milled a river -- mail delivery. stress for people in ohio is high. most people in the state have been affected by unemployment fraud, whether they are working or not there were fraudulent claims filed in their name. there are all these other things adding on to the stress of

people, unemployment fraud islands which will affect your tax return filings, not getting mail so they can't file tax returns, trying to get appointments to schedule vaccines. i think there is a lot more the state can do for people to volunteer to answer the phone and help people coordinate and get calls to schedule vaccine appointments. none of that is being done and i think less time focused on television and having your name on tv whether it is a senator or governor and dealing with this issue and that being -- not politicizing it and arguing both sides of the aisle rather than getting the job done. host: thank you. photo in the post from a cemetery. putting flowers on the grave of a covid-19 victim at a funeral home and cemetery. the coronavirus ripped through their maintenance apartment this winter.

he was sent to the hospital by covid-19. he tells people to take covid-19 seriously because they see the end result area a special section in the washington post. back to covid. cdc.gov and the covid tracker we talked about the cases, here are the updated numbers they have on vaccinations. the total number of doses delivered just under 75 million. total doses administered over 61 million. a number of folks with one or more doses, 42.9 million. a number of people receiving two doses. just under 18 million people have been fully vaccinated. at this point we have cynthia from albany, new york on the line. we hear you are a medical professional. caller: i work with people with developmental disabilities and i also work with people who have mental illness.

i hear all the time people talking about all these conspiracy theories, it is real. i have been working every weekend at a psych center because the weekend after thanksgiving when we knew we were going to have that big spread it was so rampant in that site center that may be 18 out of 20 something people on the unit were affected with covid and many of them died. then my regular job with people with developmental disabilities we are losing a couple of people a week. it's hard to survive. i feel like it's starting to turn a little bit and i think it's because we are serious about the ppe and wearing the ppe because we know in those two instances in those two places that the only exposure that patients have is from the staff coming in. the staff are bringing in the virus to those vulnerable

populations and that is what we see. host: how have supplies been overall? you mentioned ppe. caller: it has gotten better, and my area we seem to keep up with it. we ration it out, we are careful with it, we do, somehow we try to save it in a sense where we have a couple of levels. we wear it all the time and we have certain levels of ppe. we make three levels where i work to try to protect the population. we have been able to keep up with having the supplies, we are lucky because some people don't. host: your governor, governor cuomo has been in the news for your handling of covid. here are your thoughts -- what are your thoughts on what are your hearing? caller: some of it i understand.

if you are a sick person, even if you have covid or anything else and you are an elderly person, typically if you don't have somebody to hair for you -- care for you you go to a nursing home. i can see how numbers would go up in a nursing home. there are people every day that her elderly that don't have anybody to take care of and that are sick and you have to go to another level of care. i understand it in a way where he was not overwhelming hospitals because they are no longer acutely ill but still ill. i kind of understand it but as far as the cover of i'm not sure that is the case. it is a hard pill to swallow. it was something that had to be swallowed in my opinion. i don't know if there's anything he could have done. host: in albany, thank you for calling. the hill.com story, governors in

hot water over there coronavirus response. governors from both parties finding themselves in the hot seat over there response to the covid endemic. charlie baker, the governor of massachusetts, has become the latest state leader to face criticism, joining andrew cuomo and gavin newsom, as one of the high profile governors to see his reputation take a noticeable hit amid the public health crisis posing a potential challenge to his future political ambition. the recent turn of events presents a stark contrast to the early months of the pandemic when many governors gained positive media exposure for their response to covid-19. most governors with higher approval ratings than president trump at the beginning of the crisis. people were looking for outward, visible displays of strong leadership from a governor during a crisis. a professor at the university of central florida says this is how we explain cuomo's high ratings

when everything was objectively quite horrible. here is kamala harris, the vice president of the united states talking to savannah guthrie of nbc talking about a new cdc study on a plan to open schools. [no audio] not ready yet, we will get to that in just a moment. here is the washington post, with 500,000 covid-19 debts -- "what 500,000 covid-19 deaths means. this number is full of meanings, unpacking them all and learning from them will take some time. the number contains oceans of grief, this 500,000 number. for the loved ones of the dead ignoring or denying the number is not an option. the number is not some huge and

