preview of a podcast focusing on politics, race, and culture from the perspective

host: (202) 748-8001. democrats, your number is (202) 748-8000. independents, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are social media at facebook.com/c-span and on twitter @cspanwj. many americans think climate change is very or extremely important. that pole coming to you from cvs.

-- from cbs news. 59 percent of those surveyed says climate change is very or extremely point issued, and that is a 10 point increase from 2018. only 22% of republican said the issue was that critical in 2018. one third of democrats say democratic leaders say it has a lot of influence on their views. extreme recent weather events are influencing the view. again, this comes from a pole put out by the ap.

i want to bring some more effects from that from -- that to you. 59% of americans, most democrats and over a third of republicans, say this is a very corn issue. -- a very important issue. rn half of americans support a measure that all ruined vehicles -- all new vehicles be electric. half as many americans said the same in a 2018 study. this is from a new poll put out by ap. this comes as the president is

heading to europe to talk to the g20 summit about what they can do about climate change. i want to bring you a little information from reuters about what is going on in europe. president joe biden wants to show the climate conference and conference that the u.s. is back in the fight against global warming, but is continuing haggling against his climate jewels -- climate goals in congress. biden had hoped to showcase legislation to reduce u.s. greenhouse gas emissions by

2030, encouraging other rations to take other actions to protect the earth. -- some aspects of the program that would award countries that adopted programs, penalizing those that did not. earlier this week, president biden came out to highlight the climate provisions in his ne w framework. [video clip] >> this makes the most significant investments to deal with the crime -- the climate clices. over one billion metric tons of a reductions, at least 10 times

bigger than any big passed before, enough to position us for us a bigger reduction by 2030, and we will do it in ways that gross domestic industry, creates good paying union jobs, and addresses long-standing injustice. doing things like weatherizing homes, developing clean energy products and help businesses develop cleaner energy.]we will transform this nation . host: republican senators in congress have been criticizing president biden's build back better plan. let's see what we can find, what republican senator dan had to say this week criticizing the

plane is proposals. -- the plan and its proposals. [video clip] >> i want to underscore how radical this policy direction biden is taking. every president, secretary of energy, treasury, has always been about more energy, energy independence, more resource development, and as was earlier stated, we have the highest stated on the environment than anyplace in the world. i will give you an example during my discussions with janet yellen during the confirmation process. where you commit like every secretary of the treasury since hamilton to push for a robust, all of the above energy sector? she would not commit to

that. so this is policy that is a short break from any other previous policy in any in administration in the country, and i think it is important underscore that. this is radical, and a shift from literally any other previous administration. host: let's see what our viewers have to say about climate change and whether they see it as a crisis. let's start with james, calling from west virginia republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. do you know what one of the biggest carbon -- in the world? host: go ahead. caller: do you know what one of the biggest carbon footprint

producers in the world is? host: go ahead. caller: ban exam. -- ban them. tires on vehicles. they produce the biggest carbon footprint. host: was go to terry, calling from love park, illinois on the independent line. caller: i don't think we have a major crisis. until we get china on board, i was there in 1988 and i had buildings next door to me on the 22nd floor of my hotel disappearing because of the smog. and if we don't get china on board, there's nothing we can do about it. host: if china does not come aboard, do you think other countries should just do what?

not anything, or should they move on their own? caller: no. the smog. host: how do you get china on board? and what if china says we are not coming on board? caller: well, i don't know. maybe put more tariffs on them. i don't know. but we have to get them on board. they pollute everywhere. that was in shanghai. host: to david, calling from missouri on the republican line. david, good morning. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: there's no such thing as zero carbon unless you dig the material out of the ground by hand with a stick and a rock, pound it into whatever you need by a stick and a rock, and move it from one place to another by yourself, period, point blake,

full stop. host: let's go to barbara, calling for massachusetts on the democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you. in that entry you read, you made a reference to a carbon fee, and pulls showing people would be willing to pay $100 more for carbon, on a fee. i want use do a segment on both what is carbon capture and sequestration, abbreviated ccs, but more than that, what is the reference you read about net zero carbon? what was it? people know what it means. no, a fee or a tax on carbon. please let us know what does a

carbon tax mean? finally, than incredible quote you read from dan silver. is he a senator from alaska, jesse? host: correct. caller: you could read that exact statement, an attack on janie ellen, and flip it over. yes, we are breaking from our history because science and reality is necessitating us to go to the next form of energy and duration. and i am here from martha's vineyard, where we are about to launch a massive offshore wind farm. host: let's go to philip, calling from orlando, florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. applauding the lady's community

effort with wind farms. we need a wind farms fueled by nonfossil fuels, noncarbon. we need to convert our used cars into hydrogen, not a fossil fueled car. -- the permafrost exposure. there will be viruses in -- viruses and bacteria. it seems that those opposing the issue of climate change, it is just too hot to live.

like, a sauna. the only difference is you can get out of a sauna and take a shower. unlovable -- we are heading for a unlivable situation. host: let's talk to rita, calling from columbus, ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. i am -- it is driving me crazy that although the things in front of our faces, we are pretending as if we don't see it. climate change has been happening since the globe. the climate is always going to change. we have some responsibility to what we put in our atmosphere? absolutely.

but everybody does is let's go completely solar, what happens when the wind does not blow? nunnally that -- not only that, electric cars. everybody likes tesla -- is that what it is called? who is going to force that? people who have these older cars, voting for people to make these changes, won't be able to afford the changes that they are voting for. when have we gotten to a society that we do not see what is before our eyes? host: again, president biden is in europe now at the g20. behind it, the cop20 in glasgow. what is this climate conference? the wall street journal has a story that explains what this is. here is what they said.

starting sunday, climate negotiators from nearly every country will gather for cop20 in scotland to hammer out an agreement aimed at cutting emissions that scientists hope will cut global warming. the u.k. is hoping that this meeting, the aim is to agree to new measures for emissions cut building on the paris agreement. the paris accord called for governments to cup take their plans -- to update their plans every five years. the glasgow council is the first council to be held since the last paris accord, and the first since the u.s. rejoined the paris accord.

president biden reversed president trump's decision to withdraw from the paris accord. president biden is at the g20 now. what we want to know is what you think about climate change. let's go to joe, who is calling from maine on the independent line. joe, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse.

-- people who refuse to at least try to make the world better. i don't know. host: let's go to ned, calling from florida on the republican line. the good morning. -- good morning.

caller: i would not say that there's not change in climate, but everyone hundred thousand years, the earth goes through an ice age. every 21,000 years, the tilt of the earth changes. that is why places like the sahara desert once had lush vegetation. there is no way us for us to control that. should we make sure the energy is clean? sure. but like you say, people willing to pay another $100 toward their energy. well, we already do because of biden's decisions because of the pipeline. we already pay $100 more for groceries. people on social security cannot afford another $100.

they cannot. host: let's talk to john, calling from new york on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. host: do you have anything to say about climate change? i guess not. to tim, calling from pennsylvania. tim on the republican line. pronounce the name of your town for me. caller: to mock what -- tomaqua. the planet is frozen like the gentleman said before and we should be glad the planet is warm enough to live on. host: let's talk to ken, calling for massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. it is amazing that the callers

so far are speaking the tune that i am matching. i mean, we have been much warmer and colder, and we should be blessed and happy that it is getting warmer, and we certainly don't want the government to take over our lives with all the ridiculous regulation they are imposing on us. i am braced the combustion engine and hope we have fossil fuels for the rest of my life and my grandchildren's lives. thank you. host: president biden came out earlier this week, pushing his build back better plan, which includes climate issues and funding for some of his climate plan. here's president biden talking about whether the climate provisions of the bill back better plan will help communities better withstand the impact of climate change. host: we will build up our resilience --

[video clip] >> we will>> build up our resilience for the next storms, droughts, and hurricanes. last year alone, these events have been covered and you have all witnessed them and some of you have been con up in them. they have caused nearly $90 billion in the united states last year. $99 billion. and we are not spending any money to deal with this? it is costing us significantly. in pittsford, i met an -- in pittsburgh, i met an electrical worker. he calls himself a 100% union guy. his job is dangerous. he said, i don't want my kids growing up in a world where the

threat of climate change hangs over their heads. so we all have that obligation, to our children and grandchildren. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about climate change and the poll that shows that more americans say it is a crisis. a post from facebook that says -- this is a lie. it is the biggest money grabbing taxation that will not change weather. it is a literal gifts to china. a tweet that says -- it depends on what you plant and when you plant it. farmers will have to adjust. food is not pop up on the grocery's shelf wrapped in cellophane. another that says, how many people do we lose to flooding, storms, etc. do we just ignore them because of china?

another that says, a man-made climate change, worldwide emergency. one last tweet that says do we have anything that makes these people more money and power in a crisis? we want to know what you think about climate change when we have a new poll that says more americans are worried about a climate crisis and president biden is at the g20 and, following that, a climate conference. what do you think about climate change? do you agree with the poll? let's talk to herbal, calling from albion, idaho. -- to earl, calling from albee -- albion, idaho. caller: my relatives fine world war ii.

i was brought up -- it was like being painted on. use them. we are living in a country where people depend on other means and motivations to get around. i farmed and i do it conservatively and i am out there working the fields on the highway here. i watch people riding bicycles just to be riding them. and i think, what i'm i doing feeding these people just riding a bicycle for exercise? we need to get back to work in this country. host: what do you farm? caller: what's that? host: what do you farm? ? what do you grow? caller: sheep, horses and grain. host: you work outside a lot,

earl, if you are a farmer. have you seen any evidence of a climate shift where you work? caller: well, being a farmer all these years, every day is a different day that i have to adapt to what is happening in our weather. host: how long have even farm income earl? -- have you been farming, girl? -- farming, role? caller: 50 years. host: and you see the same amount of rain, sun? caller: it varies. host: you say you are seeing a circuit? some years more, some less, but not an increase in sun, rain, snow, or anything? caller: it is a pattern over 7, 8 years.

it varies. and people that live in the cities live in a climate that is created by the cities themselves, so you think -- so you take these points within cities and communities where you have all this asphalt. you are creating a spot that varies and effects the weather. -- and affects the weather. host: let's talk to an independent caller, deandre, from miami, florida. caller: i think we are in a crisis and we ought to do something about it. [indiscernible] for example, here are some numbers.

