progress discuss president biden's first overseas trip and u.s. foreign policy. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it's sunday june 13, 2021. a new poll spanning citizens in 16 nations found trouble signs for international confidence in u.s. leadership. across those surveyed countries the prevailing attitude is while democracy in the u.s. used to be a good exarm for the world it has not been in recent years. in the wake of those findings we're putting the question to you our viewers is the united states a model for democracy? if you say yes, if you say no, the numbers are on your screen. if you're not sure.

you can also send us a text message this morning. please include your name and where you're from. otherwise catch up with us on social media and twitter. a very good sunday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling in now. one of the headlines from that research poll that came out late last week. allies believe the u.s. no longer a good model of democracy. here's the poll itself and the question in particular on democracy the question asked showing the percentage of those who say democracy in the united states used to be a good example but has not been in recent years. 57% of those who responded across 16 nations, thousands of individuals surveyed sadse the united states used to be a good example. just 17% saying it is a good example for other countries to follow.

23% saying the u.s. has never been a good example for other countries to follow when it comes to democracy in the united states. we'll go through that poll more throughouts this first hour but we want to hear from you on this question as you're calling in in the first official overseas trip president biden puts the idea and the importance of american democracy front and center including in some of his first comments when he touched down in england ahead of the g-7 summit this was president biden from last week. >> i believe we're at an inflection pointed in world history the moment where it falls to us to prove that democracies will not just endure but they will excel as we rise to seize the enormous opportunities of a new age. we have to discredit those who believe that the age of democracy is over as some of our fellow nations believe.

we have to expose as false the narrative that the decrees of dictators can match the speed and scale of the 21st challenges. you know and i know they're wrong. but it doesn't mean we don't have to work harder than ever to prove that democracy can still deliver for our people, for the many who think things are changing so rapidly democracy cannot get together and form a consensus to respond like auto crats can. but you know better than anyone that democracy doesn't happen by accident. we have to defend it, we have to strengthen it, renew it, and i know that the american people are up to this job. host: ahead of the start of the summit it's been continuing through the weekend, continues today, tomorrow president biden will meet with leaders of nato and then on wednesday this coming week president biden to meet with russian president vladmir putin.

the story about yesterday's action in cornwall, england president biden yesterday in an effort to counter china trying to urge g-7 leaders to provide more foreign aid the story noting president biden urging those nations and japan to counter china's growing economic and security influence by offering developing hundreds of billions as an alternative to relying on beijing for new roads railways and ports. the story noting mr. biden has made challenging a rising china and disrupting russia, as a bullwork against spreading authoritarianism. beijing has pointed to poor u.s. response to the pandemic and devicive american politics particularly the january 6 riot as the capitol as signs that democracy is failing. that story on the front page of the sunday "new york times" asking you the question that

was asked in the research poll was asked to citizens of 16 countries around the world is the u.s. a good model for democracy? if you say yes, if you say no, if you're not sure. the numbers are on your screen. john out of new jersey. you say yes. good morning. caller: good morning. our democracy is stronger than ever as opposed to what the media might have you think in terms of deviciveness. we got caught up in the hate trump syndrome. i am a trump supporter but more not the personality but the policies. and we could debate that but the only problem is with democracy it is so inclusive which is a good thing but a

good thing sometimes is your weakness. as opposed to china and russia, which are very focused on whatever it is the goals they want to achieve. now, they're always playing off america, whether we've been the super power for 07 years i suppose -- 70 years i suppose and now they're reacting to us and how they can affect our democracy and cause division which they do. i'm sure everybody knows that. it's been propaganda influence has been going on since 45 if not since 1917. and they can exploit our weaknesses which they're doing very well. so the question is what do we do? what's right and what's wrong and how do we deal with china and russia who are very focused and don't care about democracy?

host: what would you want to hear president biden say when he meets with vladmir putin later this week? caller: it doesn't matter what he tells putin. putin's not going to listen to him. human rights and -- the things we value which are very good human rights and jailing of journalists stetra it doesn't matter to them. so it's an argument that we're going to make that i don't care. i'm going to do what i'm going to do. host: to new hampshire. mark good morning. caller: good morning. everything the previous caller said i agree with but i think the most important point that we're missing is the overall hypocracy of what's going on in our current administration and political weather. everything was said i don't need to say any more.

thank you very much. host: david florida good morning. caller: good morning. i just cannot believe that we elected biden and he's going to fail and we're going to get hair rigs as our president and we're supposedly a democracy? i mean, give me a break. it's just incredible. host: why do you say the u.s. is not a model for democracy in the world right now? caller: well look at biden. biden's an idiot. how can somebody say the united states is a model for democracy when we elect biden and harris? it's just incredible. host: out of new york city, bernard said yes the united states still is a model for democracy. why? caller: yes hello good morning

c-span. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. why do you say yes to the question we're asking this morning? caller: i say yes but i say barely yes. and whether we'll be able to hold on personally i think it might be too late because of the damage that has already been done in the last four months. you know people do not understand biden or this administration or what happened. biden is not running things and neither is kamala harris. and conservatives, misunderstand this administration when they say they're ineffective. they're not ineffective they're enormously effective of bringing -- our liberties have been attacked from our free speech we're not allowed to say certain things, certain words are deluded.

you can't go on facebook. conservatives are canceled all over the place. the harm that's being done in our schools with this racist theories that they're teaching, teaching five and six-year-olds about master bation in our schools, taking away the rights of parents. this country is very close to becoming the america that nobody my age could ever believe would happen. i don't know if we're going to be able to survive. it might be if they say well we're going to win it back in 1922 if they take away the filibuster they stack the supreme court and many, many other things that the left and that's who's in charge of this country now. host: one of the callers already bringing up former president trump last weekend in

north carolina talked about concerns in this country right now and his efforts for the future of the country. this is what he had to say. >> we have to clean up those roles we have to do so many things but we're not going to have a country if you don't have election integrity and if you don't have strong borders our country can be run like a dictatership and that's what they would like to do. i don't even think biden is a dictater. if anybody knows who the hell is running that operation can you let us know? because i don't think it is joe. but maybe it is. and with all of the things currently going on especially the pross -- prosecute torle misconduct that's going on like nobody's seen for many, many years that's all that's happening and that's what they're doing. they want to silence you, they want to silence your voice. remember i am not the one trying to undermine american drangsy. i am the one that's trying to save it -- democracy.

i'm the one that's trying to save it. please remember that. host: former president trump last weekend in north carolina. our question this morning for you is the united states a model for democracy? again, having this conversation in the wake of a research poll that asks this question of citizens of 16 countries around the world overwhelmingly those responding saying that the united states used to be a model for democracy but hasn't been in recent years. take a look at the various countries in that survey. their answers on this issue of democracy whether the united states is a good example or not the broken up by region. in europe, italy and greece and space having the most confidence in the united states with those in italy saying 32% of those almost a third of those saying the united states currently is a good example for other countries to follow, the countries surveyed the germany with some of the lowest

opinions just 14% saying the united states is a good exarm for other countries to follow. in the pacific taiwan saying 22% respond saying the united states is a good example for other countries to follow. new zealand just 8% of those saying the united states is a good country to follow. this question about the u.s. as a model of democracy in the world just one of the questions asked in that wide-ranging survey. mark in philadelphia says the stumplet is not a model. why? caller: oh boy listening to that clip from trump still lying, trump still lying all the way that should be his -- they should put that on his head stone. anyway, how about january 6? is that a model of democracy where trump incited his white

supremacist supporters to stop a peaceful transition of power? what else oh yeah the georgia elections so-called reform laws basically disallowing african americans the right to vote? we see it in florida, we see it in texas, we're seeing in arizona concerted efforts by the republican party, the party of white premsy to disallow african americans and hispanic americans from voting. how about the recounts, the challenges after the election last year? and in my county a majority black where else, oh yeah wayne county, michigan, which is mostly african american, detroit, also in dane county, wisconsin which is the black part of milwaukee. i mean who's kidding who? we lectured the chinese on how they treat their minorities the

weegers and the tibetans and look how we treat our minorities here? rule of law? trump's running around like the king of the united states after he incited that insurrection in january 6. is anybody investigated the man criminally for his abblingses? host: mark in philadelphia. this is ruby out of texas says yes the united states is still a model of democracy in the world. why do you say that? caller: because this is god's country and the man that you just had on he as disgrace to god and god's country. we gave these people a chance for freedom and for our lives and you're a bunch of evil sons of -- host: all right we'll go to brenda in new jersey. you're next. caller: good morning. i'm just so disappointed in joe biden, our president, and

kamala harris. the things that they're doing ain't making america better. if things can change maybe we can get back to where we were. i'm just so disappointed. i've always been a democrat always voted, i voted for the president and now with things going on the thing that is they're doing is just so so disappointing. and that's all i have to say. host: this research pole and this conversation about the united states leadership in the world as a model of democracy, the subject of plenty of columns in recent weeks. here's one from matt lewis from the daily beast. matt will be appearing on this program on tuesday.

he's going to be talking more about that column and some other issues concerning partisanship in this country when he joins us on tuesday morning if you want to join us this week for that segment. for now the question is is the u.s. a model for democracy in the world? our lines are yes, no, and not sure. michael's not sure out of connecticut. why do you say you're not sure is host: good morning. after the last four years who is to say where this country is really heading to? but i think we're on the right track because strumple not in there any more and we've got to be going in a better direction than anywhere that he was going to lead us because he was just taking us into russia. and that clip le didn't want to be a dictater? that's exactly what he was trying to do to be a dictater and that wasn't going to take us to any more democracy.

