you ahead. >> mediacom support c-span along with these other television providers, giving way front row seat to democracy all stop . >> live today on c-span, we go to the cato institute constitution day event. at 12:30 p.m., senator alex padilla talks about clean energy jobs and updates to the infrastructure bill and then we returned to the cato institute for a look ahead at the supreme court's october 21 term as well as mass incarcerations at 3:45 p.m. >> coming up this morning, justice for j6 organizer matt braynard discusses the riot.

kathleen hall jamieson discuss civics education. later, new york university's paul barrett discusses the importance of social media on political polarization. "washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is friday, september 17. constitution day in the united states. the founding fathers assigned the u.s. constitution in philadelphia in 1787. since then, we have made 27 amendments to that original document. this morning, as we reflect on the significance of the constitution, we want to know which of those 27 amendments is most important to you. phone lines split regionally for this discussion. one for the eastern or central time zone, mountain or pacific

time zone. you can also send us a text this morning. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. a very good friday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling in now. let us know the most important constant -- eminent to the constitution in your mind. we begin with this:. the headline "the u.s. constitution is not just words." this is what he writes in his column today, in contrast to the parades and fireworks evans did -- independence day, constitution day may seem boring. after all, the constitution is just words, but it has a great story. it was born in a crisis. its birth has been called the

miracle of philadelphia and endured conflict over slavery, a civil, economic depression and even two world wars. it has been at the center of some of our fiercest national debates. we cannot tell the story of something we don't know. and too many americans, especially young people are unfamiliar with the u.s. constitution and its essential place in our history and importantly, in their own lives. on the issue of americans civic knowledge and knowing the constitution, annenberg public policy center out with their annual survey. here is some of the top line numbers. u.s. adults who can correctly name all three branches of government increased this year to 56%. that is up from just over 50% last year. more respondents this year were able to name most of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment.

one in three americans knows how long the term of office for a senator is. 35% correctly said it was six years. we will dive more into the results of that survey, civic knowledge in the u.s. mostly spending this first hour hearing from you. want to know what the most important amendment to the constitution is in your mind. how does it apply to your life today in 2021? john, akron, ohio is up first. good morning to you. caller: good morning. what a wonderful idea and very apt. the first amendment, i see it as the most important and especially right now windows on a certain side of the spectrum are not respecting it, observing it and allowing it to the degree that they did. to me, it seems it is one of our most precious, one of the most precious things that we have,

the freedom of speech and the ability to speak as we do. hoping that as social media into news to be more integrated into our society, but this -- that this amendment continues to play the crucial fact it did up until about a year ago. host: thanks for the call. the first amendment, congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or a free speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of their grievances. back to that annenberg center for public policy survey. they asked annually each of their respondents to name the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment. interestingly, 74% of respondents were able to name the freedom of speech. 56% saying freedom of religion, although that is up from last year's 47%.

half of respondents were able to name freedom of the press. 30% naming the right of people to peaceably assemble. 20% naming the right guaranteed a people to petition the government for a redress of grievance does -- grievances. amy is next out of georgia. the most of men -- important amendment in your mind. caller: i would sit the 14th. as a black woman, equal protection has given me a lot of rights. i am concerned they are looking at roe v. wade. it is very scary. i want to make a, about the op-ed. i do not feel it endured a conflict over slavery. host: that is amy in west point, georgia. back to the op-ed where we started this morning. the author and headline on his piece "the u.s. constitution is not just words." he was more of what he wrote.

what story do we need to learn from the constitution? not that the constitution is perfect, we know it is not, it has been amended 27 times. we need to discover that it is a glorious document and put in the practice the principles of our declaration of independence. those principles make us one people at the declaration says. they define who we are as americans, they matter. students also need to learn that american history is the story of our ongoing struggle to live up to our country's founding principles of freedom. as dr. king put it in 1963, when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every american was to fall heir. this was a promise to all men were guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. on this constitution day, he writes that we need to

rededicate ourselves to the principles of the constitution and compelling way in which they have shaped our history as americans. we need to bring these principles alive again in the hearts and minds of all americans, especially the young. as we talk about constitution day in the united states, we especially want to hear from you. take a look at the 27 amendments to the u.s. constitution. which one is the one that is most important to you? a caller this morning talking about the first amendment. a lot more discussion about the first amendment happening this morning. 10:30 a.m. eastern c-span is airing a conversation on the first amendment hosted by the cato institute here in d.c. you can watch that here and listen to it on the free c-span radio app. back to your phone calls, what is the most important amendment to you? anthony in arizona. caller: good morning.

i would say the 27th amendment is the most important. the reason i state that, even though i am an african-american with indian ancestry is that we should have the 28th, the 29th, the 30th. the founders of the constitution recognized that they were not the smartest people at that time, but they were smart enough to say we are going to have to amend this constitution at some point. if you look at the 27th, and again, we should have more than 27, the 27th talks about pay and raises. one of the things -- covid seeks the weakest link. just like floods, you go to the high ground.

with covid -- i don't need to bring it in, but just as an example, if you make your body strong, if you get to the higher ground of your body's immunity, you are strong. we have elected officials that pretty much just want to figure out how to get another raise and not have to do any work. we need more amendments because our founders allowed that. host: what should be the 20th amendment and what should be the 29th? -- 28th amendment and what should be the 29th? caller: here is one of the things i would do and thank you for bringing that up. i think the 28th should say we should only have one presidential term, and it should be six years. and therefore, you cannot be reelected, and it would keep so much confusion out of politics. we would not have someone who just did not get reelected now trying to get elected again.

that could be anyone. that would be the first one. the second one would be to take away the powers of one soul individual. we are going to call this the 29th amendment, have the ability to launch weapons. we need the 30th and 31st and 32nd because those elected officials are just elected. they are not officiating anything. did that answer your question? host: thanks for the call. jim is in new york city. good morning. most important amendment in your mind? caller: to be specific to your question, i would say the second amendment because it is the sole amendment which secures all the others.

i would like to also say that all of the amendments are of great importance. i think the first two in combination are extremely important because in all relationships, there are two principles operating, reason and force. the first amendment is the essence of reason. the second amendment is force. when reason fails, nothing is left but force. the second amendment secures all the others in the event that reason should fail. i think one other mma that is important, -- amendment that is important which is what people really talk about is the ninth which says that there are many more rights than those enumerated in the constitution. i can't think of the quotation

off the top of my head, but the enumeration of certain rights in the constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, which explains clearly that those amendments and rights in the articles as well, which are enumerated in the constitution, are not the only ones retained by the people. there may be an infinite number of possible of rights which the people can claim. host: the non-enumerated rights past september 25, 1789 as part of the bill of rights, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. that is from the bill of rights. thanks for the call from new york city. dennis in georgia. good morning to you. caller: good morning. they keep adding amendments. they need to add another one for

schools using children for their football games that spend their whole day promoting football, and this goes on all over the united states every week. these kids need to live their lives. somebody needs to help them out here. they on tv right now and the football game starts at 7:00. somebody needs to help these kids. host: that is dennis in georgia. this is gary out of battle creek, michigan. caller: is it the 13th of and or the 14th amendment that was the civil war amendment about granting citizenship to the slaves? host: the 13th, the abolition of slavery, the 14th, citizenship rights, equal protection,

apportionment in there as well on the 14th amendment. caller: i was going to say, the fact that we are so racially polarized, i am worried that immigrants, native americans, their rights will be curtailed, voting rights will be curtailed. to me, it would also help of certain candidates had actually read the constitution. idell think donald trump has bothered to read the constitution because i don't think he really cares about the constitution. i keep hearing that people are going to stop -- is of the direct election of senators that people want to repeal? host: there are a lot of proposed eminence to the constitution. plenty of those.

-- amendments to the constitution. plenty of those. caller: there are some people that want to turn back all of the vans meant -- advancement. the rights of women to vote. that is an important one. host: section one of the 14th, all persons born and naturalize in the united states are citizens of the united states and of the state they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen nor shall the state deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. june 13, 1866. it was ratified in 1868. the constitutioncenter.org, a very good resource to perhaps pull up during the first hour of

"washington journal" today. the constitution center very much a friend of this network. glad to always have their help. michelle is in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know who was the original -- who made the original quote, but the quote is "my religion is the constitution." about 20 years ago, i was watching c-span and there was this man that was a black attorney driving his mother and sister from a funeral. he was stopped and they wanted to search his car, but his specialty was the fourth amendment. it was fascinating. that is how i first learned about the fourth amendment. thank you. host: the fourth amendment, part

of the bill of rights, the right of people to be secure in their persons and houses and papers and affects against unreasonable searches and seizures. taking our phone calls this morning on this constitution day. asking you what is the most important amendment to the u.s. constitution. 27 amendments to the united states constitution, more than 11,000 have been introduced in congress over the years. 33 have gone to the states to be ratified. 27 have received the necessary approval from states and have actually become amendments to the constitution. let us know what is the most important one in your life. one number if you are in the eastern or central time zones, one is the number if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. as you continue to call in this morning, also keeping you

up-to-date on events we have covered on the c-span network. last night -- last night, we covered the gubernatorial debate taking place in virginia. the headline from today's washington times, yunken focuses on economic issues and squares often not debate. glenn young kim, the republican. terry mcauliffe, the democrat running. here are some of the exchanges from last night. [video clip] >> i have been a strong advocate for everybody to get the vaccine. that is why i launched a public service announcement to encourage people to get the vaccine. i believe that right now, we face a real difference between my opponent and me. although just five weeks ago, he was pretty much in my same position, encouraging businesses to make their own decisions.

but he changed that when it became politically expedient. i think what we need to do right now is make sure that everyone in virginia understands that getting the vaccine is the most important thing we can do. that is why i invited teri to do a psa with me so we can encourage all virginians to get the vaccine. when i'm leaving virginia, we are going to make sure virginians understand the best way to keep themselves healthy, provide all the best information and encourage virginians to act. >> your time is up. very quickly, yes or no, would you challenge the constitutionality of biden's mandates in court? >> i don't believe he has the authority to dictate to everyone that we have to take the vaccine. >> so is that a yes? >> i would encourage everyone to get the vaccine, but i doubt that he has the authority to do so. >> mr. mcauliffe, you have set a goal that every child in virginia be vaccinated, but you would not mandate it.