4 million plus specters lost this year -- 4 million plus hectares lost this year. 8 million tons of toxic chemicals released into the environment this year, so those numbers exemplify our carelessness and apathy as far as the climate. we have to be self-sufficient and get closer to god. everybody have a wonderful saturday. host: let's talk to stephen, calling from lexington, kentucky on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. happy saturday. here is my comment. climate change is definitely

real. we see it happening, and we have the data. it is a lot. we are seeing it live. and republicans, you have to use the same logic you use for the debt ceiling. you do not want to pass this on to your grandchildren. you do not want to pass this on to future generations. i just had a baby. my wife and i, we know -- and i, we don't want her to grow up in a world that is hotter, she can't live in it, nothing can grow. we have to hold corporations more accountable. they are putting chemicals in the water systems, on our land. it is -- it is not just american citizens. we have to hold corporations accountable as well. so think about that and thank you. host: let's talk to tim, calling from minneapolis on the republican line. tim, good morning. caller: thank you for your time.

there's a thing called cycles -- called cycles. the earth has a 1000-your variable orbit that triggers ice ages. the earth started warming 7000 years before man-made co2. co2, plants, on the planet. dinosaurs, co2, 12 times as much. and the tornado source wrecks group -- and the tyrannosaurus rex grew. higher co2, more plant life. warmer weather -- i like. host: let's talk to dana, calling from flint, michigan on

the independent line. dana, good morning. caller: good morning. i am looking at all the disasters on the coast. if people could start to try to use steel, build their houses with steel, instead of rebuilding on land and here comes another hurricane next year, six months, aboveground gardening, rooftop gardening, because people are using their land -- people are losing their land to the drought and floods. havana syndrome down in cuba -- i personally think russia is behind that. i think they use some kind of rate to target our -- kind of ray to target our nervous system and our brains. programs for college students to pay on their loans.

even people not familiar with the l.a. -- with the area, hopefully, that some help with a guidance system could deliver the needs we have. there's a lot of things that they could do about the carbon emissions, to extract that out of the air college students for childcare. wiping out there debt. -- ou their debt. and we are dealing with forces. i hope the republican party can learn to not receive bribes or moneys from foreign entities or dictators. host: let's talk to michael, calling from virginia on the democrats' line.

good morning. caller: good morning to you. hear me? host: yeah. caller: people should look more into how wind farms are being produced, which is a lot to do with deforestation, and they should look at the impact it is having on birds. if you look back on china in the 1950's, they killed off about 400 million sparrows because they thought it was going to help with their food supply, but it actually did the opposite. all the birds were killed off and they ended up having a famine because all the bugs came and started eating the green, so i think people should -- eating the grain, so i think people should look into these renewable energies and how they are produced, including solar,

because solar panels are made with dangerous chemicals, and unbelievers cause and effect. i believe that chorus produce carbon. i think it has an impact on the environment,, where you have a lot of cards -- the environment, where you have a lot of cars, and that's clear, but they have not looked at the impact of renewable energies, including wind farms and electro dams. we are playing with fire. host: ed, in pleasant valley, new york, good morning. caller: i am not a scientist. i did read an article put out by john casey. he wrote a book cold dark winter.

he believes, since 1970, in the 1970's, our temperatures in the last 45 years have only gone up only, 3, 6 degrees. what is going on here, it is basically telling us we will have to change our lives. it is more about money than the environment. we have global warming -- it is the big lie to get more money from us. and i think people believe what they hear. we have been hearing it since the 70's. there's a book out, dark winter by john casey. he said that the arctic circle has gained six feet a day of ice, the coldest it has been in years. so there is a change in weather. it is raining on my house today but it wasn't yesterday. i think we need to believe in

all scientists, not just the ones they want us to believe in. host: list talk to steve, calling from fort pierce, florida on the independent line. steve, good morning. caller: morning. happy to talk with you. we don't have the data. you look over the past, history, we don't have records they go much farther than 100 years ago. and i live on the coast. i know the people on the coast have built seawalls, places where the ocean cannot go back into the earth, and specifically come in miami, when they talk about flooding and rising water [indiscernible]

-- back up the river, the water, the ocean. there is only one way they can go a command that is up. that is one example. erosion is on the coast. it is always moving land. it is always -- so you are going to have areas, like where i live. there's an island in between. it is a barrier island. that is smaller because of hurricanes and global tides.

and it is moving so in some areas, they have to keep putting sand, because there's an area that the water is moving into. when i was a kid, there was 50 to 100 feet. the trouble is is making too many assumptions. we are taking opinions. global warming will affect you not that much. host: let's go to everett, calling from grand junction, colorado on the republican line. everett, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. how are you and everybody? most people are stealing my third this morning, but anyway -- stealing my thunder this morning, but anyway, i encourage people to study the wobble of the earth, basically.

watch nasa channels. they accumulate the statistics on the weather. it is all good information. and recycling, like the blades on these wind generators. they are taking them to wyoming of all crazy races and burying them in the ground. you can find these articles, find that information on the internet. and it is pretty good information. it is not just hearsay or whatever. and then volcanoes. they change the earth's climate. thanks, jesse. host: well, in front of congress, several executives from oil companies came to talk about what their companies are doing and what they have not done when it comes to climate change and here is a study from the associated press. top executives from oil giants

denied spreading misinformation about climate change as they sparred thursday with congressional democrats over allegations that they concealed evidence about the dangers of global warming. testifying on a landmark house hearing, a ceo said the company he is the ceo of said the company has longer knowledged the risk of climate change and has devoted significant resources to addressing those risks. the statements on climate have always been true, inconsistent with mainstream science, wood said. democrats immediately challenge the statement by woods and other executives. -- "they are obviously lying like to -- like tobacco executives were," said the

chairman of the house oversight committee. republicans on that committee argued that democrats are only attacking the oil industry and badgering the executives. in fact, republican andy biggs of arizona spoke directly to those people. i want to show you what he said. [video clip] >> when you get asked this morning about arch you embarrassed, that's kind of an irrational question to ask ceo's about their company policy, to vilify you, and basically say, will you repudiate your membership in a manufacturing institute? and to battery? i'm not saying you should do your best to reduce carbon emissions and run a clean

company. i am saying that you have been brought here so they can beat the crap out of you. that is what this is about. they are doing it for political reasons. that is the shame of it all. this is a hearing were democrats attack american workers and the private sector. -- have consistently advocated that -- advocate for policies that have led to an energy crisis. you have the chief of staff tweeting that most of the economic problems we are facing our high-class problems -- facing are high-class problems, when even the new york times is saying that this thanksgiving will wallop the wallet, thanks to biden. some of the inflation is systemic but some of it is driven by scarcity, economic, market driven principles, so i

hope you get the lesson, because if nothing else i saint matters -- i say matters, i should say that these people would regulate you out of business tomorrow if they could. do not pretend otherwise, no matter how code of corporate citizens you are or how sincere you are in trying to reduce carbon emissions. that is the purpose of this hearing today, to lay the foundation to get rid of you. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about climate change and pulls saying more americans saying that climate change is a crisis. a post from facebook that says the crisis is the invasion of the border, which the president should be arrested for. the other crisis is all the first responders will be losing because -- responders we will be losing because of the vaccine mandates, not the damn weather.

another tweet that says a crisis, perhaps, but an opportunity. climate change is a shared threat to society and a shared opportunity to mitigate the effects and adapt to the new environmental conditions. willie international community do this? .doubtful .one last post on facebook assess as long as the oil companies and billionaires rigged the policies in favor of them, nothing will change.

-- caller: those trees were dying, and it turns out the spruce beetle, they were not like they were and the spruce beetles were going nuts. the other thing you do when you move to alaska, they take you to a park outside alaska -- outside anchorage, a glacier. it is a nice park with a blue lake and the face of the glacier. it is neat, spectacular, actually. if you go now, it is gone.

the glacier is now a creek. dan sullivan, you know, he says, we will quit drinking, but can i have one more drink? we have to wake up. because these northern states see climate change when more than we do in the lower 48. they are on the edge of there -- edge up there. anyway, i'm not a scientist, but this is what i saw up there in the 1970's. host: let's go to steve, calling from york, pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: i will start with climate change with the border and everything else, we have a crisis at the border, and i agree with that one guy. i am in my 70's. they were talking about an ice age 15 years ago.

that did not happen. going through history, the sun, with the sunspots, sun flares. back in 1858, it got so bad that, out in the midwest, where they used to have the telegraph, it just burnt the wires right off. so how do you control the sun? i respect people's opinions, but i am a christian, and this is happening because of us, not because of oils. we do not care of what gun is gibbons. -- over what god has given us. when you go to a forest and go to the trees and cut them out, so for a fire, we are not taking care of them like we should take care of them. host: to mike, calling from

virginia on the democrats line. caller: hello. how are you doing, jesse? always like to see you on the tv there. i think you do a good job. i really believe we have damaged our atmosphere. i believe in the global warming. i have lived long enough to see the change in what is happening. temperatures are different now. the winters are not as severe. and, you know, we need to do what we can to fix it, or we are going to be in bad, bad shape, so, come on, america. let's work together. we have got to fix this. host: let's go to steve, who is calling from new york on the end up in the line -- on the independent line. steve, good morning. go ahead, steve. caller: hello? can you hear me? host: we can.

go ahead, steve. caller: way back in the 1960's, i heard the climate is always changing. i would like to see the debate. sorry -- can you hear me? i would like to see debate by scientists on both sides of the issue. you cannot hear the other side. and also, politicians in san francisco and chicago, how are they going to fix the climate? it is either getting better or worse. it is never ended. -- it is never-ending. so that's what made us what we are today. host: let's go to catherine, calling from bolingbrook, illinois on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse.

thank you for this opportunity to voice an opinion of mine. i grew up like a lot of your callers in the 1960's and 1970's and i thought the big issues of the canal and the cuyahoga river burning and pittsburgh having air quality you could not even see one building from another standing right near them. so those were big climate problems that affected our health immediately. so people got together and cleaned it all up. and now, the cuyahoga river runs clean, pittsburgh is one of the cleanest cities in the country, and the canal, unfortunately, there's still a lot of cancer stuff there, but i have noticed, taking a little step forward to now, last year, one we had fewer drivers -- last year, when we had fewer drivers on the road, the air was clear and we had more birds chirping.

i would take a walk and say, wow, birds are out. my neighbor would say, yeah, i have noticed the same thing. this tells me we are impacting our climate on a very serious way. i agree with all the callers that say, yes, the earth this change. we have this, that, and that affects things, but we do not need to breathe air that is so dirty. we don't have to live in the heat caused by offputting extra stuff on -- host: as president biden goes to europe for the g20 and the climate conference in glasgow, some are taking note of what president biden did as he went to the vatican. the new york post has this story and i. want to bring it to you. "president biden drawing criticism for the poor optics

ahead of the climate summit in glasgow, scotland. biden arriving at the vatican. his motorcade is long, tweeted a washington post reporter, along with a video of the procession. here is a tweet we want to show you. this video is a tweet showing the motorcade from president biden arriving at the vatican. going back to the story, biden routinely has told the crisis caused by fossil fuels. it is unclear how many of them under -- many of the motorcade are electric vehicles. this comes from chico harlan. and again, showing the 85 car -motorcade.