but i think we're on the right track. it can only get better because it could only have gotten worse with trump. host: i wonder what you think and i know you can't see the chart this is from that same pugh research poll we'll throw it on the screen for you. western europe's confidence in the united states by president. you can see the levels of confidence, low during the george w. bush administration rebounding quite significantly during the obama administration, dropping again to all-time lows during the trump administration, and then the rebound again here at the beginning of the biden administration. what do you read from that chart? caller: well it looks to me like when the republicans get in they tend to lie and get caught at it. and hey maybe the democrats are lying but not getting caught or they're just sending a message out a lot better. and trump is -- can you come up

with a fact that was true that he came and said? i mean, biden he's -- he's got a lot more cutesdz than trump, a lot. and all they've got are lies and projecting that the son is no good. meanwhile, trump's daughter got 26 patents while she was in office from china. really? what's going on? i think we're on the right track though. host: michael in connecticut. the g-7 summit continuing through this weekend. today ts last day of that summit but plenty of action yesterday. just one of the themes one of the interactions president biden and french president sitting down together taking questions from reporters. here's a blit of what they had to say. >> we're just having -- we've had a good couple days so far. i've had a chance to spend some time with president macron get to know him and we have some

things we've got to talk antia little bit later but i thinks are going i think well and we're as we say back in the states we're on the same page. so thank you. >> thank you. thank you mr. president. we had i won't thank you for yesterday and the working stations we had indeed. we have to deal with this pandemic and the covid-19. we have to face a lot of changes a lot of crisis, climate change, and for all these issues what we need is cooperation and i think it's great to have u.s. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate. and i think that what you demonstrate is that leadership is partnership. and we do appreciate and i think we can do a lot. >> i think we can do a lot,

too. the united states a as i said before we're back the u.s. is back we feel very, very strongly about the cohesion of nato and i for one think that the european union is an incredibly strong and vibrant entity that has a lot to do with the ability of western europe to not only handle its economic issues but provide the backbone and the support for nato. and so i -- we're very supportive. very supportive. host: president biden with french president macron yesterday. we're going to be hearing more from the president in just a couple hours this morning activities already under way of course over in cornwall, england. and president biden will be holding a new summit at the closing of the g-7 conference. and we're going to be showing it at 9:45 eastern this morning here on c-span.

you can also watch listen to it on the free c-span radio app. so we're planning to end our program just a little bit early today if the president does actually start that press conference on time of course 7:00 to 10:00 every morning here on the "washington journal." jim in new york city is next for those who say no the u.s. is not a model fror democracy in the world. why? caller: good morning. the united states is not and never has been a democracy. it is a republic as mr. franklin said republic if you can keep it. and democracy was reviled by the founders as mob rule as majority taryn tyranny. it is a very worst form of government for the united states. america is a nation built on the foundation of individual rights with the free market to facilitate their exercise and a

limited government to defend them. that's the character of this republic. insofar as the united states adheres to the founding principles stated in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, it is an a excellent example for the rest of the world. insofar as it follows the rest of the world into all its various tyrannical tendencies it ceases to be a good example. host: do you think we are a good example of a republic for the world right now? ? are we showing the republic is the best forium? caller: well, what we have shown remarkably is that this republic despite the best efforts of extremists on both sides has managed to retain its limited republican nature rather than sliding into a

communist tyranny or some other form. and you showed the chart earlier of the way the you're peapen respond. the europeans are generally collectivists so whenever we have a government that adheres to the u.s. constitution the europeans are very nervous because it threatens their tyrannical tendencies. host: jim in new york city 6789 paul, florida good morning you say yes to our question. caller: yes because people tend to think that being a model is being perfect. and democracy will never be perfect. i would like to say that the united states should remember that we are the first democracy, the first in history, and we should be very, very proud of that. but i think what people are --

what the general public is missing is that voting is not the only part of democracy. democracy requires robust debate on all subjects, and that is being squelch at the present time by mainly by the big tech companies. can you everible that a president was thrown off of a win site? it's hilarious. host: you talk about the importance of voting i wonder your thoughts on an issue we talk about last week the for the people a act, this vote reeg form legislation passed in the house now stalled in the senate and notably joe mavenen the democratic senator from west virginia it was this time last week last sunday releasing an op ed saying he wouldn't be supporting that because it

didn't get bipartisan support and any voting rights reform needs to have bipartisan buy-in. what's your thought on that legislation? caller: it absolutely has to have bipartisan support. people are criticizing the audits that are being called for and being done. my question to someone who doesn't want these audits is this, ok? if illegal aliens voted in our last election shouled shouldn't we be allowed to know that? if dead people voted in the last election, shouldn't we be allowed to know that? if false ballots, mass produced ballots were used in this election, shouldn't we be allowed to know that? i just don't get these people that are against cleaning up our elections and making it a secure election that everybody can have faith in.

right now i don't think that's true. but i go back to my original point. the biggest problem with our democracy today is the authoritarian squelching of robust debate on all issues. that just has to start coming through. these sites have got to start letting people say give their opinion but they're being squelched and facts are being left out of the news that are very highly relevant to the future of this country. host: paul out of florida on the voting reform issue the for the people act piece of legislation that does several things a sweeping voting reform legislation but to set some national standard on things like ballot access and mail-in voting and various other parts of the voting system. it's support bid the biden administration to the point where last week national security adviser sullivan

called the for the people act a national security issue. this is what he had to say from the white house briefing room last monday. >> it is an issue. >> i would say the basic notion of democratic reform and voting rights in the united states is a national security issue. we are in a competition of models with autcrassies and we're trying to show the world that american democracy can work can effectively deliver the will of the people. and to the extent that we are not updating refurbishing revamping our own democratic processes and procedures to meet the needs of the modern moment then we are not going to be as successful in making that case to the rest of the world to china russia or anyone else. so there is a national security dimension today just as there was through the decades of the cold war. host: last week back. to your phone calls as we approach 7:30 on the east coast asking you is the u.s. a model

for democracy for the rest of the world? the numbers are on your screen. good morning, jerry. caller: good morning. good to speak with you. i'm not sure -- i'm an elderly man and i'm not sure democracy will survive. i think we have to sometimes think about moving on. not forgetting but moving on. if we didn't move on from our world war ii with japan we would be friends now? with germany would we be friends now? we have to not forget but move on. i don't think we're moving -- we're moving further away from that. host: who should we be friends with now that we're not currently friends with? caller: i have no problem with being friends with anybody. i think we have to look at iran, korea, north korea,

russia. we have obviously have to deal with the rest of the world. and on their terms sometimes maybe. but we have to be able to move on. otherwise we're going to be the hatfields and the mccoys for the rest of our lives. it's crazy. host: in the wake of election interference, in the wake of hacks and cyber security attacks that have been traced back to russia do you think we can trust russia to be friends with us? caller: we have to do what reagan did. trust but verify, absolutely important. you cannot just take their word any more. listen, the united states for years had radio a free europe and all those other things that were broadcasting into these countries. we had strucknet that invade iranian. the u.s. has not been perfect. we've involved ourselves in politics around the world forever. not to expect the people are going to forget. they don't forget they remember. and you reap what you sow.

it's coming back. but i do believe as long as the constitution itself is the fundamental nature of our country and the rule of law is still accepted and the supreme court more importantly is accepted as the rule of law in this country a democracy may have a chance to survive. host: jerry in nevada this morning on russia specifically this is lead editorial in today's "washington post." ahead of president biden's meeting tomorrow. when it comes to putin this clip from nbc news getting a lot of attention. it's a clip of an interview with putin the full interview set to air on monday but here's part of that interview. >> the late john mccain in

congress called you a killer, when president trump was asked was told that you are a killer he didn't deny it. when president biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer he said i do. mr. president are you a killer? >> over my tenure i've gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles under all kinds of pretexts and reason. and none of is surprises me. so as far as harsh rhetoric i think this is an expression of u.s. overall culture. there's some deep things in hollywood macho which can be treated as sin matic art. but that's considered u.s. culture. but not considered normal here. >> i don't think i heard you answer the direct question. >> i did answer. or add if you let me. i've heard dozens of such

accusations especially during the period of grave events. when that happens i'm always guided by the interests of the russian people. and in terms of who called what kind of labels this is not something i worry about in the least. host: that interview with putin set to air on monday on nbc news. back to your phone calls asking you is the u.s. a model for democracy in the world having this conversation in the wake of that research poll that's getting a lot of eattention especially during the g-7 summit. the headline on that pugh research poll american's image abroad rebounds with transition from trump to biden 16 individuals in 16 countries surveyed for that poll thousands of individuals over the course of those 16 countries. we've been talking about it we want to hear from you your thoughts on it. don in california says the u.s. is a model for democracy.

why? caller: yes, it is. and it has been for over 200 years and i am really sick to death of the democrats whining that democracy is in danger and the constitution is in crisis when they are the ones attacking it. here's some examples. take georgia. they're using georgia as a reason to centralize on mount olympus our elections. when even after the changes they made in georgia it is still easier to vote in georgia than it is in delaware joe biden's home state. but nobody in the press will say this that this is nothing but a big lie and excuse to grab more power. they want to get rid of the electoral college, they want to blow up the filibuster they want to pack the supreme court. every time you turn around they're grabbing power, taking away, taking away. their democracy that they want is two worlds and a lamb voting on what's for lunch.

that's what they want in a democracy and that is a horrible example of democracy and if we go by the democrat's model of democracy we're sunk. look what happened we had a riot on january 6. they use it as an excuse to put razor wire and machine guns that are still there around the capitol. still there. why? there hasn't been one riot one protest since then but they're still there because they're afraid of the people. these democrats are afraid of the people they fear us they hate us they want to take away our guns, they want to take away our voting rules, they want to put that in washington, d.c. every time you turn around they're grabbing things. host: don in california. mary elizabeth in new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a very interesting question. i do believe that these documents that we all adhere to the declaration of independence

and the constitution were form liesed by people who wanted freedom from taxation without representation. we have to remember that the whole idea was a compromise and people have to remember the first casualty of this revolution that created the united states of america was a free black person from boston and this initial calls for this revolution was a consortium of three people -- i personally believe that the beginning of our nation was an anti-slavery project. and we have to confront these issues and this new 21st century where a labe

>> is going to be in the clouds. it's a whole different formulation and people are afraid of the future. and we cannot be afraid of the future. we have these founding documents that have are beakance to the world for people to agitate for the good. and all these questions about fear and fear, mr. putin and his furtherance of since 1991 when the soviet union no longer existed, this is all this is his revenge for the fact that he was not going to be general secretary of the communist party of the ussr. host: a few of your comments as you've been watching along and tweeting along and commenting, sending us your texts as well.

just a few of your comments. about 20 minutes left in this first segment asking you is the u.s. a model for democracy around the world. darrell in new jersey says no. why? caller: good morning. and i think first i want to say that the united states is a representative democracy. it is a republic. and right now the republican party is stressing the republic part of this because they don't really want democracy because their policies are not popular. and they're going to find it difficult to win elections because of it. now, whether the u.s. is a model of democracy or not i think not because elections are supposed to have consequences.

