joshua sellers and henry thomson talk about civil discourse, polarization, and their podcast, keeping it civil. join with your calls, comments, texts and tweets. washington journal starts now. host: good morning. it is, saturda april 16. thursday, the house oversight committee held a hearing on that subject. overseas, russia has warned the u.s. to end shipments of weapons to ukraine or risk unpredictable consequences. welcome to washington journal this morning. we are asking you your opinion on the book bands and free speech at universities. let us know what you think. we are doing regional phone

lines. in the central or eastern time zones, call (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific, call (202) 748-8001. you can sit us a text at (202) 748-8003 with your first name and city and state. we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span, you can send us a tweet at c-span to -- at c-span wj. this is a washington post headline that says more books are banned than ever before as congress takes on the issue. here's a bit of that. it says two reports this week show the u.s. is facing an unprecedented wave of schoolbook banning, spurring congress to hold a hearing thursday focused on the issue, which free speech advocates warm will undermine democracy. here are some numbers about that

from penn america, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom of expression. they found there have been 1500 86 book bands in schools over the past nine months. they targeted 1140 five unique books by more than 800 authors and a plurality, 41%, featured prominent characters who are people of color, 33% included lb gt q themes, protagonists, or secondary characters, and 22% directly addressed issues of race and racism. the american library association published annual report on book censorship that revealed that it tracked 729 attempts to remove library, school and university materials in 2021, leading to 1590 seven book challenges or removals, the highest number

recorded since the association began tracking the phenomenon 20 years ago. the washington times also had a headline about that. it says parents challenge sexually explicit books in record numbers. earlier this month, let's look the house oversight subcommittee on civil rights and liberties. they held a hearing to examine that issue of book bans, academic censorship and their impacts on student well-being. here's the subcommittee chair, representative jamie raskin, on those civil liberty issues. [video clip] >> somebody hates left-wing speech and somebody hates right wing speech and somebody hates hate speech and somebody wants to censor speech by the love lives about gay people and someone wants to censor huck fan because it uses the n-word and

someone wants to censor the antiracist baby because they think it means babies can be racist. everyone wants a bite of the apple but if we all take them there and free speech -- if we all take them then there is no free speech left. it is not always easy, but it is incumbent on people living in a free society. if we cancel or censor everything that people find offensive, nothing will be left. everybody is offended by something and that is why other people's level of offense cannot be the metric for defining whether your or my rights are vaporized. there's a famous story about lenny bruce, the somewhat risque comedian from the last century, and someone said his show should be shut down because a defendant him, and bruce said my parents came to america in order to be offensive and not be

thrown in jail for it. host: that was the democratic chair of the subcommittee and here's how the ranking republican member, representative nancy mace discusses, specifically, free speech on college campuses and efforts by progressive activists to shut down conservative speech. [video clip] >> the first amendment guarantees the right of speech, saying congress shall make no law restricting speech. the government should not police the speech of citizens. we don't punish thought criminals in this country unless you are maybe a main character in 1984. freedom of speech is not just a legal mandate and --

mandate in trying to our constitution. public institutions of higher education are bound to abide by the first amendment's prohibition and restriction of freedom of speech, yet often we see attacks on that freedom. public university and colleges frequently run afoul of first amendment freedom by enforcing overly broad speech codes or chilling speech across college campuses using bias response teams to investigate thought criminals. there have been disturbing campaigns on these campuses to expel students, fire faculty or just invite speakers who hold views that are considered to go against the progressive consensus. these universities and colleges are unlawfully stifling speech to call young adults at a time when there -- to coddle young adults at a time when they should be exposed to a variety of ideas. host: we are asking you that question on book bans and free

speech on college campuses. critics call it censorship so i want to know what you think. let's go to our calls now, to columbus, ohio first, sandy. good morning. sandy? can you hear me? caller: yes. good morning. yes. i was calling you concerning the censorship of the crt, critical race theory. i've heard a lot of -- i've heard a lot about that. what i have viewed as history to me is supposed to be about facts and truth and if you are going to leave out minorities history out of the history, then my solution would be no history at all in public school. why should minorities have to listen to the half-truths? that's my comment. it has been on my mind for some

time. thank you for the call. host: let's go to dennis next in ashland, ohio. hi, dennis. caller: good morning. i'm really getting sick of all this stuff. they are banning everything. just because they ban something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. you cannot even watch gone with the wind anymore. it is ridiculous. i am fed up with this country. that is all i have to say. host: all right, dennis. steve is in ormond beach, florida. hi, steve. caller: good morning. on censorship, our governor here, governor desantis, has worked on a bill in order to interview college students before acceptance and basing

their acceptance on what their political views are, which, to me, that's a pure violation of free speech. i'm 64 and up seen a few cycles of books being banned. i was in high school in the 1970's and there were books required like catcher in the rye by jd salinger, books by walt whitman, and it is funny because when the politics change books that are required reading in high school are banned. host: do you think any book should be banned? what about sexually explicit books in k-12? caller: well, yeah, when you say "banned," they shouldn't be put

in the library or, you know, i think there's a lot of common sense there, but political views are not -- political views should be explored and accepted on all ranges of the spectrum. when you start banning people's political views, that is usually by the act of someone who is an autocrat, who wants to be a dictator, and they should not be banned. host: all right, steve. this is the washington post. it says schools nationwide are quietly removing books from their libraries, essentially ahead of any controversy that might come up. it says eight titles have melted away seemingly overnight, a panicked school aide calling them from the shelves in one district, titles including

"in my mosque," "a place inside of me," and when aiden became a brother, whose main character is a transgender boy. let's talk to john in missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i did not believe any book should be banned children should learn the truth from the beginning. they should not be lied to to protect their innocence because they are not innocent. they're gonna grow up. they will make mistakes. host: when you say they are not innocent, what about very young children? what about a second grader, let's say?