let's talk to patty, calling from north branford, connecticut on the end up in one. good morning. caller: good morning. i have plenty to say about angus king, the representative up in maine. they went and put in windmills there. he got a $400,000 kickback, him. he is independent, but votes democrat 100%. they will get a kick back and put the blame on us as usual. the crisis we should be worried about is the president of the united states. he is doing more harm than anything else. that is what i have to say. host: let's go to joe, calling from west plains, missouri on the republican line. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, connecticut. anyway, i worked outside my

whole life. a little warmer is better than freezing. the main problem, jesse, is we have too many people on earth. too much garbage, too much plastic, all that stuff, so i don't believe in climate change at all. host: what do you do for a living? caller: industrial sheet-metal, putting roofs on 100-story buildings. mostly sheet-metal and ironwork. host: so you don't think it has gotten warmer or colder, that we don't get more or less snow, more or less rain? caller: we get less snow and that's fine with me. when you try to work in the winter, it hurts your body. warmer -- they are both bad. extreme hot is bad, cold is bad, but cold is worse. if we are warming up a little,

good. host: let's go to bernie, calling from saint leonard, maryland on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: i am fine. go ahead, bernie. caller: i would like to say that the climate -- but i don't know why these people cannot put their money where their mouth is. mr. biden gets on air force one, i think, 20 times this year, flying to delaware. and from where i am sitting come it is a 2 hour drive, 95 to 100 miles, and electric cars, you can plug one in and drive it to delaware. it costs $260,000 an hour to drive the plane. so he spends $500,000 in a weekend of our tax money. so let's stop the foolishness. thanks.

host: let's go to andrea, calling from hyattsville, maryland on the independent wine. good morning. caller: hello. good morning tall and thank you for your show. -- good morning to all and thank you for your show. i want to say that i am in my 40's and i am experiencing a change. last night, in the dark, the nights are even darker. you know, used to not be as dark outside at night, but it is extremely dark, and things must change. it is not about, you know, who is republican or democrat. they always lead to that, but we need to do what is right, because god is in control but we have to do our part. have a great day. that's all.

host: let's talk to ed, who is calling from nashville, tennessee on the republican line. ed, good morning. caller: good morning. i am surprised i'm getting through. i enjoy your show quite a bit. i listen to it, but first time caller. host: go ahead, ed. caller: welcome ok, what i think, sometimes, you know, we all think we know something but in the long run we don't know nothing. everything changes quite a bit. i would like to say that not all electric machines -- years ago, i am from michigan, too, and the great lakes was getting polluted because of corporations dumping into it, toxic waste, and finally, joe nader -- ralph nader, everybody remembers nader's raiders, but i think he

did a lot of good to this country by having regulations, and it has cleared up a little bit. and corporations also, china. they are polluting over there and now they are shipping the goods back over here and everything is fine, but now we are going to china for all of the -- the pollution. well, anyhow, i guess there is climate change and i wish people would get together and quit fighting among ourselves and be able to help somebody do something and clear out all this bickering and fighting and yak yak. -- and yackety-yak. host: we thank our callers for participating in this segment.

next, our guest discusses the facebook papers and increasing tensions between capitol hill and big tech. and later, our next guest discusses a podcast that looks a culture from a latino perspective. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> next week, on the c-span networks, on monday, president biden is in glasgow, scotland for the climate summit, cop26. the supreme court will hear two arguments regarding the texas abortion law. at 11:00 a.m. eastern, they will hear the u.s. versus texas on tuesday wiebe on c-span.org, campaign -- new jersey governor race between phil murphy and republican challenger jack to

rally, and the virginias governor race between former governor terry mcauliffe and republican glenn young kim. next week, the house and senate are in session. and next wednesday on c-span3, countering domestic terrorism with testimony by officials from homeland security and the fbi in front of the house intelligence committee. on thursday, live on c-span3, covid-19 and the next steps in the response with testimony from cdc director rochelle walensky and national institute of allergy and infectious diseases director dr. anthony fauci before the senate health committee. on friday, on the c-span network, a memorial service for retired army general and former secretary of state colin powell, live. from the washington national cathedral. watch next week or watchful coverage on c-span now. our new mobile video app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to

stream video live and on-demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. washington journal continues. host: we are back with chris riley, the internet governance senior fellow at the archery institute. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: remind our viewers exactly what the r street institute is question mark -- is? guest: it's a nonprofit free-market free tank -- think tank. we have a lot of different issues and we are happy to be part of the elegy and innovation team. host: where does it get its funding? guest: a mix of sources, which is pretty typical of d.c. organizations.

during my time -- [indiscernible] we are supported entirety by the knight foundation in my department. host: you are the public policy director for mozilla, remind us what that is in tell us how your work there translates to what you are doing at our street? guest: i had the pleasure working there for almost seven years i was the first public policy higher for the corporation status. this is the taxes, and nonprofit foundation. in that perspective i was inside the tech industry but in a rare role that allowed me perspective to look broader than just the products i was working with and really build a team and a strategy of making the internet better. this is what i have built my

whole career towards, trying to make the internet better through work at the intersection of public policy, technology, and law. it was natural for me to go from one to the other. the think tank style is a deeper investigative dive on these rapidly evolving and i believe very important technology issues. host: we have your background, let's get into the topic that we have you here to speak about. tell our viewers exactly what the facebook papers are and why they are important. guest: perhaps we should call them that meta-memorandum now, with the corporate name change. at this point, several whistleblowers and former facebook employees who have taken some materials with them and made them available to the securities and exchange commission as well as newspaper reporters. most recently, and the most prolific was from the employee

frances haugen, who captured most of which are internal screenshots of the workplace tool, facebook's version of facebook, used by employees in what had been a very open internal culture commentary. the net result is that a lot of integral research that has been done it facebook over the past few years on these products and society and around the world, not just in the united states, but also some extent instead internally and the effects that those had on engagement and on how those represented, that research is now in the hands of the u.s. government and many different investigative ab that's -- outlets around the country. host: how did that information get out of facebook? guest: i don't know exactly what mechanics were involved. i believe a lot of it was screenshots taken from an internal computer.

facebook actually internally has had a very open culture where a lot of information is free to share and employees were allowed to express anything on any topic and communicated with each other in a way that i think has many positive aspects to it. it used to be commonplace within many different technology companies. most of whom have since locked down a bit, there is some interesting coverage and facebook may take the same trajectory. host: what were the big takeaways from what we found out from the facebook papers and the testimony? guest: i think what this has revealed, at least from my perspective is not substantially different from what many of the things we have learned about the effects of a social network at the scale of facebook over several years. it's an increase in scale rather than substance. as a recent example, prior to

these papers really becoming widely known, there is an investigative journalist here in california that showed on september 22 through some research that they were doing that post of the far right afd party in germany are appearing three times as often as other parties in the german elections. what we are seeing is really detailed evidence of the outputs and outcomes of the recommendation engines that are powering how and what you see when you use facebook as a user. as a facebook user you are connected to hundreds or maybe thousands of people and the amount of information available to you is vast. long ago, facebook and many other companies similarly situated were shifting away from presenting that information to you and built an extensive recommendation engine, the

algorithms, which i they're working on your behalf in the background to sort and prioritize information for you. we have learned a lot more through the papers about how these worked and the research that facebook has been doing internally to understand how these worked in the real world. host: i'm glad you brought the word up, we hear it over and over, the algorithm. can you tell our viewers what they are talking about when they talk about the algorithm and what it actually does? so what they see on facebook and social media. guest: it's a hobby horse of mine as well, prior to public policy i was in computer science and as a grad student in johns hopkins in baltimore i taught introduction to algorithms twice. i consider myself an expert on the subject. the algorithm itself is the formula, the recipe that underlies the code.

facebook has written extensive and thoroughly researched technologies that seems to say you like this post from a democrat. he liked this other post from a democrat. maybe you want to see more content aligned with democratic interests. it's that kind of learning that happens in the background based on data from a variety of sources which ends up powering the kinds of things you see and what you don't see. host: what's the worry that congress has about what facebook is doing? guest: at the end of the day, it's any powerful system that we don't have an understanding of and belief in control of that i think powers seen in the backlash. i am phoned saying that 20 or so years ago, when members of congress and policymakers used the word computer commit might be 30 years ago.

they used to use the word computer as a synonym for magic or even black magic. it was a force that was not understood operating in ways that exerted clear power over the world. but they didn't know how to get a handle on it. this is better with the word computer. but the same dynamic exists around algorithm. the idea that when we talk about the algorithm it is this scary and powerful apparatus operating in the background about which we will never have a detailed understanding or ability to control. there's a big element of fear going into this. it's understandable area we need to invest in technology expertise. progress has been made on that. more would be helpful. the recognition of the power of this system, because it is a system that runs on 3.5 billion people around the world, coupled with this gap in understanding hand a perceived lack of control. host: let's take a break to

remind our viewers that they can take part in this discussion about the facebook papers and the future big tech. we are opening up our regular lines. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter and on facebook . chris, one of the complaint about facebook is how they reacted to january 6 and the push on disinformation. first talks about what was said about facebook and what they did following the insurrection of january 6. i want to read this to you.

facebook discussed developing a stream and measures to limit misinformation, calls for violence, and other materials that could disrupt the 2020 presidential election. both former president donald trump and his supporters tried to stop joe biden from a declared president on january 6, 2021, facebook employees complained these measures were implemented too late or stymied by technical and bureaucratic caps. -- hang ups. how much do we look at facebook and say you should have done more on january 6? you already have procedures for this but it doesn't look like they worked. guest: that's right. i look back at the incidence of that tragic day and say yes, i think facebook should have done more. i wish they had done more. there's a deep challenge, institutional myopia is a real problem, inherent no matter the institution, size, scale, how

many sociologist work on staff. it's hard to figure out how to draw very sensitive balances like this by yourself. it's not something that needs to be the forever situation. we are talking about speech, that's why the balance is important. you don't want to air on the side of restricting speech too quickly. free expression is important. it's protected strongly in this country but it's a universal human right. companies take it on themselves to celebrate free expression as well they should. we are talking about a careful balance. it's difficult to draw precisely correctly in every circumstance. it's hard to say how do we prevent that thing from happening? looking back, i wish facebook i don't more to trigger some of these circuit breakers and other methods. it's my hope that the development of professionalization within the safety field, we have seen this over the past year, two separate