you would leave that to the school districts to decide. but virginia already requires students to have 11 different vaccinations at various ages to attend school. covid is a more dangerous health threat to them today than polio or other diseases. my question is, should the state add covid to that list? that is to require all students who are age-appropriate to get a covid shot too? >> first of all, i have been very out front for people getting vaccinations. i've called for employers to mandate it, everyone in a hospital, every individual who works in a long-term care facility or a nursing home. everybody who works in k-12. everybody who attends high red. i have been very strong on this from day one. glenn and i differ. he has had rhetoric out there. he told college students, if you don't want to take the vaccine, just fill out an exemption.

i think that is life-threatening and disqualifying as governor. he does not believe in forcing people to understand what covid is going to do to this state and country. it is still across the country. right here in this county, all of the icu beds are full. i'm for requiring mandate vaccinations. he likes to be psa's. psa's are not going to get you anything. i want everybody to be vaccinated in the commonwealth of virginia. >> your time is up. yes or no, would you add covid to the list of required vaccines? >> over the age of 12. the fda has not done the analysis under 12. >> so for students above the age of 12, would you support adding the covid vaccine? >> absolutely. host: that from the virginia gubernatorial debate last night.

if you want to watch the debate in its entirety, you can do so on our website. we are spending this first hour of the washington journal today, this constitution day asking what is the most important constitutional amendment in your mind. one number for eastern or central time zones, one if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. and is in california. caller: -- ellen is in california. caller: my most important is the one that is most abused which is the 14th which allows illegal immigrants to come into this country, have a child, and it is declared a citizen. host: so you would like to amend the 14th amendment, repeal the 14th amendment? what would be your citizenship

requirements if you got to decide? caller: i think it was geared -- it was written with the 13th to allow the slaves, the black slaves that were here to become legal citizens. voting rights and all of the other amendments. it was not intended for us to have open borders and allow anyone who drops into the united states to become a citizen. host: so should citizenship only be passed down from current citizens? caller: from legal entry into the united states would be acceptable. host: that is ellen in california. this is randall in maryland. caller: good morning.

i have two quick points. the direct answer to your question is the first amendment is the most important because when it is not operational, you really cannot have a functioning democracy. i would like to make a second point about commitments in general which is that we could talk all we want about all of the eminence from the past, but the reality is that we have -- there have been very few amendments in the last decades and it is the current construction of our political system, our two-party system. it is almost impossible to pass an amendment today, which i think raises a more fundamental question since the whole idea of our government is based on the idea of the consent of the governed is whether or not the people who are living today are really giving consent to the governed given how difficult it is to actually -- we had no choice in the constitution and

how difficult in reality it actually is to amend or change our government in any way. host: coming back to the point you made, do you think we have a functional democracy today? caller: i think it is not a yes or no thing. i think it is a matter of degree. i think we are more functional than many other countries in the world, but it is certainly not perfect. in the sense of it is really based on the consent of the governed, what gives the constitution -- what binds us to live under if we don't really have an actual ability to change it. we have no say in it, so i think it is democracy to some degree, but it is certainly not what we often describe it as an idealistic terms. host: is there any issue you think it could unite enough people to get behind a

constitutional amendment today? or just because one side takes it up, you think the other side will take it up and say that is wrong, that is people? caller: i think there have been thousands of amendments that have been considered and we have had very few lately, maybe want to be able to amend or change how the constitution is amended, if that's possible. why don't we have the constitutional convention? jefferson said we should have one every generation. we have never had one since the original one. people living today are living in an infinitely different reality than they were living. it is like a form of religion where we are bound by what other people said hundreds of years ago. they were trying to interpret what did they mean. host: we had a call earlier saying the wisdom they showed was allowing an amendment

process to say they don't know anything -- everything. caller: that a sort of my point is you could say there is an amendment process on paper. but in reality, look at how you describe the process of what you have to do to get any amendment through. how many amendments have we had in the last 20 or 30 years? host: the 27th amendment ratified may 7, 1992. that was the last amendment to the constitution. caller: 1972, that is almost 50 years ago. things have changed so rapidly. proving my point, look how many people probably submitted resolutions, amendments or wanted to have them submitted. in reality, it is very questionable. the bar is so high to get an

amendment. i can't think of anything off the top of my head that enough people could agree on. if they could, it probably would not be one of the more significant things. the more significant changes would be things that are more controversial like the e.r.a.. i am not saying i am for or against it, but as an example. it is easy to talk about a great golden time when at the end of the civil war they were able to pass a bunch of amendments or even the 1960's. the question is, can we still use that process to amend the constitution now? host: thanks for the call from chevy chase, maryland. looking for your comments on social media. dan johnson writing and that the 21st amendment is the most important to him, the repeal of prohibition. saying, i like to drink beer. melvin saying i am looking for the 20th amend meant that will

get money out of politics and undo citizens united. another saying term limits across the board is the biggest fix. all these ancient white guys who have been taking up space for so long won't leave even when their faculties no longer function. can we get back to government by and for the people? asking you this morning, what is the most important constitutional amendment in your mind? caller: i appreciate all you do. you are so fair and being a host. -- so fair at being a host. host: what is the most important amendment in your mind? caller: the first amendment because the forefathers put that first. you can practice religion in any way you want to. supposedly covid is worse now.

we lost more people in the first eight months of this year than last year. covid is so bad now, why are all of these that something is up -- something is up. people aren't wearing masks. i don't wear a mask. the government wants you to view everything. it started with the terrorists. it started when terrorism hit in 2001 and they knew they could control the people that -- control the people than. they just move the goalpost and people just follow. i want to point out one thing in the constitution. article one section eight of the constitution gives the right of the federal government to oppose taxes for the general welfare of its citizens.

not for illegals or anything else. how can they tax people and have a wide open border? they get all of his weapons back to the television -- to the taliban. do you see what i'm talking about? host: this is conrad out of philadelphia where we started our conversation this morning. caller: i listened to the callers talk about the constitution but my opinion is the only time anyone worries about the constitution is when it benefits them. the constitution was back in the 17th century. they did not have airplanes, they did not have cars. the world has changed from the 17th century to now. we are not going to get anything out of our politicians in washington, d.c. because they always say the constitution this

and that. everything needs to be upgraded. if you had an old car, that car has to be done over. host: we are talking about the upgrades to the amendments, the constitution has been amended 27 times, the most recently in 1992. you think it is still not reflective of society today? caller: no, because when they did the constitution, you had all white guys. you did not have people of color. the constitution wasn't made for everybody, it was made for the powers that be. host: that is conrad in philadelphia. this is harry in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span.

we should know that the constitution was originally written to protect the rights of the ownership class. that is why it was written in the first place. to limit the power of the government -- that was to limit the power of the government. we have been approaching a more democratic understanding over many years with different amendments, the last of which may be the 14th or when they finally gave women the right to vote the year before my mother was born. we have never been a democracy.

we were designed as a reputational -- as a representative republic to keep the majority from removing the property from the opulent class. that is the way the thing was designed. host: you mentioned giving women the right to vote, the right of the citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the u.s. or any state on account of sex. congress shall have the right to enforce this article. he talked about that being something that made us a more perfect union -- you talked about that being something that made us a more perfect union. what would be any amendment today that would make us a more perfect union? caller: you figure that brought roughly 50% of the population into the decision-making process of the union.

i don't know if it requires a constitutional amendment, but i think the post-civil war amendments gave the right to go to every class of people except for women at that point. we point is, when you start making laws that try to invert that intention, as the states have been doing, you are acting against the idea that is in the preamble that is in order to create a more perfect union. host: that is harry in georgia.

about 25 minutes left in this segment of "washington journal." we ask you what is the most important constitutional amendment. phone lines split regionally. 202-748-8000 in the central or eastern time zones. 202-748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. keeping you updated on what else is happening in washington. a federal advisory committee will decide today whether the third shot of covid-19 vaccines are safe and protective against infections. whether the exercise or luxuries or an essential part of providing protection against the virus. the fda's advisory committee will consider that information submitted by pfizer for their booster shot. on monday and our 9:00 a.m. our,

we save it to talk about the covid pandemic and the response. we will be talked -- we will be joined by one of the fda advisory panel members to talk about boosters and the latest when it comes to vaccines for children. dr. paul hoffman will be joining us. on the issue of boosters, jen psaki was asked about the latest. here is some of the exchange. [video clip] >> the fda and cdc agree that the american public should be getting boosters starting next week. they are on that page but the fda advisory committee and cdc advisory committee, let's say they are on a different page. who is the administration going to listen to? top doctors or the advisory

committee? >> that is not what a icp has recommended. there meeting next week. what our medical experts have said and they have been clear about this -- dr. walensky noted that immunocompromised people never got good protection to begin with. we noted that now we should offer a third dose. we have a lot of data from this country and other countries in the effects of waning. those studies have been completed and should be available to the fda soon. our objective is to be prepared should all of this process move forward. it has always been pending the approval of the aicp. all doctors have said this is needed. eight said they determined boosters would be needed. now it will go through the process.

we are not going to predetermine what that process will save. >> -- host: jen psaki in the briefing room yesterday. back to your phone calls, asking you what is the most important constitutional amendment. alex in aurora, colorado. caller: i personally believe the first amendment is so important to have the freedom of speech. i.e. great that almost to like having oxygen -- i.e. >> that -- i equate that almost two but that's almost to like having oxygen --

i would propose to limiting the judiciary appointment to be abolished. instead of that, 10 to 15 years terms for all federal judges and the supreme court. that would be my new amendment. host: and the idea of doing that is to make the court less political? to make the court less divided? to give more opportunities for turnover? caller: you said it all. giving more new blood and more circulation, more reflective of america that is, that the majorities -- that the minorities are becoming majorities.

even these senate hearings about five term appointments -- the only thing that should be life term is the position of god. nothing else. especially in the democratic system, it is so odd that the federal judiciary has life term appointments. 47 states do not have that. out of 50 states -- as far as i know only three states have life term judge appointments. 47 others said thanks but no thanks, we are not going that route. i think somehow that was accidentally brought into the constitution. host: john in richmond, virginia. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i think the 10th amendment is very underrated. the name of our country is united states of america. for one, i am scared of the federal government getting too big, but also creating a monolithic culture. i think having different cultures across the different states is nice. if you don't like where you live, you can move somewhere else. if we start taking more power away from the states, that is no longer going to be the case. host: the 10th amendment, the last included in the bill of rights. the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. finish your thought. caller: that depends on how the supreme court interprets what is delegated to the government,

things like the commerce clause and things like that. i think a lot of people are scared of the federal government but not so much their state and local government. host: which do you think has the most trust among people, state, federal, and local government? caller: i think people trust their local event state, then federal because that is what is closest to them. host: this is stinson in l.a.. -- in l.a. what is the most important amendment? caller: [indiscernible] the people do their own thing.