caller: they are the worst in the world in my opinion. they need to be taught how to behave. host: all right, john. let's talk to ed in ocean city, new jersey. caller: i don't think any book should be banned. i graduated from colgate university, where we had a 24 hour a day debate, and as you get ideas out there, and if there's something in it that's destructive, it'll come out. host: let's talk about the university. when were you -- when you were at college, did you feel like you could express your political views that were different from the other students? caller: yes, colgate university, i graduated from there and anybody could say anything about anything and it was always debated and discussed rationally, and if something wasn't true, you found that out.

host: all right. at last week's house oversight hearing on book banding and free speech on campus, samantha hall, a school librarian from lancaster, pennsylvania talk about efforts by school librarians to keep books on the shelves across the country and how this helps children and teens. [video clip] >> administrators have made hasty decisions based on out of context excerpts and librarians gambled -- librarians scrambled to catch up. when books are removed, communities lose the voice that book represents. measuring the damage of loss voices is daunting. we can measure the soaring rates of mental health disorders in adolescence. many can correlate the team mental health crisis to discontent, loneliness and a lack of belonging. these are the feelings that arise when we believe we are

alone in what we experience and these things can be brutal and isolating and adolescence. the ability to learn about and appreciate the diversity of human experience is crucial to gaining a sense of belonging. we can gain this through access to books and other resources. this is why a singular reaction to a book should never result in the immediate removal of resource but instead be the basis of a conversation to understand the purpose of a library and the support and resources they offer. if a student react strongly to a book, it can be a start of a conversation with their family or a trusted adult about the topic that caused the reaction. in the years i have been a librarian, i have seen the publishing industry react in support to the need among adolescents for books representing a range of thought and experience. they affect our kids well being, being able to think more innovative and empathetic.

we see this in the students standing up for what they believe. those students realized early that their voice matters. school librarians have dedicated our career to responding to our students needs and it motivates to work -- and it motivates us to work hard. we work tirelessly to provide a sanctuary for students in the library, the place they feel safe. feeling safe, however, is not always the same as feeling comfortable. growth does not necessarily happen we are comfortable. it will not happen we are -- happen when we are stagnant or uninterested. growth is uncomfortable but it takes grit and determination. to learn is to grow and in an environment to foster open meineke munication -- individuals monolithic or wind -- input about books based on

out of context readings. when we take this road, we are limiting growth, stifling progress and acting in the most undemocratic way possible. in not making space for all voices to be heard, we are not making progress. librarians urge everyone to take a minute to consider why apical resource makes them uncomfortable, what it might be trying to teach us and what we are resisting to learn. host: we are talking about your view on book bans and free speech on campus. diane in st. paul, minnesota. caller: good morning to you and the c-span community. i called because i really am dismayed about the fact that this critical race theory -- i was going to college getting my masters degree, we talked about

critical race theory and what that was, but the thing of it is is our history does not reflect a true -- reflect a truth all around the world. what is being done for minority kids who have to face this kind of society every day? when i. say minority, i am talking not just about people of color but women, the gay and lesbian community, because they have to suffer through all this. now all of a sudden everybody is concerned about what their kids are learning in school. my kids have to go through all this. we had to deal with this at home, the trauma they felt from going to school and not having history that talked about them. we had to fight to be in the history books. that is my dismay about all of this. we are not thinking about all

the kids or what's going on in society. and that is not right. that is what we have got to end if we are going to have a society that works for everybody. and it should be -- and there should be no banning of books. host: you are talking about for kids, which i hear your point. what about on college campuses? what do you think about conservatives feeling like they cannot express themselves? they feel like they are being censored or are self censored on liberal college campuses. caller: that is wrong also. everybody should have a voice. this is america and we all should have a voice and be able to express that voice and as citizens we have the right to go and check out information that we get to see if it's right. host: jonathan is next in canton, ohio.

caller: good morning. happy resurrection weekend. i have a concern about how they are trying to take the books and the different things away from society. i'm 53. when i was younger, it was about how some children were on a waiting list to be armed certain types -- to be on certain types of schools, and where i grew up, we had secondhand books, so it seems people of color, of all different races and nationalities and genders and whatever they are, i think everybody is coming up on an equal platform and they are -- the people that are trying to take these books away is like -- like how they talk about the crips and bloods, drugs and guns

, they are not any better than the people they call criminals, just for the simple fact that i don't understand how they could say that part of history. when i got to college, and i went, the curriculum opened my mind to some things i never had learned about the origins of -- that i was not even taught in junior high school. sad that they are being so stringent on this. they will take away romeo and juliet, that kind of stuff.

host: let's talk to june in cheyenne, wyoming. caller: good morning. ironic that free speech is coming up relating to the twitter purchase. when i was in grade school, which was quite a while back, if a book in the library was offensive, the library and would take it out and probably take it to the next school board meeting. the free speech has gone too far. everything in this country has accelerated to the point where we don't even know what we are doing. we have one problem than another than another -- one problem and then we have another and then another, and it is causing problems with the mental capacity or mental thinking of the american people, and, if a book is offensive, take it out.

if it is not offensive, leave it in. it is just that simple. host: but who decides that? what might offend me might not offend you. caller: that's true, but everybody has the right -- to say if it is offensive or not. that's their right. and if it is offensive to one, then it should be taken away, and the one person who has that little narrow tunnel of thinking will find the book regardless. they will find it regardless. when i was in grade school, in the bathroom of our house in wyoming, were a big series of playboy magazines, and i bet everyone in the country relates to that. and, boy, you didn't touch those magazines, you know? host: all right. one of the witnesses called by committee republicans was a

conservative -- an individual from the conservative group the american council of trustees and alumni. he discussed issues of censorship in k-12 classrooms and higher education. [video clip] >> since this is concerned with caselaw, i would like to make three points specific to it. k-12 schools are funded by taxpayers to advance the public interest. their curricula should therefore balance interests while leveraging the expertise of educators. not a while ago -- not long ago, they were removing books like huck finn, which features the n-word, meaning communities made a judgment about curricular value, no matter how many may disagree with it. discussions about curriculum should be at the state and local level. the framers understood educating children is a profound -- is a

paramount parental responsibility, the kind of function that should be kept close to the people. in a federal democracy, local communities will settle on different policies and teach different books. that is the point of that. the american library association's list of the top 10 most challenged books helps us understand what the real issue that brings us here is today. the first and second entries on the list, gender queer and long boy, are so graphic that parents average p -- parents have repeatedly been shocked. if public school systems were systematically targeting the rights of, say, civil-rights leaders do to political pressure, i would not be testifying here today.