501(c) six is focused on trust and safety to improve shared knowledge. i look at the emergence of that, as well as outside research advocacy groups and tell the dynamics that will help give us that perspective to avoid the bad consequences of institutional myopia in the future. host: social media companies like facebook and twitter issues -- insist they are not media companies and don't have a responsibility for what people say on their platforms. you agree with their contention? do you think there should be some regulation of what companies like facebook, twitter, and instagram and other social media companies can put out to the world? guest: you are talking about one of the hottest issues these days . that section 230 in the united states law protecting facebook

and companies like it has intermediaries from being liable for the actions of their users. i believe there is an important distinction to be made between companies whose work and business is centered around facilitating expression of others. in contrast to media companies, many of which are successful that work to cultivate the content that comes out through their services which is much more hands and direct. i think it is probably correct that historically there has been a level of action for intermediaries. the same is true in europe, there is a similar law in the european union that protects intermediaries from being held liable for the actions of their users. however i think it is right and proper to consider what will government can play at this important point in time. to put more emphasis and perspective on investing and responsibility. i think this distinction is important and should be

preserved. there's a role for government to be engaged. host: let's let viewers take part, we will start with gilbert , calling from raleigh, north carolina on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. chris, i wanted to get your thoughts on the issue regarding facebook and how they have been perceived and investigated around suppressing information on their platform regarding legal campaigns in support of candidates and belief systems that they believe in. mark zuckerberg foundation rights million-dollar checks towards democratic candidates, this is an issue that has been going on for long time and has been investigated. do you see facebook really doing

this? is anything really happening with all these investigations? are they being broken up or regulated? and other social media companies, i'm skeptical. i think they have a lot of politicians in their pockets, lobbyists, spending millions of dollars and i don't see anything happening. i could be wrong. i would like to be wrong. guest: i'm not sure what evidence or stories you are referring to. my understanding of facebook is that they have a number of serious, excellent, well credentialed political veterans from both parties operating internally. i know there senior policy leadership is closely linked to the republican party rather than the democratic party. i don't see a particular bias in the outputs of the company from my perspective. there is a difference between intentional actions and the ramifications and repercussions that can arise from these

complex systems. i knowledge there might be cases where we see that. i mentioned earlier that in germany the far right party has three times as much visibility than the other policies. i don't believe that was an intentional decision by facebook to promote the far right party in germany. it was a consequence. on the subject of investigation. i think facebook is being actively investigated by a number of different federal agencies, including the a security's and exchange commission, obviously. understood to start calling it the meta-memorandum. that's appropriate at this point in time. as well as a number of agencies outside the united states. some have broad regulatory powers to have more of this internal info which should give us a clear picture of what's going on and what was intended to go on. host: so were not saying whether it's true or false, you don't think they are pushing out far

right material, but if they wanted to, could they? are they a private company, this is not a government owned entity. if they wanted to be more liberal or more conservative, is that their right as a private company? guest: i agree. they have every right under the law, american law, to take a stance on political issues, on any or all political issues. we have seen quite a lot of companies adopt an explicitly progressive position and it's really made -- i don't think facebook has done that. i think it's harder for a company to do that. a company could not do that secretly. they would need to be very overt . facebook more than most, there's quite a lot of -- -- whistleblowers coming from the woodwork if the comedy were trying to secretly take a stance. host: roger is calling from

raleigh, north carolina, on the republican line. good morning. caller: my question relates to whether or not facebook is subject to -- i think it's the 1934 federal broadcasting act. i can't member the name of it specifically -- remember the name of it specifically, or the patriot act, things like that that govern to the extent to which the government can monitor what goes on facebook. also to what extent are facebook groups actually private? guest: that's an excellent question. the law you are referring to is the 1954 communications act, the provision set up the federal communications commission as a regulator. i've spent some of my career working at the fcc. there's a robust debate still going on among scholars and researchers in the community about how to approach the

internet as a whole. not just more traditional feelings at this point, like communications companies, but all of the emerging technology. from my perspective i think there are three options and i don't have a particular preference. one of them is to regulate internet companies, especially those that feel a little bit more like communication services including social network services. there are many calls for regulating those under traditional communication clause -- munication laws paradigms. in united kingdom the regulator has been chosen to implement a duty of care law to try to govern online content and limit the harms. they have chosen their equivalent to the fcc. that is the government body to look at an implement this creed united states went more towards the federal trade commission, a general competition and consumer

protection regulator. it determines -- depends on how you interpret it. there is also a call for a new third kind of agency to challenge and not except the past paradigms. there are pros and cons to any of these. i don't senior legal pathway to have a statutory law of the sec or its existing authority could be used to govern this kind of online activity. so when former president trump issued an executive order trying to pressure the independent agency, the fcc, to step up, i do others did not feel that was something within the law as it was designed for the fcc to do. host: are you saying that any regulation of social media will require a brand-new law and regulation instead of using the ones that we have on the books now? guest: that's an excellent question. and no that's not what i meant.

there are many pieces within existing law, there is a well-established body of law that can be used to go after some of the concerns and practices we are seeing as harmful. the federal trade commission has broad authority and could do a fair bit today. has done a fair bit in the past with privacy expertise. there is work that can be done without loss coming from congress. i feel like the ceiling of what we are looking for as a polity right now, the more tailored and finessed governance mechanisms and the kinds of limited but effective government intervention called for now probably does require additional statutory work. host: we have popped around a bit, but let's get into it, the fact that facebook has changed its name. i want to read from a washington post story that explains what facebook did. facebook changed its corporate

name to meta on thursday moving to distance itself from a social media business and world in crisis and rebrand itself as a forward-looking creator of a new digital world known as the meta-verse. mark zuckerberg urged users to think -- to adjust their thinking about the company, which he said had outgrown its ubiquitous and problematic social media app, a platform that will continue to be known as facebook. instead, he says the company plans to focus on what zuckerberg described as the next wave of computing. a virtual universe where people roam freely as avatars, tending virtual business meetings, shopping and virtual stores and socializing at virtual get-togethers. what does this name change from facebook to meta mean, does not mean we are seeing something different? when we open up facebook on our computers and phones? guest: it does not mean that but

it means a lot of different things and i'm still trying to process my own understanding on how to interpret it. but i don't think it means any changes or future changes to facebook as you experience it now through your phone or computer. maybe 10 years from now when you're more likely to use it three virtual reality headband such as oculus which will be called something else. i view the name change is an indication of where facebook plans to focus its research and product energy, away from internet-based services, smart home-based services and more towards these immersive technologies. augmented reality, virtual reality, as a way of defining its identity and trying to predict the future of technology and developed for that. host: is that what mark zuckerberg means when he talks about a meta-verse?

a virtual reality thing that we have not seen yet or is this already in the works and they will debut in a couple of years? guest: both. at the number of different things. i watched some of but not all of the presentation. there was such a broad range of technologies on display. i was a little surprised. i remember one example distinctly, it was a surgical training virtual reality, where floating avatars were operating. that technology is virtually here and there are many kinds of virtual reality training and simulation exercises very similar to that in use today. on the other hand, the virtual -- struck out. to simulate world activity -- real world activity you have to have something with feedback, gloves or a bodysuit so where you press against the wall you

have to create the mechanism that presses back against you. without that physical touch face interaction you can't simulate these sorts of activities. dribbling a basketball, you could imagine a future where you have a smart glove that wishes against but we're years away from that. particularly if you imagine the kind of indirect haptic feedback necessary to stimulate sensing and have that. that technology is very far away . it's a broad mix. and it's an interesting strategic choice to put a single label on this category of technology as meta-verse and dive all in. this is a term that comes from science fiction literature. it's used to describe a digital future, one where we as individuals may have flashier experiences but where we see power concentrated and abuses of power and human rights on

display and more rampant. and that perhaps harkens back to science fiction literature. and hopefully that's not a prognosis for our future. host: let's go back to the phone lines and talk to michael from mississippi on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you coming out mr. riley about the big tech and all. i wanted to share with the public that one of the hardest things -- i'm 71 years old, i really enjoy the electronic world that has come around. i've seen it happen, it's been great. but i was shocked, the biggest thing i done recently is get off of facebook. i stopped twitter. it was not necessarily because they block certain individuals that had the right to be on

there and have their opinions, but i felt controlled by this non-formed entity. i kept seeing the disconnection of people, especially children. that they are focused on this electronic world that you have spoken of, and the tech sensations that make you think you're in the real world. i have laughed at the particular folks on big bang theory that they live dungeons & dragons in various things but when it comes down to the real world they are literally incompetent. i'm seeing a trend. it's disturbing. guest: i didn't mean to cut you off. i'm so glad you made that intervention. it brings up two important points i want to make. the first is the ability to

disconnect from facebook and i have many friends who have disconnected from social media services including facebook and twitter. it's frankly a privilege that we enjoy that many people around the world don't because in many parts of the world facebook is where you do business. where you find essential services. it's a joke that in many parts of the world people see facebook as the internet and they don't see a distinction between the two but it's not a joke in many parts of the world. that's a broader policy challenge and what we are talking about today. but it's important to understand how central facebook is in many parts of the world. and particularly to look at this in contrast to the reporting i have read in the newsletter indicating how much lasting an investment has been put online. the second point reflects some of my earlier commentary, power

and how powerless -- and how power is felt and perceived online. i very much believe at my core that the reason we are seeing the so call pushback against tech is because we at it -- we has internet users have lost the feeling of agency the early days of the web had us sitting behind the keyboard of the master what we could do. you could type in any website and go to it. the information was at your fingertips and it was in your power to go and find what you wanted. and you could create any website. you are not just here to consume what was being packaged. it was yours to go find. and that feeling is very powerful to us as human beings. is very powerful to our economy as well. for a variety of reasons we lost that feeling. some of it goes back to these recommendation systems and as much information as is available to you through facebook and the

services, you don't have control over what you see and what you get from that system. host: one of our social media followers has something they want you to comment on when it comes to facebook. this followers as facebook has been used to incite violence against political opponents in myanmar and other countries use facebook during the election for the right wing always seems to benefit and the truth suffers. the israeli election was another example. they want to know if you can comment? guest: i'm very familiar with my time -- with this from my time at the state department. this is something to be concerned about. and the reference to the german elections in the afd come i think a lot of this honestly relates to some of the revelations from the latest whistleblower papers. angry engagement and more hostile and charged engagement gets more attraction on these

platforms. some of that is intentional design choices to reward those things for engagement. and some of it is us as human beings. we gravitate towards car crashes . it's part of our brains and emotional reactions that we need to understand and accept and figure out how to build with acknowledgment and understanding of and not just immediately reward whatever biochemicals are generated when we see angry things on the internet. i very much believe that there's a reality to that phenomenon and concerning one. something we need to figure out how to address. change needs to be made on that front more than any other. host: let's talk to peter, from valley college in new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. riley, i agree.

