>> earth has been hit by asteroids. that's not new. it will happen in the future. there is no known threat to the earth right now from asteroids or comets. we are tracking things. we haven't found all of the asteroids yet. this is an important thing. we want to find all the asteroids to assess that better and be ready in case you needed to. >> i love observational astronomy. i get new data. on the first person to ever see this. sometimes you can't predict what you're going to find. probably some of the most exciting science results are things i'm not sure i can tell you right now. >> sunday night at 8:00 on q&a.

you can listen to q&a on all of our podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: it's time for our spotlight on podcasts. joining us is matthew sitman, the cohost of the no your enemy podcast. thanks for joining us. >> i'm excited to be here. host: how would you describe your podcast? guest: it's a leftist guide to the conservative movement. it's a show i cohost with one of my great friends. we are both leftists. we are socialists of some kind. we are coming at this from the left. what we try to do is provide good faith episodes about aspects of postwar u.s.

conservative movement, the republican party, things that are going on. host: what convinced you this was something that was needed? guest: we did think there isn't anything quite like it out there. we are very critical of the ideas and political movements we examine. we try to be good faith about it. we try to expand on their ideas, explain what's going on in a way that even the people we are talking about would recognize. sometimes we have conservative guests on the show. we thought there wasn't anything quite like it. we just decided to follow our own instincts. it's a pretty nerdy podcast. our listeners really get into the in depth conversations we

have, the guests we have, the books we examine and talk about. it's a kind of unique podcast in that sense. what we try to do is hopefully refreshing. host: i am curious about the title. how did that come about? guest: we get that question all the time. it's very tongue-in-cheek. in part, we are referencing the german jurist carl schmidt, who is experiencing a revival on the right. his idea was politics was about wrens and enemies. we are kind of making a joke on that. also, as a christian, we are taught to love our enemies. you have to know them. as a christian, i stand by the title of the podcast. host: you are also the editor of

something, called commonweal magazine. guest: it's a 96-year-old magazine published by catholics. it's a more progressive catholic publication. i've been an editor there for six years. i am grateful my colleagues let me do this podcast. it's a great magazine. partly what i do on the podcast comes from the work i do as an editor. some of episodes we've done on various species of right-wing catholicism. those parts of my work go together. host: were their perceptions of the conservative movement that you and your cohost had going into developing it and because of doing it you have had them

changed? guest: i am in conservative. i grew up a young conservative when i was in college. i was very involved in the conservative movement, especially its more intellectual wing. i knew the movement from the inside. i haven't been surprised by what i have encountered. i can say this, there are very interesting ideas to explore. there were intellectuals who even if i think they are wrong, i think doing the podcast is a reminder that people can have good reasons for things they believe then, even if you strongly disagree with them. we get in trouble sometimes for being too empathetic. i also think the podcast is an exercise in trying to understand

the minds of other people. that i think is one thing people find refreshing about the show. we don't pull our punches. during the show has reminded us that people have reasonable justification for their views sometimes. what's behind the point of view could be interesting and fascinating. host: our guest with us until 10:00, if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8002 guest: independent voters. most of our episodes are about the conservative movement in some capacity. we've done episodes on william f

buckley, the founder of national review. he ran for mayor of new york city in 1965. we had his biographer on it. other times, we will do something more topical like the catholic integral lists. critics of the 6019 project. we do have guests on. we have had the newer times columnist on it. we had sam goldman on. recently, we had nate hoffman. he figured into an essay my cohost wrote about the new generation of young intellectuals on the right. we try not to just talk about conservatives. we want to talk with them. host: what issues do you have

with the conservative movement? guest: go down the list. pretty much every substantive political point of view, we are coming at it from a different perspective. i would say in particular, one thing we focus on has been it's been more prominent, the troubled relationship to what i call multiracial democracy. we picked up on the anti-democratic tendencies of the right and what their ideas were giving them permission to do. as the trump presidency skidded toward its end and we saw what happened on january 6, those became part of our critique of what's happening on the right.