it is a self-governing people who guides the ship of state. and when the people decide they want to change in leadership that means they want a change the direction of the ship of state. right now what's happening is republicans are fighting to make sure that elections do not have consequences. and so when you ask a foreign country to accept or to follow our brand of government, how are they supposed to secure reforms when they look at us and say well you have got the other guy out of office because the guy who won wants to address climate change, income inequality and all these problems that the u.s. is facing and yet none of that is happening. why should we emulate the u.s. when elections don't have consequences? host: darrell in new jersey. bringing up the idea of republic versus a democracy, a topic that often comes up when we talk about u.s. democracy in the world.

just one opinion column on this from the "washington post." a law professor at ucla talking about the difference. he writes he calls it a false dichotomy is the american heritage dictionary a political ord anywhere which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote.

an interesting discussion on republic and democracy we have that discussion often when we talk about those issues here on the "washington journal." back to your phone calls. john, pennsylvania says no. why? caller: well we were but now we're no longer. and going back to the report wrowr you say every time a

republican gets in there the rest of the international community looked down on us. is this the same international community that sat back and let hitler try to run the world? it took us to come in and try to -- and russia, ok, to beat the fascism of germany and europe. they didn't want to fight. france didn't want to fight, italy didn't want to fight. they let germany -- and then the first caller about trump. don trump is standing up for this democracy. the democrats with this media because you're going to cut me off now because i'll see your right hand towards the button you sat there and let them steal this election and now joe biden is trying to change our election rules so that the pandemic fraud election system can be used for further elections. we don't have election season. we have elections. host: can i ask you a question? caller: what's that? host: can i ask you a question?

caller: go ahead host: what would it take for you to believe that joe biden is president? what would give you confidence? caller: nothing would. because the media sat there and protected him. they had that lob guy had information on joe biden and the kid, hunter. it wouldn't even be reported on social media or main street media. if you put it on the social media or on the internet they would ban you. facebook, you tube, they just banned ron johnson for talking about the color quinn. everything -- ted a list of it of everything trump said. eevep the thing at the church where they said oh he went down there and gased people. that was bull crap. it never happened. and you guys never apologized, you never apologized. a guy didn't die -- host: we actually talked about that report from the interior department inspecter general i

believe it was, a segment with the media research center earlier this week. it's a group that looks to liberal bias in the media. we talked to their research director there for 45 minutes on this topic. so it might be something you want to go back and check out. to doug in fairfax, south dakota. you're up next on that line for those who say you're not sure that the u.s. is a model for democracy in the world. why? caller: yeah, john. good morning. i'm not really sure trump the way he was going was trying to push us towards being a dictater but biden he's gone back in, you can tell when a republican is in that the way trump talked to people, you know, he puts himself so much above everybody else and he thought he was the king and all. but i have a question for you. south dakota is the state of what now? you're kind of into this state

deal. host: it's mount rushmore state, right? caller: no. it's the sunshine state and the -- host: i apologize i thought it was mount rushmore is that not the official one? caller: i could be wrong but i looked up the other day coit state and sunshine state. host: i enjoyed the state nickname so i know the north dakota is the peace garden state. but i'll go back and look it up again. thanks, doug. caller: yeah, i don't know biden the thing about biden is he's spending money for the people which is good but we don't have is the money. that's the only problem i've got to say about biden. i'm a democrat i'm kind of a blue dog democrat but we need to start taxing the rich. and we need to keep helping other countries that need help. host: do you think there's many blue dog democrats left? caller: i don't know any more.

i really don't know. i don't know, i -- the interest rates is way down and i'm an old guy and i've got a little money and i was hoping the interest would stay up there but it's not. but anyway you guys all have a good day. host: that's doug in south dakota. mary in california you're next saying the united states is not a model for democracy in the world why do you say that? caller: well, the guy from north dakota blue democrat so am i. nancy said to vote for joe biden so i did. i really wanted bernie but i settled. as far as us being a democrat -- democracy republic i don't know. people know let's just say the only important thing is the tax changes that need to happen this year as the most important because without some monetary

relief the poor and the middle class will just continue to fall lower than they already have fallen and as far as i'm concerned those are the main issues and as far as democracy, yeah, i'm a democrat i voted for biden i think i won fair and square and i really kind of -- i don't want to resent my other americans citizens, but when they say that biden didn't win i mean have they ever looked at the people that run the voting, or at least here in california the women league of voters? they're the most square women as they make sure the count is perfect. so that's all i have to say. host: you say you settled on biden but you wanted bernie sanders in 2020. do you think you'll settle again next time if there's a choice like that for you? caller: well at first i didn't settle when i was a young democrat and then i've learned to settle. like i said i didn't want to

settle for biden i wanted bernie. i thought he would be bringing real change. host: is settling a good thing? you say you've learned to settle. caller: i think it's a good thing in democracy we don't all get what we want. but at least if we can say our minds, speak our minds then we're ok. but i think really what's important here this year is to get those tax dollars going the other way. host: douverage that bernie sanders -- do you like what bernie sanders has done since dropping out of the -- he did keep -- sf caller: as nancy said to follow biden and we did. but i think he would have been much more to my political liking. host: what do you think about him in this term of congress? i guess do you think he's been a big enough voice here at the beginning of the biden

administration? caller: well he's only got a voice i think he's on the health care committee or look aferingt those issues so i know he has a variety of issues. and you can only -- well i'm not going to say anything about donating money but the democrats need money you know for their campaigns and if we want to have any chance of keeping the house in the next election we'd better get down to printing out some real relief and that's monetary relief done by reform of tax policy. host: bernie sanders committees in the 117th congress budget energy natural resources environment and public works, health education labor and pensions, and veterans affairs of course is where he's been a big voice as well. caller: he's on a lot of committees. host: senators generally get a lot more committees than house members generally.

laura in new york the line for those who say no the united states is not a model for democracy in the world. kveraget i think that we are in the most dangerous period in our american history in the post civil rights movement because it's hypocritical movement which is highly prejudiced and volatile and denying of its real goals, which is to demonize race not including and giving any opportunity or thanks to people like myself who had a television show called earth is not on tape for 13 years. highlighting the most talented hard working and creative new york people primarily of color and i have been in the time that i did that i have been hit with low level warfare,

electrocuted, daily kept up my bowls have been regulated by some kind of surveils activity. host: all right that's laura this morning out of new york. laurie is next out of pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you say yes the united states still a model for democracy. caller: i do. i think if we continue on this about the people all the people and keep our true values of equality that everybody is equal, a lot of people like to argue about the constitution and that will go on forever. but we really need a republic representatives that represent the people. and if we continue to fight for that i mean our democracy has always been an experiment. host: who is doing the best job of representing the people in

your mind who is a good example of a leader who is doing that? caller: biden. the democratic party is. it's hard for people to accept change. i like to go to a town where not everybody is white. i like to meet different people. i learn from different people. but right now our where i live our system is gerrymandered. it's very hard to win an election. and that's a bad example of democracy but if we keep fighting for it without violence. you've got to be vocal. but you can't attack the other party because there are a lot of good republicans. like charlie denten of pennsylvania. he's a good republican. we have to be able to go back to compromise, discuss, debate, debate is so important and not one group or one side can always get their own way.

host: laurie. just a few minutes left having this discussion about the u.s. has been a model for democracy in the world. it's a discussion keyed off a pugh research poll of citizens in 16 countries around the world, thousands of those surveyed and they're concerned about the u.s. being a model for democracy in the world with most of the respondents of that survey saying that the united states used to be a model but hasn't been in recent years. in today's "washington post" his column focuses on this puge research poll that we've been talking about and what it means for president biden especially as he is attending the g-7 summit. the headline of his column today this is how he ended that column saying

only a small portion of it enacted into law. if you want to read the column today's "washington post." jill in ohio says she's not sure to this question. why? caller: well, i'm not sure because this is the first time we ever had a presidential election where the person that lost actually denied that he lost the election. and as a result, you know people became violent and people like election officials lives are being threatened which i've never witnessd in my life or we've never experienced that. having public officials where the lives are being threatened. but i'm also optimistic.

i mean, president biden is our president despite the fact that the other candidates deny that he lost the election. so yes i'm just not sure and i'm worried but still hopefully optimistic too. host: jill in ohio. aubrey in richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. we are facing a t greatest threat to our democratic form of government since the civil war. the what we had is a presidential candidate to lose the election incumbent then incite an sin surrecks against the symbol of our democracy namely the capitol. and follow that up with active measures on his part to overturn the election by other

means. and then you have these various state government passing laws in which they can just unilaterally and arbitrarily overturn results of elections based on nothing more than a suspicious. what the american people did following the election of donald trump they woke up to their own failings and became more active and stopped taking this democracy that we have for granted. the other side of the coin is you have this propaganda machine in cooperation with that former candidate purning -- pushing propaganda, you know, pushing the so-called big lie that he did not lose the election. host: aubrey in virginia. a few more of your comments from social media.

that's our last call in this segment and our last comment in this segment of the "washington journal." but stick around, plenty more to talk about today including, up next. we'll turn our attention to the surge on the u.s.-mexico border and kamala harris' recent trip.

and later we'll review this weekend's g-7 summit and look ahead to the president's continued travel with two foreign policy thinkers marathon an center for american progres'' max bergmann. stick around. we will be right back. >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the president z," a symposium on first lady's and how they wield power. watch american history tv

tonight on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in the wake up vice president kamala harris' trip to mexico, and alejandra ma yorca's trip next week, who is he going to be meeting with,

what is his goal coming out of a vice president kamala harris's trip last week? guest: i think mayorca is looking to build on what she laid out in her meeting. mayorca will be focused on the challenges, and what we will be looking at is the migrant smuggling organizations that the department of justice, the project, and whether they can successfully mount prosecution cases in cooperation with the mexican government. host: how will that joint task

force work? caller: we don't have a lot of details, but this type of cooperation, i think, has been drifting in the wrong direction as far as, you know, the u.s. government sees things. we saw the mexican government really set to put new limits on the drug enforcement administration agents in mexico, so we are into a new era in which the u.s. has a fair amount of latitude to work in mexico, to work directly with mexican prosecutors, that type of thing, and that relationship needs to be rebuilt if the united states is going to have any success on this front. host: if this mayorkas' first

foreign trip? guest: it is his first foreign trip, and they are trying to highlight that mayorkas is the guy for the border. vice president harris, when she was asked why she had not going to the border, the white house is wanted to emphasize that her heart of it, by going to be working with central america, mexico, high-level diplomatic initiatives, they specifically want to follow this up with mayorkas, who is going to be focused on the actual dynamic at the border, which we all know is much more difficult. host: from the vice president's triple s would come after her meeting with guatemala's president, this is what she had to say after making that trip to the u.s.-mexico border. [video clip] vp harris: i want in the side that our goal is to help guatemalans find hope had home.