this is a very delicate subject. we are talking about freedom of speech and people being able to's -- to say on facebook what they think or believe. the first amendment is important, very important. i see a similarity with c-span. i hear people calling in all the time and in my opinion, because truth is subjective, they are saying blatant lies about certain things. even some guests on the show. i see no corrections or -- corrections being made by the host if they know that it is factually incorrect. one of the big problems that they seem to have now is misinformation on facebook. what's the difference -- the only difference i can see between facebook, where you can reach millions of people with your opinions, whereas me going

in my neighborhood and talking to my neighbors and spreading misinformation are either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't believe in freedom of speech. that's the thing. a lot of people i hear, particularly conservatives make this complaint, they are being blocked because they said something on facebook on twitter -- or on twitter that the authorities believes is misinformation. but it is subjective. can you comment on that. guest: i think your point about scale is important. if you are going out and talking to your local community, you can say all kinds of things and there is an important pushback in your local community that doesn't happen in the same way on the internet. a lot of what we are seeing -- you are right, free speech is conical and fundamental part -- is critical and fundamental part. and expressed in local

communities, the law is here to exert normative pressures on people to keep beach from translating into massive scale harm. and those pressures don't exist online. i am occasionally very critical of some of the early culture of the internet community and how it has not held up very well. for a long time the perspective was there is no such thing as bad speech or harmful speech and the answer to harmful speech is more speech. i think that has been proven objectively false. i have to disagree with you, i think there are lawful speech actions that should not be held as legal under the law that nevertheless deserve some kind of nonlegal response as a means of mitigating the consequences. for example in the consequences of the january 6 riots.

host: the caller brought this up and i want you to speak to this. he brought up free speech rights. do you have a right to say anything you want on facebook, twitter, social media? is that a right or a feature that facebook has that they can take away at any time? guest: it depends on how you approach that question. i do believe you have a right to express, i don't believe you have a right to use facebook. particularly in the american legal context it is very clear the first amendment does not limit a spoke directly -- facebook directly. it protects facebook's ability to say and express. when facebook -- if facebook says i have decided -- we have decided we are going to be a republican company and we're gonna start blocking democratic clinical messages they have every right to do that.

you do not have a legal right under american law to express your position on facebook. you certainly have that right as citizens of a country. i hope we are in a situation where if a company like facebook decided to do that you would have other services and platforms and opportunities and goods -- a well-known researcher is popularly credited with freedom of speech is not freedom of --. you don't have the right to reach a specific audience or go through specific platform. i very much believe in that dichotomy. host: let's go to angel, calling from marysville, washington, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to go really old school nerd and say that all of this talk about the cyber world

happened way before the year 2000. i was a microsoft via chat nerd where we had our own world, you could go in in 3d on your pc, it was not like with the headgear or anything. and you could make your own avatars and everything. and interactions with other people. this is stuff we're talking about like it's new, not to me, not to the nerd corner. but as far as the updated version of now with microsoft vc hat, and if you think about the gamer or world, everything changed after the year 2000. there was a big shift. microsoft vchat was infiltrated by hackers. it was too hard for microsoft to control it so it went by the way of the dodo. as far as the updated version of

what it would be like now with all of the instant gratification of instant messaging, instant video, it would make it scary i think. there would have to be some kind of controls because of the cyber bullying and all of that happened as of the year 2000. i remember that. the term troll came up. i had five websites over the year 2000 and had fun with the internet. it was a blast. i was part of that new genre of people getting into it. after that there was a shift, a definite paradigm shift where it became scary. host: go ahead and respond, is her timeline right? was it around the year 2000 that things went crazy? did something happen? guest: you could definitely look back in the late 90's and early 2000's and see these things.

i was an avid fan of muds, i follow diversity university were people of a similar generation may also remember. these were active social communities that were actively moderated by human moderators before there was the world troll -- the word troll, moderators would block people on platforms for a time. and i remember a virtual lecture on second life almost 20 years ago. a lot of these technologies have been around for a while. something fundamentally changes as things scale up. when you go from a few hundred to a few thousand users to 3 billion users you can't moderate everything in the same way. so you have automated moderation. you want automation to be playing a part in this.

but how you work out the balance in this of speech in a platform at that scale is fundamentally different. the transition from vchat and second life to meta-verse is maybe one of scale rather than substance or philosophy. and another thing that i took away from the presentation for mark zuckerberg was, he was speaking to audiences. u.n. die has potential users of the platform and he was intentionally speaking to people who wanted to sell things on that platform. virtual merchandise, creators and make businesses on the platform. it's not just the scaling up, it's not just the intersection and entanglement with commercial interests. host: speaking of zuckerberg and his change to meta, not everybody was impressed with the name change. alexander ocasio-cortez posted

this on twitter about the change from facebook to meta. meta-as in we are a cancer to democracy metastasizing global surveillance and a prop a massive -- propagation machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying civil society for profit. 20 think of her criticisms of meta and facebook. guest: fix likely that no matter how many internal roundtables and discussions and processes that facebook did on the name, the idea that have never have occurred to them. as a term meta is maybe more on the nose than the comparison most commonly maize, which is the rebanding of the two bracco does the rebranding of the tobacco companies. and it's more substantive than when google changed its parent legal name to alphabet.

meta feels like a not inappropriate name. i'm not sure if meta-versus the right brand, given its association with the soviets and science-fiction literature. i had a conversation with some friends about the logo associated with it, depending on how you look at it looks like an amorphous and amalgamation videogame controller, oculus headset, the m and an infinity logo. from their perspective this makes it a positive rebrand. something that adds value to the identity and institution, not just a redirection in a shift away from facebook. host: our next caller is on the independent line in california. caller: good morning. chris, i was wondering, should facebook be liable for the

murders in the crime that took place on facebook live? and one thing that i see, it looks like a reboot from ready player one with the avatar situation. guest: i'm a big ready player one fan as well as a number -- as well as another -- number of other books. i don't think we can uncritically look at the future of technology. we are shifting to more complexity. we need to work to ensure more responsibility. as for liability, i do believe in the division that exists under the law. platforms should not be held liable for the users online, i think the consequences of too radical a shift from that framework and similar provisions

in other countries would have harmful repercussions for the economy and the good that we get out of the services. i'm very aware and engaged with the pushback of big tech. there's is definitely room for improvement. but nothing like holding company is liable for everything i happens. host: let's talk to mike on the independent line in florida. good morning. caller: thanks a lot. it's a fascinating time we are living through. i'm a slow adapter. i didn't get involved until the whole facebook deal. seeing how it -- oh everybody relies on it, industries, business, and how we can be taken away at a moments notice. but do we want the government to be telling us what they can do -- they should be held

responsible, facebook should be held responsible. it's our consumerism that striving it. -- that is driving it. the fact that the previous administration is such a media powerhouse. if you could produce a product that is totally made up. and the current one, feed us what we want to hear, doesn't have to be true at all. guest: i sympathize with your first point. anything that constitutes government coming in and setting the course of speech, whether it be for private citizens or companies -- but i do stand by that there is a role for government, including privacy regulations, ensuring that private data is being properly and responsibly handled by companies. consumer protection regulation is important and underappreciated. if it company puts in its

content policy and terms of service that it will do certain things and it doesn't do it there is an opportunity for government action. you told your consumers and users that you were going to do with thing and you didn't do that. maybe that's an appropriate role for government intervention that does not unduly intrude on free speech rights. host: we would like to thank chris riley, the internet governance senior fellow at the r street institute for coming on and talking about the facebook papers and the future of big tech. chris, thank you. guest: thank you. it was a delight. host: coming up next, open phones. you can call in and talk about whatever you think the most important political topic of the day is. you see the numbers on your screen. following that, our guest will be here to discuss a podcast focusing on politics, race, and culture from the latino

perspective. we will be right back. ♪ >> tv every weekend features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, coming up, jesse: takes left-wing activists and the policies they support in his book, how i saved the world. and a conservative podcaster, ben shapiro, talks about his new book, the authoritarian moment where he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda. the latest in publishing industry news with bestsellers and trends on insider interviews on new programs about books. and on afterwards, inside corporate america's social justice scams. an entrepreneur says corporate america is getting to local culture to increase profits. he is interviewed by a harvard university economics professor.

watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. sunday, november 7 on in-depth, alive conversation with ross douthat on republican -- republican conversations -- republican politics and conservative --. joining the conversation with your phone call, facebook comments, texts and tweets on sunday, november 7, live at noon eastern on in-depth on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with our open phone segment. that means you, our viewers, can call in and talk about what you

think is the most important political topic of the day. our numbers are the regular lines. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002. and you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. as we start this segment, i want to bring you some breaking news out of the g20 summit in europe right now where president joe biden is. the washington post has the story from this morning. president biden and the other national leaders gathered with the group of 20 summit formally endorsing a new global minimum tax on saturday, capping months of negotiations over the round breaking tax accord. the new global minimum tax of 15% aims to reverse the decades long decline in tax rates on corporations around the world.

a trend that experts says has deprived governments of revenue to fund social spending programs. the deal is a key achievement for treasury secretary janet yellen, who made an international floor on corporate taxes among the top priorities of her tenure and pushed forcefully for swift action on the deal. the plan was already endorsed by the finance ministers of each country, but is officially approved by the heads of state putting added pressure on the difficult task of turning what remains of aspirational agreements into distinct legislation. nearly 100 40 countries representing more than 90% of total global economic output have endorsed the deal. they each must implement the new rule in a process i could take some time. this comes from the washington post with the g20 summit endorsing a groundbreaking

global corporate and lung tax. what is your important clinical topic you want to talk about. donald is calling from alexandria, virginia, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm trying to talk about the program that ended. i wanted to make the observation that back in the 60's, vance packard put out a book called hidden persuaders which was describing how advertisements were working. one of the things in the book that he talked about was they were starting to put on tv these many shots -- mini shots which happen so quickly which was an advertisement to purchase this type of cola. what's not meant to be -- it was not meant to be seen by the conscious mind but a subliminal message that flashed during the program, that your mind could

pick up. they outlawed that. it seems to me that one of the problems of facebook, or any other media on the internet is the algorithms they are using to manipulate the viewer, to see the things that they'll you think you want to see. what they think will help them move advertisements. if they keep your attention in the internet that they are watching by showing you stuff that makes you angry because they know that things make you angry is attractive to people, you will continue to watch their spot. it seems what they need to do is outlaw the ability of these people to run these algorithms

to make you late you. host: louise is calling from fredericksburg, virginia, on the republican line. good morning. caller: i agree with the caller from alexandra. i want to talk about the climate crisis. i would suggest that people read the book by michael quite called study of fear. -- michael quite an called state of fear -- michael creighton called state of fear. [indiscernible] host: unfortunately her signal was cutting off. we will go to alan, from new york city, new york, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was looking at program last night called civil war [indiscernible]

it basically seemed like it was trying to give a reason why people in the south, patriotic confederates hold up their heroes of the old south. in this documentary, it lasted about an hour or two, they did not show or emphasize not just the indignation of the statues in the flags but it never showed the primary thing that most black people seem to be -- they did not mention -- there is the white people, but the majority of people lynched were people of

color. african-americans. what i really was unnerved about was the fact that that's primarily why all of these figures of the colonial south -- or the segregated south, they tortured black people. they had mentions over and above the standard of commonality of humanity. host: what talk to our next caller from daniels, west virginia. caller: good morning. there are so many things that upset me that's going on in the country today. one of the main things i think is that the majority of people

pay no attention to what's going on. this government, this administration we have now came into power saying they were going to be the most transparent. the borders are open. they are not required for vaccines. but they want to require it. and we find out yesterday that they are perhaps planning to pay up to $450,000 per person to the illegal immigrants that were separated from family during the trump administration. kamala harris has been missing in action as all of this is going on. she hasn't been to the border where all of the problems really

are. she went down there once, but there's so much going on that i think america needs to wake up. those are issues that i have. plus the high gas prices. our gas is $3.399 a gallon. we were energy independent under the former administration. host: here's a wall street journal article on the issue the the biden administration is in talks to offer families separated by the trump administration around 400 $50,000 a person in compensation, according to people familiar with the matter, as several agencies work to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of parents and children, who say

the government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma. the u.s. department of justice, homeland security, and health and human services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family. though the final numbers could shift. people familiar with the matter said. most of the families across the border -- to cross the border illegally from mexico often include one parent and one child. they would likely give smaller payouts depending on circumstance, people said. the american civil liberties union, which represents families and one of the lawsuits, has identified 5500 children separated at the border over the course of the trump administration, citing figures provided to it by the government. the number of families eligible under the potential settlement is expected to be smaller, people said, and government officials aren't sure how many will come forward.