as justice heyer he -- as justice harold blackman has written -- social perspectives discussed in them. that is not what is happening in the majority of these cases. these books are being challenged because they contain age-appropriate sexual content that is not necessary to create and inclusive learning environment. in conclusion, the most serious threats to free speech in higher education today, not k-12. on our campuses, some censorship is endemic, discrimination is the norm and students and faculty are routinely targeted for the political content of their speech. host: what do you think of that. we are talking about book banning. he was talking about sexually explicit materials, sexually inappropriate material for children, also talking about free speech on campus and conservatives feeling that they are self censoring their discussions on campus.

let's talk to jim in grand forks, north dakota. hi, jim. caller: hi. i have not been able to get through in a while. can you hear me ok? host: icam. go right ahead. caller: first time i have seen you. nice to see you. talking about college campuses and censorship, it spills over into the media we have. as a side note, this is not off-topic, look at the recent shooting on the subway by that man frank james. the next day, msnbc and everybody, for a couple hours, talked about, well, looks as if he was angry at the mayor of new york, but if you take a couple more days of digging, because everyone on tv as their own commissar, we have to be our own journalists, so we find out his

rantings and ravings -- find out in his rantings and ravings that he hated jews and white people and that's what he targeted. host: you feel it is related insofar as it is the fall of journalism schools? caller: yes, because the narrative. black lives matter said something about how they would do you colonize libraries, which is scary. i go to the library all the time -- the thing is there's a narrative. they have a hard time reporting about black on white and black on asian hater they cannot do -- hate. they cannot do appear they are afraid to do it -- they cannot do it. they are afraid to do appear direct about -- there should be a total understanding of the big picture

human nature and history for kids. they should learn about the muslims -- the muslim slave trade, the first encounter of sub-saharan africans, the enslavement of whites in eastern europe for centuries by the muslims, african slavery amongst themselves in africa, and of course, africans who owned slaves in america, and if there's a more balanced view -- like, if the kids would learn about the aztecs, you know, and their slavery and sacrifice, how they tour the hearts out of their slaves and how things have a more -- if little kids can learn about the whole world, the fact that slavery is a human institution that's been around since the stone age and the fact that -- what i learned in school, i went to school in the philadelphia suburbs, and i remember i learned was --

remember what i learned was race neutral. we learned about the civil war and learned that we ended slavery and, when i went home, i was a very happy kid. i loved my country and my teachers did a good job of teaching me not to hate myself -- host: i wonder, jim, if the african-american kids went home happy as well. i guess that is the question. i appreciate you calling in. to a text we got. it says, "the left started banning mr. potato head, pepe love -- pepe le pieu, long before sensible people started saying get these books out of

the schools." finally, derek says "cancel culture that only cares about history in this nation from one perspective, from people scared to learn anything outside their own bubbles." let's talk to nancy next in new jersey. five. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. white people have been canceling cultures, especially in this country, for centuries all over the world, but in this country since the beginning, canceling culture called genocide, so i don't want to hear about now they are all upset that people are bringing up the evils white people have done and saying don't cancel me. the conservatives on these college campuses, they have always been books. they have never had to choose at all.

and you're white supremacist from north dakota, jim, please. yes, they had slavery all over the world, but chattel slavery, which is what america practiced, was totally different because they did not treat the people they enslaved as people. they treated them as animals. that was the difference, jim. host: lets talk to trina in indianapolis, indiana. good morning, trina. caller: good morning. i grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood and i never knew anything about black history until we moved into a proper domin -- into a predominantly black neighborhood and that is when i learned about it and it frightened me. host: and how is that related to book banning?

you feel there were not enough books when you were growing up about the history of ever americans in the u.s.? caller: exactly. there were not enough books and -- remember the -- we had sex talks in school where you learn about the birds in the bees with your gym teacher and it was real sure and you had to take the notes home -- real short and you had to take the notes home, the boys with the male teacher and the girls with the female teacher? how does that fit in with your gender? host: so -- so your point being that there should be more books about gender identity accessible to kids. caller: gender identity. so you should have your gender identity and, as far as your,

you know, your history books, as far as your culture, so everything should be open. our kids need to know. host: all right. take a look at the associated press. the headline says talk of race, sex in schools divides americans, and it says here that americans are divided over how much children in k-12 schools should be taught about racism and sexuality. republicans across the country aim to make parental involvement in education a central campaign theme this election year it says, overall, americans lean slightly toward expanding, not cutting back, discussions of racism and sexuality, but about four in 10 say the current approach is about right. you can see a visual hear of a poll. the question is do either

parents or teachers have too much, too little or about the right amount of influence on the curriculum in public schools? and you can see the difference between democrats and republicans. democrats saying parents have -- republicans saying democrats have too little influence and it democrats saying teachers have too little influence over the curriculum. let's see what martha in warner robins, georgia thanks. caller: hello. i just want to say that the banning of any book to me is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard of. my father, how to read when i was three -- my father taught me how to read when i was three and i was reading in the second grade above my level and had read every book in my little children's library at the school, and i told my mother i was sick of that, reading them

over and over. she went to the school library and said let martha go read in the adult library. the librarian was very upset but had no choice. i was reading in the adult library from the time i was in second grade, and it taught me many things that never hurt me in anyway. host: were any of those sexually explicit? caller: i will be honest with you. at that age, i was not interested in sexual -- you know, i was reading books about everything, and instead of getting deep, i was not that interested. let's put it this way. my friend told me babies came from heaven and that was good enough for me. host: all right.