i am 78 years old. they are stealing people's houses now and that they are doing nothing about it. host: this is nelson in redwood city, california. good morning. caller: i agree with three colors ago that the best amendment would be limiting supreme court justices. i am african-american. i would disagree with conrad that just because the founding fathers were white negates what they said. if you go onto youtube and listen to the constitution in full, it is amazing. there is nothing bad you could say i got kicked -- there is nothing bad you could say about

the declaration of independence. but if you listen to the constitution, it begins with who can vote, who is 3/5 of a person -- it sounds so muddy. this has all been amended. my greatest amendment would amendment. that is the one that a lot of people in my religious circles have trouble with. i am reformed so i agree with the teachings of the puritans. a lot of white reformed preachers are very much against the 14th amendment. not so much that black people are american citizens, but the government messes up part. a lot of reformed preachers are against an unconstitutional

president and they are against the 14th amendment. they are basically pro-confederate people. everybody says they believe in the constitution, they really don't. they don't believe the 14th amendment and the 16th amendment. host: you talk about listening to the declaration of independence, that you went to youtube and listen to it. why the experience of listening to it? what do you get from that instead of reading it? caller: i am just wired that way. it is read so beautiful. reading is always better because you are combining your mind with your eyes. but it is a beautiful reading. there is nothing negative about

it. jefferson did go over to france and he did not like the way poor people were being treated. albeit, he did have slaves. they were hypocrites. but the words of the declaration of independence are also. there are no flaws -- are als -- are awesome. there are no flaws. host: here are some of those words of the declaration. "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are endowed with an oval -- with an inalienable rights. that whenever any form of

government becomes disruptive to these ends, it is the right of the people to -- of course it goes on from there. david in south carolina, good morning. caller: i think there should be in an amendment where everybody is required to vote. you get a reward for voting and there is a penalty for not voting. host: why do you think that is important? caller: everybody should have

enough interest in this country to promote the benefits -- it benefits everything from the [indiscernible] . host: about 10 minutes left in this section of "washington journal." telus what you think is the most important amendment. caller: the right to vote is the most important thing. mitch mcconnell and joe manchin, these guys are obstructionists. people should be forced to exercise their right to vote. everyone who received a stimulus check should be forced to vote.

everyone who receives benefits should be forced to vote. what is a shame is that people don't vote within their economic status. if people don't vote because they do not believe in the government, they don't think their vote counts, they still received the stimulus check. this to the exercise their right to vote. what's the american public realizes that you vote your economic means, we can vote these bums out that give tax breaks to the rich and give corporate tax breaks. people have to vote within their economic means. there are voters out there who are brainwashed. they live under $40,000 a year income and they vote republican. what a shame. most of the candidates you

recognize the most who are going to help you out of your poverty and economic situation. host: a few more of your comments and text messages as well. "amen on the caller about the 10th amendment. we are states first and united to defend our borders and charity from other nations." jody saying "repealing citizens united because it has done the opposite of its title and has divided situations who are corporations, are as much a citizen as a transsexual is the opposite sex." "many people read the amendments and don't understand. they use them improperly." ginger in alabama, good morning. caller: what he read out of the constitution just now is probably my favorite part.

host: that was the declaration i read just a minute ago. caller: okay. the voter id, everybody is talking about that, everybody should have a right to vote with an id. they need to be citizens. i don't think you should walk across a border anywhere and vote. as far as amendments, i think we need term limits for congress. some of them get power-hungry which is why we have term limits for the president. many of them are power-hungry. nancy pelosi is one of them. she has got to go. term limits for congress would be a great amendment. no more than eight years for these people. they lobby, they get bought off,

bad things happen after that. host: that is ginger in alabama. it is never a bad time to read the founding documents. this is the preamble to the constitution. "we the people of united states and order to form a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america." ron is in springfield, virginia. caller: i want to make a couple of points about the constitution. it is a beautiful, living document. any force against that, that goes into foreign and domestic. what makes it beautiful is that even though we don't -- if we

refuse these rights, the constitution ensures them. with things like the patriot act and state surveillance, the average person is willing to give away their rights in the name of security but our constitution protects us. host: explain what a living document is. caller: it is amendable. all of the major flaws have been fixed. it is living because it is amendable. most of the major flaws have been taken out. the other point i want to make is that a lot of callers are saying they wanted to be more evenly amended but i would be against that. the biggest consensus we have seen in our lifetime is the rush to war after 9/11. except for barbara lee, there

was almost 100% support for this rush to work by the populace and elected officials and we have seen what a disaster that was. we have to be really careful to not wish for an easily amendable constitution. my favorite is the first amendment and number two is money out of politics. we have a corrupted political class and we cannot trust them to do anything major until we get the special interests out of our system. thank you so much. host: this is anne in maine. caller: i would like to build on what the last caller said and highlight the whole amendment process. the founders knew they were not

infallible. many of them knew they had made unconscionable political compromises such as legitimizing slavery which was totally against their revolutionary message of radically quality -- of radical equality. i would like to call out the boondoggle of originalism and textualism in interpreting the constitution because the whole idea of author's intent with a text has been dismissed in every field except the supreme court and republicans. more importantly, in terms of textualism, they pretend a dictionary fixes the meaning of a word for all-time. it really shows the trajectory of a word over the social landscape. it is really this amendment process that i think will be our

salvation. host: is that amendment process -- is the bar too high? the one most often talked about, two thirds approval in the house and senate and three fourths of states ratifying that amendment, is that too high of a bar? caller: i think there has to be a high bar. i think it cannot be done like a recall vote. it cannot be done lightly. i think it is a very weighty theme to amend the constitution -- very weighty thing to amend the constitution. i think the legislature and the supreme court have to be more careful about crafting legislation and upholding the laws that exist. host: time for just two more calls, two more minutes left in

this segment. donna in salem, massachusetts. caller: happy constitution day. i don't know what amendment would be needed to change why americans are losing their rights through the probate and family court when guardians and conservators are appointed. felons in prison have more rights. it is unbelievable. i am an american through and through and i can hardly believe what is happening across america. the free britney spears movement exposed it. host: last call, steve in ohio. what is the most important amendment? caller: the ninth amendment is the one i think is the most underrated.

many people seem to like the 10th in the sense of the states having rights. the ninth amendment, unenumerated rights. the writers were not the one granting rights. we have inherent rights. the ninth amendment was recognizing that. the one i think is the most ignored and unappreciated. -- was very dismissive of that which i thought was a disgusting aspect of his opinion. it is retained by the people. that is very important in terms of the limits of the states. they do not grant rights. we have rights. host: steve in ohio ending us on

the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. that will do it for this first hour of discussion, this constitution day on "washington journal." plenty more to talk about this morning, including rally organizer matt braynard discusses the justice for j6 rally taking place in washington, d.c. tomorrow. later, kathleen hall jamieson of the university of pennsylvania will discuss the constitution day civics surveys and the importance of civics education. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books.

saturday on american history tv, joseph riley, lonnie bunch, and harry taylor discussed the new african-american history museum being built in charleston, south carolina. at 2:00 p.m., we will take a look at camp david with a man who served as the commander of the complex under george clinton -- under bill clinton and george w. bush. he is the author of the book "inside camp david." jeffery gardner talks about his book "three days at camp david," which looks at nixon's attempt to devalue the u.s. dollar and the gold standard. authors discussing their nonfiction books on "afterwards ."

sanders discusses the political party in his book "two roads diverged." at 11:00 a.m. eastern, roxanne dunbar ot's -- dunbar ortiz with her book "not a nation of immigrants." watch american history tv and book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full program -- and finally full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday defined events and people that fill our nation's past on "american history tv." "book tv" rings you nonfiction books and authors.

learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the conversation now with matt braynard. he is the organizer of justice for j6 rally taking place tomorrow. matt braynard, who are the people you don't believe have gotten justice related to january 6. guest: before that, i want to clarify something. there has been a lot of misinformation about this rally. when we begin this advocacy, we condemn all violence. we believe those that destroyed property at the capitol building or hurt police officers should be given a speedy trial, if guilty, convicted.

the vast majority of people arrested in that event not charged with committing crime -- not charged with committing violence or destruction of property. historically, these individuals have been given a slap on the wrist. when alexandria ocasio-cortez stormed the speaker's office and had a sit in, those people were arrested and released. when the kavanaugh confirmation hearings were interrupted by activists, those people were arrested for interfering with government business, given a fine, and released. there is a disparity between how those people are being treated and how these people are being treated. it is not about what they did but about what they believe and that is what makes them political nurse. -- political prisoners. we are anti-violence. we have had two protests in d.c. already.

we look forward to having a very safe, peaceful expression of our rights. host: what is the program tomorrow? caller: we are going to start with the pledge and a prayer. i will be speaking and my cohost started is similar organization will be narrating the event. we will have family members who have been victimized by this persecution. we will have two aspiring congressional candidates there. i will speak a little bit and we will sing some songs. host: what is the goal by the time the rally is over? caller: -- guest: what we want to do is put a spotlight on the mistreatment of these individuals and encourage legislators to deliver real justice to these people. that means in many cases dropping charges or arguing and

allowing for these folks who have been in solitary confinement without a conviction or without access to their families -- no conviction, in prison for nine months without the option for a bail. -- without the option for bail. they should at least be allowed to go home. host: how many people argue talking about and do you think they should all be released? is there anyone you think represents a threat? caller: -- guest: we are talking broadly about 700 individuals. the most are not charged with violence. a lot has been released to go home. we believe those are political prisoners as well because of the treatment they have. we have the most current database of everyone arrested, including indications of who is incarcerated and where.

of those incarcerated, there is a significant number not charged with any violence. one guy is being held because of a threat of interstate commerce. there are many people who have been accused of violence who are charged with real violence and have been released under house arrest with the same violence charges as those being health. being held. -- as those being held. all men are innocent until proven guilty. although there is evidence where it seems they engaged in something violent and deserve their day in court -- especially those not accused of violence, those charged with conspiracy or interstate commerce, being held in solitary confinement. that is completely immoral. they should at least be granted bail. host: you're rally is getting a lot of attention in d.c., a lot of conversation this week. what you say to those critics who are calling this an attempt

to whitewash the violence of january 6? guest: we condemn the violence on january 6. we think everyone who engaged in it should be arrested. we think the federal government to is sitting on 14,000 hours of video from that day should release that video so these individuals can be held accountable. we are a peaceful organization. we have had two events without any issue -- without any violence. i think most would agree with us. i do not think there is anyone in d.c. thinks a police department who clears itself -- that is what has happened to ashli babbitt. for her we are demanding there is a public investigation to determine whether that was a legitimate use of force. everyone in d.c. agrees with me.