around 940 claims have so far been filed by the families, the people said. the potential payout could be $1 billion or more. that comes from the wall street journal, where the united states is in talks of hundreds of millions of families separated at the border. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to edward, calling from harrington, delaware on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your format today. there are a couple of things i would like to talk about today. firstly, people need to understand the difference between climate and weather. they are two different things. weather is what you look out your window, go outside and experience, where climate is the effects that we are having, whether it be something that is happening every thousand years or whatever people want to say, but the desalination of our

oceans are causing issues with our title currents that affect the weather. we are having more severe weather because of those desalination of our oceans. another thing i would like to bring up is, people in america have a tendency to blame others for something that they could probably experience themselves. what i mean, we are so used to having instant gratification, we are basically living in a country of, the landfill. we have plastics, we have things that we just want at the moment, right now, and until we say, how are we going to help each other to get over this situation, where we just have plastic bottles for everything, microwave our food in 10 seconds, we have a situation

where we are not concerned about the planet and our country as a whole. host: let's talk to kenny, calling from wilson, north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. good to talk to you, man. you are very, very smart and know how to carry on a conversation. i want to ask -- the first thing, i know you just read the thing about giving the $450,000, but i would like to ask the same question when they turn around those haitians, are they willing to do the same thing for the haitians? it just don't seem right, the way they treat people who are black who come over here, compared to the others. the big story of the week i wanted to talk about, i think,

is democracy. that trumps everything. we lose our democracy, climate, everything is gone. right now, the thing that the rule of law has gone. you've got to have the rule of law, but trump has really just trashed that. i think biden should have gotten the attorney general to prosecute him. i think this hearing is a joke. they are wasting time, they cannot ask the right questions and people are refusing to show up. they need to be prosecuted the way they were prosecuted -- they would prosecute me or you. they need to take care of the first thing -- i know it is a lot to put on their plate, but we should have done it right after trump call out -- call out georgia. that was when we have the republicans on our side. host: let's talk to suzanne,

calling from florida on the democrats line. caller: i want to know why people can swallow information about $1 million per person per immigrant, who was separated at the border, number one. number two, how can you call mitch mcconnell a republican? he is absolutely a trump supporter does not believe in the rule of law. republicans believe in the rule of law. trumper's do not. mcconnell advised two senator two -- two senators to ignore a subpoena. that is breaking a lot. that itself is breaking a lot. but the laws nothing to a trumper. they don't believe in the law. only republicans believe in the law, and it bothers me greatly, because i think republicans are very valuable people.

host: let's talk to stan, calling from scottsboro, but alabama -- scottsboro, alabama, on the republican line. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i have listened to the segments this morning about facebook and listens to all the comments about climate change. two comments, sir. i was raised on a farm. i lived on a farm all my life. i garden, i raise my own food. food is going to be the issue. when people are starving to death, they will pay attention to the climate change. for example, the central valley of california. the drought out there hit, and instead of getting our produce out of there, we get most of our produce out of mexico and florida now. back to the trucking issue. there is not a shortage in this country. a few years ago, they pulled

everybody's cdl license, mine included, because we were in active and off the road, ok? back to facebook. i made the comment earlier that my opinion of facebook as they made their recollections in congress, and they need to, my opinion of the high-tech, technology is probably way, way radical. i predicted years ago that technology would be the downfall of the human race. it has continued to prove me correct. people need to find out where their food comes from. goodbye, thank you very much. host: there is a story in today's new york times that talks about the new covid-19 vaccine for five to 11-year-olds, and i want to bring that story to you. the food and drug administration offers a covid-19 vaccine ages five to 11 on friday, it makes

20 8 million unvaccinated children in the united states subsequently eligible for the shot and all across the country, an opportunity to make big inroads in this effort to achieve immunity against the coronavirus. but in a community that has already struggled mightily with covid vaccine have is and see -- covid vaccine hesitancy, this may prove the toughest vaccination challenge yet. even many parents who themselves are vaccinated and approved the shot for their teenagers are turning over -- turning over whether to give consent for their younger children, questioning whether the risk of the unknowns of a brand-new vaccine are worth it, when most coronavirus cases in youngsters are mild. in announcing the authorization of a lower dose shot made by pfizer and biontech for the age group, the fda said clinical trial data shows the shot will save a harsh immune response

from children. the fda says covid shots are go for children. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to joann, calling from tennessee on the independent line. joanne, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? go ahead, joanne. caller: talking about the shots for the kids, i really don't see anything wrong with it if it is safe. but everybody is hesitant for the vaccine now because there have been so many side effects. it's proven that the kids don't get as sick, so -- host: have you been vaccinated? caller: yes. host: did you have any kind of problems? caller: i did.

sick, flulike symptoms for a couple of days, fatigue, so -- and when they prove the kids are a risk, maybe, i was at a time when we were mandated for polio shots and smallpox before we could go to school. i didn't see anything wrong with that because they saved a lot of lives. when the vaccine is proving to be safer, i think it may still be a good idea. host: let's talk to ron, calling from stafford's bill, kentucky on the republican line. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciated. one of the oldest plays in the books is class warfare.

they want to demonize rich folks and take more of their money. the rich need to be doing more. it seems like instead of wanting to promote policies to help folks better themselves, they just want to take more of other folks money. why not help people to achieve for themselves? better themselves? host: let's talk to matthew, calling from mesquite, nevada on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two points. one, the vaccine, we have failed in our public service announcements. the same people that are against this vaccine are people who were against the flu vaccine, and it's our public officials faults for not pushing that scenes more and telling them about it being

safe. the other problem i had is the gentleman calling about the million dollar payout to these families who got separated at the border, to the asian-americans that are the victims of violence. completely different. these crimes against asian-americans are done primarily by american citizens that are troubled, inner-city homeless people, mostly, from my understanding, and this is our governments. taking taxpayers dollars and promoting illegal immigration. they are sending a message to everyone who is coming up now in droves, saying if you come up to the border and get your child separated, or some other event happens to you, you will get a huge payday. host: i think he was talking

about haitians, not asians. they haitians who came up through to texas, not asians. caller: ok, my apologies. i was fixing breakfast, so apologies about that. he's got a point there. if we are going to pay these immigrants that were separated from their families $450,000 a person, yes. who's to say we shouldn't be paying all of the other people? my point is, this has been a horrible message. it is the message that hey, if you come up to america illegally, you are going to get a huge payday. host: let's go to carl, calling from inwood, west virginia on the democrat line. go ahead, carl. caller: finally, we are going to

get our payout for our slavery days, but they gave them to the wrong people. they gave them to the illegals that are coming across. host: let's go to randy, calling from cynthiana, kentucky on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you. vaccines. i thought a vaccine provided immunity from disease. these are just their punic shots that provide you with some type of therapeutic immunity against it being so harsh to you, when you get it. also, it is not even a prophylactic that keeps it from spreading. are these things not true, what i am saying? host: as you know, the flu

vaccine does not know that you -- does not mean that you won't get the flu. they don't promise that you won't get it, they just promise that if you get it, they won't be as bad. caller: call them therapeutics then, instead of vaccines. host: ok. let's go to brenda, calling from fort lee, new jersey on the republican line. brenda, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i did have an opinion about the president, and i am just know unhappy that he is so concerned about us fitting the vaccine, which is a good thing. that's a good thing and i am happy about that. all i am trying to say, all these people coming in from other places, he is not concerned about giving them vaccines or even trying. he is now talking about giving them money if they lose their child in a separation or their

child is lost. all i am trying to say is, this is america. the president is doing a really poor job. please, i really hope in the future that president biden gets his act together. he is not doing a good job. thank you, jesse. host: we would like to thank all of our colors for calling in for that segment. coming up next, our spotlight on podcasts sped -- segment features futuro media's julio ricardo valera, host of "in the thick," which focuses on latino politics and culture. you will hear from him soon, we we'll be right back. ♪ >> exploring the people and events that tell the american story on american history tv.

two discussions about american presidents. first, john pitney talks about presidential speeches and public opinion of the 1970's through the 1990's. as communication shifted from network television to cable, and then the internet. then, david o'connell discusses his presidential legacy and what factors contribute to making a successful presidential term. up next, the truman court, law and the limits of loyalty, in which she argues that harry truman established the precedent for the politicization of the supreme court. find a program guide or watch online any time c-span.org/history. ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: we are back with julio ricardo valera, host of the "in the thick" podcast, and is here for our podcast segment. good morning. how are you today? guest: good morning. so happy to be here. i am excited for the conversation. host: can you tell us what futuro media is?

guest: it was founded in 2010 by an award-winning journalist, the first latino correspondent at npr and cnn. in 2010, she decided to create a nonprofit media company. our biggest show is latino usa, the longest-running latino radio show on public radio. it's been around since 1993. he took over production in 2010 and maria has been the anchor and executive producer since the 1990's, but futuro media took over the production and it is a peabody award-winning show based on issues of the latin american community -- latino community in the united states. we launched a podcast from the view of people of color in

2016. we needed journalists of color to talk about elections. a lot of times, a lot of us go on the show and i have to represent the entire latino community. our show tries to look at intersectionality, has journalists of color talking about the work that they do, and don't feel the pressure they have to represent everywhere in the community. at the same time in 2011, i founded latino rebels, a digital news site that focuses on english dominant, bicultural, -- i was a gen xer and not seeing a lot of my community reflected in my community -- in what i was seeing. i was a bilingual, bicultural kid growing up in puerto rico, new york, and boston, where i am based right now. i decided to create this site.