faceless mass, it is the accumulation of 500,000 specific individuals, each with a ashy each with a name, a way of laughing, a favorite song, and a life story. many of them were elderly, but the elderly were grieved. many were infirm, but those in pain can be missed. funerals could not be held, wakes could not be convened, hugs could not be shared. an average of 1300 70 per day and 600 per hour, one every minute, every minute of a miserable year." in the washington post this morning. there is that clip with vice president harris talking about plans to reopen schools. savannah: let's talk about schools. we have a lot of parents watching, maybe with their kids, because they are not going to school. the cdc put out long-awaited guidance on how schools can reopen.

they tied it to the rate of infection in any given community. i'm going to put a map up. if schools were to follow that, 90% of the counties, 90% of the schools would not be able to open under the cdc's own metric. was it a mistake for the cdc to connect school reopening to how much infection there is in a community? v.p. harris: in the last four weeks, schools are opening every week, more schools are opening. and because we are supplementing what is happening around the vaccinations given to states, but also because we are seeing progress when folks are wearing masks, getting vaccinated, and social distancing, we are seeing progress. host: another short time out and get to our last guest segment of this sunday's edition of the washington journal. we will be joined by rana hogarth of the university of

illinois for a discussion on racial inequality in the area of public health and we will take more of your calls. be right back. ♪ announcer: monday night on the communicators, a discussion on cord cutting in the pandemic with a senior research analyst. >> cord cutting has not changed much then we first thought a year ago pre-pandemic. that continues at the constant rate. the adoption of broadband and the need for more speed is really benefiting the cable industry broadly. that has been a thesis for the wild, -- for a while, but the pandemic has clarified that idea , even with this cord cutting the shift to streaming has benefited the economics of the cable industry.

announcer: watch the communicators monday night on c-span two. >> live coverage tuesdays on c-span. on c-span the hat coverage for health and human services secretary nominee. on c-span two the senate confirmation vote on tom vilsack, energy secretary -- agriculture secretary nominee -- on c-span three at 10:00 a.m., jerome powell, chair of the federal reserve with the semiannual monetary policy report to congress. on c-span.org at 9:30, the nominee hearing for debra haaland, interior secretary nominee. at 10:00 a.m. adjoint oversight hearing to examine the security failures that led to the u.s. capitol breach. watch tuesday live on c-span, c-span two, c-span3, and c-span.org or listen on the

c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: joining us is rana hogarth , a history professor at the university of illinois that has studied public health. prof. hogarth: thank you for having me. host: i wanted to start with this washington post headline and story because it connects the past with the present. it says "decades later the infamous tuskegee syphilis study stirs wariness in the black community over the covid-19 vaccine." for those of us who may not know or remember the details, what was the tuskegee syphilis study? prof. hogarth: the tuskegee syphilis study is one of the best known cases of breaches ethical medical misconduct. the study carried on for about 40 years and was actually

sponsored by the united states public health service in which they followed something like 400 african-american men in macon county, alabama withholding treatment for their syphilis from them. the study was based entirely on deception, they withheld penicillin when that was understood to be the proper treatment for syphilis. i would also add, and this is quite critical pertaining to this discussion, the premise of the study was based on a faulty and dangerous concept that the disease of syphilis would be different in black people than in white people. the idea being that there was some sort of innate biological difference between the races. host: what is the legacy of that study years later? after that was discovered and made known? prof. hogarth: i think what you find is i would say understandable hesitancy and a little bit of skepticism with respect to the american medical profession and public health service.