that's not just about different policies, what you think the highest tax rate should be or what you believe about trade or how we should govern or break up big tech. identifying the troubled relationship to democracy was something that transcends those issues and gets to the heart of the perpetuation of our system. host: it goes more to philosophy and stems out to specific things? is there a way to boil down the conservative philosophy? guest: there is a wonderful definition. we like to use it on the show, i am paraphrasing here. they believe there are those the law protects. there are people the law binds

but does not protect. basically what it means, i think a lot of what we are trying to get out on the podcast is behind the conservative philosophy is a view of who should count in our system. who deserves the protections of the law and who falls outside those boundaries. the title, who is in and who is out. that is our biggest right, is ta restrictive definition of who should count in our political community end be afforded the rights and privileges of that. we have seen a lot of -- we are thinking a lot of climate change and the migration, movements of peoples caused by destruction of our planet. those people are coming from different parts of the earth. do they deserve protection or

not? these questions, who's in and who's out, will only accelerate. host: let's start with steve, steve from florida, with matt sitman, the cohost of the know your enemy podcast. steve, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. sitman, i knew you were going to be on the call, so i've spent the morning reading information about you, and i feel like you are a breath of fresh air. i kind of an anti-neoconservative. i was just graduating from college and starting my first year in a factory in the rust belt, a city of pennsylvania, when ronald reagan got elected. the next thing we knew, all of our cities were boarded up with

plywood in the main streets. i feel like it is very difficult to be able to air your political views these days if you are not a hard-core conservative. they are self adamant, and, you know, i listen and i never really say anything. one of the things i was listening to on c-span, today they were talking about the border, and it just sort of summed up my feelings about american conservatives these days. they were talking about, you know, the border is out of control. they are letting a document and people come into the country, but over the last 40 years, american corporations and american employers are dragging these poor people across-the-board are in order to find very cheap labor and

undermine the american wage and labor standards. i mean, that is just one of the things that basically, i'm going to be, you know, reading a lot more about this, because, you know, i guess you could say i am a socialist. [laughs] host: matt sitman, go ahead. guest: well, you know, it is interesting, he mentioned coming from a rust belt town, working in a factory. that is kind of where i grew up. i grew up in central pennsylvania, from a working-class, blue-collar family. i grew up conservative, as i mentioned. i am kind of an ex-conservative. what i'm trying to find some sort of empathy or good faith engagement with people, because i used to hold these different beliefs, i think that is possible. and also, because of where i grew up, i think trump had some appeal, actually. i understand people who work and live in some of these towns that

have been gutted by our trade policies, by the decisions of major corporations and financial players in our country. i understand people are struggling and why they may look for alternatives. that is one of the reasons why, you know, i was a big bernie sanders supporter. i thought he offered take constructive solution to what trump was offering. so the caller said he is a socialist, and i am, too, but i think that if the alternative to what we have now. people are looking for scapegoats, and there are plenty of politicians to offer them. one of the things we do on the show is explain why that is happening and offer an alternative way of thinking about it, a more constructive and helpful way of thinking about these problems. host: let's go to illinois,

independent line. let's hear from bill. caller: go ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. [no audio] caller: the nazis were natural socialists. what happened in the soviet union works communism. what happened and is happening in china is communism. 100 million people in the 20th century died at the hands of hard-core socialists, and people say well, the question is not conservativism, the question is liberty. and my last that i do, i encounter many people from cuba,

from venezuela, romania, ukraine, soviet union, and they are terrified of what they see here, because what they saw in their countries, what made them leave their countries was a lack of liberty. and the problem is, socialism, it is not simply an economic system, it is a system of the repression of liberty, and until you can explain to 100 million people of the 20th century, i would say, to me, it falls on deaf ears. host: ok, that is built in illinois. guest: i don't have a lot to say to that, but his thing about focusing on liberty is interesting, because one of the things i find that, you know, drives my political and economic abuse is the profound sense that

a lot of people are not that free in the united states. meaning if you are totally hemmed in by miserable wages, a terrible job, how free are you? if you can't go to the hospital if you are sick, how free are you? what kind of life the people have? freedom to me is not just being left alone, it is not just the absence of constraint, it is actually the conditions in which people, or people, can use their god-given talent and abilities and live creative and decent lives that's not totally hemmed in by, you know, by necessity and want. so i actually hold the political views i do, i think, because of my understanding of freedom, that a lot of people in the united states, they might be, you know, formerly free -- formerly free, but what kind of ricer they actually have? that is one thing i would say that caller. host: in indianapolis, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

