trillions of dollars, is the wrong action to take in the economy we have today that you could propel inflation even greater, make people's money worth less, the affordability is more difficult. those are the things i want to discuss and correct. all right, last question. >> are you concerned about your future in leadership given you protected cheney for so long and then -- [ inaudible ] >> not at all. i am looking forward to being speaker in the next congress. thank you very much. >> is there room in the republican party for voters who do not support trump? >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store with a collection of c-span products, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden

administration cabinet, browse our newest products at c-spanshop.org. washington journal continues. host: joining us now is henry olsen, author of a book called " working-class republican." thank you for joining us. i wanted to get to the liz cheney story. she is now out as house republican chair. what is this -- what does this move signal to you about the state of the gop? guest: it signals to me that the gop wants to unify around a conservative movement and a populist movement and liz cheney does not fit in either. she was not able to stand message with respect to communicating the values of the people she sought to lead. the conference wanted someone who could do that.

host: this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> we must go forward based on truth. we cannot both embrace the big lie and the constitution. going forward, the nation needs a strong republican party. the nation needs a party that is based upon fundamental prin ples of conservatism. i am committed and dedicated to ensuring that that is how this party goes forward and i plan to lead the fight to do that. -- i will do everything i can to ensure that they former president never again gets anywhere near the oval office. we have seen the danger he continues to provoke with his language. we have seen his lack of

commitment and dedication to the constitution. and i think it is important that we make sure no matter who we elect they are faithful to the constitution. host: " it is about the truth," says liz cheney. there is a piece here -- to her point about the truth, what is your take about what she had to say to reporters? guest: it is important for the republican party to explain my trump's theory is -- why trump's theory is wrong. i have called for cheney in my articles to take to the house floor to explain why. trump lost. it is something that is important for her to do and now that she is no longer in

leadership she can do it. once she not only starts denying his argument but starts presenting the case for the truth, they will start to believe her and dislike him. host: put phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for henry olsen. we will take calls from democrats at (202) 748-8000. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . what kind of future as -- one more question about liz cheney, what kind of it future does she have in the party? guest: she has to decide if you wants to be in -- she wants to

be in communion with the republican party. she calls that memo neo-marxist when it simply calls for a tough line on china and appeals to the working class and a tough line on illegal immigration shows she is out of touch with the majority values of the republican party. she can have an important part in the voice of the minority, but not the majority. host: what do you think of the leases to phonic -- police to phonic -- elise stefannik? caller: -- guest: stefanik is a millennial. if she can bring that sensibility to the republican

leadership they will hear things they did-not hear- -- host: before we go to calls, here is what mad vest but had to say -- matt vespa had to say -- " her incessant need to prove -- " she doesn't need to speak up about everything. if she kept her mouth shut and stopped antagonizing the base may be this would not have happened. " that is from matt vespa. guest:party is going to be a conservative party with strong populist elements. it is going to reach out to people who call themselves moderate, people who have not had an orthodox bent before.

i don't think liz cheney understands that. not just with respect to her comments on trump, her attitude toward the drift of the party. a new center-right movement that has populist elements is one that can easily become the majority. host: trent is calling from louisiana. good morning. caller: we are quick, i have to apologize for using a bad word last time i was on. i'm sorry. i got a little upset. host: thank you. caller: thank you. i am the patriarch of a large family. lots of grandchildren. half of them are military, half of them are educators. i feel like i have a micro civil war going on in my family. we have to touch each other very gently these days. the long game of the trump

movement, i'm trying to tie in with that letter the french retired generals wrote to macron, that they might get involved to stop a civil war in france. last week some of our retired generals sent out a letter saying that they see america careening toward socialist marxism. last year i bought two books. one was by buckley, "american secession," and david french's "divided we fall." you can see where there is a lot going on. thank you. i appreciate esther olson's insights. host: mr. olson? guest: americans are increasingly divided from one another.

we have descended into partisan hatred. what that does is give reason to think that we can no longer live together as a country. i think it is up to our political leaders to create a new political identity around shared values. it requires courage to bring it about. that is something that leaders on both sides have been failing to do and has contributed to the bitterness, anger, and hatred. i am hopeful that in the next few years someone will emerge who will make this all look like a bad dream as we go forward into a new american unity. host: we hear from shirley now. republican caller. hello to you. caller: good morning. i have heard that liz cheney thing already. i take that as a terroristic threat to the past president.

host: anything else? caller: no, that is all. guest: mr. olson, reaction? caller: i think that representative cheney is going to be saying what she is going to be saying. i don't see it as a threat to the current or former president. i think she has a political agenda. the political agenda is to make sure donald trump never comes close to sitting in the oval office again. that is a political threat, and nothing more. host: here is the headline in the washington post. in the gop, survival means allowing trump's election lie to live on. what you make of that? guest: i think there is a lot of hyperbole in the press that doesn't understand what is going on in the republican party. that is willfully blind about discussion in the republican party.