this study was carried on in plain sight, it was not hidden. there were articles published about the withholding of treatment for a group of entirely african-american men. and it brought to light some of the worst fears that the united states government would actually allow such a thing to be traded -- perpetrated on a racial minority in the way it did. it lasted for 40 years which is a long time for an egregiously unethical study. host: a photo of a gentleman who , whose uncle was a victim of the tuskegee syphilis study. this is in the l.a. times. the headline says that the history, the legacy of that study stirs wariness in the black community over the covid-19 vaccine of the present day. what would you have to say about the covid-19 vaccine and how the african-american community is receiving that and how it moves

forward based on the history echo -- history? prof. hogarth: while teske has a strong residence in the national memory i would like to emphasize that the idea of innate racial difference and exploitative treatment of african-americans is something we have a long history of in this country. the idea of vaccine hesitancy amongst african-american and black community is something i understand. i think the issue now going forward is to acknowledge the skepticism, acknowledge past grievances, acknowledge that there is a serious problem with racism in medicine and public health, then try to build bridges, then try to build trust. i see it more along the lines of having the medical profession public health officials work on building up their trust rather than assuming that african-american should just

take -- take their word for it and trust them. host: we will put phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest at the university of illinois, history professor. talking about the history of racism in public health. our guest has written extensively on this including on a book we will talk about in a little bit, called "medicaliziung -- "medicalizing blackness." prof. hogarth: in writing this book i wanted to understand how and when this notion of racial difference what i did through a lot of archival research, reading letters, medical treatises, newspapers, tracking down ideas that physicians held

about black people's bodies. for example, one of the ideas i wanted to disrupt was this notion, these terrible beliefs about black people being innately different or inferior only emerged -- there were plenty of physicians who may have been opposed to slavery who were abolitionists that still trafficked in the idea that black people were innately different from whites. i tracked this from the late 18th century and followed it through the emergence of so-called black pathologies and slave diseases. i investigated histories of exploitative treatment of african-americans that was tied to the development of medical education. host: back to the tuskegee study, interview notes from a study subject from november of 1972. you can read these at archives.gov. "each year they took blood, sat down and talked, gave them some

medicine." no one said anything to him about his health, they didn't say why they wanted him to be in the program. he just went along. we see more of these interview notes from the studies. what are your reflections on those notes? prof. hogarth: what this tells me is sort of the extreme i guess dominance and power the u.s. public health service had over many of these men who were participating in the study. the idea that you would have a government doctor come down and tell you that you are getting medicine and tell you to follow the protocol, to enlist the services of an african-american nurse to assist in the follow-up , and shows me that these men had faith in what people were telling them, even if they weren't maybe not feeling better, they supposed they must be doing something. you can see the authority of

health care professionals as taking over and allow that to steer the -- perhaps that maybe something is working even if they were not receiving any treatment whatsoever. >> who alerted the public to the tuskegee study. how is it stopped? -- has it stopped? prof. hogarth: there is evidence that a loans -- a loan physician did send a letter, this was in 1964 suggesting that this does not seem right and it seems immoral. what we do think of in terms of the final public exposure, he had worked for the public health service, no longer worked there. the issue was that he had heard about some of the studies going cash coming about of -- coming out of tuskegee being studied and said "i hope you are treating these men, you say it

is untreated syphilis. you are looking at a population of entirely african-american men , just reporting the optics of this. he was getting pushed back and told it was fine and not to worry about it. i believe this was in 68 when he first started noticing there was something horribly wrong with the data that is being published. host: let's hear from chris in louisville, kentucky. you are on the air with dr. rana hogarth. caller: good morning, dr. hogarth. i live in kentucky but my family traces to alabama and my father was born in tuskegee. i have a history with this. to bring it up to today, i won't take it for the reason were talking about. after seeing president biden friday when he gave his press conference a mime kind of leaning towards it.

i'm a veteran, i'm kind of leaning towards it, but what is keeping me not wanting to get it is because the former guy, before president biden, anything he had his hands on i'm skeptical about. my last question is, my real reason for skepticism is that they don't tell you how long it will last. they don't give you enough information, i know where the mask and all the protocols, but they don't give you any more information about how long it will last and who you can be around and how you should move around your community and that kind of thing. i think they need to do more education on vaccine coverage and how long. host: let's hear from our guest. prof. hogarth: i do appreciate this comment in question. when we are faced with something as novel as covid-19 situation, information is rapidly changing.