josie is in indiana. caller: i'm a retired he -- retired history teacher and a librarian. as a history teacher, and i taught for over 25 years at the district, i found that our history is so full of many facts that people have to understand we are who we are because of where we came from, and that is all of us. and i do not believe that we can counter the hate in our schools without understanding that everyone has a different perspective. i think that it is very important that people who call in and say we just want the facts, well, there are many facts, and the perspective as you go through your school

years, you add more and more that children can discuss, critically think about and try to understand. it is a great country and the first amendment is a great thing. host: do you think any books should be banned in k-12? caller: i do not. i believe that with the right school librarian in perspective -- children are curious. case in point is i was always a voracious reader and i would go to the public library and at the age of about 12 i started to go to the adult side, and the librarian said you cannot be over there. what would your mother say? i said my mother, who was a very fine woman, i said my mother would not ban me taking this book out. one was a biography of sigmund

freud, and he was a very controversial figure when i was growing up because of his theories about -- host: i think some parents are not worried so much about biographies of sigmund freud but sexually explicit materials that's not age-appropriate for younger kids or, you know, issues relating to lgbtq issues. what do you think? caller: well, let's be very clear. there's a struggle going on. i taught adolescents, and i always called them developmentally impaired because they are so full of energy and are going through so much that there are questions they have to ask. should we turn away from those? should we say we will discuss that at another time. many of those children are in turmoil. sometimes they need to find there others who are experiencing what they are.

host: all right. let's look at a text we got from ken in ohio. he says it is not surprising to me that the very people i saw throw rocks at school buses don't want their grandchildren to learn that they did that. here's a tweet from always watching. "no book bans. everything is available online anyway. free speech is not free speech when a university invites speakers. it is promotion. university should not have to sell venue space to make money these days." let's go to ted in san jose, california. good morning. ted? are you there? ok. let's try mike in somerville, massachusetts. caller: good morning.

that last caller hit it spot on with books in the school issue and she explained that well and my take away was that all these topics can be discussed. it is just a matter of what kind of level of discussion and the context and i think conservatives often use hyperbole to detract from these kinds of discussions. my opinion is they do not want to talk about this at all because they have certain -- a certain culture that goes to my next point, and i will only make two more. there's two cultures in this country. and -- whether it

is there existence, gay marriage, and now we are moving on to the next generation where they won't acknowledge trans people and they are slapping a new label on things called woke and they have lost this cultural battle time and time again and it is clear their culture is not compatible with the modern world and i view them as really foreign, you know. people up in massachusetts often don't act like the way the people down south in the bible

belt act and it is confusing to me. host: you are pretty much saying no books should be banned. caller: i don't think, you know -- i don't know, banning books is different than going to a kindergarten class and choosing not to bring a book into class, so i think the semantics are a little deceptive in this conversation, and from my perspective, eiffel will know these conservatives want to ban books just in general. host: they don't want to ban all books. they would not be fair to say it. caller: but for a fact, they want to ban books, to regulate the information they goes in and out of schools. they don't believe in factual reality. we have seen it with the pandemic -- host: let's not get on that

subject. we will talk to samantha in capital heights, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm an aboriginal american, indigenous to north america. look up the 1828 definition of american and you will find who i am. our history has not only been banned but forbidden. i had to do intense research to find out my history. not only has it been bad but it has been forbidden. this is like a second reconstruction. there was a time when they did not allow aboriginal americans to read books at all. it was against the law for us to read in this country and, during that time, they hit our true history. that is why you will not hear about people like chicago blackhawk, chief of the illinois

confederacy. host: do you think it is because those books are being banned or you want to see more books about the diverse history of this country? caller: true hidden history. that's what we need in this country. uncover all the history. this type of history that i am telling you about when i tell you about chicago blackhawk, head of the illinois confederacy, now they are calling it critical race theory. host: a headline -- u.s. schools pull more than 1000 book titles in unparalleled censorship bid, and this is a picture of author toni morrison. it says more than 1000 book titles, most addressing racism and lgbtq issues, have been

removed from classes in school libraries over the last month, many under pressure from parents and conservative officials. that is from the organization pen america. let's talk to eddie. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: that is great. i don't think that banning necessarily is the answer. when i was going to school as a child, in my library, we had sections for certain age groups. age group appropriate is more of what we need. i don't think we should have -- transgender sexual material, transgender things like that. we need to build a foundation. the problem with -- i am just so nervous right now. i am trying to get my point across and i don't exactly know

how to do it, but what i am trying to say is we are going off on so many different directions that we have no foundation anymore. we won anything and everything to be taught to children -- we want anything and everything to be taught to children. to me, i don't think children, high school, college, have whatever you want, but as far as children are concerned, they shouldn't have a sexually explicit material and they are teaching them things such as transgender. host: let me ask you who should decide that? could it be if enough parents complain about a certain book, should there be a committee? what do you think? caller: a parent. a parent should teach their child those types of things. that's stuff that should be taught at home. i heard this woman talking about when she had sex education or

something in gym class or something. there was a while back i heard it -- it was a while back i heard it, but it seems like they did not teach about transgender or homosexuality. that was my take from that. well, biologically, there is a man and there is a woman, there are xx and xy. that is how they determine man and woman. host: you don't think there should be books in the library about transgender specifically? caller: there should not be any type of sexual material in the library for children. host: let's take a look at the oversight hearing from last week. activist ruby bridges, author of ruby bridges goes to school, and