i would like to see republican leaders challenge trump's lie that it is one thing to be concerned about election integrity, it is another thing to support the lie that the president is spewing about a stolen election. i think where the republican party wants to be is in that spot. should show more courage about saying what they know to be true, which is that the president legitimately lost and that he needs to accept that. take us deeper into the dynamics of the party. what are we not finding out? what should we know from your perspective that we are not getting? guest: the republican party voter devotion to donald trump is nowhere near as deep as the media thinks it is. this poll from echelon insights shows republicans either don't follow trump would like to see a new leader who has trump

policies but is not trump himself. pulled from the wall street journal/nbc poll, for a long time they have asked republicans, do you see yourself as a supporter of trump or the republican party? before january 6 it was two to one in favor of donald trump. the more recent one had a majority saying they saw themselves as a supporter of the republican party. his influence will wayne and that is something the media is missing. host: that being said, he is bringing back rallies next month. here is one headline from vanity fair. it is the goal of these rallies? guest: first of all i want to point out that bernie sanders had wonderful rallies and lost two runs for the presidency. enthusiastic markets do not create a majority.

they do not demonstrate majority approval. what trump is trying to do is rebuild his brand and influence. i think what is going to happen is we are going to see a very strong minority, but we will see over time whether or not he can re-expand that into majority support. his challenges to people he doesn't like in the 2022 midterms is telling. he has to when all of those challenges, to governor kemp, to liz cheney, to others who to impeach him. if he loses half of those challenges he will be shown to be an emperor with no clothes. host: democratic caller. hey there. caller: i think the guest has been making some excellent points. i can say that i have been very sad to see the republican party dissolve into this sort of

religion of trump that lives in fantasies. i'm surprised they don't have an anti-evolution plank. i see liz cheney's ouster as the opening of a door of a possibility of reform and give people a place to go and gather and, you know, forms some sort of coalition. host: chris? i think chris is gone. what do you think? guest: there is two ways to look at that. one is that the people who agree with not just liz cheney's criticism with trump, but criticism with the drift of the party. they can either form a third party. that is kind of a futile hope. there is not enough support in the country to support that. or they can be a conference and caucus within the party.

old line bush-era 2004 conservatism is part of the republican coalition, but it is the minority part. it is the dialogue between the minority and majority that will determine the course of the party. if the cheney side thinks they ought to become the dominant element in the party that they were 20 years ago, it will find that challenge will be beaten back, and beaten back handily, because that is not where republicans are or want to go. host: on to arlington texas. -- arlington, texas. hello. caller: how are you doing this morning? the republican party is nothing more than a socially-acceptable fascist movement. it is comprised of white people, most of which came after the civil war. they have nothing invested in democracy. they only participate in democracy as an oppression

against blacks. they have no platform other than inciting people to vote for them on culture wars. they have no value system. you can see that based upon the rule they set during the obama administration saying they would not support a supreme court justice nominee up into the election year. they violated their own made up rule and dominated amy barrett. she is now a supreme court justice. we are still waiting for the trickle down economics from the reagan administration. the republican party is a disaster. it has no basis in our democracy. they don't even believe in democracy. donald trump has all of the tenets of an autocrat. he has memberships -- not friendships, -- not memberships, friendships with vladimir putin.

he has the cadence and vocabulary of a third-grader, and somehow we is considered a genius among republicans. host: the left a lot out there. a comprehensive critique of the party, the former president. what is your reaction? guest: i think that is a common critique among progressive and democratic circles. malik expressed it whether -- it rather well. i don't believe the republican party is anti-democratic. i think it is clear that is not the case. i think if you were to going to a republican gathering you would find incredulity that somebody could actually believe that the republican party is anti-democratic. host: what do you make of the top republican congressional leaders and their work right now? mitch mcconnell, kevin mccarthy? guest: they have different objectives and styles.

mccarthy is somebody who likes to bring people together and lead conference in opposition. he has never been in the leader in the majority. and was in california he was the minority leader. he excels at fundraising and bringing together people in the opposition. i expect that as a role he will shine in. mitch mcconnell is the supreme legislative tactician. i like to say that if this were a chess game, would always choose black, because he likes the other side to go first, then exploit their weakness. he is stymieing democratic fruits -- democratic efforts because he is a tactician. he will be interesting to see how the voters respond to these tactics and whether or not they are willing to give the republicans the majority in