i feel the frustration of what information do we have now and how we can move forward. i think that is an issue of effective public health communication of knowns and unknowns. i think there is a point particularly when you deal with the african-american community if you have already had to put up with a purposeful denying of information. that compels the situation. host: you are quoted in the usa today piece. the headline says "america has a history of medically abusing black people, no wonder many are wary of covid-19 vaccines." take us more into the history. you say this started before tuskegee. prof. hogarth: here's what i can do. i can outline what i have found my own research. for example if we go back to the late 18th century there were

ideas that black people were innately immune to yellow fever or did not suffer as badly from the disease, and this is in comparison to whites. this idea gained quite a bit of currency and was circulated by a prominent american physician. it turns out during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic when americans -- doing this out of the belief they were going to be immune to the yellow fever. it turns out that's not the case. african-american people did contract yellow fever and we do see that while some physicians might have backtracked and said they are not entirely immune, they don't suffer as badly as whites. we see this from the same source, the same position who notes that black people might be slightly more -- this is from the late 18th century. for me to see this within medical writings from the 18th century and then perhaps read

the 2016 study on racial bias and pain assessment where you have a survey of residents thinking that black people have thicker skin or their blood coagulates more quickly. i am seeing a continuity in these very damaging and incorrect ideas about innate racial difference. that is one example from the 18th century. i can think of many others in terms of medical information in the south where you have black people's bodies used for anatomical demonstration for teaching, being targeted by some medical colleges in the 19th century. host: let's hear from brad in international falls, is that minnesota? caller: that's correct. i am listening to her. i love this young little gal thinking its business but she likes to read what she writes to read and write what she

likes to write. we are trying to put crutches under black people and that's wrong and i don't think they should be called african-american. was only one race, it's the human race. slavery is alive and well but i don't hear anyone talk about africa, blacks are the leading slave traders today. i think this is all just for misinformation and propaganda. i don't know what to think anymore. host: let's hear from our guest and seo she wants to respond. dr. rana hogarth, history professor at the university of illinois. prof. hogarth: as a person that did actually trained professionally as a historian, it is my job to look at data or evidence that actually does exist. when i go to archives i am reading the words written by white physicians from the 18th and 19th century. in a nutshell, i don't get to

make things up as it were. to the point of the human race and there being one race, that would be a wonderful way to look at the world were it not for the fact that we still use racial categories when we collect data. in addition we still also have racial correction when we think about medical technologies. for example if you were to measure lung capacity with a barometer there is rick's correction built into that. if you were to measure kidney function there is a connection for adding more points to the kidney function if you are identified as black. it would be delightful to say we are all one race, it seems we have too many obstacles that are built into the medical profession to do so. host: darnell from kansas you are on the air. caller: can you hear me? ok. i want to make a comment. the tuskegee studies, that's

well known, and you did allude to it, dr. hogarth,, that there has been a lot of discriminatory malpractice in the form of experimentation that has been done to african-american and other people of color throughout the history of this country. the tuskegee experiment was probably pretty mild compared to some of the stuff you are familiar with, medical apartheid and the history of medical examination on black americans from colonial times. that is very, is eye-opening and it will make you sick to know what happens to people. some of the history of this country, but were not even considered to be full human beings. getting back to the covid and

the vaccine issue and why some folks are so reticent about taking it. we had the highest public health officials in this country not tell the truth. they stood up like cowards on the world stage when we had a maniac who has no medical experience coming up with all kinds of garbage. and to make matters worst, who do they have upfront, a black doctor and a black nurse, and anyone who has lived in this country who knows the history of this country knows that is not how things work. that was a suspect in and of itself. thank -- host: thank you for calling, let's hear from my guest. prof. hogarth: there is a very clear growing body of work that

shows us that there have been past abuses of african-americans and other communities of color. i would say this is not helped by the fact that we have a lot of miscommunication in the early days -- dashing on simply showing that black person getting the vaccine -- i can see why that might be a favorite way of building trust but you have to remember -- i think what we need to think about is recalibrating the messaging, thinking about the optics and displays that we have when we were trying to be -- host: alicia from chicago, you are on the air. caller: first i wanted to address the individuals receiving the vaccine such as