what does he think about an issue that happened in 1988, and how that has precipitated the rise of right wing media in this country and the rise of total brainwashing of people because of all the misinformation that is spewed every day on right wing media, talk radio, fox news, oann, and all of these other channels because of that event in 1988. guest: thank you, caller. that is a great question. it is one that we discussed at length on the show. we had on an author who specifically wrote about right-wing media, and i asked about the fairness doctrine. it turns out it is pretty

complement -- complicated. they thought they could actually use it to get decent time, so to speak. they fight no, we want to keep this, because we can use this as a weapon against the "liberal media." but also, rush limbaugh, it turns out, it is actually pretty complicated. he was a syndicated radio host before it was repealed. we are not sure exactly how much the repeal of the fairness doctrine actually led to his rise. more broadly, we can talk about how something like the fairness doctrine should be reinstated or how effectively it was used at the time, but i do want to say that is something you hear a lot is actually pretty complicated. i think the forces that are behind something like, you know, the disinformation by fox news about vaccines, the pandemic

more broadly, i am not sure you can pin all of that on the fairness doctrine -- or the repeal of it. host: who are all those other, you know, people that people point to, as far as the key, you know, shapers of the conservative movement? caller: sure. well, this is something we try to think through on the show. you have more popular radio hosts, fox news hosts, like rush limbaugh, and then you have more highbrow, intellectual thoughts, like the national review. but you see that bill buckley was a big fan of rush limbaugh's. the national review has given rush limbaugh awards. we make a decision between highbrow and low-brow, but sometimes the line blurs.

some of these distinctions we like to make, or we like to quarantine out the intellectualist from the more popular figures, that is not quite the right way of thinking of it. host: here is sean in new york on the republican line. go ahead. sean from new york, are you on? caller: yes, i am here. host: go ahead. caller: how are you both doing this morning? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i am just curious, like the previous caller from illinois setting, he has known people from socialist and communist countries come here and that they are scared. i kinda find that myself with some of my friends who lived under communism and socialism. i am just wondering, have you ever been to a communist or socialist country yourself and seen the plight of the people? also, since you are in new york also -- i am in western new york

-- are you aware of the bill that was on the floor quite a few years ago about new york being its own entity? because new york is basically a divided state, almost like a virginia and west virginia. would you think of new york city being its own entity would be a good thing? when you look at the maps in previous elections, new york, if it weren't for new york city, would probably be a red state. thank you both come and take care. guest: i am interested in the caller's idea that if you take out new york city, the new york state would be a red state. why would we do that? is there a sense that people who live in new york city aren't real americans, for, you know, are so different from other people in the state that we cannot be part of the same political entity? i am intrigued by the caller's sense that by living in new york city, i am not a real new

yorker, that we cannot live together in the same state. host: that was sean in new york. connecticut is next. maria from new haven, democrat'' line. caller: good morning. i'm so sorry i forgot your name. host: it's ok, you are on with matt sitman. go ahead. caller: ok. i'm going to be very candid with my comments, because i appreciate your refreshing manner of opening up dialogue for discussion about such difficult moments that we are living through as americans. i love history.

i look back at history, and i observed history repeating itself. the era of mccarthyism. i see so many parallels and similarities of that era occurring in modern-day political society. there's always a spin and undercurrent beneath the messages that are put out there on the surface. for instance, january 6, you know, there's a spin on that from so many different angles. "it wasn't that bad." bullshit! excuse my french.

how can anyone save the dangerous occurrences of that day -- now as time goes, there is more and more being revealed about the conservative movement and its rise with power and money? host: ok, caller, we will leave it there. for future callers, watch the language as you engage with our guests. mr. sitman, go ahead. guest: it is interesting that the caller mentioned mccarthyism. i think we can already see, from some of the callers on the republican line, how often that i am a democratic-socialist, that is all they have been talking about. stalin this, cuba that, have i been to a socialist country, that kind of thing. it is all they are talking about. they are not talking about

economic policy come about anything, it is a scare tactic, it is a red scare. and they use the term "socialism" or "marxist," or how they try to tie critical race theory to marxism. i think the caller actually put her finger on something, which is it is a kind of a moral panic, and the term "socialist" often gets thrown around, you are not really american, you are not really patriotic, your alien, you are other, your dangerous, and therefore, you know, as i mentioned earlier in the cup station, you are far -- the conversation, you are far outside the bounds of political decency.