at the same time, i want to be clear that the people who are thinking about making the dangerous trek to the united states-new mexico border, do not come. do not come. the united states will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders. they are legal methods by which migration can and should occur. we, as one of our priorities, will discourage illegal migration, and i believe, if you come to our border, you will be turned back. so let's discourage our friends, our neighbors, our family members from embarking on what is otherwise an extremely dangerous journey, where, in large part, the only people who benefit our coyotes. host: nick miroff, we have seen plenty of reaction to her

comments in guatemala, mexico, and her interview with lester holt. how is it seen in mexico as well? how is it seen by politicians, leaders in the country? guest: i mean, you know, the reaction to that statement was fascinating on a number of levels. it was not all that different from the u.s. message and what has been the u.s. message for a long time, particularly abroad and, you know, internationally from the state department, and that is don't come to the united states, don't make this illegal journey. the u.s. government is spending money in guatemala on facebook ads, other ads to counteract these smugglers organizations. so i think she wanted to drive home a message that was already out there and, you know, the

reaction in guatemala and in mexico i think is going to be, you know, more of a shrug than anything. i don't think people have any illusions about whether or not, you know, people will make decisions based upon what i u.s. politician is saying. people who contemplate this journey make that decision primarily based upon what their friends and neighbors and relatives are telling them in addition to whatever the smugglers are pitching, so whether or not it is going to have a deterrent effect is minimal. that plays very differently here in the united states. and, you know, the administration is trying to signal that it wants to be tough. it, you know, immediately got a backlash. we saw aoc and other administration advocacy groups jump all over the vice president for saying this, and it once more showed the kind of

minefield that immigration politics represent to democratic politician who is trying to balance an effort to deter migration with the kind of more broader, welcoming, pro-immigration message. host: nick miroff is our guess this segment of "washington journal." if you have questions or comments about kamala harris' overseas -- i should not say "overseas" -- foreign trip, and alejandro mayorkas' up coming trip. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. to start you off with twitter come of is from steve, is the state of texas illegally

interfering in a matter of immigration by building, on its own, a fence along the southern border? guest: that is a great question, steve. the thing that has me scratching my head about abbott's announcement is, you know, in order to build a border barrier, a border wall of some kind in texas, unique control of the land. if you look at what the trump administration is able to accomplish in its four years, the trump administration build 450 miles of barriers, but very few of that is in texas, and the reason is that most, if not all, of the land in texas along the rio grande is in private land, and it is possessed by hundreds of different property owners. you basically have to go to court to negotiate with all of them, and so there's no clear path for the state of texas to gain access to control of the land to even build an infrastructure.

and then, you know, with what money? i think what abbott has laid out so far, absent any more detailed plan, is more posturing on this topic. host: cbp's interactions on the border, in may, someone hundred 80,000 interactions with cbp members, 38% of those were repeat dvds. -- repeat detainees. teens and children apprehended, 14,000. put those in perspective. guest: well, that is the highest figure in 20 years. we had three months straight where the number of people taken into custody by the u.s. border authority has exceeded 170,000. this is by far, you know, the

busiest period we have seen along the border in many years, and as you pointed out, the number of unaccompanied minors, teens and children, whose record number of arrivals came this spring, the biden administration, they have gotten on top of that problem primarily by moving those miners out of border patrol custody, setting them up and border facilities set up by health and human services to better care for them, and they have also gotten rid of those images of those minors in those types of conditions. however, they continue to see growing numbers of single adult minors attempting to cross, many of them invading, trying to evade capture. that is why we see that 38% repeat arrest figure. it is a result of the title 42 of the public health code,

instead of detaining migrants who are taken into custody and potentially prosecuting and jailing them before deporting them, they are simply returning a great majority of them back across the border to mexico, where they have an opportunity to try over and over. so we are seeing very high numbers as well of migrants successfully evading capture and getting past the border patrol. they are reporting as many as 1000 today. things along the border remain extremely busy, when temperatures are soaring, the illegal entry that is increasingly deadly and dangerous. we are seeing rescues by border patrol at twice the pace that we saw in recent years, and, you know, everyone is bracing for a really grim summer along the border in terms of migrant debt.

host: this is from jim on twitter, is biden still putting children in obama's cages? guest: no, there's no cases. what the biden administration did initially, to put those minors, for the most part, in these tents, they did not have bars and looks like cages, but they were unsafe conditions for children, to say the least. they have been moved out of those border patrol tents and are now in shelters set up by -- overseen by health and human services. many of them are not in great shape, either. i mean, these are on u.s. military bases. some, you know, they have used convention centers, very much dormitory style conditions. and the government, the biden administration has been criticized for this, but the

government has to go through a process to determine whether or not an adult sponsor who comes forward, wanting to take custody of one of the minors, whether that person is indeed the relative, you know, has the means to take custody, because you are transferring, you know, custody from the government to, you know, to a person, and they have to go through due diligence. that process typically takes about a month. the biden administration has cut that time down a little bit by expediting the process. they are under a lot of pressure to reduce the number of minors in government custody. we have seen it come down to about 21,000, about 16,000 in government custody today. host: jan is waiting in indiana. good morning. you are on with nick miroff. caller: hello. i just have a question.

why are they still sending these countries money? i mean, they have been doing that for 30 years. guest: that's a great -- yeah. host: go ahead, nick miroff. guest: that's a great question. there's very little evidence to show that aid or other money has an immediate effect on driving down migration. you know, the underlying assumption of what the biden administration is trying to do and talking about in central america is that by creating jobs -- and, you know, most of the dollar amounts that have been announced, you know, including $4 billion over four years in central america, broadly, a lot of that is meant to be private investment, to create jobs. now, you know, what the most recent scholarship truly shows, though, is that migration is primarily driven by two things. one is the short-term shocks of

events like hurricanes and devastating events that foreign aid, in some ways, can alleviate. people have had their homes destroyed by a hurricane, and they don't have anything to eat, so they attempt -- that is their only option. that is what. . short-term aid can reduce. the broader question is whether job creation and development aid results in that type of reduction in migration that, you know, governments describe it. the record is mixed. in some ways, there are people who certainly want to remain in their communities, if they have better jobs and, you know, higher wages, than they are able to do so, but there are also indications, you know, from some of the most recent scholarship that once people have a little extra money and they feel like they are able to get a leg up,

they are looking to, you know, one of the best investments they can make is to migrate to the united states or somewhere where wages are significantly higher. in a country like guatemala, where there are lots and lots of young people who are entering the workforce, and there are not jobs for them, the best way to get upward mobility and to change the future of the family is to attempt this journey to the united states, and particularly, you know, at a time like right now when there is a great labor demand in the united needs, when there is a clear path to complete the journey, all of these things lower the threshold to come north that is what the vice president is trying to discourage people from doing. but, you know, people listen to their friends, their family, what people close to them are saying. host: a buzzword we have been hearing for the last week, "the

root causes" that we have been hearing about. guest: the administration has been talking about what are the root causes of migration, and harris has been responsible for addressing those. adults have the responsibility for being, you know, in charge of the immediate effects of migration, and addressing the root cause of migration is not something that is going to see short-term results or drive down that very high border apprehension number, so, you know, the root causes are viewed as not only the lack of jobs and development but corruption, and that is why the vice president came to guatemala with a very strong anti-corruption message. there is concern that over the last few years, we have seen kind of a backsliding, particularly in central america, on some of these international

efforts using, you know, the united nations and others to add more oversight and bring more transparency and use the judicial systems in these countries, all of these things have kind of taken a step backward in recent years. we saw the biden administration signaling it really wants to take them seriously again and to make them a priority as part of the u.s. engagement in the region. host: in raleigh, north carolina, a democrat, good morning. you are on with nick miroff. anna, are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead, ma'am. caller: i am calling about harris. i think she did the right thing by going to stop the people from coming and give them a reason to stay. the relationship in the country, killing them, taking their jobs -- you know, give them a reason to stay. it is a good idea. thank you. host: that is anna with her thoughts in north carolina. we will try another anna, in

ohio, the line for republicans. anna, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm wondering why it is if you apply for a visa to go to another country, you have a police investigation, you have an fbi investigation with fingerprints. you have to prove that you can take care of everything financially yourself, because they give you nothing. i would like to know why the american people are footing all the bills for all these people coming here. there's not enough taxes that are going to be around later for even the americans. so everybody that is in favor of all of the stuff and in favor of the democrats, you got what you wanted. now, whenever you can't get a job, you can't get your free money and everything, and you have given all this to all these foreigners -- host: got your point, anna. nick miroff, are we putting all

the bills for all the people coming here? guest: well, you know, no, we are not footing all the bills, but we are certainly footing some of the bills. i mean, you know, the biggest expense in this whole process is going to criminal smuggling organizations that have completely taken control over this entire process, all the way up to the mexico border. the folks who are coming are paying, you know, anywhere from $7,000 to $15,000 for a journey to the united states, and, you know, that's -- they are arriving in a great deal of debt, so you have to keep in mind that the people who are coming, even those who are seeking asylum or some sort of other protections, are arriving in a whole need to get working immediately to get out of that hole. united states does, for example, in the case of unaccompanied teenagers and children, the

united states pays for some of the elements of, you know, reuniting them with relatives here in the united states, like, for example, one state has identified and vetted a sponsor who can take custody of a child, than the government will pay for the travel expenses of sending that child to reunite with that relative, pointing out that that represents a cost savings overall, because the cost of keeping a teen or a child in u.s. government care is nearly $800 a day. so there are elements of this that very costly. the caller is exactly right. but i would say still the bulk of the cost, including, you know, who pays for them once they arrive in the united states and have to take care of themselves, that is still on the migrants, and that is one of the reason why there remains a strong push to give them work authorization soon after they arrive. the debate is whether or not

that work authorization itself then becomes the new incentive to make this journey. host: to louisville, kentucky, this is dean, independent. good morning. caller: talking about -- i've been noticing the crowds coming in, 70, 80 years old, social security and medicare, all of the people come in now. host: dn, what is your question, specifically? caller: my main question is, all these millions of people in the country, and the west coast is turning into a desert. have you been up to lake mead and see what lake mead looks like right now and the rivers out there? they are drying up. thank you. host: nick miroff, maybe a larger question about resources in the united states and the future for america's growing population -- although our population, according to census figures, not going as fast as it