it would be wrong for a police department to clear itself in the killing of an unarmed citizen. there needs to be a further investigation. i know a majority of people believe someone who has not been accused of violence should not be in solitary confinement for nine months got the opportunity for bail. the more people learn about this, the more they agree they are on our side. this is not about president trump or president biden. it does not matter what your party is, this is a civil rights battle. this is what we are standing up for. host: we are talking with matt braynard, the organizer for the justice for j6 rally taking place on the foot of capitol hill on the east end of the national mall. he is with us for another 15 or 20 minutes. you can call in. for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

folks are calling in. what is lookahead america? guest: we are an america first community organizer. whether to change policy at the local level or at the state level or the national level. for generations, the left has dominated community organizing. on the right, that has been a dirty word. when i say community organizer, people think of barack obama. on the right, he was mocked for that. how is this community organizer going to run for president? that was a mistake on our part. the community organizing is a powerful tool. that is where lookahead america comes in. we are eager to lead on this front. whether it is a local battle against crt or a state battle for voter integrity or at the national level. host: what is your background?

you worked for the trump campaign? guest: i was the director of data and strategy for the trump campaign. i have worked on five presidential campaigns going back to the mid-1990's. i engaged in community organizing in 1994 against the clinton health care plan. i have been involved with hundreds of elections and nonprofit groups. i started this group in 2017. it failed. we we lasted this year and i think we are hitting our stride. we have leadership in 40 states. we have 2500 to 3000 volunteers. we are growing. we are having 17 rallies across the country and state capitals and it is all volunteer driven. all of this is paid for by donations that are very small. apart for one program for voter registration, we do not have any big donors. it is paid for by grassroots.

host: is this your full-time job? guest: partially. i also worked as a general consultant. i work for a nonprofit full-time. i am paid a small salary, $60,000 just have to live on so i also worked as a consultant. host: how much do you make from this group? guest: $60,000. that is my salary. it is public information because it is on our 990. we are getting our status reestablished with the irs. host: matt braynard is here to take your calls. lauren is up first in redwood city, california. caller: good morning. i believe matt braynard is talking out of both sides of his mouth. he says at one point that january 6 was peaceful and then

he says look at the video and the video shows a bunch of violence. the police were being beaten by trump supporters using american flags and fire extinguishers and everything. it is wrong with him to characterize the january 6 insurrection is as peaceful -- insurrectionists when the video you are showing right now shows violence. caller: -- guest: what is your name? caller: my name is lorene. guest: d believe that someone who never laid a finger -- we consider that there are bad actors. do you believe that someone who never laid a finger on a place officer should be in solitary confinement without bail for nine months?

let's have some moral clarity here. host: let her finish her comment. caller: the intent is what is important. we understand what was the intent of those people at the capital that day. you cannot say people who marched around and got in the way of the other police department trying to get rid of the violent ones are innocent. host: we will let matt braynard respond. guest: i give you a very realistic scenario. you do not know the details of the case yet you say you know the intent of these people. the intent is their first amendment rights. i agree they should not have been in the building it was naivete on their part. this stood in rope lines, they did not destroy stuff. they walk in, take a few

pictures, get a selfie with a capitol police officer and walk out. not even convicted, do you think these individuals should be in solitary confinement? d believe the people who stormed the offices of alexandria ocasio-cortez were terrorists? they were just expressing their rights in the same way as a citizen. host: david, good morning. caller: good morning. this has more to do with equal protection under the law than anything else. the majority of people at that protest, that is what motivated them. they watched months of the u.s. being set on fire from coast-to-coast by anitfa and other groups whose profession was openly to destroy the system. the people who came to

washington were not there to destroy the system. there were plenty of fbi informants and people on the scene. the fbi released a memo that says 95% of the people there were part of an organization. they were not pursuing any planned insurrection. the person that called and said intent is what is important. those people were not fair with the intent of destroying the government. no one was arrested with a gun. as the fellow said, there is no place in the country where an unarmed person can be shot by anyone in authority without having an investigation. host: we will let matt braynard jump in. guest: president trump's

inauguration, over 250 anitfa activists were arrested. not for prorating for threatening interstate commerce which is what these people have been accused of, but for real violence. destroying police cars, destroying property. over 200 of them had charges dropped. they did not spend a day in prison. they did not have their faces put on billboards or the fbi come to their homes. they did not lose their jobs, etc. this is about equal fairness under the law. it is about people being persecuted for what they did but for what they believe. i get it, a lot of people hate donald trump. i get it. that does not mean you have to hit us and our fight for justice -- you have to hate us and our fight for justice.

i think that hatred for donald trump is blending people. you do not have to agree with these people. you at least have to agree they needed to be treated fairly and under the laws of our constitution. they cannot be punished because of what they believe. that is unfair. host: you talk about former president trump. we talked with scott mcfarland earlier this week. he has been tracking these cases at the courthouse. he brought up the fact that in some of these filings, prosecutors are using some of the comments former president trump had made about the election as reasons to keep these people in jail. this is a little bit of our interview with him. [video clip] >> the former president's words made life more difficult for a lot of these defendants. a lot are being held in jail pretrial. dozens of them are being held

pending trial. like many defendants in detention, they are trying to get themselves released back home until trial. nobody was to be in jail. they say they will not be a danger to the community. we have seen judges, -- judges specifically say that donald trump's denial of the 2020 election makes people more dangerous to the community. they excited donald trump's words -- they cited donald trump's words in holding these people. saying that donald trump and the denial of the election potentially makes some of these defendants more dangerous. guest: that is asinine and immoral, you cannot hold these people who in many cases are not being accused of violence. despite the fact that you have

not been convicted of anything and under the law you are innocent, you cannot be released on home arrest or bail. there is a problem with our judiciary and prosecutors. we have seen prosecutors going into the courtroom and sing that multiple capitol police officers were murdered that day, that is a falsehood. this is a travesty of justice. that is why you need any organization like us and you need to patriots showing up advocating for this. if the justice system was delivering these people speedy trials, convicting them or finding them innocent, preventing -- presenting evidence, we would not need to do this. i don't want to have to do this. we are primarily a voter registration organization but we need to step up. the judiciary system is broken and we need our legislators to fix it. host: the line for independents,

good morning. caller: how much do i love c-span? i love c-span immensely. i am thankful for this platform for us to hear individuals like mr. matt. we need to value the beautiful rights we have been bestowed with here in the u.s. it is patriots versus unpatriotic individuals. that is not a recipe for american people. thank you for bringing light to this shadow. how can we, the american people, bring back political cohesion to the united states so there can be prosperity and we do have the ability to pursue our happiness? thank you so much for c-span. thank you to brian lamb. guest: a great political leader

once said that their loyalty to our country we will discover loyalty to each other. that is the heart of the mission of lookahead america. we are trying to bring people together on behalf of the america first movement. i encourage the listener to attend the rally in d.c. i want to make something clear, i think why this rally on september 18 is getting criticism is because to many the political leadership of this country is more threatening than what happened january 6. when people feel manipulated, they engage in violence. it is easy for the political establishment to deal with that, they just send the fbi and throw them away. when you have a large people group, it is not easy to deal with that. you have to confront their message. our message is winning.

there is a poll showing a majority of americans agree with us. even 45% of democrats agree with us. i have seen polling that shows the same thing. a will organized expression of our first american rights where you just cannot sick the fbi on us is very threatening. host: in pennsylvania, this is drew -- this is joe the democrat. caller: unconstitutional -- on constitution day, being exposed to this argument, i wonder if this man has studied about the baled issues in this country and the inequality of hundreds of hundreds of people being held for two to three years before going to trial. i am amazed that a peaceful demonstration -- he just used

the term inherently evil in saying some of the people who participated january 6. he is trying to use a moral compass to justify what happened january 6. i was a schoolteacher. if my students acted in that manner, not only would they have been thrown out of school, they would have been arrested for such behavior. those people who entered quote -- entered "peacefully" and took pictures with capitol police officers, i would like to see how many of those were arrested. i would like to see this travesty of a moral position when it was an insurrection. they are people who committed violence. if someone committed violence within our system, a mass

murderer or serial killer, they are not released before trial. they are not given homebound surveillance. they are kept because they are a threat to society. some of these people acted with great violence. therefore, to justify that with that they are political prisoners is beyond belief. if they were patriots, -- think of the boston tea party. those people dumped tea into a river. host: i'm going to let matt braynard respond. guest: the boston tea party, they broke into a ship, stole tea, and dumped it into a river. that is worse than what many of the people being arrested and held without bail were accused of. i am not disagreeing with the charges brought against them. i am saying according to the

charges brought against them -- threats to commit interstate commerce and some without any violent charges at all. those are straight from the department of justice. we had the largest database of people who have been arrested. there are people being held for nine months rooted less than those at the austin tea party. host: a lot of concerns among security officials on capitol hill, the folks who granted you the permit for this rally tomorrow, the threat of violence tomorrow. this from the abc news story out yesterday on the new department of homeland security alert warning that some individuals involved in the rally may "seek

to engage in balance -- engage in violence but lacked indication of a specific or credible plot associated with the event." "a small number of -- small groups of individuals can mobilize to violence with little to no warning, particularly in response to confrontational encounters with perceived opponents or calls for escalation by key influencers. the likely use of encrypted or closed communication platforms by those seeking to commit violence challenges law-enforcement's ability to identify and disrupt potential plotting." guest: you cannot have a peaceful because there are shadowy threats of violence in

the corner? we have been in communication with the park police, the polyp -- the metropolitan police. we have put on two successful rallies without an incident. we are going to continue that. we had a large diplomatic security force. we have plans to keep everybody safe. host: that is a security force you have hired? guest: yes, but they are grouped in with the capitol police officers. host: are they aren't? are they -- are they armed? guest: not to my knowledge. we want to keep everybody safe. i believe it is my responsibility to keep everyone safe. we are asking people who leave to leave in large groups.