the caller said i should not even be in the same state as him because i live in new york city. host: you said the two sides at least can gain understanding from each other. with someone coming on the podcast, my friend nate hoffman, who i mentioned earlier, i know them. you know, it is not like we to agreements and hash things out or figure things out, and it is all kumbaya, everything is great, it is not just about having a conversation, but elements where you do disagree, or the precise nature of why he disagreed, to figure out hair

and why we disagree is better than just screaming at each other. host: in the world of politics, mr. sitman, what do you think about the term "moderate"? i ask this because one of the discussions, at least on the senate side, joe manchin is constantly being referred to as a moderate, especially when it comes to things like build back better in the lig -- and the like. guest: i hate the term "moderate." does it mean, you know, you are in the middle on every issue? or does it mean you are, like, one left-wing view or one right wing view when it comes to issues? it is useless. it does not mean anything. it is just something the press likes to use when they think you're being responsible. but manchin is the opposite. he is a radical. not taking action on climate change is radical.

confining millions and millions of people to our horrible fate on the planet. to me, what is moderate, what is radical? to me, being radical is actually the physical policy, because it is actually responding to the particular needs of the moment. it all depends on what action needs to be done. the crisis actually facing the country and, you know, the proposals being discussed to meet those needs. host: you talked about your support of bernie sanders. i want to get your assessment of this almost year into the biden administration and president biden as president. guest: well, you know, like a lot of people, i would and with high hopes, and it has been frustrating. i try not to be totally pessimistic or negative. i mean, biden has done some things, like he is appointing judges at very high rates. he did pass the infrastructure bill. he has done something that, you know, i am glad he has done, and

he is a more responsible, generally speaking, president than president trump, but obviously i am disappointed moore hasn't been done. i would like to see a fullbore, build back better package. i could ask particular questions about biden, but it has been a real mixed bag. i think he has totally dropped the ball on the pandemic. the testing situation particular, it is just baffling to me what is administration is doing, his press secretary laughing at the idea that we would just mail test kits to americans, when that is one of the most sensible ideas that could happen, and now they are backtracking on it, buying millions of more tests. host: on the voting rights issue, particularly with the president as president and democrats controlling both the house and the senate. guest: i'm glad you mentioned that, too, because a particular,

the other thing i mentioned, our podcast's concerned with the state of the american democracy, not so dramatic about it, to me, those were reasons to beau biden and to support democrats in general. the hope that they couldn't come into office and implement reforms and it comes to voting rights, people's access to ballots, and not just that, but the way we count the votes, too. reforming the electoral count act. not only did donald trump try to steal the 2020 election, it is clear, the fact that he supposedly had that election stolen from him is on the right and they are clearly planning and plotting to do it again, if they have the chance. they are replacing the officials that stood up to donald trump. anyone with eyes can see what is happening. so i think the failure to secure american democracy, a year into

his presidency, has been disappointing, too. host: let's go to bob, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hi. he mentioned a document a, illegals. a black killed a white woman, and just about every democrat city, all socialist doing this, everybody, and the doj came out, 90 percent of blacks are being killed by blacks, and you support that, right? that is one of the things you support. asian people, 80% of them -- who is racist in this country, white people or black people? host: ok. guest: i don't have anything to say about racist trash like that. host: from mitch in lawrence,

kansas, independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm fine. you are on with our guest. go ahead, please. caller: if i may, just a couple of comments about c-span before i get to the question i'm so grateful for this channel, and more importantly, for not only your vote book "washington journal," which allows everyone to comment. so thank you so much. i am a 20-year radio host of a similar broadcast that allowed everyone in, so it is wonderful to have you here. now, let's get to it. [laughs] host: oh, i apologize, caller, i thought you were done or lost the signal i apologize. mr. sitman, i apologize as well.