has in the past and one of the slowest birthrates in the past 10 years. i wonder if there is an immigration link there, because in the wake of that survey that came out, the census numbers, some discussion about -- is immigration a way to help grow the nation's population again at a faster rate? guest: i mean, yeah, that is a great question. these are all things that we are going to have to be debating going forward. i mean, the images of lake mead's water levels plunging are indeed very scary and raise questions about the sustainability of, you know, population growth, particularly out west. as you note, the latest demographic profiles of the united states have, you know, raised some of these concerns about our ability to sustain economic growth with a declining fertility rate and, you know, folks have pointed to immigration as a possible solution by a mounting more -- by allowing more immigrants,

particularly young people, we can, you know, delay that process or boost our economy and continue to, you know, stay at the type of growth levels. but obviously, you know, resource consumption and water and all of those things are going to be part of the decision. host: five minutes left in the segment of the "washington journal." i want to get to a couple of callers. in crofton, nebraska, thanks for waiting. caller: you can smooth this over as much as you want, but i am telling you, biden screwed this up. all they wanted to do is go after trump's little rules and change everything around, and now they have got people coming across the border. they are not being tested. they are being spread all over the united states. host: jeff, what was the rules change, what was a change from the trump to the biden administration, what is the biggest issue and screwing this

up, as you put it? caller: they should have been kept in mexico until they are processed. that is not happening now. biden said himself, "come on in, we need you," and it is crap. host: nick miroff, provoking the remain in mexico policy, what was the thinking from the biden administration? guest: that policy arguably had more of an influence on the migration perhaps more than ever. we can recall when the trump administration was facing this record surge of migrant families , the trump administration, trump threatened the government in mexico with punitive tariffs, and mexico agree to a broad expansion of that remain in mexico program, which required asylum-seekers coming to the u.s. border to go back to mexico and wait there while their cases were adjudicated. in practice, very few of those

cases moved forward, but the measures really served to deter migrants from attempting that trip. now, migrant advocates and others denounced the remain in mexico program as extremely cruel. it, you know, sent families to some of the most dangerous places in north america and to the mexican border that have terrible problems with organized crime, where migrants were vulnerable to kidnapping. so we saw, you know, many of those types of stories come out. so i think the biden administration came in, and as part of the broader, you know, goal of reverting many of trump's administration policies, this was very high on the list. right away, this was one of the measures, along with canceling the border wall and things like that, that biden took. all you have to do is look at

what migrants are saying about their perceptions of what changed and why they are coming now. you can see there is this view that biden is more welcoming. they have an opportunity that they did not have when trump was in power, and i think the change to that remain in mexico program is arguably the biggest change. host: just about two minutes left, and greg has been waiting in texas, the line for democrats. go ahead with your question this morning. caller: thank you this morning. i want to talk on this one. the thing about the immigrants. they come over here -- i don't care if it is 20 in a house, they put their $20 in a house, and they stick together. most people, we cannot live in a house like that, but they will build, they go by land. a woman who comes over here and has a baby, they get the same benefits as american citizen. my other subjects is that here in texas, some states, if you

have got a mobile home on your land, you'll need to look into this, you have vacant lots out here that people cannot afford a $100,000 house or a duplex, and that is what they are requiring us to do now. you have land, you pay taxes on income if you don't keep it up, the city will take it. host: all right, we are running out of time, and we want to give nick miroff a chance to weigh in. the caller brings up birthright citizenship in those comments. that conversation, how much has there been political conversation about potentially changing birthright citizenship, an issue that came up during the trump administration. guest: that's right, john. we heard the idea come around a few times that there could be some sort of, you know, change that would no longer, you know, grant citizenship to anyone born on u.s. soil, but, you know, no one seems to think that this is

politically feasible. it it would require a change to the constitution. it does not seem possible anytime soon. host: nick miroff, "washington post" reporter. you can find him on twitter. thank you so much for your time on this sunday morning. about 30 minutes until the top of the hour. we are going to go back to our open forum, turning the phones over to you, our viewers, for any public policy or political topic on your mind. let us know what you're seeing in your state. it is an open forum for republicans, democrats, and independents. go ahead and start calling in. we will get to your calls right after the break.

>> >> ♪ >> black texans celebrated. many white texans responded to the celebrations with violence. there were reports that many people were hit because they celebrated the end of slavery. there were accounts of violence on the freedmen. a person recounted coming to an area and finding almost 30 bodies of black people, men, women, and children, hanging from trees. bodies in the river. when blacks ceased to be property and when whites lost control over them, a number of whites responded with extreme hostility. >> the pulitzer prize winning

historian and harvard professor talks about juneteenth and shares her stories from growing up in texas during the 1960's and 1970's, tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." you can also listen to "q&a" as a podcast where you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is our open forum on "washington journal," about what you are seeing in your state. we will put the numbers on your screen. go ahead and start calling in now. some of the stories we have been tracking from the front pages of today's major newspapers, this story from "the new york times" this morning on the latest from the latest from a g7 summit which wraps up today. president biden expected to give his closing remarks later today.

this is the story from "the new york times." biden is urging the g7 to act, noting president biden is looking to counter china's growth when it comes to influence overseas. it was the first time the richest nations discussed a direct alternative to china's belt and road initiative and the push across africa, latin america, into europe itself. the white house did not cite financial commitments. there is a sharp disagreement among the united states and its allies about how to respond. but the subject brought up at a g7 summit. president biden's closing comments at the summit expected to take place in about an hour and 15 minutes, 9:45 a.m. eastern. our expectation is to head there

when he does start his remarks. we may be ending our "washington journal" program a bit early this morning. this is from the front page of "the washington post" today, a story on another large and sad number from the coronavirus pandemic. the headline, "families of the pandemic late stage victims new cruel juxtaposition as the death toll hits 600,000." 596,971 deaths from the coronavirus. that is just in the united states. some 33 million cases and counting the number we have been tracking and talking about recently. the percentage of adults with one dose of the vaccine up to 64.3%. time for your phone calls in

this open forum. lou is in highland park, illinois, a democrat. what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i have a question. i just read in the paper that 316 people are being shot per day in america. i am wondering, what will be the number that will change the government's mind to start changing our gun laws where we can protect americans? host: how would you answer that question? what do you think it would take to move gun legislation in this country? caller: well, right now, i think 316 is enough. i would like to see more, a tougher government stopping vehicles on the road, searching vehicles for weapons, especially around schools. i think the government has to start protecting us. right now, there's too many in

america that love their guns more than they love other human beings. host: that is lou in illinois. this is joe in maine this morning, and independent. caller: good morning. i guess my, would be to the republican party. the last caller just mentioned the gun laws. it is obvious the money in politics has changed the whole concept of democracy. you see people like trump get elected, who lied to the american people over 20,000 times. this whole campaign began with the lie about obama not being an american citizen. here the republicans come, "i want to get to the truth." it is pathetic. i want to say that my mother

told me as a young boy, do not tell a lie -- the first lie and you will not have to cover it up with the second lie. that is my message to the republicans. about immigration, the republican party when they were running five years ago were going to replace obamacare, take care of the immigration problem. they did nothing, absolutely nothing. daca is still there. president trump kicked out military people and people who worked and paid taxes in america that were here illegally, and he was kicking them out of the country. host: that is joe in maine. this is charlie in arkansas, republican, good morning. caller: i think c-span should be down in arizona looking at this audit in a fair way, unbiased, without taking sides, because

c-span, a journalist should be able to not take sides in the story and look at it fairly. that should be y'all's job. really disappointing to see you take sides. it shows your true colors. host: why do you think we are taking sides? because we are not broadcasting from down there? caller: yes, and you dismissed people who said people voted. you were flippant when people called in the day after the election, dismissive of all their complaints like it was a real fair election. i don't think everybody agrees with that. is your obligation and responsibility to look into it in a fair way. host: that is charlie in arkansas. this is joseph in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about a book i am reading. the title is "kill switch."

the subtitle is "the rise of the modern senate and the crippling of american democracy." i think this is an extremely important book and topic talking about the filibuster, obviously. my personal opinion is the filibuster is unconstitutional. the word does not appear in the constitution. it is based on simpson it rules -- senate rules that they mostly republicans have used to manipulate and control legislation. nothing is happening in the senate really. we see that. people are so frustrated, upset, and angry, even if it is just subconscious. the government is not working the way our founding fathers intended it to. a large part of that is due to the manipulation of the senate using the filibuster. i would suggest maybe you can

call the author in. i think the more people learn about this, the more we will be demanding that the filibuster be done away with or at the very least go back to a standing filibuster where people have to talk about what they are talking about. host: you will be glad to know that january 11 of this year, he appeared on our program on book tv talking about his book, "kill switch." you can watch that on our website at c-span.org. we also had him on in february of this year as well. a couple of appearances of europe just did in what he has to say. caller: i know the book got some attention when it first came out. my personal opinion is it did not get enough attention. this subject to me and the american people should be critical. our government is not working as it should. this is a big part of it. thanks. host: a full hour with adam

jentleson from january 11, if you want to watch it. dee is in lucasville, ohio, independent, good morning. caller: i think we will regret greatly turning against israel. the bible says we will be coached. i believe that is true. i do not like biden out spreading all the money around for people to go against israel. we are digging our own grave. host: this is marietta. caller: i am calling to say a lot of politicians get on and always say there are plenty of jobs and about small businesses. they don't realize people in

small towns don't want to work for those people knowing they tried to overthrow the government. i would not either. the second part is something is going to have to be done to actually help the farmers because they are the ones that do not want the immigration people to come. if you don't have the immigration people, you're not going to have the people to help you get your crops in. i really can't figure out why they keep harping about the immigration. host: on immigration and hiring illegal migrants, janet in florida with her tweet this morning. why has e-verify been such a failure? noting florida and her concerns about the lack of prosecutions in 2021. this is larry in california, an

independent. what is on your mind this sunday morning? caller: good morning. i have a suggestion for c-span. you want people to call in on republican, democrat, and independent lines. wouldn't it be nice if all the commentators also have their affiliation put out in the open? i don't know why it is such a mystery. you guys really try hard not to show your colors, but it came out very easily with mr. scully. and now, you're bringing it back in. host: what we try to do on this program is to make the program about you, the callers. a lot of other programs, it is about the host and their opinion. we try not to make it about that.