president biden and others. that is -- to impress us is not enough. how do we know we are getting the same vaccine or ingredients if you will that they are getting? second, they still have not done enough research, enough studies that it's safe later down the line. i have not taken the vaccination . third i'm not sure if this is factual or not but i did see some research that stated that they used it or they used the vaccine on some animals and all of the animals died. i'm not sure if that's factual but i did do some research on that. host: thank you. thoughts on that collar? prof. hogarth: what i would say is, in terms of information i

would say to everyone, please try to verify the sources. we are living in an age where we are so able to assess and ferment -- access information on the web and it can appear to be factual or true and it can also possibly be completely made up area i would urge -- the think about the sources you are getting information from and think more broadly about what misinformation means and pair that with the kind of conundrum we are faced in the middle of this pandemic. host: rana hogarth is a history professor at the university of illinois. thank you for your time and insight. much appreciated. another short timeout then we get back to a question we ask you in the first hour of the program. does the u.s. need a third major political party? yes, (202) 748-8000 if you think

the u.s. needs a third major political party. if you are against that, (202) 748-8001. ♪ ♪ >> american history tv on c-span three, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. today at 4:00 p.m. eastern on "real america" we feature newsreels on the california governor's campaign produced by mgm studios in an effort to defeat upton sinclair. a discussion with brigadier general charles mcgee looking back on his military career, particularly his time with the tuskegee airmen and time served with the air force flying more than 400 combat missions across three wars. at 8:00 p.m. on "the presidency." a reenactment between benjamin

franklin and thomas jefferson discussing their roles in shaping revolutionary war era america and the constitutional government it produced. exploring the american story. watch american history tv on c-span three. >> here's our live coverage tuesday on c-span. at 10:00 a.m. eastern the senate confirmation hearing for the health and human services secretary nominee. on c-span two, the confirmation vote on tom vilsack, agriculture secretary nominee, and debate on linda thomas-greenfield nomination as united nations ambassador. on c-span three at 10:00 a.m., jerome powell with a semiannual monetary policy report to congress. on c-span.org at 9:30, the confirmation hearing from debra haaland, interior secretary nominee. a joint oversight hearing to examine the security failures

which led to the u.s. capitol breach on january 6. watch live coverage tuesday on c-span. c-span two, c-span3, and c-span.org. or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: in this final stretch, does the u.s. need a third political party? we will keep phone lines on the screen for you to call in. i want to hear your thoughts. the gallup poll on this says

support for a third political party is at a high point. they write that american costs desire for a third party has gone up since last fall. 62% of u.s. adults say the parties do such a poor job representing the american people that a third-party is needed, an increase from 57% in december. support has been elevated in recent years. they go on to say that 33% of americans believe the two major parties are doing a good job representing the public, the smallest percentage expressing this view apart from the 26% reading in october of 23rd teen. they pointed out this resulted from april late january, january 21 and february 2 conducted in recent news reports that dozens of government officials in

former prior government situations or in discussions to form an anti-donald trump third political party, from news at gallup.com. your thoughts on all of this. birmingham, alabama. you are calling on our line for yes, a third-party is needed. tell us why. caller: because i think that the democrats and republicans have become to be like a joke. host: how come? what are they doing or not doing? caller: i think that the republicans always outsmart the democrats. host: what issues, what areas? caller: in every way. i think the way that how he had them wait to convict trump, i think it was a set up from the beginning. they already knew what they were doing and that's what they were going to use as an excuse when

he was out of office. host: thank you for calling. carly from bryn mawr, pennsylvania. you are on the yes line. caller: i fully believe that we need a third political party, major political party. the main reason is because if you look at the funding that democrats receive and republicans receive, it's often the same, and the minor difference really comes down to some fossil fuel funding. when i say some i mean some. bob casey, also takes funding from fossil fuel industries. pennsylvania is a fracking estate. everyone knows fracking is bad for the environment. the democratic party is supposed to be for helping the environment, not all of them are very good and moreover, a huge issue right now is health care