we are asking people if you see anything suspicious -- we all have television studios in our pocket, start recording. the capitol police has done a good job coordinating with us. despite the political leadership on capitol hill, i know they are doing their best to keep this peaceful and safe and protect the people. there is no intent of violence on our side. our purpose is to show that the first amendment still matters, you can still peacefully protest. community organizing can be done successfully and you do not have to resort to apathy or violence. host: eugene in boston, massachusetts. you are next. caller: good morning. mr. matt braynard, i see right through you. i voted for donald trump in 201o

see real change, but what he did on january 6 was dead wrong. what i saw was treason and sedition. the people involved with that, they should be charged with that, as well. the law for treason and sedition is they are supposed to be summarily shot. i think people that show up to support treason and sedition, i think people should be immediately locked up. guest: that is an interesting accusation. you accused me of being a phony but you did not provide any evidence. i can assure you i am legitimate. you said they should be shot. do you think alexandria ocasio-cortez should be shot? he is still listening and soak

can the audience? it is quite asinine. we condemn violence, we condemn political violence. many of the people who were there were not engaged in it. they simply were in the wrong place, wrong time, as many people have been in history. we have seen them. just two months ago, there was a protest that blockaded the white house. you probably never heard of that. those folks were arrested and released. this is about equal treatment. i understand many people are blinded by their hatred of donald trump. i get it. do not let that blind you to the injustice of our government. the way these people are being treated, must agree it is a moral and unconstitutional. host: illinois, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. hopefully i get to talk to you a little bit and you will not cut

me off. he probably will cut me off. while you are speaking, he is showing clips of the worst of the worst on january 6. he is not sure you clips where the officers invited them in. my first, has since they had the hearings on capitol hill, the whole thing was basically set up with the people in front of capitol hill before the speech was even done. the reason i say that, there was this one young black guy in front of the white house, sitting in a platform, standing, with a megaphone, saying we are going to pull donald trump out of the white house. the destroyed property. this same man was on capitol hill on january 6 with different hats, changing his looks,

standing next to the white, unarmed woman who was murdered, taking her. went on cnn, another cable channel, each channel paid him $30,000 a piece to be there, film all of this, yet he is not locked up right now. guest: i agree. i agree with the caller. i have to say, john, it is pretty disingenuous and very un- c-span like while i'm speaking while not showing people behaving peacefully, engaging in friendly ways with capitol police. if it bleeds it leads, but that is fairly disingenuous of you. host: we have been running it continuously. the question about the footage, what is in the footage? this is a topic other callers

have brought up. the footage you want released, what is in their we need to see? guest: you are a journalist, right? i believe you are. does it not bother you that 14,000 hours of videotape is being held back by the federal government? in any other case, how would that not cause a journalist to have widespread heartburn and anger? the capitol hill police department is immune to that. with any other group, could file a freedom of information act. we deserve to see that footage. in many cases, that evidence is useful to the defense of people who have been charged, yet the federal government is still not releasing that. people who depend on that to be able to defend themselves in court. i think just journalistic curiosity, or a demand for transparency, should cause you and all other journalist to insist it to be released. host: what time is the rally

tomorrow? guest: it is at noon. we urge you to get there early. host: matt braynard is the executive director of lookahead america, the rally organizer for justice for j6 tomorrow. appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: up next on "washington journal," constitution day and civics in america. we will be joined by kathleen hall jamieson, director of the annenberg public policy center to discuss her annual constitution day civics survey. still ahead, new york university's paul barrett will join us to talk about the influence of social media on political polarization. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. wall street journal columnist

and manhattan institute senior fellow jason riley on his book, "maverick." his writings on politics has inspired conservatives and libertarians for a half-century. >> i don't think he is as well-known as he should be. it is quite unfortunate if not tragic that individuals are better known than him. i think he has quite frankly written circles around those individuals. it is not simply the volume of his work that is unmatched by their own, but also the range and the depth of his thinking is something i do not think they come close to matching. one reason i wanted to write the book and do the documentary is raise awareness to a younger

generation. >> jason riley, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can also listen to q&a as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: on this constitution day,

a focus on civics education. kathleen hall jamieson is director of the annenberg public policy center at the university of pennsylvania. the headlight on this year's survey is america's civics knowledge increases during a stress filled year. explain. guest: if you do not understand we have three branches of government, it is difficult for you to understand what is happening in the news on a day-to-day basis. one question we ask is, can you name three branches of government? this year, the number of people who could went up. we are surmising the jump was in part because all three branches were in the news this last year. the bad news is they were in the news because this was a stress test year of our system of government. you have the branches contesting with each other, you had an election, the end product of an impeachment process that did not yield a conviction. all of that -- we have an

increase in the foundational knowledge about the constitution. the good news is more people can name the branches. i wish we had gotten there through civics education and not a difficult year. host: more people could name the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment. guest: those other things we learned across time, the number of people who can answer these questions differs from year-to-year. you can predict that whether a constitutional element of issue is in the news. we have a foundational background we get from having learned civics in high school. it does increase the likelihood that we remember the basics of our system of government. sometimes you begin to see issues, what does it mean to peaceably assemble? you begin to see that knowledge goes up because people are reminded about it and they get context for seeing it. host: how long have you been

doing this survey and why did you start? guest: we have been doing it for more than 20 years. we realize the number of courses offered in civics and high schools had dropped across time. we realized there were debates happening in public in which people in the exchanges did not appear to understand some of our basic constitutional protections. people would be railing against the president who did not do with the president promised, etc., not realizing the president was constrained because congress was not united behind his party. you had divided government. what happened to the campaign structure is the candidate said if i am elected, i will -- they had not reminded that presidents do not get to do a lot -- it has to be a process. unless you have a democratic president, democratic congress, republican president and republican congress, those

promises will be thwarted by the other party. perhaps people did not understand that presidents cannot unilaterally do some of those things. we decided to address some of that with the survey. host: how do you find your participants? guest: we do a national probability sample every year? we standardized our questions. this is not complicated stuff. can you name three branches? can you name rights protected by the first amendment? if there is a constitutional issue and the president and the supreme court disagreed, who has the final word about what the constitution says about something? it is a basic understanding. if the court rules 5-4, what does that mean? does it go back to congress or is it the law? things that would be basic to understanding what is happening

in the news. also things that are a basic understanding of what u.s. citizen has for rights and responsibilities. we do not think people will protect rights if they do not understand what they are. we think it is important people understand what the first amendment says. congress shall make no law. this is not a blanket statement about everything in life. i remember one of our children at a fairly young age stopping his foot and sing mom, you are infringing my right to free speech. i was pleased he said infringing . host: civics understanding, civics education, that is our topic in this segment of the "washington journal." join the conversation. phone lines split up as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are joined by kathleen hall

jamieson of the university of pennsylvania, the director of the annenberg public policy center until 9:15. maybe we will get some high school civics teachers or college professors to opine. the idea of the first amendment and understanding what the first amendment does and what it does not do, an interesting question in your survey they share, having to do with social media. 61% of respondents incorrectly believed it is accurate to say the first amendment, protection of freedom of speech, means facebook must permit all americans to freely express themselves on that platform. the first amendment protects citizens from government censorship, social media companies are private companies, and the court have rolled that private companies are not covered by findings from your survey. understanding that difference. guest: the first is, there are two parts to that. the first is, what does the

first amendment say? the second is, if we disagree, how do we decide what the interpretations are? literally, the first amendment is what congress shall not do. if there is a dispute, how do we settle that? that is why we have courts. it is about understanding there are three branches in the courts help us understand what the constitution means. that is where we considered to be foundational knowledge. when someone says i have a dispute about this and they make a constitutional claim, we have set aside a branch that is independent of the other branches that has the authority to make those kinds of decisions . if our system is working, when the supreme court says that is what it means, we say we agree if it is about the constitution. if it is about a statute, congress can change the statute. host: understanding the three branches and noting the names of

all three branches, you can see the results over the years and the time the annenberg center has done the survey. the number of americans who can name all three branches, 36% in 2006, dipped to all-time lows in 2016 and 2017, mid 20's. it is up to 56% they share. guest: it is a glass half full, half empty. that means roughly half cannot do it. you just have to understand these things to know how our system works. and to know how your rights and responsibilities are protected. he be able to at least name them. if you can name them, we can build an understanding of what roles they have. particular important, the prerogatives of congress. host: let's talk to a few caller s. robert, glenn bernie, maryland, democrat, good morning. caller: i want to say thank you

to ms. jamieson. i believe that is the fundamental problem we have as a society. people exclude information. if people would educate themselves on how our country functions -- a lot of people do not even know what type of system they live under. they really don't. once they can do that, they can see some of the wants and needs they have are selfish and not in line with what the constitution has outlined. i just want to say thank you because we need more of that. i appreciate her work and her team. guest: you used a word that is important. we have responsibilities as citizens. one thing we think is really important. you will see good learning materials on the network, a coalition of all the major organizations in the u.s. that

provide no-cost civic materials. they are nonpartisan. one thing we have good material on, jury service. why you are called to jury service you should go and not try to get out of it. there are some responsibilities to citizenship. we have opportunities, such as the opportunity to vote -- i would argue the responsibility to vote. citizen involvement in government is what protects the structure of government. and also, what is there to ensure that if government oversteps, there is accountability from the citizenry. i would encourage everyone who is interested in finding good materials to teach elementary and secondary students about civics, take a look at the civics renewal network. you will find tools from the library of congress, the national archives, from the constitution center. there are video games, films,

learning exercises. this is basically a resource for everyone who cares about increasing the civics capacity of the young inside the united states. host: wendy in san francisco, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i have noticed concerning facebook and twitter, and the free speech, my understanding is cyber bullying, slander, libel, telling stories with a malice or reckless disregard for the truth, that that has been going on a lot and it has caused some miscommunication. we had teenagers that have committed suicide from being

called names. host: let ms. jamieson jump in. guest: we spent time studying misinformation, disinformation. you are right, there is a lot of content on social media that is problematic. there is also content that is very helpful. the question is, how to increase the likelihood that people go online and search out the material that is good and useful, and we avoid engaging in the kind of material that is problematic, particularly engaging in information that affects our behavior negatively? a separate question is, what does the first amendment say about government's ability to tell facebook what it should and should not do? ultimately, when the issue comes forward, firstly to ask -- it does not mean there are not

other areas where someone would only be able to engage in illegal process because they have been defamed by something said on a platform. the larger question is, do we have a means to determine what the boundaries of the first amendment are? that is what the courts are for. host: twitter, i am for actual civics education in schools, but not as a trojan horse for the -- the promotion of political agendas. guest: we have to be very careful as we talk about civics education to specify what exactly we mean. i am talking about civics education in a noncontroversial fashion. do we have three branches of government? yes we do. do we have a first amendment? yes we do. is there a constitution with a bill of rights? once you get beyond that, now you are getting into the area where people differ about what