we try to make it about you which is why we set aside an open forum where we try not to even pick a topic and let you lead the discussion because we find it is not something done most anywhere else. caller: this is disingenuous. you know it and i know it. my point is ever since biden came in, especially in the immigration area, it is unbelievable how everybody knows it, even the foreign governments , that the green light was made we before he even came in on the debate stage. and then they did come in in caravans. they did crash the borders. the media turn around and say it has always been this way, it has been this way for centuries -- decades and decades. we just keep the right information out there. tell it the way it is.

and the way it is and the way it was is that it is very obvious what he did. and for harris, vice president harris, to go in central without going to the border and being almost afraid, avoiding the border as if she does not want that photo op moment there where she will be there seeing all of these people lined up and laughing and cackling to the american public. it is pretty pathetic. host: did you hear about the number last month? 180,000 border interactions between border patrol and illegal migrants? caller: what was that? host: 180,000 just in the month of may of border patrol interacting and attaining migrants. did you hear about that? caller: i did. host: the highest number in 20

years. do you think the media was covering up that number? caller: here is the last point i want to say. you know, the people coming across, even though they said that over 70 different countries , people from 70 different countries had come over, primarily it is from mexico and central america. the immigration policy put together in this country to have a percentage of people from all around the world, so the fact of the matter is now we have it heavily weighted towards people that come from a certain area. and guess what? when they go to st. louis, when they go to new york, when they go to all these other cities, they become the majority all of a sudden. those people that are the majority become councilmen, representative's, senators.

and guess what? they vote for themselves. that is not the way the immigration policy was supposed to be. how about having 50 million romanians here and spreading them around the united states and now they become the voice, they want to represent their own people? they want people in power. host: that is larry in california. we will stay in california and go to l.a. for rick on the republican line. good morning. caller: the last caller was absolutely right. fox news had a number of illegals up to today that is the most we have seen in 10 years. every time i hear a congressman use the 11 million number, "we have 11 million illegals in this country," we first heard that numbers during the ronald reagan

era. we first heard 11 million illegals in the country during the ronald reagan era. you see these people that are well fed. they have nice clothes on. they are supposed to be so impoverished with no economy over there. [indiscernible] they are given $10,000 to $15,000 apiece to get here. but they are so poor. who is fooling who? host: that is rick in california. this is joe in connecticut, a democrat. good morning. caller: the topic earlier was about a model for democracy. to me, we are a model for democracy. like any model, you have to follow the directions, the constitution and the bill of rights.

we get plenty of taxpayer dollars. it is just the way the money is used. the ineptitude, and nepotism i have observed over the years. i am 76 years old. to me, democracy is here, it is just that we do not follow the directions given to us by our founding fathers. host: we had the discussion in the first hour about, is the u.s. a model for democracy? it was sparked by a pew research poll. one of the findings was thousands of people in 16 different countries, that poll, 57 respondents from all different countries saying the u.s. used to be a good example of democracy in the world but has not been in recent years. to 17% of respondents saying the u.s. currently is a good example for other countries to follow. and 23% say the u.s. has never

been a good example for democracy for other countries to follow. did those numbers surprise you at all from the world's view of the united states? caller: i have never been called on a survey in my 76 years. where do these survey people go? i know what i have seen in connecticut government, what i have seen in the government since eisenhower. my observation is we do not follow the directions of our model which are in the constitution and the bill of rights. too many politicians are interested in themselves and what they want, not what the people need. the government does not buy anything. they get the money from me and all the people in this country. the government supplies nothing. they misuse what we give them.

maybe that is where democracy is falling down, in our representatives. host: that is joe out of connecticut. just 10 minutes left in this segment of "washington journal." it is open phones. we are letting you lead with what topics are on your mind. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: a lot of american people seem to think if a person they do not like is doing a good job but they do not like them, they find something wrong with the person they like.

but because they like them, they will follow them anyway. that is not good. ok? thank you. host: this is dennis out of toledo, iowa, a democrat. good morning. caller: hi. there are a lot of illegals in a meatpacking house. republicans want to do it. the politicians i seen at the meatpacking place i see all the time that knew that they were hiding illegals was chuck grassley, a republican. how do these republicans feel about donald trump and these women? host: this is mary lou, an

independent. good morning. are you with us? you have to stick by your phone. jane in allen, texas, is a republican. jane, good morning. caller: good morning. i retired early right before my 60th birthday. i worked hard my whole life. my husband when he was alive worked hard his whole life. we never made more than $50,000 a year. we saved our money. and now, it seems like you are wrong if you worked hard, saved your money, and now you have some cushion in life. i live in a modest house. i drive a ford. but yes, i have over $1 million in the bank. i worked hard and saved it.

it seems like i should be apologizing to people, which i don't because nobody knows what i have. but it is it is always the rich people, the millionaires did this, the millionaires did that. host: do you consider yourself a rich person? caller: i am because i had a wonderful husband who took care of me for many years. i consider myself very comfortable. host: what kind of work did you do? caller: i work for an information services company and never made more than $50,000 a year ever. i did not get a trust fund my parents when they died. i worked hard. i saved my money. i should not have to apologize for the comfortable life i am able to enjoy now. host: jane, on this class warfare, i guess, is what you are describing, pitching

upper-class people who have more money against people who have less money, do you think it is happening more often today than in the past? caller: oh, yes. everything is black and white, rich and poor. everybody has a label. no one in my inner circle of friends, not even my family, knows what my financial status is. i have chosen not to tell them because it is none of their business and they are going to be jealous like i stole the money or did not come by it honestly. host: where do you think you are being attacked when you say you feel like people are attacking wealthy americans? caller: i see it on the news media. they will say something against millionaires made another

million dollars this year through covid. we label people. it is like if you are "rich,", you are a terrible person. you have done something illegal or wrong and you do not care about people. i volunteer at food pantries. i was able to retire early before my 60th birthday. all i have done now is read a lot and i give back to the community. host: that was jane in allen, texas. time for a couple more calls in this open forum. an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. beautiful day. sun on my face. what is concerning or perplexing to me is we are in this new world of reset.

i think biden at the g7 just brought up something like $40 trillion for a new world infrastructure. there's a lot of things i would like to say, but i cannot even bring up names of certain things out of respect for c-span. so, i would love to know who is really in charge of this new world order. i hope it is god. but i don't know. i'm just trying to see through all the garble. i don't know if you have an answer for that. but have a great day and enjoy life. thank you. host: lisa, shreveport, louisiana, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, john. what i would like to say is the media got caught. donald trump has told us

everything. if you listen to him, with his words, he has told us everything going on. if people listened. host: yes, ma'am, i'm listening to you. if people listened to what? caller: oh, i thought you cut me off. we have audits going on around the country. you have not said one word about it. what people are going to find out is this election was stolen. and even the democrats are going to come [indiscernible] when they know the facts. if we, the people, we love each other, we are going to fight y'all to the end. blacks, whites, hispanics, every one of us because y'all have totally covered everything up. and everybody is going to find out. host: may i ask a question?

caller: you can put your finger there, but that is ok preview got caught. guess what? it is republicans and democrats. it is not just democrats. it is both parties, the whole system. host: can i ask a question? caller: sure. conspiracy! host: you are very critical of immediate. who do you trust? who do you get your information from? caller: i will not go to fox news anymore. i will not go to cnn. i do my research on the internet. i go to different sources on the internet. what you are trying to get me to say is i believe in -- host: ok. that is lisa, shreveport, louisiana, this morning. last caller in this open forum. an hour left this morning. in that hour, we will review the g7 summit and look ahead to president biden's high-stakes

meeting this week with russian president vladimir putin. we will be joined by two foreign policy thinkers, eldred colby and max bergmann. stick around. we will be right back. >> ♪ >> book tv has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend.

tonight at 9:00 eastern, the commissioner on his book, a memoir of community, race, and the art of policing in america. he is interviewed by charles ramsey. and tonight, at 10:00 eastern, the yale professor with car book on the untold history of police violence and black rebellion since the 1960's. watch book tv on c-span2 tonight. >> c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. for the next several weeks, watch key episodes from our series. tonight, the pentagon papers

where president nixon used executive authority to prevent "the new york times" from publishing top-secret documents on the u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. watch tonight at 9:45 eastern on c-span, online at, or listen on the c-span -- c-span.org online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span app. >> you still have time to order the congressional directory. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our sunday morning roundtable, as president biden continues his work at the g7 summit, is first overseas trip, we will be talking about foreign policy and wrap up the summit.

to do that, we are joined by elbridge colby, a former assistant deputy secretary of defense in the trump administration, cofounder of the marathon initiative, and max bergmann, who served in the state department is now a senior at the center for american progress. as we come to the final day of the g7 summit, what did president biden need to accomplish? what is the bar for success as we are just about 45 minutes away from his final press conference of the summit? guest: i think the bar for success was that america is back. i think that is the message we heard from the biden camp because i think there was a need to send a clear signal to america's key allies and partners that we were ready to return to the world stage and work together in a cooperative manner.

part of what the g7 is about is setting the framework for cooperation. a number of initiatives were announced setting a floor for global taxes. there was an initiative about a challenge to the china belt and road initiative. and also, a lot of initiatives around claimant. some of these need to be more fleshed out. the main thing is the united states got back into a cooperative relationship with allies to make it clear america is returning to eight cooperative place, a global leadership place in the international system. host: what is the bar for success in your mind coming off

this weekend? were clear signals sent? guest: the bar is practical outcomes. he laid out a more practical approach as the biden administration has been emphasizing. we need to see practical outcomes of this engagement. i think even "the new york times" was suggesting yesterday there are real questions about that. i think the biden administration is making a real play that is based on the alignment of democratic values that will drive practical outcomes, not just in a g7, broad but not practical way, but aligning on the china threat. i commend the biden administration's prioritization of the china challenge. the jury is out. we want to see on defense spending, pushing back on chinese intimidation and using

economic coercion, and settlement of transatlantic issues in terms of inequities in trade, for instance. putting my cards on the table, i am skeptical. i do not think they are pursuing it based on the right logic which is optics and trumpeting democratic values. it has been pretty public that president macron of france, angela merkel, and the have been skeptical. i think it is good the president is there and having good meetings with the g7, but that is not really what foreign policy needs to be about especially in the era of competition requires fundamental changes. host: you mentioned defense spending. that will very much be a topic on the table as president biden turns his attention to nato and meets with nato leaders tomorrow. what are your expectations for that? what are your expectations for the high-stakes meeting with vladimir putin on wednesday? guest: in terms of coming out of the meeting, i imagine we will

see some concrete examples. realistically what we want the next couple of years, and it is increasingly urgent giving the threat to u.s. and allied interests, is europe really stepping up and as the german defense minister has said taking a leading role in defense and management of threats in their neighborhood. i'm not sure we are going to see that. this is the first nato meeting the president is going to. but that is the standard. in terms of with president putin in geneva, has been mixed messages out of the administration. they are in the early stages. it is a complex issue. i think there's probably not a lot we can do. what we want from the russia relationship is for them to recognize there is a clear line they should not cross in the west.