and everyone knows that. especially given the pandemic. we need to actually deal with that and only a third-party can do that with medicare for all and most of the democrats in the senate and the house -- chuck schumer does not support medicare for all. my own congresswoman does not support medicare for all. host: thanks for your point this morning. brad in kentucky, you have a different opinion. you are calling for the line that says no third-party needed. tell us more. caller: i don't think we need another third-party as much as we need to do away with the party system. i think it's the bureaucracy around having a specific party

establishment -- i would rather not have a third-party but have no party system. washington said we shouldn't have party system. an example if you think about it , the left is kind of climate change, and the right with the pro-life issue. both have been pretty much central to the platforms of each since the 70's. they are emotional, moral issues and people support them because they care about the children and the future and they want things to be better for them. each party has had a presidency and a house in the senate aligning all at the same time multiple times over the years.

no ground has been made on either issue in any direction. we will be green the same time we are pro-life country. the party system hurts us. and hold to the wishes of the american people back. host: thank you for calling from kentucky. leonard from south carolina on the no line. caller: hi. just like the guy before me, i the planning -- i think we should just have one party, don't even call it a party, just call it legislation. if you have three, we have two now, just like people were saying, people have their own feelings and opinions and the government should not be based on feelings and opinions, because i go back to civil rights and slavery issues.

that was also a party decision. it was based like that. host: thank you for calling. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. more than a third party, but a fourth and fifth party as well. we need a party of moderates and centrists that could be a -- an adult in the room while the ideological person can have -- editor at large wrote about this topic, there's a reason we have had the same two parties for the last 150 years or so, building a party from scratch is incredibly challenging and massively expensive. while the two major parties have systems to ensure candidates appear on the ballot, nonmajor parties have to scratch and claw to stay on the ballot year after year. writing the logistical heavy lifting managed by the party apparatus is extremely hard to re-create. people like the idea of third

parties, the reality of forming a viable third-party is tougher to do. cnn editor at large, you can read that at cnn.com. don is calling from outside of st. louis. caller: my opinion, even though we should not have it because there is only really one and that is either right which is a republican, or left is democrats. i was raised by my father to be democrat, but i found out a hard way that the left are for -- the way this country has been going since the bible it's more right going for the -- what the right should be going for is god.

in a few minutes god is going to come back and take who ever he wants and everybody on the earth is going to be judged for the good and the bad. when it comes to the bad you want help, when it comes to good you could be going to hell. god said if you accept christ he will be going to heaven. whoever did not accept it is going straight there. i believe i am going to hell also for my bad. whenever he does -- whatever decisions he makes where will he be. there is no escape and nobody wants to escape from heaven. you are there, -- host: thank you for calling. barbara calling from south florida, west palm beach. you are on the no line. caller: the huge issue is term limits. until they get term limits in place nothing is going to

improve. people are into long and have too much power. they don't care about people, they only care about themselves and keeping their jobs and making money, not about the people. term limits is the only thing that is going to straighten this mess out. i think congress has to vote for that and i don't see that happening. a group of people have to get together, term limits is the solution and another party is not the solution. host: thanks for calling. this viewer sends a text, it's russ from texas "the national governors association should debate state law regulating term limits. this will put the ball back to the states. no third-party needed. gary from newark, delaware says the political arteries let the supreme court decide.

and writes on twitter, parties should have one purpose, to nominate candidates to run for public office. on selections are completed parties -- representatives and senators should vote for what they need and the wishes of their constituents. we will do this for five or six more minutes then we will wrap up the show. eagle river, wisconsin on the yes line. caller: good morning. host: why do you think i third-party is needed? caller: if you look at it over the last 13 years our government has spent $22 trillion and america has gotten almost nothing. we saw the election fraud, and all of them blocked any evidence being presented. i think it's a true shame and i think the government is against the people, they want their world, globalist if you and they