it talks about her experience as the first black child to integrate a new orleans school. here's a portion of that. [video clip] >> when i first heard about book bans, including the targeting of my books, my initial thought was to avoid responding altogether, as i thought it did not deserve more attention and the effort would subside. however, as these banns have gained even more momentum, i feel it is now important to speak up. i cannot understand why we are banning books. my books are written to bring people together. why would they be banned? but the real question is why are we banning any books at all? surely we are better than this. we are the united states of america with freedom of speech. in every book i have written, i

have purposely highlighted and lifted up those human beings as americans who were seeking the best version of our country, like supreme court justice thurgood marshall, who helped to win the landmark case that sent me on this journey, and the six-year-old walking through the doors of this all-white element tree school in -- elementary school in 1960. i did not walk alone. i was protected by federal marshals commission by sitting president of the united states -- by a sitting president of the united states, was nurtured and taught by a teacher, mentored by a child psychologist, all of whom were white, by the way, and mentioned in this very same book that some wish to ban. they became a part of my support system, along with a supportive community, my village, my

courageous family and friends, so when i share my experiences, my story, in these books, i share our shared history, good, bad and ugly. as a six-year-old child, i had no idea i was taking a historic walk. my parents were sharecroppers raised in rural mississippi, non-activists. for them, education was a luxury they cannot afford. they only knew that they wanted better for their own children. host: that's ruby bridges testifying in front of the house subcommittee. let's talk to walter in st. john's, arizona about book banning and free speech on campus. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yeah, there are two points i wanted to make, one on history and one on racism, and on the history aspect, in

civilizations across the world over centuries. every civilization will work to get to a point of excellence and beauty, the a pitta me of excellence. the cycle repeats itself over and over again no matter where you look at anywhere in the world. they reach the point of excellence and then, a few generations past, and the reason they fought for excellence they forget, and they circle into depravity, falling into the pit. host: how does that relate to banning books in schools? caller: when you are in a

position of excellence, the communication, the exchange of ideas is open, fluent, and there's very little restriction. when you get to the point of depravity in a civilization, that is when you have the book banning, the book burning, the censorship. host: do you think that is where we are now? caller: we are in a cycle working on the downslope. we hit a point of excellence probably back in the -- oh, the 1920's to the 1950's, but in the 1960's, we started on that curve on the downslope, and if you look at history, it will repeat itself, and the same things happen. what brought us to a position of excellence, those generations have died off. and the ones who do not learn the reason to fight to maintain a position of excellence are doomed to fly down into

depravity. host: ok, ok, walter. let's talk next to greg in chattanooga, tennessee. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: ok, i just think the book banning is a form of filtering and somehow, over the years, there's been someone in some group controlling the narrative and at certain times the issue of book-banning will control the narrative and yet we do not realize that there filtering our recent history, our news, daily. that is banning. they banned crime against white people, mexicans, elder people. who is doing all this crime?

we know who is doing it. there is no fooling you. there is crime going on every day and it is always one group against everybody. host: what do you think about banning books in elementary schools, middle schools? caller: no, i don't think you should been anything, but things that have questionable -- filters -- has to be gone over and reviewed and, if it is fiction, it should be put in the fiction place. host: all right, greg. let's talk to david next in concord, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like first to say that nettie two calls back was fantastic. i have been listening for eons

and calling into washington journal since the 1990's or something. recently i am calling mostly to complain about washington journal. i think you made a mistake just in first of all -- i love you as a host. excellent. keep up the great work. but the show has been conflating -- looking at this book banning is kind of the wrong way, because this blonde boy is not equivalent to huck finn and neither are equivalent to free speech issues on campus. you are making this big free-speech topic out of a lot of things that are really very separate, and you would have been better -- if you take long boy for example, you could not read that book on air right now. so if people do not trust me, go get a copy and read it yourself and see whether elementary school kids should be having

access to that content. host: because it is too sexually explicit? caller: absolutely. you literally could not read that on your show. this is a free-speech forum. you could not read it. so it is not the same. college students grappling with free-speech issues, conservatives, whatever. that is a whole different topic. that is a separate issue, much more like the free-speech topics we have in our public forums, but what parents are pushing back against in element tree schools has nothing to do with that. you are talking about highly radical ideas being jammed down the throats of children so i think you need separate shows on these topics. host: let's talk about your opinion on that. what do you think about how that process should play out? are there certain books you think should just not be in school libraries, even public

libraries? who decides that? caller: the issue is you cannot come at it like that because, unfortunately, it is like lambs to the slaughter. the people behind these issues have no interest in the long-term fidelity of the country. these issues are so radical they are simply utilizing our -- radical. they are simply utilizing our good manner. we want to go through the process in an orderly fashion. they are jamming highly, highly, highly radicalized social positions. this is not like kids learning about health topics and their bodies and whatever. we have vast arrays of ways to approach those topics. this is highly radicalized information that is being shoved into your kids brains and you cannot address those. it is like pornography. if somebody came to you and normalized hustler and said that should be in elementary schools,

that they should be able to go to the rack and pick up hustler, most of us would say, no. we could spend it trying to figure out whether that is good or bad, but we know it is not right, so you don't do those things. host: let's talk to joe next in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: i love c-span. i generally think of myself as a very conservative person but i'm against the book ban. i'm against censorship to a great extent. who is capable of determining what i or my children should read? maybe i am capable of censoring it, but i cannot censor it for a whole classroom or for the whole school because my child might be at a different level than those children. host: all right.

well, that will be our last line for this open phones segment. appreciate everybody that called impaired next -- called. next, president biden will be on the road talking about inflation in the economy. joining us next will be victoria guida, economics reporter, and later, on our spotlight on podcast segment, arizona state university's joshua sellers and henry thomson, hosts of keeping it simple, a podcast that talks about divisive issues in a civil way. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> next week on c-span, congress is in recess, and on monday at

9:00 a.m. eastern government officials and scholars on insider trading and stock trading reforms for congress before the administration committee. tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern come executives for home appraisal firms and equal housing organizations testify about the undervaluing of homes owned by people of color compared to similar homes in white communities. that is in front of the house financial services committee. a conversation on the modern presidency with cedric richmond and jen psaki of the biden administration, kellyanne conway from the trump white house, and from the obama administration jay carney. watch on c-span or c-span now or go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction book. at 2:00 p.m. eastern coverage of the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville with discussions on american colonialism, medical and legal injustice, and the book winning and losing the nuclear peace. on afterwords, the former texas republican congressman with american reboot, arguing america needs a restart to address the challenges of 21st century and offers his thoughts on how to move the country forward. he is interviewed by utah congressman moore. find a full coverage on your program guide or watch any time on booktv.org.