don't take it from me. the polish foreign minister lit into the biden administration the other day about how they had not been consulted about the nord stream issue. it is going to be a high wire act. ultimately, i think we should see consistency. the antitank missiles were not part of the last announcement with ukraine, for instance. the president said russia was as much of a threat as china in his speech. we will have to see how it plays out. host: max bergmann on the next couple of days ahead, what is a realistic best case scenario for president biden? guest: i think the nato summit

is going to be really important. when trump first went to nato, he famously placed a commitment to article 5 which is that an attack on one is an attack on all, which was critical to european allies that neighbor russia. i think part of this is the basic reassurance the united states will be there. nato will outline an agenda for 2030. part of that is investment in new technology, trying to create new efforts that help modernize the alliance. included in that is going to be for the first time a focus on china. i agree with elbridge. the major focus of nato needs to be on russia, not necessarily china, given the threat russia poses to europe. i think it is an indication the united states wants to work with europe in regards to china. one quick point about values.

over the last four years, the trump administration, i think there's a real opportunity to create a solid transatlantic alliance when it comes to china. i think values are a critical part of that. when sanctions were done with partners against china over human rights abuses, the response from china prompted the european parliament to say we are not going to confirm the trade and investment deal the united states had concerns about. i think values is a way to help link the united states and europe together when it comes to confronting china. i think there is some trepidation in germany with the conservative government led by angela merkel about trade with china. we are seeing new parties emerge , the green party in germany,

that take a much harder line when it comes to china because of its human rights abuses. i think values and democracy play a critical role in rebuilding the transatlantic alliance and also focusing on china. when it comes to russia, i think this is going to be a very tough meeting. i think it is good the press between putin and biden has been canceled because the purpose of the meeting is to outline for the russians clear redline, that the united states does not want confrontation but we are ready to respond. when you are trying to thread the needle between -- to settle down tensions, that is not the best forum. the polish foreign minister and ukrainians have been concerned about the meeting. my guess is at the end of the day they will be reassured the united states stood up to putin

and laid out the red lines it comes to ukraine, poland, and cyber attacks that are maybe not directed by the kremlin but originate from russian hackers given a safe haven. i think there's a lot to go over. i don't think there's a lot to cooperate on. but i think he will lay down a marker. if we see further russian interference and actions, it creates momentum for a strong u.s. response. host: a lot to go over in this final segment of today's "washington journal." we are focusing on president biden's first overseas trip andy biden administration foreign policy agenda. the phone lines for viewers. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

this might be a shorter segment because we will be going to president biden's goodbye press conference from the g7 summit that is supposed to get underway in about 25 minutes this morning, if the president does arrive on time for the press conference. jennifer jacobs reporting from the president's press crew saying president biden has left on time for the press conference , noting he is flying with his national security advisor's and others on marine one. we will take you there for that goodbye press conference when it does happen. until then, elbridge colby and max bergmann are our guests in this segment. so viewers can get to know you and your work, where did you serve when you are working in public service? and talk about now for your --

about your work at the american -- center for american progress. guest: i mainly focused on security cooperation issues globally with military affairs as undersecretary and then on the policy planning staff in john kerry's final year. at the center for american progress, i do a lot on european defense and how we should respond to russia. host: elbridge colby? guest: i served as deputy assistant secretary for defense under the trump administration. the main thing i did was the 2018 national defense strategy building on important prior work on the great power competitions with china and russia. the marathon initiative was an

organic outgrowth of that. we believe there is a critical need for development of strategies to deal with the new era of great power competition. the most material thing on that is i have a book coming out in september, "the strategy of denial," on how we can reorient our thinking to this reality of great power competition. host: it may be appropriate as the g7 wraps up that our first call is from across the pond. paul is in england. whereabouts are you from? caller: [indiscernible] my question is what is president biden's main policy? guest: i think his main foreign

policy agenda is to reassert american leadership again with the message of why america is back and that america will be very engaged in responding to global issues like the pandemic. part of that is china. we have seen the administration put an immense amount of energy and attention on the challenge posed by china. i think that is going to be a driving issue for the administration. i agree with elbridge. i think it is a good thing the united states is going to make it about a competition between democracy and autocratic models and it will put pressure on the united states to make our democracy work better and function. i think that is where we will really see the emphasis in this administration. host: mr. colby, is there such a

thing as a biden doctrine yet? guest: i don't know. i would say in a lot of ways, they are building on the trump administration. i think in 100 years, people will look back on the trump administration and say the most important thing was the recognition of the china challenge and the requisite degree of confrontation. it was the beginning. but i think the biden administration has recognized that. i think the biden doctrine is a deeply, profoundly ideological approach. the president a couple of weeks ago said we are in a battle between democracies. it is a very ideological approach. as max suggests, it has deep ramifications at home as well. i fully agree with max that values in a democracy are an

important part of our foreign policy, especially with europe. i think we need to look at this more from the interests of the american people in an enlightened way that includes and encompasses the interests of others. we are really looking for balance. the view i'm talking about is closer to a lot of europeans. i think this very ideological approach the president laid out a couple of month ago, angela merkel and president macron poured cold water on it. boris johnson spoke highly of it. i think the brits are trying to get close to the united states. i think it has residence in europe. it does not play in asia very well. the japanese preferred term which the trump administration used was a free and open indo pacific. i think that is the biden

doctrine as i see it. i am skeptical it will pay off with the europeans in a material way, so they may end up backing off of it. i would say right now it is almost ideological warfare, warfare is too strong, but a very ideological approach in their foreign policy and connected to domestic policy in ways that conservatives that we find extremely disquieting. host: out to arizona, this is chris, an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i wanted to talk about was answered by mr. colby. when i was trying to find out is, why is it the current administration continually tries to paint the previous administration's foreign policy as a failure when it is the opposite? one of president trump's greatest strengths with foreign policy -- was foreign policy.

to see and hear representatives represent the left and liberal leaning ideology, mr. colby explains it perfectly. i wanted to ask, why is it they consistently try to paint america is not being a leader in the world when trump got nato and the g7 to do what they were supposed to be doing for decades? host: let's let mr. bergmann weigh in. guest: the g7 summit is an example. i think a lot has been accomplished at the summit. a lot has been laid out that can be built on. with the trump administration with our allies, nothing got done. the president described it as nato was brain dead. part of the reason was the

united states had no real interest in engaging in a cooperative manner with our allies to build a real agenda. it is true during the trump administration that democracy and our values were cast aside. where i disagree is i think it is an illusion to think a nonideological approach is not ideological. bereft realism, the international policy school of thinking, does not have a long-term strategic basis. i think nato is an example of this. when we have strong democratic partners, we base our foreign policy on having, standing up for human rights, standing up for democracy, and doing that is the lodestone. that does not mean constantly

engaging in wars and picking fights with authoritarians. there is a clear balance to be had. when it comes to building relationships such as with india, whom you could quite easily say could be a threat to the united states, but we don't view them as such, partly because of the democratic nature of the indian government the last 70 years. i think that is a real firm basis to start a foreign policy and reintroduce america after trump. i do agree the trump administration's prioritization of china was the right approach. during the obama administration with the famous pivot to asia that was happening -- to asia, that was happening. i think it was escalated under trump. i think the approach by the

biden administration is anchoring that competition was our allies -- with our allies. the u.s. and europe, our economies have potential power to shape the rules of the road in the 21st century. linking democracies together makes a lot of sense. host: robert from pennsylvania on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is a question regarding the united states' presence on the global stage. a lot of countries around the world, especially developing countries, they see america as a beacon for democracy. my question is, how on earth is the u.s. going to recover from the election integrity that it

failed in the previous administration? the rest of the world looks to america as a beacon for democracy. right now what happened in the previous election cycle does not look like it has integrity, which the rest of the world is looking at america right now. host: mr. colby? guest: the way i think about our foreign policy is our job is to serve the interests of the american people. the core of that freedom and democracy. it is heartening that people look to the united states. it is not the job of foreign policy to satisfy the rest of the world. we have a lot of challenges internally. i would say there is a lot of brouhaha about the united states. if you look at the cover of "the economist," last week, a lot of traditional allies are in decline. the united states is doing well. we have a lot of internal

problems. but we should get our situation right for our own view. there is an interesting academic in beijing named michael pettis who pointed out maybe this turmoil is good. it shows we are adapting. we are wrestling with real problems. they are real but we should not exaggerate them. i think the idea that the obama administration was confronting china is divisible. they were not allowed to use the word competition and china in the same sentence at least until the end. i think what max is giving us is representative of the biden administration. the trump administration did something that needed to happen, to focus on china. the notion the trump

administration did not work with allies is verifiably false. particularly with western europeans. with eastern europe and countries like china, japan, india, very good in improving relationships in southeast asia. i'm not seeing the trump administration did everything perfect, but it refocused on that strategy and something the obama administration had not been able to achieve. we fundamentally reoriented relationship with china. we need to go through confrontation across the spectrum of foreign policy in order to get toy stable place. we need to reorient foreign policy. i think it was a throwback to the 1990's. india is a great example. i think we should stand up for

freedom and democracy. we should not decrease india's ranking to be only partly free. we have to look at this in a broad perspective. it has to be part of our foreign policy is what we stand for. it is a tertiary thing behind thinking through what is in our enlightened self-interests and that of our allies. host: about 20 minutes before we are expecting the wrap up press conference from the g7 with president biden speaking. we will take you there for live coverage when he does. it is a shorter show today than usual. republicans can call in (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we talked about the pew poll and some findings on foreign