are bound to get it. i think it's wrong and that a third party will set us free from the corruption of our government. host: what would it take for a third-party to get started and grow to a point where it can challenge the other two? caller: if it was a true america first party that party has already been started in texas, the paperwork has been filed. i think a lot of senators and governors and congressmen will jump on that party if it is presented. i think they will treat parties like they do from democrat to republican now. host: a couple of colors mentioning donald trump. we learned yesterday, late yesterday, that he will speak at the conservative political action conference. this event will be in orlando. his first post white house appearance. that's the storyline there. this will happen next sunday,

week from today. we will have it live on c-span. look for some promotions on the air and on our website. friday and saturday with former president trump a week from today next sunday. we have choice from florence, south carolina, no third political party. caller: because i think i agree with the lady earlier. i believe we have two parties, that means they should be able to work together, but apparently they cannot because of the speaker of the house. i don't believe she had a conversation with donald trump during the whole four years except the one time she was yelling and pointing her finger at him. i believe this is a term limit

on those people, pelosi is 80 years old? i feel like if they got a younger group of people in their that have good common sense that it would help the country and our new president biden -- when he signed those orders on the first day in office. . the far noted in front of him and he signed him. my family -- if my family depended on that pipeline for pay to feed their family then we woke up of him being in office and did not have a job, that would be a very scary situation.

host: thank you for calling. john from new york. wise a third-party needed? caller: i'm calling to say we do need another party. i think we already have three parties. we have the republican, the democrat, and the independent. i do think we need a new form of government. i think we can do things with the constitution to bring things back into this country. i still think we need a new form of government. host: thanks for calling. merrick garland, his nomination for attorney general comes before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow, live coverage at 9:30 in the morning eastern time after this show. he will have a confirmation hearing to become hhs secretary at 10:00 a.m. right after the show. look for a big debate on the

floor of the house later this week on the $1.9 trillion covid relief land that was just unveiled over the weekend. brian calling from san diego. caller: how are you? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: i think we need a pro-democracy party like the democratic party, the gop is an anti-democracy party, i believe that because when donald trump tried to overthrow, he had that attack on the u.s. government capital. that's not what democracy is about. it is about the peaceful transfer of power. and since a lot of republicans are denying the facts, they know that biden got elected and that trump lost and all this stuff, but that's a major problem to have a party that's against democracy. i think we do need a third party

maybe two or three more parties. they had to all be a pro-democracy party. host: thanks, brian. on to tom in san jose. caller: hello, this is tom. i believe in separation of state and church. i think the republican party has convoluted this whole idea. they are getting involved in everybody's personal lives. i get that democrats are a good party, they the common guy, i think the republican party has started to repress the vote, i think they would vote for satan himself if they supported abortion. we are against abortion and against gay rights. i don't see that is any of their business. host: we are going to hear from paul, he is the last caller with the last word from birmingham in the u.k.. caller: hello there.

just for -- [indiscernible] my mother is from ohio and my father is from cardiff and wales. i have lived and worked in the united states and paid my taxes, in case people think i am interfering from overseas. i think if you are going to have a third political party in the united states, it needs to be quite different from the other political parties. you cannot have republican lite or democrat lite. the one thing i think needs to happen, because i was brought over on the side of the pond, god needs to be removed from politics. religion should be up to the individual, it should not be down to the party. and i think that there is too much of that going around and i

think that is what has caused a lot of distress in the united states. host: thank you for calling from the u.k. thank you to everyone who called. thank you for your time on the sunday morning. we will be back at 7:00 tomorrow with another edition of "washington journal." until then, enjoy the rest of your sunday. ♪ announcer: two night on q&a, we talk about the sword and the shield: the revolutionary lives of malcolm and king. >> king starts talking about using nonviolence as early as

1965 after the los angeles rebellion to paralyze cities and leverage nonviolent disobedience to transform american democracy. malcolm x called for the same thing on the march of washington which malcolm criticized. because he wanted a display of civil disobedience to end the racial status quo. announcer: that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on q and a. announcer: tonight at 9:00 eastern on afterwards, the american enterprise institute with the book "after the people vote." interviewed by author and former editor-in-chief of the texas review of law and politics. >> for the most part, congress should be counting the