>> during discussions over the reunification of germany in 1990 the u.s. secretary of state james baker told mikael gorbachev that nato would not expand eastward, not one inch. in the lead up to the russian invasion of ukraine vladimir putin use those words to suggest president biden and nato were not interested in peace and could not be trusted. a history professor and the author of not one inch talked about the 1990's comment and the impact that nato expansion has had on u.s.-russia relations. >> sorry about that language, sorry for the confusion, we are not going to use it anymore. the problem is that it took mikael gorbachev a while. and he starts pressing in the summer to get that in writing, but that is now no longer.

when push comes to shove there was actually treaty negotiated that explicitly allowed nato to move eastward across the former cold war line. >> mary and her book "not one inch." you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now mobile app. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. i'm joined by victoria guida, an economics reporter for politico. welcome. let's talk first about the consumer price index numbers. take a look at these numbers from the bureau of labor statistics. increase in all items. 8.8 percent increase in food. in energy, it is 32%.

guest: this is the highest inflation since 1980 one, ronald reagan. this number was always going to be really high. we've seen inflation creeping up over the last year or so. the .5% is an annual number -- of the 8.5% is an annual number. in the last month there is a huge surge because of oil prices going up and that is why inflation was so high this past month. the hope is that going forward we will see inflation come back down. this last month in particular -- was a doozy. exactly. host: what can go wrong with biden's booming economy? here are the big risks. guest: just to set the scene for the booming economy, because there are so many risks and because inflation is top of mind for people, there are a lot of positive things in the economy.

there has been an average of 600,000 jobs added each month over the past six months, which is an incredibly fast pace. one of the things that we would like to see in the economy is inflation come down so that a lot of the gains in employment and wages will translate into gains for people so that it is not just a wash. in terms of what could go wrong, inflation could continue to get worse. we have been seeing the supply chain issues that have been contributing to inflation because the less goods are available and people have demand for all of these goods and there are not enough of them so the prices going up. the supply chain could get worse. russia's invasion of ukraine has thrown a wrench into everything that was already complicated.

the supply chain crisis, for example, that has gotten worse. we'll prices have gotten worse. that continues to keep pushing up inflation. we are seeing the federal reserve increase interest rates. when interest rates go up that is more expensive and we could see businesses default on debt. as i said in the beginning, hopefully the economy is strong enough that as it deals with these bumbs it can survive, but there -- these bumps it can survive, but there's a lot going on out there. host: you can feel free to call in now. we will take your calls based on your party affiliation. for republicans, you can call (202) 748-8000. democrats can call -- republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. independents can call (202)

748-8002. you can tweet us at (202) 748-8003. president biden speaking on what he sees as the causes of inflation. [video clip] pres. biden: i grew up in a family where the price of gasoline when it went out at the pump it was a conversation at the kitchen table with my dad. putin's invasion of ukraine has driven up gas and food prices all over the world. ukraine and russia are the one and two largest wheat producers in the world. we are number three. they are shut down. we saw that yesterday and inflation data. what people don't know is that 70% of the increase in inflation was a consequence of putin's price hike because of the impact on oil prices, 70%. we need to address these high prices urgently.

for working folks out there. host: victoria, what you think? he says that 70% is putin's price hike? guest: that is referring to this past month. i said earlier that inflation has been going up for the past year. that is because of a lot of different dynamics. in terms of the inflation that we saw this past month, that number that brought us to a .5% annual inflation -- 8.5% annual inflation, 75% came from gas prices because oil prices in general are such a big part of people's expenses. also, when oil becomes more expensive that makes the transportation of goods more expensive. it is also involved in the production of a lot of things that go into other things. this past month was a big factor. there are a lot of things going on in inflation rather than just

oil that have been percolating for a long time. host: you mentioned the jobs numbers. how did inflation in -- inflation impact the job market? guest: that is a great question, and it's complicated. theoretically, the job market can make inflation worse if, you know, there are few enough workers for job openings that employers have to bid on wages to compete for people. that alone doesn't contribute to inflation. it is that when you have that along with their not being enough increases in revenue and productivity, where the only thing pushing up wages is the fact that the prices are going up and there aren't enough workers. what we are seeing in the job market

are pretty separate. people are spending a lot of money so there's a lot of demand for workers and goods. the concern is that the job market could become what economists call tight, where there are so few workers available you could see a wage price spiral. that isn't happening yet. actually, wages are not keeping pace with inflation, so a lot of people are on net losing money. host: greg in fayetteville, north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i actually think that this is a very fixable problem. the issue is that we don't have the will to do it, politicians don't have the will to do it. you need to contract the money supply and the fed can do that by raising interest rates incrementally. the fed has certain tools.