should be said and done inside of classrooms. do not think there is an ideological divide about whether we should teach the factual underpinnings of what we have in the constitution, how we got there and what our system is for arbitrating what it means. host: james is in ohio, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. there is a big gap in the discussion. i appreciate everything you are saying so far about the u.s. constitution, but civics is broader than that, or should be. we have state constitutions, county charters, townships. in ohio, we have municipalities . i have spoken at the city council and very often, or almost all the time, there is no one there except someone who is concerned with a specific topic. we have the city administration

that will sometimes -- this is anecdotal, of course -- will pretty much ignore what city council does and go their own way. we should not overlook the fact that civics also includes local jurisdictions and that young people, they not only need to know the three branches of government like we see diagram in textbooks, they also need to know what kind of a jurisdiction they are living in, what they should be doing, and whether gerrymandering should keep them from wanting to vote, and issues like that. host: do you think may be a bottom-up approach is better than a top-down approach? we will learn about local governments first and the things that impact you in your town or city, then state government and federal government, or start back at the beginning with the constitution? caller: i happen to have been a science teacher. in history, if you start with

things happening today and how they got that way, you will do better than if you start back with discovery of north america. also, what you just said about if you start at the local impact , let's say you have an animal control issue in your community and the government does not seem to be doing anything about it, that will impact a lot more people and get them involved in government. obviously, there is not a lot we can do about a 5-4 decision on the supreme court, whether we know what it means or not, but most of the issues that affect us on a day-to-day basis will be governed by our state constitutions, and the charters and so forth of our local jurisdictions. host: james, thank you for that. the all politics is local approach. guest: i agree so much, and thank you, caller, for making that point. what are the federal responsibilities? what are the state responsibilities? in that, to what extent if we

were to teach the structure of the constitution would we also be teaching structures that are helpful in understanding the structures at the state and local level? we have a model of government across the u.s. at all levels, we have an executive, legislative and judicial branch. how do you expect the various levels at the state and local level? what are the ways in which they interact inside the structures? basically, they interact in the same way, to appeal to the courts for the same purposes. once you understand that, you are able to understand the different levels. you cannot understand that at the federal level, it is less likely you will understand it all the way down. i agree if we start at the local level, you are more likely to have your capacity as a citizen to be expressed in ways in which -- we have a project we ran for 10 years. it is one of my favorite projects.

it had high school students as part of a civics intervention engage in determining the issue agenda that was important to their neighborhoods. it was called student voices. they would capture the issue agenda and ask what had already been done by the city government . what did they think could be done, who would have responsibility for doing that. they would create that issue after answering the question if there were any regulations, had somebody tried to address it. they would ask a candidate in the classroom what they would do about the problem that the students thought they had identified. in the process, the students were activating their own sense that you can hold government officials accountable. you can decide if you will vote for that were not, and some of these were high school seniors just turning 18. they were about to be able to vote. you can decide if you will vote for them or not based on what they said they would do and you could look at the channels they had to act on those promises, to

see whether or not they can do it unilaterally or not. often, the answer is no. you could ask if this was a process that implicated the courts. was there some recent and which the intervention would be different, and the student would want some action to be taken inside a court structure. what we found about the project was it increased the likelihood not only that those students understood local government, but they felt they could participate in it constructively and create outcomes that would benefit their own communities. there is a detachment from the federal level, i agree. the likelihood as an individual you make a difference at the federal level is extraordinarily small, but you can make a difference in your local community by understanding how government works. one more point. many states used to have courts inside the curriculum that would teach the state constitution. they would use it as the overlap. you could see the relationship

between the two. when would you be in the state system, when would you be in the federal system, and when would you be working locally. we are thinking about trying to put together a survey to figure out, as it gone somewhere else in the curriculum? we are thinking about asking those states that do not have it, are you finding it useful? bottom line, caller, i agree with you. understanding how local government is incredibly important. i think learning about them all in total will increase the likelihood you will be able to get all of your capacity as a citizen effectively. host: at this point, i would be remiss if i did not mentioned c-span's annual student documentary competition that encourages students to think critically about the issues that affect their communities and the nation. we have asked students in grades six through 12 to create a five

to six minute video documentary on a topic that relates to this year's theme, how does the federal government impact your life? those submissions are due january 20. back to the phone calls. this is jackie in alexandria. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. my question was, when did civics classes actually leave school? my son is in high school. january 6 happened. we did not received any word about anything. this was in a civics, government class on tv. i asked the school, do you teach government, you teach history? what happened to civics? you actually do rotc, which is training for the military. here was a live civics class and not one person spoke to my high schooler about what was going on.

if they were teaching this, they would know what is happening is wrong and that is not how we deal with our government. guest: it is very difficult for a high school teacher, middle school teacher, elementary school teacher who is tasked with teaching civics -- it needs to be taught in the order presented because that is the way it is structured to get all of the learning in. to stop when something unanticipated happens like january 6 and to find a way to integrate it. if the approach that teacher has to work civics is an approach that says, let's understand how our system works, what it is, how it is that we certify a presidential election, there is a process at the state, federal levels, you can see an environment in which you could ask, how is it supposed to work?

what is the relationship among the branches and what is the role of the executive? then you could ask a question like, what does it mean to peaceably assemble? ask the questions in the class. do you think that is an expression of the right or not? there are ways to take any moment in the context of teaching the fundamentals or the foundational element. i would worry if one expects a civics teacher to take a position on a national issue in real time and try to teach from that position. what the teacher is expected to do is create a foundational understanding of how a system works. i disagree with the premise that in that real time you would expect a teacher to do that. if a teacher is going to go there, it would require a great deal of care and preparation, probably not something you do in the exact moment it is happening with your class.

stepping back to ask about the foundational issues, the bigger question is, how long have we stopped? when i was a child, that was a long time ago, less the new the 1950's, 1960's, 1980's. host: this annual survey from the annenberg public policy center, if you worst want to find them, where should they go? guest: you go on the annenberg public policy center website. look for the university of pennsylvania, you will find that website and the breakdown of the questions in the appendix of the survey. host: they have been tweeting about it on twitter. guest: please look at the annenberg classroom. they offer civics material to help teachers and parents teach civics, actually engage students

about civics. on the civics renewal website, we have a constitution day toolkit. if you are thinking about something to honor constitution day and the kids have a few spare moments, if there is a chance to go to the toolkit, it might be a good idea to take a look at that. host: susie in georgia, republican. good morning. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i feel i have a very good foundation on a civics education from the late 1950's and into the 1960's. when schoolhouse rock came out with how you could make a bill, i found young people around me are fascinated and fell in love with wanting to know. my question is, we have not seen that in right a while, are you reaching out to other areas of

academia to help you promote and push this civics education, such as the arts? and other areas other than just the political science department? guest: that is a wonderful question. that is part of the reason the civics renewal network is there. it has all of the major organizations in the country that produce learning materials. we put them all on one website so you can look across it and find anything you would like. you are asking a broader question, have we reached out into the popular culture? those who have a netflix subscription, see if you can find something called "we the people." this is an attempt to take schoolhouse rock into the 21st century with cartoons and rap music, teaching things such as we have three branches of government, here is how they

relate to each other. could we do more? yes, we could. host: i remember that, as well. if i could piggyback on one bar website for civics education, the c-span classroom website is also available at c-span.org. lesson plans, materials for social studies teachers, clips of events happening in real time on capitol hill and historic lesson plans. c-span classroom is where you can go. this is dan in michigan, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple quick comments. i did not learn a lot about civics, i don't know the school problem, i was not the best student. i learned a lot about the constitution and general politics and government and so on from c-span, watching since

1981, watching the house sessions and the senate sessions, and laid at night, listening to the supreme court. the other comment i would like to make is what i have noticed, especially in the last year and a half, two years, five years, quite often, the constitution is not specific enough, especially when it comes to nominating and approving the supreme court nominees, the dispute about you should not approve the justice in the last year of the president. they went back and forth on it because it is not specific in the constitution. i wonder what you might have to comment about that. thank you. guest: there is a lot of discretion hiding in the constitution. if people exercise it in different ways. one thing that is important is

we understand as we are trying to teach about the constitution is much of the constitution offers us is based on assumed norms. we assume if the supreme court makes a ruling, the president of united states will accept the constitutional ruling. we cannot necessarily assume that will actually happen. that is just simply a norm. what if the president of the united states said no? andrew jackson said no when the supreme court issued a ruling about the cherokee nation. andrew jackson refused to enforce the supreme court's decision. the fact that since then, presidents have accepted the ruling of the screen court and acted in a way consistent with the supreme court, it is because everyone declared that was the appropriate thing to do and the president granted it, as well. when you get into these areas where we have made an assumption about where the system should work, the question is what are the norms that act as a

constraint? in the absence of the specificity, what do we do within our own system to put specificity in place, since we have processes to make sure -- our system acknowledges to its process should be changed, how will they be changed? it comes back to understanding the fundamentals and how you can use those fundamentals. there is a lot of latitude inside all of the areas inside any doctrine. host: allendale, south carolina. pat, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for letting me speak. i have a question about the supreme court. even though, the same thing the gentleman before said, the republican said they would not elect someone in an election

season, but they did it anyway. she was not qualified. she could not remember the three branches of government. please give me a comment on that. guest: i think you are talking about justice coney barrett. under that kind of stress, would we have been able to? memory under stress is somewhat fallible. there is a larger question about the processes we engage in when we are deciding whether or not something is being handled well. when someone says i object to the fact the senate took up the coney barrett nomination but did not take up the merrick garland nomination, they can be viewed as hypocritical. our system says if you are unhappy with that and unhappy with the way the republicans acted, you should vote the

republicans out of office. there are some accountability measures if you think the system is not behaving the way it should. it is essentially our electoral process. we put up candidates that express the alternative points of view so you have a choice in the election. the reason our system has been as resilient as it has been, if you don't like what people are doing, you have some means to hold them accountable inside the system if we are willing to exercise those means of accountability. host: you bring up the bill of rights, we spent the first hour of our program today chatting with viewers on this consultation day about what amendment is the most important amendment in their minds. how would u.s. or that question question mark guest: i think the first amendment is the most important. if you do protect that, you cannot secure the rest of them. there is a reason it is first. as a result, it is the one i am the most fond of.