eventually, we actually dove into politics. fast-forward right now, latino rebels as part of futuro media, and we have a white house correspondent that covers the n the white house, and we are a latino leaning outlet. a lot of things we are doing right now with the reconciliation bill and the infrastructure bill are focusing on the issues of immigration reform, the parliamentarian. we are in the halls of the capitol each day and on the hill, and in the end, no matter what you say about the latino community, in the census numbers, it represented more than 50% of all the u.s. population growth in the last 10 years. latinos are showing up in places that seem to be a little bit surprising. for example, in new england there is a very strong latino community in the urban areas of new hampshire. if you go out to idaho,

oklahoma, wyoming, north dakota, utah, it's no longer concentrated to the traditional states of loretta, texas, california and new york. that's a lot of what we do. also on the podcast, i will say one last thing -- we do have an investigative unit. we have won peabody awards, morrow awards, we consistently deliver high premium journalism for the latino community and the poc community, and we also have original podcasts. so if you want to say jesse, we have a fantastic new history of race podcast that we did that won awards, and we did the history of selena and other things, and we did a podcast series about puerto rican stories being told in spanish and english.

we are small, we are nimble -- we are not all young at futuro media, but we are proud of the work that we do and i am happy to be here to talk about anything. i have a lot of young people that work for me though, so -- host: maria and i have done several programs together, so make sure i tell her hello next time. guest: she is on a plane, but i will let her know. i am very honored as a journalist to have her as my northstar the lanes that she created for journalists like myself and others have just been incredible. i am so thankful for maria for leading the way. guest: tell us exactly what you cover on "in the thick." if i listen to it, what will i be hearing?

guest: we have two shows a week. basically, it's a political show that during the election, we do talk electoral politics, the horse race, and as we get into the midterms next year we will be focused a lot on that. but this week, right, on our show, maria and i talked about strike tober, the labor movements, things happening at john deere and in other places, talking about where labor is in the post-pandemic world. would we try to do intentionally. it gets into the issues of representation, jesse, and the one thing is, i keep it honest. the reality is, if you look at media, it is the representation of media, which is predominantly white and male. when you start thinking about podcasts like "pod save america" for things like that, the

representation is lacking. what we have tried to do is realize there is a strong group of journalists of color covering politics, labor, immigration that are writing for some of the best outlet in the united dates. we bring them on. we had this incredible discussion about labor and the strike movement in a post-pandemic world and on friday, maria and i kind of look at some of the topics together, we call it our sound off. just this weekend, our show, we talked about the negotiations with democrats in the budget bill. we talked about the january 6 committee, and we talked about covid-19, impacting communities of color. we spent 15 minutes on the president of brazil last week. so we talk about topics that are important to communities of color.

sometimes -- i am also an msnbc columnist and will talk on the other shows, you have to talk about puerto ricans, immigration, or the latino community. it's issues we are interested in. maria and i are political junkies. we don't want to talk about immigration, we want to talk about political legislation on capitol hill because we think we bring a perspective that is rare in the political landscape, and we believe this represents the growing trend in america of us becoming more of a multiracial, multiethnic society, and i understand there are tensions to that. but look at the census data, and i will say this. latinos, as we continue to grow and our buying powers continue to grow and as our political power continues to grow, we are part of the american fabric. no matter how you spin it.

it's an interesting time, and we just want to be leaders in that conversation, jesse. host: who would you say your podcast is for? would you consider yourself a conservative podcast, a liberal podcast, an independent podcast? guest: those are very good questions. our podcasts are really for political followers, people that love political news. might want to look at it from a different perspective. when you do have journalists of color leading the conversation, you already have that perspective. we like to think that we complicate the mainstream political discussion that might be bigger, that might have a bigger audience. our audience is growing and we

have won awards too, but i think there is also a problem that people cs as "ethnic podcasting" or "latino podcasting," and that's a problem. we try to focus on authentic voices, the connection that maria and i have with each other as journalists, the careers we bring to the conversation. the amazing relationships we have created with incredible journalists of color, renee graham, opinion columnist at the boston globe, eddie gloud, who you see on msnbc. he joined us all the time and tells us, this is the most fun i have ever had, and i have that on record. but our podcast will lean into the latino community. we are not afraid to criticize democrats, and i think people make a big assumption or a big

mistake about our podcast, that we are not here to assume that latinos are in the bag for the democratic party. we have our history, our record speaks for itself as journalists. maria was one of the first, maria more than i was, that would criticize the obama administration. we finished our sound off on friday and were criticizing democrats for not getting their act together. at the same time, we also spend a lot of time looking at what we really strongly believe is an anti-mexican, anti-latino lens of the republican party. some of it is a little bit bipartisan as well. we are the only podcast that looks at it the history -- looks at the history of immigration, and remind everyone that in

1995, 1996, bill clinton was saying the same thing that if you saw donald trump saying it in 2015, it was pretty similar. this is a topic that has been so misunderstood by this country and so demonized, and does not look at the humanity of people and migration. we make the case that it is a bipartisan problem that has never been resolved. at the same time, the republican party needs to wake up when it comes to latinos. i will say, whatever you say about what happened in 2020, the republican party did an incredible job in latino outreach, for the voters that they needed to get from the latino community. that was a strategy by the trump-pence campaign, to go

into miami and the border towns of texas. i have written about this -- democrats are way behind the eight ball when it comes to really engaging latino voters in the united states. arizona is a perfect example of what i would say, in 2020 -- it was not because democrats did outreach to latinos in arizona. it's because of what happened in arizona the last 10 to 15 years with sb 1070, the anti-immigrant bill, and the organizing from young people who grew up in that time. they were the ones who delivered arizona to joe biden. i think there is a sense of what is happening now with democrats. the latinos are really -- they are putting democrats and trying to hold them accountable. if you look at all the views on joe biden right now,

which i think is interesting, the group with the biggest drop in support for joe biden, and this was done by 538, which has all the biden rankings and popularity polls -- the biggest group that has dropped, it has been latinos. that says a lot about how this community is still misunderstood, there are issues with both parties, and democrats can really begin to tap into that. latinos could be there for life for democrats. i do not think they are there, and we spend a lot of time criticizing that. sometimes we get in trouble, but that is what you are supposed to do. make good trouble. a quote from representative lewis. host: i will like to invite our viewers to take part in this conversation. we will open up regional lines.

regional lines, so if you are in the central or eastern time zones, your number will be (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific time zones, your number will be (202) 748-8001. we will open up a special line for latino voters, latino voters, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003, and we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/cspan. now, what are you hearing from latino voters as their priority, as we come up on the midterm election? what are the issues you are hearing out there in your community that are rising to the top right now? host: i think the big issue is, where have the campaign promises gone for the biden administration? i know it is one of those truths that does not want to be

elevated. i know people in the biden administration, as a journalist, we ask tough questions. but what we are finding our reporting, whether it is latino usa, latino rebels, in the thick, talking to latino voters, there is a sense of where -- what have you done? one of the things that is important about all this, jesse, we have to acknowledge the fact that the covid-19 pandemic decimated black and brown communities. decimated. i did a report out of boston last year, for example, in the city of chelsea, which is literally where immigrants and essential workers live in the boston area -- they go into boston to do the essential work. a community like chelsea, massachusetts, a community like el paso in texas, other places

in the southwest have been decimated. there is this expectation from the biden administration that you need to step it up. even with the build better act and the infrastructure bill, what we are seeing is this question of, do democrats have their act together? at the same time, you also see a republican party that, even though they might have pockets in certain parts of the country, still seems to be out of touch with the latino community as well. i think one of the biggest under told stories of this new cycle during the pandemic has been how much this pandemic has decimated latino communities and how much, when we talk about essential workers, are we talking about the people that are picking our food? are we talking about the people that are delivering our food and cooking our food? i would argue that essential

workers in that capacity in the last two years are just as essential as people who were working on the front lines of the medical fronts, cops and firemen. there were a lot of people that made sure people like us, who have the privilege of working out of their home during the pandemic, could survive. i think one of the biggest messages that both parties are failing right now is not understanding that those essential workers saved america. i sit here and i try to get past the fact that very little is being done for our communities. i do think you are starting to see a community that is starting to understand its political power more and more. it is not a monolith. i always say that. the way people need to treat latinos, you have to treat us like swing states. you have to look in places like the northeast and the midwest and down in florida and on the

border in texas and in the west, but that's what i'm saying -- i'm seeing a disappointment. and the voting confirms it. it's almost like a gut check for democrats right now, in terms of them understanding whether they have to outreach to the latino community, go beyond campaign promises and showing up at taco stands during the campaign were cuban coffee places during the campaign dashboard cuban coffee places -- or cuban coffee places during the campaign. host: this is a topic we always hear from republican and conservative voters, it's about immigration. this is a top topic for a conservative voter, so i want to ask you that. but then, i want to play to you what president biden has said recently about immigration. guest: sure.

host: when i asked warily -- where immigration sits among latino voters, is that a top issue? guest: it depends. you might look at the polling and see that latinos care about the economy, health care, and education, just like almost every other american, right? but i think immigration is an issue of the heart. you have a community that has been sort of deceived by both parties. this has been a bipartisan effort to deceive the community. there is a growing sense with 9/11, you get the formation of dhs and ice, there is a criminalization of laborers who are -- you know what? people say oh, we can't let these people in -- who is going to do the work? where are the americans that want to go pick tomatoes in california or florida? are you doing the work?

we have created a system that has allowed and exploited migrant labor, and that is on us as americans. that is not on them. we have created policy -- people tend to forget that there have been wars in central v america close to vietnam. -- central america close to vietnam. why are people coming from central america? because we created those problems. the problem with us in america is we do not have a good sense of history anymore. it is very easy to blame a mexican migrant worker for your ills. that is part of american society right now, and the republican party has exploited on that based on the tradition, let's not forget, that when the irish came in the 19th century, that was happening. when the italians and the jewish people came, that was happening.