you also need to cut spending, overall government spending. we need entitlement reform and balanced budgets. all of this can happen, but politicians don't have the will to do it. the americans can't stomachit. no one wants to feel the pain. we have the same issue we've had for the last 22 years, kicking the can down the road. somewhere along the line somebody has got to feel the pain, because we cannot continue to operate this way. i don't know where that point is going to be, but somebody has got to bite the bullet and fix this problem. guest: the fed has actually begun its campaign of interest rate hikes. to your point, they actually are going to start shrinking the money supply a little bit. the main factor that people think causes inflation is an

imbalance between supply and demand. as i was alluding earlier, you have so many people who want to buy a good and there is not enough supply then the price of that thing goes up. we are experiencing this on aggregate. the fed can bring down demand. the tricky thing for policymakers is that the fed cannot do anything to increase production of, cars, for example, which have been a big contributor to inflation. a lot of supply-side problems with production and shipping delays because the factory is not producing enough because of the pandemic, a lot of that will take time to work its way out. the fed can really only deal with the demand side of the equation. you kind of do not want the fed to go too far if there is a supply-site problem, because then they are basically crimping

demand too much and potentially causing a recession, something that has happened in the past. this is a tricky problem that has a lot of different causes. one thing that the fed will be doing is shrinking the money supply as part of the efforts to raise borrowing costs. host: treasury secretary janet yellen was giving her assessment . she talked about how inflation and the role of the federal reserve has been dealing with this. [video clip] >> we have a very strong labor market. by many metrics the labor department is tight right now in the united states than it ever has been in my lifetime, including the 1960's when unemployment rates i believe were below 3%.

we are seeing strong wage pressures coming out of a strong labor market and job openings. on top of that is inflation from supply shock from the pandemic. we now have to worry about bottlenecks from the pandemic in china where we are seeing sean-under lockdown and the potential for further supply chain pressures, and of course, putin energy. it is not clear we are on a path to address that and bring inflation down. i will comment on the strategies they are going to use dependent on the choice that they think is

right. if they have to do a mandate they will try to maintain strong labor markets while bringing inflation down. host: it seems like a lot has to happen for inflation to actually come down and it is iffy? guest: as i was saying, the fed really can only decrease demand. it is a blunt instrument is what they call it. as you decrease demand by raising interest rates that also decreases demand for workers. the hope is that right now the demand for workers is so higher that they can bring that down without necessarily leading to layoffs, decreases in pay, and things like that, but it's delicate because if you think that inflation is caused by the demand side, people spending too much, then you do sort of bring

down spending. one thing that that does is hurt the labor market. it is a delicate balance. the job market will probably have to be hurt a little bit. the fed is hoping that that won't happen. secretary ellen says good luck -- secretary yellen, says good luck. host: waiting for good luck. joe in riverside, connecticut on the republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. caller: happy easter, happy passover, happy valentines, happy everything. 600,000 new jobs created new, but is there anyway way to determine what percentage of those are people going back to work with something new? guest: that is a great question.

it is net jobs. it is basically like how many more jobs do we have this month than last month? obviously, those aggregate numbers are in the millions in terms of people who are leaving and joining jobs. there are more specific data as to what industry that is in, but people have all sorts of different reasons for changing jobs. there is a look at what is layoff and what are jobs coming back, which is what you are alluding to.that is complicated given how much the pandemic shook up the economy. so many jobs we are seeing are not necessarily the exact same jobs that were there before, but they might be a different variation on the same job. it is not totally clear, to answer your question. as i said, those are the net numbers and there's a ton going

on in the labor market underneath the hood. host: john in illinois. caller: thanks for c-span and taking my call. a very interesting topic. the federal reserve bank, people just read about it and they would understand how controlled it is by wall street. inflation has been described as a hidden tax because a lot of the cause is because the federal reserve issues money that our government wants to be issued because the government cannot catch people for what they spend. the government over spends, particularly on the military. if they tried to tax us on the money they would get thrown out of office. henry ford had a great quote in the 1920's or 1930's after the federal reserve bank was created and he said if the american public understood banking there

would be a revolution in this country by tomorrow morning. it is kind of bogus. they change the way that they calculate so the public doesn't know. inflation is probably 12% to 16% but the government doesn't want to tell you because you would be very upset will sto -- very upset. guest: calculating inflation is complicated because we experience it differently based on a basket of goods. the price of one thing going up is not inflation. it is the general price level, the general decrease in purchasing power that our money has. it is complicated for the government, and there are different measures of inflation. some people might experience inflation more than others because the things you buy might be going up more than other people buy. we have seen relatively low inflation after the financial crisis alongside economic

growth. what we have seen lately is something that we have not seen in 40 years. it'll be difficult to try to bring that down, but that is what the fed's job is, so hopefully they will do it. host: let's take a text from stephen in glasgow, michigan. everything is going up in price because of oil going up in price. they need to start drilling or lose the leases they are not using. it is all about greed. guest: the oil piece is a big part of this, especially now. one of the big questions is how do we increase domestic production? you might know that the biden administration recently started releasing one million barrels of oil per day from emergency reserves for the next six months . that has had a notable impact on

prices but it does not cover all of the demand that we need for oil right now. one of the big questions is, how do we get domestic oil producers to ramp up production? theoretically they have the capacity to produce what we need but they have gotten burned in the past when prices go up and they ramp up production. by the time that that comes online the prices come down in they lose money. one of the questions is whether the biden administration releasing some money from the reserves is a promise to buy back oil in the future to give oil producers some sort of reassurance that they are not going to get screwed again. that is one of the big questions, because these are long-term decisions. we don't necessarily have that domestic production it is going to be hard for the biden administration to help keep prices down. host: christina in oakland,

michigan on the independents line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for c-span. i haven't called in a long time but i watch washington journal all the time. i am 76 years old, so i've been through and seeing a lot. i see so much of this as being political. the prices of gas started going up when people started going back to their jobs. when covid hit in the beginning it was supposedly all a hoax and we found out that wasn't true. people were working from home. the demand went down. therefore the oil companies and gas companies were not making the profits. as soon as everything was opening up and the demand started again, we saw the prices go up. they never went down very much

when there wasn't that demand. the problem is, as i see it, is it is time to make profits that you would have been making if so much oil and gas was being sold. so, it was already going up. then, of course, we have the ukrainian situation. i see it as political because the american people -- things are too complicated and they don't like to really think about it. they like to be entertained. therefore, if you can blame it on the president and everyone knows what the price of gas is and food is happening, they won't sit and think why is this happening? they will just blame biden. as i see it, this is so political because it happened in 2008 and 2009 when everything went upside down.