host: new jersey, julio, independent, good morning. julio, are you with us? you have to stick by your phone. durham, north carolina, good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. i think you are a very knowledgeable lady and i agree with you 100%. a caller made a statement about who has rights. i am almost 70 years old. i to this day remember teaching the basic framework of how a bill passes through the different branches of the government. you can teach the basic framework without anyone politically saying you were trying to push a child into an activist mode. we need to go back to teaching

the basic framework. i think it is almost anything that you have to be a college student to start learning about how the government runs. we used to learn this in grade school and it was reinforced again in middle school. that is basically what i wanted to say. i wanted to find out what could be done in order to bring back teaching civics and economics starting at an early age, without ruffling anyone's feathers? guest: a really important point. we stressed early the importance of local governments. when your school board decides about what will be taught in school, there is often the opportunity for input. if you are not happy with the civics education happening in your schools, please go to the school board meeting. go to the local council structure. whatever is determining what is

being taught inside the school. if this is mandated at the state level, talk to your state representatives. we know those who have taken a high school civics course are better able to answer the foundational questions. one of the reasons the foundational questions are so important, besides you cannot protect rights you do not know and you cannot engage the system if you can understand how we parcel out responsibilities, one thing that is important as we look at all of this is trying to understand the ways in which you as an individual citizen can increase the likelihood that something happens, and take personal responsibility for it. one way to answer your question is, let's get the school board to make sure we are not only teaching civics, but teaching foundational civics well. it is not just a responsibility of schools. it is the responsibility of parents. to the extent that we are in our homes not helping our children understand how our system of government works, and respecting

it for the way it works, we are not doing our job. the press also has a job to the extent that reporters intend to assume that we have all the foundational knowledge. they do not build it in, parenthetically, into their stories print there are times when you read stories, if i don't understand there are three branches, what i understand the story? the answer is, no, you would not. you might have this leading inferences from the story because you would be filling in assumptions that are not consistent with the way our system of government works part when reporters write about these things, they can make clear where the branch boundaries are, what the controversy is in the courts. it becomes important. that is an obligation for journalists, in my judgment. it should also be taught in the home, by the media. it should be part of entertainment culture. host: it sounds like schoolhouse

rock was viral before we have the term "viral." how do we make civics education viral in 2021? guest: those of you who have netflix, take a look at three of the videos. they are not behind a pay wall. they are actually online. take a look at those. if schoolhouse is your backdrop, ask if they are done as well as schoolhouse rock. it is an attempt to do the same thing. it is an attempt by the entertainment community to try to get basic rhyme underlined, basic themes underlined. host: time for just a few more calls. betty has been waiting in illinois. independent. good morning. caller: i wanted to say that when my mother came to this country in the 1950's, she was a

17-year-old teenager. she was excited to become a citizen. when she learned, though, that her vote would not count because of the electoral college, she stopped. she did not vote, she did not make us vote. i was coming-of-age to be one of the first people to vote at 18. i was just like, ok, well, my mom must be right. this should also be taught when people take entrance exams for becoming citizens. that is what i wanted to say. guest: it is difficult for us to explain for those in the united states. the reality is, if you are in the -- if you are in a state that will overwhelmingly vote for one candidate, your

vote in an election will probably not play an important role. it does not mean a difference in the popular vote does not matter. popular vote creates a legitimacy for the governance of the individual who is elected. it is not the same as being elected. people can win the popular vote and not win the electoral college. the vote is expressing ideologically where you are on the issues. it is expressing your commitment to one outcome or another, whether or not your preferred candidate wins. you are also voting down ballots , determining who will be in congress, and i can make a very big difference. i hope that person does not stay home because you might not get the member of congress you want because you failed to vote on the down-ballot race.

it could mean the other party gets that seat in congress. congress has the capacity to check the executives in a way that is consequential. host: pennsylvania, jeff, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. what is your comment or question? caller: my comment is, if you look throughout history, the people screaming at the other guy -- if you look at ways happening now, everyone is screaming the other guy is a communist. remember one thing, they are not getting in trouble because of what they do, they are getting in trouble because of what they do not do. host: on the topic of the confrontation in this country, both sides screaming at each

other. guest: the polarization in the country and the level of instability. this is a good day for us to reread the preambles of the constitution and remember we have more that unites us than divides us. establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. that is why we establish the constitution. this is a good day in our schools and homes to reread the preamble and commit ourselves to some common goals in the country, among them domestic tranquility. host: mia, upper marlboro, maryland, independent, good morning. mia, are you with us? caller: yes, i am here. good morning. i am calling because i wanted to make some comments in reference

to there, it should not be political teaching civics. our students did not know anything about government, anything about their rights. i wanted to reinforce what the guest was saying about being able to teach that in a nonpartisan, non-toxic political manner. it is definitely possible. in the time i was teaching, i was a democrat, i had not exited to be an independent, i support bernie sanders. i remember the comments for my students, you never try to force your beliefs, you give us a neutral facts about, this is how government works. if you give your opinion, he said this is my opinion, but you have to form your own opinions.

i definitely think it can be taught in a nonpartisan way. it is important for us to know our rights as american citizens and be able to fall under whatever party we feel aligns with our beliefs. but to just know the system so we can be active citizens to make this place a better country. host: i will give you the final word. guest: let's close by saying one of the things the mates are system work well is it has built into it our ability to express ourselves in ways that increase the likelihood that our point of view will be heard and to adjudicate our differences . if things are operating well, the outcome the offer, even if we disagree, is one we should expect. to the extent we challenge those positions, it makes it more difficult to live together. beckett more difficult to govern

ourselves inside our governmental structure. the constitution was a genius of a document. it allows for avenues of addressing disagreements. the ways in which we can collectively accept. host: kathleen hall jamieson is the director for the annenberg public policy center at the university of pennsylvania. i appreciate your time on this constitution day. guest: good to be with you. host: just about 40 minutes left. we will be joined by new york university's paul barrett on a discussion about a report on the influence of social media on political polarization in this country. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> to a political dynasty and notorious philanderer. he was ambitious and defeatist. these are the words of david, a

journalist and former reporter at the wall street journal. words from a book review written about joseph kennedy. it is a new book titled, "the ambassador." it is about joseph kennedy's time as ambassador to great britain, 1938 to 1940. >> listen at c-span.org, wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's student cam video competition. if you are a middle or high school student, we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government -- impact your life?

use c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. c-span's student cam competition rewards $100,000 in cash prizes, you have a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20. visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. a wall street journal columnist and manhattan institute senior fellow on his book. a biography on thomas sowell whose writings have inspired conservatives and libertarians for a half-century. >> i don't think sowell is as well-known as he should be.

i think it is quite unfortunate, if not tragic, that individuals are better known than thomas sowell. i think he has quite frankly written circles around those individuals, maybe all of them put together. it is not simply the volume of his work that is unmatched by -- but the depth of his thinking is something i do not think they come close to matching. one reasonably to write the book into the documentary is to raise awareness to a younger generation that might not have known him. >> jason riley with his book, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. can also listen to q&a as a podcast, wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: paul barrett of new york

university's stern center joins us. he is the lead author of a new report titled "fueling the fire." mr. barrett, start with the first half of that title. how do we quantify political polarization, and why is social media any worse in intensifying it than past mediums of communication? guest: academics quantify political polarization based on a thermometer that identifies the degree to which respondents to surveys condemn their opponents as opposed to how much affection they spread for those on their side of the political debate. that measure over time in the

united states has increased steadily. we are now in a period of extreme political polarization, which is to say people classifying those with whom they disagree as being an amazed of democracy, inherently -- and so forth. that environment, it is difficult for government to get things done. you end up with a lot of distrust in major institutions. social media has not caused that problem in the first instance, there was political polarization long before social media existed, but it has intensified the process. it has exacerbated the problem.

in answer to your question with comparing it to other media, i think it is the degree of pervasiveness of social media that makes it a particularly powerful instrument for misinformation and disinformation, and also in terms of its presence in people's lives is great. i read the newspaper in the morning, but social media for a huge part of the population is there in -- all the time with information, along with dubious information. host: let's stay on polarization. across time, is this the worst it has ever been, compared to 1968 or 1860?

guest: there obviously have been periods of intense polarization before. i don't think anyone was measuring at the way scholars do today in the 19th century. the civil war, almost by definition, would qualify as intense, political polarization. in the middle of the 20th century, there was a period of a distinctly low degree of polarization. political parties contain both conservatives and liberals. over time, beginning the 1960's, 19 70's and rolling forward, political parties in this country, conservatives,

democrats, many of them went to republican party. liberal republicans died off, there are very few left. we have two political parties that are very distinct. democrats leaning to the left, and republicans to the right. that is a situation we find ourselves in today. there are other important factors contributing to polarization. the civil rights movement, and political clashes that took place in response to that movement was one influence. in the media around, the rise of highly partisan talk radio, particularly on the right, as well as highly partisan cable television programming. in the last few years, the role of political leaders,

themselves, has been an important contributing factor. whatever one thinks about former president categorizing those with whom he clashed as being enemies of the state and guilty of treason and that kind of thing. that has also contributed to a high degree of polarization. host: polarization and social media is our segment. we are having this conversation until 10:00 a.m. eastern. 202-748-8001 for democrats -- 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents at 202-748-8002. paul barrett is with us. the title of the report "how social media intensifies u.s. political polarization and what can be done about it." on social media's role, how much

blame you assigned to the companies themselves? twitter and instagram and facebook, are the most at fault? let's set aside blame and fault and describe what features of those platforms contributed this and whether these platforms should be addressing these features. the essential engine behind be spread of incendiary device -- incendiary content on platforms is their design. the systems that power the platform are set up to maximize user engagement. if you look at your computer

screen, a material to which you react, so much that you will share it and comment on it and so forth, maximizing engagement is important to these platforms. engagement is a proxy for user attention. the user's attention is what the platforms are selling to advertisers. that is why platforms like facebook, instagram, facebook -- facebook, instagram, and twitter are so lucrative. advertisers are eager to put their ads in front of people who are engaged. for better or worse, the type of material that engages people the most tends to be sensationalistic and promotes

strong negative emotional reactions. all of that is almost set up for -- although i don't think it was intentionally to promote the spread of divisive material. candy platforms do something about it? i think they can. we discussed instances where we know platforms have addressed a degree of this kind of highly provocative and divisive content. time will tell us if they are doing that, although they don't tell us how they are doing it. and that much was days after the 2020 election, facebook let it be known that it had turned the dial and were camping down the amount of angry, divisive content.