when the asians came, that was happening. america has a very good tradition of demonizing immigrants, and in fact does not realize the benefit that they have given to this country. i challenge people to go to cities. i am up in the northeast, and there are a lot of old mill towns in new england that are dying. people who are saving them? latin american immigrants are saving those cities. we have to take a pause. we have to understand that it is too easy. we are simplifying this debate and we have not explored it as a country in a way that looks at the deep, historical issues that have impacted what we have created. until we come to terms with that, we are never going to solve this. it is going to be an ongoing debate, and it is too easy, too

simplistic. i felt both republicans and democrats. host: before president biden's comments on immigration, i want to get in a few callers who have been patiently waiting. let's go to anna, from new york, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, julio. i've noticed that the media tends to look at the latino-hispanic community as this monolithic community that has a single voice regarding, you know, all issues. and we are not. we come from so many different places, backgrounds, cultures, different economic systems, different political systems. so when someone like he was asked, you know, what is the latino perspective -- like you are asked, you know, what is the

latino perspective on, y and z, there is no one latino perspective on anything. guest: absolutely. when you look at what is happened politically, there is an argument to be made. we are not a monolith. we come from countless countries, countless regions. rhetoric and sin new york do not have the same experience as mexican-american -- puerto ricans in new york do not have the same experience as mexican americans in california. but it is easy to paint in a broad stroke. what we do at futuro media is go into the communities and talk to these people. but i always say, as much as we have differences, there is a lot that unites our communities. for example, when then-candidate trump came down that escalator in 2015 and -- i said it and i called it and i do not care what anyone thinks -- that was hate

speech, when he talked about mexicans as rapists and they are not bringing our best. all that. i would argue that was hate speech. that was part of the american tradition of hate speech. myself as a puerto rican man felt that, those comments. i felt that and share that experience with my chicano, my mexican-american brothers and sisters all over the country. i do think there are things that unite us, but we also have to constantly be questioning the fact that we are more diverse, whether it's political, ideologically, racially. colonialism and imperialism is not just a north american thing. plenty of south and central americans have examples of that. at the same time, i do believe

that there are certain tenants, there is a commonality. i come from my perspective, i think american media has done a terrible job at humanizing migrants. they are dehumanized. we treat it like we are covering an espn sporting events. here comes another migrant caravan, they are coming around the corner and getting to the border -- that is just shameful for journalists to do that. it is not just conservative media outlets. i wrote a piece for "the washington post" earlier this year talking about the use of words like "wave of migrants," "the invasion." these words that dehumanize people who are fleeing desperate situations. that did not happen on fox news or breitbart, that also happened in "the new york times," "the wall street journal," "the

washington post," so there is a larger lack of understanding of the migrant community. there are not a lot of us in these editorial positions, and a lot of editors in this country do not know our community. they do not understand it. it is too easy to simplify. so i keep jabbing away, like muhammad ali, and my dad says, keep jabbing away and stay true to your mission, but yes. latinos are complex and we are also trying to figure out our own activity, as we are growing in this country. but we are part of the american fabric and we are not going away. host: let's talk to betty, calling from with keegan, illinois -- waukeegan, illinois. caller: good morning. i disagree with this gentleman. i am an african-american, i am

82 years old, and the town i live in, the hispanics have taken over. they got all the jobs, whether or not they speak my language. what about the people who came here -- we cannot even keep our culture. we had to learn english. you keep your culture, you still speak spanish, and it is not fair for us. we helped build this country too.i disagree with this gentleman. i have daughters in their 20's and 30's -- they cannot get a job because they don't speak english. that's not fair. i am speaking for my people like he is speaking for his people. i am sorry, they have taken over my little town where i live in. host: go ahead and response to her. guest: yeah, one of the things that is interesting, the history of black and brown communities in this country. part of this has to do with the

divide and conquer mentality that has been part of the u.s. government that political parties. one of the things we don't do as a community, both latino and african-american communities, we don't talk about our shared experiences. we don't -- aren't allowed to. we have to fight each other. it is better to divide each other. on the issue of language, whatever we want to say, i am going to be straight up and brutally honest -- if you are bilingual in this country, you make more money. you do. this notion that latinos are not learning english is just not true. i have dated to prove it, the pew research center, for example, if you look in the last 12 years, what you have seen is as latinos are part of this american society, english dominance is growing. it's a typical immigrant experience. your first generation might not know spanish, but your second,

third and fourth generation knows english and spanish. this is the problem with politics. it is so easy. it is so easy to blame somebody else. right? we are not talking about shared experiences. in waukegan, near chicago, maria is from chicago -- there are cities that needed to get saved. i understand that there are issues with jobs. but if we start pitting each other against each other, that's a problem. i think we have forgotten our history. we have forgotten our shared experiences with lack and brown communities. we have forgotten cesar chavez and martin luther king, they marched together and wrote letters to each other, but people don't want us to know that. it is so much easier to pitch black and brown -- pit black and brown, and that's what they

want. i refuse to accept that. host: let's talk to todd, calling from watsonville, california. caller: good morning. i was wondering if your guest would answer a question. if the immigrants coming to the united states come from countries that have systemic corruption in their government, if that leaks into our government here, because they have had multiple generations of living under corrupt governments. how that affects the united states government? thank you. guest: we are the biggest exporter of corruption in latin america. so i would turn that question around. look at the monro doctrine, look at the united fruit company, which was an actual company created in the united states to go and exploit bananas in places like guatemala and honduras.

they literally ran the country. they literally picked their leaders. there was no democracy in central america back in the day. the united states, particularly in central america, has been deeply involved and influenced those countries so much. so i laugh a little bit when i hear the vice president say we have to stop corruption in central america. we exported it. and let's not forget, everyone talks a lot about american history. everyone seems to forget that the united states, especially texas poachers, invaded mexico to lead to a major u.s.-mexico war that took over the remaining territory of what we know as the united states to be. we tend to overlook that war, because at the time, our country wanted western expansion and we

had to get that. we had to get to california. california did not happen magically in the united states. it was part of mexico and we won it in a war. so we need to start looking at ourselves in american history and what we have done to latin americans, central americans, and places like mexico. puerto rico, where i am from, we have not even talked about colonialism in puerto rico. we have not even talked about that. we need to pause, because that is the part that is missing in this entire debate, our severe lack of understanding of american history. for all this emphasis about, the mistakes of the past, if we learn history we will understand the mistakes of the past -- let's face up. the war on drugs? when people talk about the cartels, trafficking and everything -- if america didn't love drugs so much, there would not be a drug market.

its supply and demand. america needs to look into the problems they caused, and a lot of this is on us. it's too easy to blame migrants who are fleeing desperation and conditions we created in this country. host: let's talk to susan, calling from michigan. good morning, susan. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i think julio is lumping migrants together himself, and everything he is saying is totally ridiculous. we have no problem in america with immigrants, but you don't get to come marching into our country without being invited because you don't like what's going on in your country. you've got all the people that are waiting, who are doing it right, filing the paperwork and everything and getting visas to come in here.

that's the way it's supposed to be. these migrants are not being taken good care of. they are being taken over by gangs and being hired for slave labor, so it's not as if they are improving their lives by coming here. host: go ahead and respond there, julio. guest: one of the things people tend to forget when we look at what is legal in this country, seeking asylum is legal in this country. migrants can come up to any border patrol officer and say, i am seeking asylum from persecution in my country. that is part of the u.s. legal code. people tend to forget that in the conversation. but let's talk about legal immigration for a second. what happened right now, there has been an anti-legal immigration movement coming out of the republican party, mostly from the anti-immigrant lobbying network that came from the last 30 years that have influenced people like jeff sessions, who used to be a senator, and stephen king. there is an anti-immigrant lobby in washington, d.c. that

literally ran the trump administration. i will not argue if you do it legally, you are fine, because the reality is the policies for people who are trying to do it right are not conducive as well. what's happened at -- with the biden administration in the last year and a half, it has been undoing a lot of the problems created by the trump administration. in the end, this is not about -- those are just all excuses. in the end, people are afraid of the browning of this country. simple as that. what we are seeing is a cultural division, and you're are going to have politicians who exploit that and play off the cultural fear and create situations that are not realistic, and you have another side that is not doing a good job in communicating what is really going on. so i would also argue, if you love your social security and if you love the benefits that are

coming, who is going to come in and do the work? who is doing the work? who is doing the work on the farms? who is doing the work, the essential work to get your food delivered? are those americans, americans who are like, i am going to do this for my country? the reality is, we have created a system that has exploited migrant labor for centuries and we have a good system of that. like -- migrant labor and the exploitation of migrant labor is an offset of slavery. the system is what it is, and i think people who easily blame migrants for everything are not looking at the whole context of this. i find that to be quite disappointing. host: let's talk to rudy, calling from sun city, california. good morning. caller: good morning. julio, i agree with you totally. i am an og black male, there

are latinos in my family that i enjoy, and just like with the caller a couple back, i really get disappointed with the fact that she wants to blame the hispanic community, because they get jobs. i think everybody should get out and attempt to get jobs. so, we just need to come together. black, brown, and there is a whole bunch of good white folks out there also. so it's going to get better. we just have to work on it a lot more. thank you, julio. bye-bye. guest: thank you, rudy. i think he is right. there are a lot of things here that we tend to overlook in our own history. i think we are at a point, a crisis point in this country where you are going to see people looking at the browning of america as a positive.

when you look at the centrists, and there are people who are going to be incredibly terrified. that's where our policy is going to be coming from. the problem is, there are not a lot of voices on my side that look at that change, because there are a lot more voices on the others to fear -- other side of fear. i am a little tugboat, going against the daily wires and bench of -- ben schapiros of the world. i have to say, this is a bipartisan problem. democrats are also to blame for this issue. it is so much more complicated that i wish we would begin to have a deeper discussion as opposed to just easy talking points. i know that might sell media and advertising and win campaigns, but it is wrong and negates

american history. host: before we run out of time, i want to go back to something you talked about earlier. pugh says in the last presidential election, president biden got 59% in the latino vote. president trump got 38% of the latino vote. one of our social media followers wants to know, how do you explain latino support of trump, despite the fact that he came down the steps and said that mexicans were rapists, criminals, and carriers of disease? guest: yeah, it's no question, first of all, the trump campaign did an amazing job getting the voters that they wanted. the voters they wanted in the latino community and people who look at the statistics are more affluent, they are whiter, they might -- you know, we have our own problems as a community bringing ourselves down. puerto ricans and dominicans do not get along.

mexicans and central americans do not get along. if you are latino in the united states and you are latin american, you are not latino enough. one of the things that is really important that the trump campaign did a very effective strategy of, turning this into a left-right issue. when you look at latin american politics. , there is not a lot of moderation in the latin american politics. you are either on the right or the left. it is easy to scream out "socialism" in an american campaign as you have a growing latin american community. they understand that, because when they come from countries like venezuela or places like cuba, they understand -- conservative leaning latinos understand that when you hear a word like socialism, it is effective. i do not discount the efforts done by the republican party and the trump campaign. one of the biggest mistakes democrats are doing, they are not investing in communities for

latino political outreach. it is about representation and they need to do a better job. host: let me see if we can squeeze in one more caller here. guest: [laughter] ok. host: darrell, calling from the virgin islands. do you have a quick question? caller: yes, i just want to agree with mr. varela. people claim that they are immigrants, but they are not really immigrants. they need to read into latin america, gagliano . they need to read that book so the u.s. can understand what they did to central america. guest: thank you so much, jesse. host: we would like to thank julio ricardo varela,

for being with us this morning, talking about politics, race and culture. thank you so much. guest: thank you so much. host: we would like to thank all of our guests, social media followers, and everyone for another edition of "washington journal." continue to wash her hands and stay safe♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a

community center, it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to create life -- wi-fi centers so students of low, -- low income families can get what they need. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president biden is in rome ahead of the g20 summit being held there. he is meeting with other world leaders in advance of the meetings. here is a look. [indistinct chatter]

>>[speaking foreign language]