2022. history suggests that they will. david shore, the democratic data analyst, shows that people in power tend to lose five points from their first quarter polling, which would suggest the would get 48% in the midterms. i think both leaders know that and know that if they can stymie the democrats for the next 18 months they are likely to be in charge of congress in january 2023. host: greg is calling from springfield, missouri. good morning. caller: something your guest said changed my question a little bit. i was going to ask about the -- whether or not the democrat's refusal would embolden the radical wing, but he repeated the republican talking point about election integrity. we just had the cleanest, most

fair election in our history. this is unanimous. 50 secretaries of state, the federal department of justice, and over 60 courts have said so. yet republicans have introduced hundreds of laws designed to limit the vote, to make it more difficult to vote, and i don't understand -- well, i think i have made my point. they can talk about election integrity all they want. he can talk about how committed the republican party is to "democratic values." they are not, and everybody sees that. i am aghast that they continue to repeat the lie that they need to have all of this voter suppression. i am just flabbergasted. host: let's get a response. guest: i would be happy to -- in this short time i can't possibly describe why voter suppression

isn't happening, why election integrity concerns are real. i will say that we did have a fair election. donald trump lost. there was not a steel. i have written that and i still believe that the republican party needs to say that. having said that, there is nothing wrong with requiring photo id to vote. polls show that democrats and independents agree. there is nothing wrong with requiring serious signature verification measures if you are going to vote by mail. in the australia you can vote by mail, you have to give a personal identifying question that is like, what was your third grade teacher? republicans are not doing anything as restrictive as that. what we are trying to do is ensure people that are real vote and fraudsters don't have an incentive to create ballots for

nonincentive -- for nonexistent people. it could happen in the future and republicans are trying to make sure that our elections are secure so that the will of the people is expressed and that it is a genuine expression of the people. i think voter suppression lie is every bit as deleterious to american democracy as the voter fraud live. they are both lies and things that ought to be rejected by the partisans on both sides. host: on to miami, florida. good morning, diane. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, please. caller: i would just like to make a statement comparing this administration and trump's administration. we had low gasoline prices. we had control of the border. we had low inflation, low unemployment.

and i never saw so many people, especially in the black community, going out and shopping and enjoying their lives. i am a pro-lifer, which is very important. what is interesting is that these riots for the black community, black lives matter, i wish that they would pickett planned parenthood, who is killing 40% of the black babies in america. they are not doing that, and planned parenthood are in the ghettos, or in the poor districts because they know that they have connections with the black community in destroying their generation. so, i believe these riots are

formed with kids living in the basements of their parents and the parents don't care about them, and the only way they get attention is when they are arrested, put in jail, and the parents have to come and bail them out. host: that was diane, mr. olsen. reaction there? guest: i think diane has expressed some widely held views in the republican community. with respect to the next couple of years, the binding administration has a lot riding on it. there are polls showing majority of americans disapprove of his handling of the border. he is have to get that under control if he wants to keep control of congress. inflation is over 4% and many people expect it will go higher. he is going to have to control that at the expense of some other things he wants to do.

if he wants to get in control of congress after the midterms. the same is true of employment. we have more job openings than ever that we still have millions of people who will not take those jobs, and i think biden is going to have to deal with the employment crisis. those are three things she mentioned the trump administration did well. if the binding administration cannot show they can have growth without inflation and control the border they are going to have many moderate voters decide that maybe that republican party is not so bad. host: republican line for henry olsen. hey there. caller: good morning. i am a compassionate conservative. you can call me a bush republican. host: so, rick, let me jump in. does that mean to you in 2021? caller: that is where i was going. i was almost forced kicking and

screaming to vote for trump because of the opponent, hillary clinton. in the last election i voted for biden, because he is more of a moderate. i really want our party back. however, if at the next election i am forced to choose between a radical left or a radical right, i will always go radical right. i believe our future is in the middle. i would love to see more moderate democrats like we have had in florida, like bob graham. more moderate republicans. i believe that is where common sense and the future is. i want our party back, if we are forced to choose between a trump or an oak osseo cortez or clinton, we will go with trump all of the time, unfortunately. host: mr. olsen?

guest: i think the caller very simply put out the challenge for both parties. democratic party assumes that people like the caller are generally moderate and dislike donald trump and voted for joe biden are going to stay in their coalition regardless of what the democratic party opposes. what that has meant is a massive shift to the left. i think that the caller is going to have a very difficult time in 2022, because he is going to have to look at a democratic party that is not as moderate as he had hoped it was going to be and i think he is going to vote republican. host: you have touched on your writing. go back to elise stefanik, who was put in place as republican conference chair. here is the headline to your opinion piece. elise stefanik could be what the gop needs. here is what she had to say after her election about the

goals for the party. [video clip] >> first i wanted to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to serve as the conference chair. i have prioritized listening to all members of our republican conference, and my focus is on unity, because that is what the american people deserve. i also want to think this leadership team. i look forward to working with them, shoulder to shoulder, to make sure we are fighting on behalf of hard-working americans. i also want to thank president trump his support. he is a critical part of our team. host: mr. olsen, a little bit more on elise stefanik? guest: i think that strikes the right note. the republican party is a coalition. there are people who are moderates, the last caller. there are people like liz cheney, who like 2004-style conservatism. there are religious conservatives.