similarly, in the days leading up to the verdict in the trial of derek chauvin, the policeman convicted of killing george floyd, facebook said we are making adjustments for this emergency situation to calm things down. one of our recommendations in the report is that these metrics for modifying the algorithms are to be done more systematically, not just temporarily around periods where there is political violence. host: also claims from facebook that the finger pointing them is overblown. facebook's vice president of global affairs, this is back from the end of march. this is what he said. "what evidence there is did not support the idea that social media or the filters it creates are the driver of polarization that many assert.

one thing we know is that political content is only a small fraction of the content people consume on facebook. our analysis suggests it is as little as 6%." guest: that latter part, that political content is only a portion of what people consume on facebook is kind of a red herring. 6% of billions of pieces of content is still a lot of pieces of content. i don't take a 6% number at face value because some of facebook's statistics in the past have proved to be misleading. as to the idea that social science evidence does not support the connection between social media and political polarization. he is simply wrong.

in our report, we point to an article in the journal of science from 2020 with 15 researchers from universities like harvard, stanford, nyu. they concluded that the evidence shows while social media is not the original cause or prime leader -- prime mover behind political polarization, it does intensify the realm. as soon as last month in an article in trans cognitive science, another journal, five researchers came to a similar conclusion. it is not serve as the first cause of the problem but it is a facilitator of the problem which is similar to how we phrased it. it is important to be accurate in how you characterize a body of research. facebook is saying the research does not support the idea that

we are the main cause that is not what anyone is asserting. the assertion is that it is an accelerant. it is equivalent to pouring gasoline on a fire. the fire may already be burning, but pouring gasoline on it will make it worse. host: stephen out of fort lauderdale, republican. good morning. caller: i am a democrat. i don't care what topic we discussed on the washing -- on "washington journal," all of this country's ills can be pointed in one direction. we elected a demonic cult leader as president of the u.s. and donald trump has a cult following. until we can get those people to stop following him -- i don't care if we are discussing covid and masks or the military or

anything else you bring up, it all points to one direction. he is a leader of a political demonic cult. he has always been insane. host: we got your point. paul barrett, on donald trump. guest: leaving everything your guests said to one side, whether you are a fan of donald trump or a sharp critic, his style of leadership led to division as opposed to seeking reconciliation. in that sense, he has other political leaders have a choice about whether to contribute to the divisiveness or try to overcome it. second, it is to observe that donald trump himself made use of

social media in a very crafty way. used twitter and facebook to project his messages and in many occasions to attack his opponents as being enemies of the country. that is a very different attack him saying i disagree with someone on an issue. by choosing that approach, i think it is fair to say that former president trump did exacerbate political polarization and used social media to do it. host: this is james on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. would you classify the riots of last summer when the cities were burning as political violence? guest: in some cases where violence accompanied the black

lives matter protests, that violence was directed at the police and government buildings and stores in neighborhoods where the protests took place. i would say that some of that certainly could be categorized as political violence, short. -- political violence, sure. host: it sounds like you had a follow-up. caller: i agree with what he says about the divisiveness of president trump. could you talk about divisiveness of any democrat presidents? guest: do you have anybody in mind or go back through american history? host: how about in 2021? are you seeing the same level of divisiveness on both sides, republican and democrats? guest: no.

in our report, we explained at some length that polarization in this country at the moment and the consequences of relation such as the erosion of trust and democratic practices like elections and erosion of trust in fact like how to respond to a lethal pandemic, those phenomena are not symmetrically arrayed across the political spectrum. researchers found that polarization and the consequences of polarization have manifested themselves much more distinctly on the political right than they have on the left . i think a comparison of the political styles of the presidents who preceded and followed donald trump illustrate that.

one might disagree with what barack obama did or said, one can disagree with joe biden's policies. i don't think there is much argument that those two democratic presidents took a more conciliatory style and framed their arguments less in a context of partisan hatred than that of president trump. host: devon in mesquite, texas. good morning. caller: there are a few issues on social media i would like to touch on. firstly, i played video games for a long time which is a form of social media. i have seen programs designed to create thousands of emails. now they have robot verification and whatnot, but it is not

change the fact that people have alternate profiles. when it comes to alternate profiles, it defaces what social media is supposed to be about, being social. i'm wondering what your thoughts would be on that. host: mr. paul barrett? caller: -- guest: i don't have much to say about that. i am not aware much of alternate screening ids and gaming platforms. that does not strike me as one of the central problems in the relationship between social media and political divisiveness. i guess i could be wrong, but i don't know about that. host: the second half of your

report, you talk about the social media companies themselves. you also have recommendations for the federal government, for the legislative and executive branches. guest: it would help if the problems we talked about were dealt with through personal regulation rather than having government step in. however, we struggle with social media companies has been strong and continuous with 2016 -- since 2016 with the revelation of russian operatives using social media in the 2016 election. we had not seen changes fast or

deep enough from social media companies. we are at the point where we have to debate serious government regulation. what we suggested in our report is that congress should authorize the federal trade commission to provide for the first time sustained oversight of social media. the ftc should compile standards for social media companies not focusing on government control of content in any direct or indirect way, but instead have government establish a set of requirements having to do with transparency, disclosure of how social media companies' algorithms rank, recommend, and remove content. as well as better understanding

of how those automated systems work. we will see greater accountability. there will be more particular criticisms that will be able to be watched and companies will come under more pressure to fix the kinds of problems we are talking about that result in the spread of misinformation and other cams of harmful content. host: this is lori in corpus christi. good morning. caller: good morning. if i pick up a hammer and i drive a nail with it, it is a tool. if i pick up the same hammer and bash you over the head with it, it is a weapon. i believe social media is the same way. it is the individual type of person that decides whether to use it as a weapon or a tool. do you believe if we talked more conflict resolution and critical

thinking skills that more would choose it as a tool instead of a weapon? thank you. guest: that is an interesting way of putting it. i certainly would be in favor of ditching more critical thinking and getting more specific. i would be in favor of instruction on media awareness and critical consumption of media. i should be a higher priority in the former curriculum of schools and should be a high-priority for individual families. we are not going to do away with social media at this point. educating people on how to consume it with greater sophistication and discernment

is certainly a terrific goal. meanwhile, i don't think that would be enough. to pick up on the metaphor your color used, if the hammer was being thrown out to the population in huge volumes, you are going to end up with some of those hammers being misused. social media companies themselves have to exert some type of greater control over the content of their disseminating. unfortunately, i think we will need government oversight. host: this is bill, an independent out of alabama. caller: you seem to have a one-sided view of politics and

in your opinion of politics. for instance, the majority of american people in my opinion want to be -- when a politician is running for office and they make these promises that they are going to do this and that, they expect them to follow up on those promises. president trump did that. i have heard you referred to him several times as attacking the media. yes, he did, but only after being attacked and slandered by the media and the social elite as yourself, describing this and that. host: what is your question?

caller: the majority of the mainstream media is an enemy of the state because they disseminate lies, false information, and their own personal opinion. host:host: as news -- host: what is your response? guest: a terrific example of an example of political polarization. your caller is accusing all of mass media and categorizing me as an elite. he sees his political opponents as dangerous and a threat. he is entitled to his views. i think that approach to politics is one that donald trump encouraged. it is an illustration of where

we are in terms of political rhetoric and what motivates people to vote. host: one of your top recommendations for fixing this polarization is that president biden needs to prioritize a broad government response to the heightening of partisan hatred by social media. if president biden does it or if any president were to do it of any political party, is the other side going to listen? are they automatically going to tune back president out? at this point, that is what you do to the other side. guest: i would say the answer is probably. yet, the fact that we are at the path we are at in this standoff cannot be an excuse for not attempting to improve the situation.

someone in president biden's situation cannot be paralyzed. kevin mccarthy, mitch mcconnell, and donald trump offstage will immediately condemn it. he has to try to make a convincing case that will appeal to his own constituency and to people who might be in between and try to look forward. if the president approached this in a more emphatic way and use some of his political capital to put these issues on the table, there might be some progress. unfortunately, president biden has made comments about this but they have not been helpful or

sustained. last summer he said social media platforms were disturbing people in regards to the pandemic. that kind of comment is not going to help things move forward. a carefully thought out speech that says we have to grapple with this problem because it underlies a lot of the problems with politics, that might get people's attention and could pull people from across the aisle to create some progress. host: this is wendy, a republican. good morning. caller: president trump has entered into an extreme amount

of name-calling, bullying, slander. if someone is attacking someone in such a malicious manner, there might be a reason for it. i would encourage people to look further into it. when i did, i found president trump is not a racist. he was denouncing racism all the way back to 1986. he was still considering dealing with that attack on his character. he was still able to do a good job combating sexual assault in schools, he was able to help with bringing opportunity and investment into undeserved --

underserved minorities. people should be wondering why he was so see nestle -- why he was so relentlessly attacked and look into it for themselves. host: mr. barrett? guest: your caller is saying she is a fan of president trump and that is her right. she thinks it was an inappropriate attack on trump and she hated at -- hinted at something nefarious she looked into, i don't really know what she is hinting at. to get back to our topic, social media has become integral to our politics and how political leaders frame their arguments.

if you have an issue like that that is designed to promote or amplify shot expressions of hatred and animosity, you are going to end up with more of that kind of material in front of people and and up with an electorate that has the kind of very suspicious, distrustful outlook that some of your callers have expressed. host: how long have you been studying political polarization and in that time have you found yourself an optimist or pessimist? guest: we spent about six months working on this report. i am a career political scientist.

i come out of journalism and went into academic research if you years ago at nyu. as to my sense of optimism or pessimism, we are in a very difficult period. what happened on january 6 in washington has to state squarely in front of us. that was an extraordinary event and we are going to be wrestling with the fallout from that for some time to come. we have been through periods of unrest before and we certainly have the capacity to pull ourselves out of this.

host: waiting for the house to come in with a formal reformist session, but until then we will get to as many of your questions as we can with paul barrett. his report, "fueling the fire, how social media increases political polarization." caller: good morning. i am happy to talk to mr. barrett. i am more concerned about people protesting individual be and dropping the use of these formats. if anything, just effect to me

-- just the fact to me that your idea can be sent multiply on and on -- can be sent multiple times on and on is a real problem with facebook and twitter. the message can go on and on with the way these formats work. host: i will let you respond before the house comes in. guest: there was a period in early social media where these platforms were seen almost in a utopian sense. they would create community and allow expression without the filters or gatekeepers that media and other institutions

have. after a few more years. host: i apologize, the house is coming in for that pro forma session. we will have this conversation later down the road. thank you for your time. we take a live to the house of representatives. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. # the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. september 17, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable g.k. butterfield to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the secretary: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. almighty god, reveal your word to us today. may it shine light in the darkness which threatens our se