lottie from north carolina. caller: hi. top of the morning to you guys. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i'm kind of confused about this cit, critical race theory, because conservatives say it is on the rise. i just got three things in. i would like to see if this is, critical race theory, my understanding if they do not want the little white boys and white girls to feel bad in the classroom about certain history. but let's take a look. when baby jesus was born, and there were three magis that can come and description called them -- that came, and the scripture called them "foreigners," will they take that out? or when christ was carried to his death, will they take

that out? or when they put thorns on his head and pierced him inside -- when do you think they will take things out of the bible, because they do not want little white boys a little white girls to be sad? host: i will leave it there. mr. sitman, you can respond, if you wish. guest: i actually like some of the comments come in the sense that i think it is useful to remember when it comes to critical race theory, which is, you know, a whole topic, what is interesting about critical race theory as it is not about making individual people feel bad or looking for the hint of racism in someone's heart, it is about more objective, structure material, identifiable, measurable, impacts on african-americans and others in the united states that comfort policy, that -- that come from policy, that come from design, that are not just

what people feel but what people have done. so conservatives acting about it just makes white people feel bad, that has always been confusing to me. the caller is right. we see they are trying to get books out of schools now, in states across the country, from toni morrison's "beloved" tinny books dealing with lgbtq issues in a relatively sensitive or inclusive way, they are coming for our books. they are taking them out of our libraries. anything their kids can read or study in school. it's quite alarming what is happening in schools and libraries across the hundred now. host: we have of you are asking, i guess because you talked about religious beliefs, and here is the question, robert from twitter, "i would be interested in the guest's assessment, as he describes it, of religious

principles." guest: my left-wing political convictions are very much related to my christianity. i don't think, necessarily, that being a christian means you have to, you know, have one political views, down the line. there are different ways people can be faithful christians in our political life, but that said, to me, it is quite clear that the overwhelming burden of the gospels is to teach us how to love one another, to care for the widowed, the sick, the stranger, the migrants, the people in need, you know, the least among us, and whatever else you take from the reading of the bible, and the gospels in particular, that is clearly there, and that informs my political views. and, you know, so i guess other christians of other political views would want to argue or debate me about that, i am very

comfortable doing that. i am also a big fan of pope francis, who, you know, when you read his documents and messages as pope, he is a critic of, you know, trickle-down economics, the way we treat migrants and strangers, the way we are indifferent to so many people struggling around us, from the young and weak to the old a needy, people we just don't give our time to, either. it is not just about money, it is about caring about each other in a broader sense. yes, my christian convictions and political views are very implied. host: one more call, reagan syracuse, new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. i will be short and sweet. mr. sitman, you do not know your enemy. i know this because i know trump supporters and trunk voters. i know more about them than you ever will. i do who they are, and anyone who can be convinced that those

people are criminal or violent are fools. you do not know these people, therefore you do not know your enemy. now, i don't care to engage in any other talk about it, but you don't know them. host: stay on the line, because i want to see if he doesn't want to engage you. mr. sitman, go ahead. guest: i do, actually. i have family members who voted for trump. they are not all violent criminals. i don't know where he got that at all. i grew up in blair county comeuppance up as a vignette, that when over 70% for trump. i love trump supporters. maybe they voted for the wrong person or hold some beliefs that i wish they wouldn't, but no, the caller is not correct about that assumption. host: mr. ray from syracuse,

your response? caller: i'm just taking your words as you said. obviously, i'm not stupid, i'm not saying 100%, but those people who display that behavior on january 6 were not trump supporters. they were not there for trump. they were there for a different purpose, their own purpose, and anyone who thinks that those people in any way represent trump, they are fools. host: ok, that is ray from new york. mr. sitman, you can have a follow-up. guest: well, you know, a rally at which trump spoke. he told them to fight and take their country back and they did. they listened to trump and he stood by as they did what they did. host: how can people find your podcast? what do you have planned for upcoming programs? guest: i want to say they can

find us on all channels, apple and spotify, etc. dissent magazine is a sponsor of the podcast and they have done great work. you can support the podcast on patreon. we have a bonus episode for patrons. upcoming apostles, we watched -- relaunched one on joan didion. we talked about her life and career, her early conservatism. that is just out and we have lots of great episodes coming out. as things unfold in these crazy times, we keep an eye on that. check us out if you want smart commentary from the left that pays attention to the right. host: the podcast is "know your enemy." thank you for your time today. guest: they cue, it was a

pleasure to be with you. host: another edition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> broadband supports c-span as

a public service along with these other television providers, giving you front row seats to democracy. >> now, a hearing on changes to u.s. capitol security. tom manger, william walker and bud blanton appeared before a house appropriations subcommittee, talking about staffing needs, increase funding -- increased funding and other topics. this runs just over two hours. >> good morning to our panel. i am pleased to welcome the chief of capitol police, tom, william walker, thank you for being with us today. of us will ever forget the events of january 6.