they need to be heard. the problem with cheney's that she became somebody who was not listening, but was talking. what stefanik's statement says is that she wants to be a leader. i think that is what the leadership needs to be doing right now. host: we have sam in organ. democratic caller. caller: hi. i think an investigation needs to happen of what does trump have film of these republicans doing in his hotels? the way they are following him with bowls -- like bulls with hooks in their noses, he must have something on them. host: is that something you want to respond to? guest: not particularly. host: let's go on to bill.

public and. good morning. -- republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad you have a good guest on today. i am a republican, i support president trump. let's face it, he defeated hillary clinton. that makes him one of the best presidents during my lifetime. he also woke up what i would consider republican party that did not do anything for the majority of its constituency. it gave us choices like mitt romney and bob dole and people that i really cannot support. he -- i will tell you, what i want to ask mr. olsen is why he thinks donald trump lost?

in particular, if donald trump had been more populist and maybe not passed a giant tax code to the rich and dunmore infrastructure, would that have helped? and how is it that he spoke about the antiwar rhetoric, yet joe biden is the one bringing us out of that after all of these years? so these two points, populism and building the infrastructure of this country, and also moving out of this warmongering. i will tell you what i did. i told the republican party, as long as liz cheney is in leadership, i will not give you more than one penny and i would take one penny to every request for money that they sent me. host: mr. olsen, several points there. guest: i will try to briefly touch on three of them. i think trump would have been helped had he pushed his party

to adopt the infrastructure bill he wanted. the party did not want to engage in that level of spending, and i think they are regretting that now. you take a look at mitch mcconnell saying, we will accept an $800 billion infrastructure bill -- they could have passed that under trump and gotten the credit. once again, trying to resist what is necessary when it comes to government action to end up capitulating in the worst possible way. i think the tax bill was generally good, but trump should have pushed more populist elements of it and i would have wished he would have done something like a $10,000 exemption on the social security tax so that the working-class people have gotten a real tax cut. i think the real reason trump lost was he did not demonstrate a sufficient degree of president xi allergy -- presidentiality.

i think that is what the moderate members, like the previous caller, who are not hard left but are not hard right, they would have liked to have seen that. all he needed was an extra .5% of the vote and he would have won the electoral college. just the littlest show of compassion, putting safety first in covid, just a few less derogatory comments on twitter, showing up for the first debate and acting like a human being rather than somebody trying to stir up an rage machine. all of those things hurt him. i agree that populist economic policy would have helped. host: you mentioned infrastructure. what areas might there be to cooperate with democrats on this year that might yield a benefit?

guest: i think it would be in the republican interest to strike a deal over core infrastructure, even if the democrats try to put the rest of their measures through on reconciliation. it would allow them to say, here is what we are for, and here is what we are against. as opposed to locking it altogether. i hope they do pursue a bipartisan, hard project. roads, bridges, water mains, and so forth. it is unfortunate they could have had that and claimed credit for it on their own had to been willing to do with the president wanted. now they are forced to share credit with the democrats, but i would rather have them do that then say no. host: last call. marine. hello. caller: good morning. i was wondering, if you don't believe these election laws republicans are passing are not suppressing voters, then what do you think about project rednap

in preparation for the 2010 census? guest: i don't know about project red map. would you like to educate me? caller: very shocked he would not know about that. the republican strategist -- it has been. guest: i know that typically republicans will prepare for redistricting, just as the democrats prepare for districting, but i'm not familiar with a 2009 project called project roadmap. host: we are out at of time. in re olson, senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center. author of a book called "working-class republican." thank you for coming on and >> c-span's washington journal

every day -- we are taking your calls alive on the air on the news of the day and discussing policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, a preview of the week ahead at the white house with washington examiner reporter catherine doyle and national council on election integrity members explaining the councils call for a 9/11 style commission investigation into the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. then the discussion on covid-19 treatments with stat news senior writer ed silverman. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> last week, house republicans met behind closed doors and

voted to remove wyoming representative liz cheney as gop conference chair. she has announced president's claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent, calling it an attempt -- she gave a speech the evening before on the house floor. been privileged to see firsthand how powerful and how fragile freedom is. 28 years ago, i stood outside a polling place, a schoolhouse in western kenya. soldiers had chase aid way people who were lined up to vote. a few hours later, they came streaming back in risking further attack, undaunted in their determination to exercise their right to vote. in 1992, i sat across the table from a young mayor