countries' view of america as a model for democracy. the numbers on the screen, 57% of the respondents across 16 countries said the united states used to be a good example of democracy but has not been in recent years. 23% saying the united states has never been a good example for other countries as a democracy trade just 17% saying the u.s. is a good example. do those numbers surprise you? guest: no. the january 6 riots and the attempted coup was shocking not just in the united states but globally. it made america look fragile. it made american democracy seem very unstable. that has called into question

the potential future for american global leadership. i think part of what makes america -- has made america be able to be a global leader is not just our economic and military strength but having a multicultural democracy that has provided a model to others. it is a model that in europe we forced on them and in japan and other places. korea and other places. i think going forward, over the last 20 years we became so selfish are that liberal democracy was going to advance. we had reached the end of any kind of ideological conversation , democracy was clearly a superior model. what we saw in an autocratic model that is quite appealing to

many leaders around the world pursuing him but -- an authoritarian model is better. that leads them to countries that have stronger ties with china and russia. we have to recognize that we are in a competition where we need to look good. when our democracy is under threat at home, when we do not look stable, when we do not handle the pandemic well, that all plays in to our ability to conduct foreign policy. for countries to establish close ties with us. in the long term, we stand up for the right things and we make noise when there are human rights abuses. that may cause short-term problems with building ties with

india or the philippines are other countries having democratic setbacks, but standing up for these values is to our benefit. these societies are never in full agreement. we need to take that longer-term perspective. what biden is doing is rebalancing us back to -- we had taken for granted human rights advances and now we need to stand up in a more concerted way and work more closely together with our partners. you can argue that is an overreaction to january 6. i believe it is the correct reaction. host: mr. colby, is that an argument you would make? guest: the purpose of american foreign policy is to serve the american people's interests.

in principle that is fine. in reality they are likely to be somewhat correlated. i was thinking about the united kingdom and australia, our closest allies. the global leader thing is a tool to serve the interest of our people. that is an and light into self-addressed -- that is an enlightened self-interest. president obama would emphasize that point. there was a much different emphasis to the way he spoke than president biden. i think that the united states -- we have been dealing with europeans decrying us for centuries really. we can go into all the historical details.

i don't really worry that much in end of itself about how we are viewed abroad other than as it instrumentally relates to our interests. republicans like me have different ideas about how to do that that debate between republicans and democrats, that is what we want to protect from internationalization. some of the president's statements suggest the opposite of what we want. with -- we want to argue it out internally. max referred to china's model. they have on authoritarian model, but a lot of their appeal -- their actual model is noninterference.

the u.n. emphasis. the biden plays into that potentially. if you read ashley townsend, in indonesia, malaysia, they may not like president trump but they do not like an ideological approach that may work in the corridors of the europe. as the foreign minister of poland pointed out to even there there are real questions. host: several callers are waiting to talk to you gentlemen. thank you for waiting. caller: i have one question -- if this narrative with the coronavirus is true, why have we not declared a war on china for

their involvement in all of this? what is the purpose of having a strong military to use for peaceful things throughout the planet and have this happen to our own people? guest: i think you raise a critical issue, michael. as secretary pompeo have pointed out, we need to have. -- we need to have accountability. our military in a sense will be protecting us from worse. what has happened what they coronavirus is a taste of the -- with the coronavirus is a taste of the unity with which china can act on the world stage. we need to work with whoever is aligned with us on this point. we do have -- obviously things

did not go so well in 2020. this is a good story. parts of asia will not have substantial vaccination i the end of 2022. vaccination is generally the way out of this problem. i do not buy into the narrative that we totally blew it. there were mistakes and so forth. if this virus had not escaped from china, we would not be in this place. guest: i generally agree. i think part of it was china obviously, it's initial response was not transparent with the global health community and the initial response in the trump administration was to -- only

later did they accuse this of being a lab leak. credibility was really important. this administration had clear evidence that it was a lab leak. no one trusted the trump presidency. globally it was a real problem. we did not have credibility when it came to raising this issue. now it is important that we figure out the origins of this so way it does not happen again. i do not think it was an intentional effort by the chinese. if it was human origin, i -- i do not think the response from china was up to snuff. i think there needs to be a full and -- full accounting but we need to do that with others,

with other allies, other countries who have been seriously affected. in part because i do not know if we have the credibility on our own to hold time can't bow given the rhetoric we have used, the actions we have taken over the last several years. host: to richard who has been waiting in amherst, new york. good morning. caller: what can we expect the biden administration to do with respect to the breakthroughs that the trump administration had concerning israel and the middle east, particularly the abraham accords in which israel and five for maybe six arab nations came together for a normalization of their relations and the pulling out of the jcpoa , which was paving the way to nuclear arms, not blocking it

and of course recognizing israel's undivided sovereignty in jerusalem and undivided sovereignty -- host: thanks for the questions. mr. bergman, do you want to start with this one? guest: sure. the abraham accords were one of the major accomplishments of the trump administration. pulling out of the jcpoa was an epic strategic mistake and we will see now whether the biden administration can -- if that veal -- if that deal falls apart, the chances of war in the middle east increase. that is not where we want to be spending our attention. the jcpoa was an identifiable

nuclear agreement that was effective and worked and now we need to re-create that and try to salvage it and do hope we have something longer. no deal is perfect but the united states is left potentially exposed. i do not think it is good for israel. i think we saw the conflagration with hamas in gaza and the west bank recently. the biden administration does sucked into the middle east -- not want to be sucked into the middle east. they set the priority have our foreign policy to focus on the middle east -- what we do not want is to have

to get it back to the middle east. that is what we are seeing with the biden administration not establishing a foreign policy specialist for the foreign east. i think the critical thing is can we reestablish this deal with iran that allows us to focus on china to focus on reestablishing relations with our close democratic allies. host: as we wait on president biden's press conference, we are expecting it in the next five minutes or so perhaps. guest: there is a lot of agreement. the administrations of both the democratic and republican parties know we need to do a lot less in the middle east. i would like to credit the offset strategy for their

critical role in opening up china. they trump administration right about prioritizing, being confrontational and not seeing deep cooperation is a way out. if you look at what happened in the south china sea, they established control. president trump was trying to end void -- avoid in management in the middle east -- avoid in mesh -- to be able to balance iran. for the saturday's and others, we went back them up and give them capabilities. i wish we had been more disciplined about withdrawing our own forces and military operations. this is where i applaud not only president trump but president

biden. we will not succeed and we need to pull the band-aid off. they both did that. the question is how? apropos of our earlier discussion, i think of the biden administration started out hard on the saudi's and now seems to have walked it out a bit -- walked it back a bit. hopefully we will work with the partners we have in the region with the goal of not only containing and balancing iran, but reducing end being -- the middle east is the third theater. we need to be much more disciplined there. host: to sarasota, florida. this is stephen, republican. caller: one of my big topics that deal with freedom,

democracy and elections is honesty and integrity in. the news channels if we do not -- integrity in the news channels. if we do not have fairplay, you will only have one side of the picture. in poland, i watched this protest to see if we would be in the news. i saw hundreds of thousands, but they do not show that on the channels. the channels showing at were threatened to come off the air but they could not do it because of the constitution. we have similar problems. our votes count, but if we do not hear the whole story, or only bits and pieces of information, we are never going to have a free and fair election, and 50% of the news

stations only show one side of the topic. i am a republican, but if i was a democrat i would be angry when i heard these stories. for example, when this whole breakup started, she is a world leader in stem cell technology. she was trained in germany and that she was a democrat who could not believe what she was reading on the news after she studied hydroxychloroquine. this is something not only affecting the election, it is affecting life, it is affecting death. my route -- host: we take your point. mr. colby, we will let you start on the role of news media and the issue of democracy end foreign policy. guest: this is a very real issue. it is empirical.

trust in news media is 15%. we have two very different sides of these issues. one thing i am a zealot on his free speech. i am very disturbed by social media companies and others. i think that is actually shared widely across the world. i am sympathetic to some of the legislative solutions both democrats and republicans are speaking about. the foreign policy discussion in the midst of corporate or mainstream media has a tendon the to be more insulated -- tendency to be more insulated. people on the right side of the spectrum feel like we cannot get it straight.

there have been all these errors to put it generously. this is a problem. i don't think any of us benefits. i'm not sure what to do about it at their then people like you and me stephen need to find our own sources of information. if we have to find our own way, we will just do it. we should not be looking as if this is not happening. host: on the media criticism topic? guest: i think that what we have is we do have a politicized media. we have fox news on the right, msnbc on the left. we have great institutions like c-span. what is happening now with the digital revolution, we have had a fracturing of that media environment.

you have on the digital side, companies like google and facebook who have monetized being able to -- the whole effort is to attract eyeballs. we have less responsible news. we have had the collapse of local news throughout the country. this is not only a problem in the united states. the business model for journalism has completely collapsed, which is based on people putting ads in newspapers. the newspaper in small regions, and cities served as gatekeepers. what has happened is we no longer have a common conversation because the ad dollars go to google and

facebook. they can target content because they know what you want to read. that means we do not have the kind of back and forth we are having right here. it creates incentives to push the envelope. some of the views being expressed are not true about the number of people at the rally. this becomes a problem. when we have seen technological revolutions in the past, they led to destabilizing situations and political environments. we need to grapple with how do we establish journalism? the market is one solution, but the market is having real problems. there is a need for a new regulatory environment.

this is one area where europe is in the lead in taking strong action to regulate the digital space, just as we regulate radio, just as we regulate television. i think that will be increasingly important. host: any minute now we are expecting president biden to step two that podium for his -- to that podium for his final press conference of the g-7 summit. we will keep watching for when he does step up. out of london, england, good morning. guest: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i believe -- caller: good morning into thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i believe your guests would agree with me when i say the jcpoa was

the worst deal. the biden administration is making the same mistakes as the jimmy carter administration when they came to iran. host: let's see if we can get that conversation in about the jcpoa before resident biden steps in -- president biden stetson. guest: -- president biden steps in. guest: he was not reducing our posture there, but not doing so in a way to telegraph weakness. i ran would be put on notice. i hope that the biden administration does build on things like the abraham accords into the strong position that

the united states have. even as we reduce our posture , in the region we need to recognize iran is a malign actor. host: mr. bergman? guest: i strongly disagree with the caller. host: let's have you back down the road to talk about that. i want to thank you both. we will continue this conversation another time. now sending you to the g-7 summit. president biden speaking now. pres. biden: filling in for the ambassador. we will have one soon. she did a great job supporting the entire team. we are keeping this u.k.-