we were told obama's not fixing it fast enough. republicans always get us into this match and the democrats are not fixing it fast enough. maybe they should stop getting us in this mess. guest: yes, oil prices did start going up when people started -- once the economy started opening up and people wanted to travel more, which increased the demand for gas and stuff like that. one thing that is really difficult about dealing with this is that oil is a global commodity. the price of it is more or less the same everywhere. this is why the russian invasion of ukraine is such an issue. russia is a massive supplier of oil to the global market. even though we are not buying from russia directly, it is something in the oil prices that we pay. there is this game about who

gets the credit for gas prices, but in general there are things that presidents can do on the margin of fixing things, but it is a global commodity. you know, that is something that is outside of president biden's control. host: we have a tweet that says that this wage gains below the rate of inflation are not real games and is vastly worse regarding the erosion of savings undermining that important aspect of retirement. guest: he is absolutely right. on aggregate real wages have been going down. even though people are getting raises they are spending more on stuff so they are left with less money. there is data that suggests for lower income people that is not necessarily true. with the lowest income bracket actually people's wages are going up faster than prices

because we are seeing such high demand like in the leisure and hospitality sector, restaurants, hotels where there are not enough workers. these companies have to bid up wages more to compete for workers, but in general real wages have gone down and that is a problem. that is why inflation needs to come down because the labor market is technically healthy on its own. if that is canceled out by inflation it doesn't really do people that much good. host: let's go to carlisle, pennsylvania to kathy on the democrats line. caller: the issue that i'm trying to understand is how we are pulling in russia as the cause when we have these issues of inflation way before a war even started. i remember a good month before

it was over supply. pete buttigieg was on leave and at that time they were having issues with supply back then. i'm trying to equate how demand is related to -- she mentioned earlier in one sense no money but high demand. is this demand based on the food supply being low and there are two bags of sugar on the shelf and anyone is trying to compete to get one of these two bags of sugar? is that what we say is demand? also, inflation. like i said before, before the war even started i thought that

inflation was the results of the pandemic and the stimulus check, then the stopping of the oil, and we stopped drilling in the united states and now we have to depend more on overseas oil which is making prices go up. i was trying to understand the definitions of demand and the supply chain affecting the people wanting more? guest: two great questions. inflation, yes. it really started to pick up about a year ago, april 2021 was when it started to come up, which feels longer than that, but it has been about a year. the answer to your question is all of these factors have sort of -- the supply issues have been part of the problem for the entire time, but it has shifted. at the beginning what caused

inflation was actually cars. you had a semiconductor shortage , which means that it is harder to produce as many cars. you had rental car companies that had sold their fleet in 2020, and all of a sudden the economy started coming back so they need to divide new cars, or used cars. basically it was a huge part of inflation at the beginning that was just about cars. as the year wore on we see that broaden out. people are spending a lot of money on a lot of things. that was, as the economy started to reopen, when inflation became broader. you may see that the fed was originally saying maybe this will be temporary. that was because they saw it in a couple of categories and then it broadened out.

people spend a lot of money as the economy reopens, but we were still having supply chain issues. the supply chain the supply chain issues sort of started in 2020, but we did not really see the results of them until people started feeling more comfortable doing more things and they had bought all the goods that were being produced previously so they ran out of stuff. which brings me to your demand question, which is -- or sugar example a sort of a good example. at a concrete level, yes, it is basically like, let's say everyone is buying their normal amount of sugar and there is not enough production of sugar to meet normal demand because let's say too many sugar workers who were out in the field are sick with covid, so that is a very boiled down example, but on top

of that, we actually have demand that is higher than usual. so not only is supply not able to meet where demand would normally healthily be, people are buying more than they were buying before, so hopefully that helps explain the demand. host: let's go to carolyn next in mount olive, alabama, on the republican line. caller: good morning. yes, on inflation, i believe if they quit giving out free money for people not working and they turn down a job that they are offered, they shouldn't be able to get paid unemployment. and i believe more people would go back to work. and building jobs that he

claimed he created, there's a lot of restaurants that need workers. and the economy is so, so bad, and especially people like me on a fixed income, and i have a mortgage payment to pay on top of other bills after i lost my husband many years ago from kidney failure. and it is so hard. when is the president going to help us? i mean, he is giving all this money to everywhere else, to everything, and they not giving us more stimulus. you know, they got to vote on that. host: all right, carolyn. she talked about government spending. how does that impact this? guest: there is a big question as to how much inflation we have right now is being caused by the

stimulus checks, child tax credit, unemployment benefits. definitely earlier in the pandemic, it was pretty clear that that was replacement for income. there were not only a lot of people who were unemployed, but in a lot of cases people who maybe wanted to stay unemployed for the time period, because at the very beginning of the pandemic, you wanted these businesses to stay closed so the disease would not spread. obviously, that was just the early piece of things. so as we got farther and farther away from the economy being actually shut down, you still had the stimulus checks, and that was partially because you know, when the economy is in a recession, as it was, what you want is you want to have the government sort of stimulate the economy so it will start growing fast on its own and then the government can kind of step back

and let the economy keep going. the problem we had with the pandemic was you had these starts were the economy is doing that, but then you have another wave of the coronavirus, and that then leads to a lot of this money that could be being spent in certain ways -- going on holiday and things like that. you know, all of a shut down, so people switch back to sort of buying physical goods. the american rescue plan, which was passed last year, which sent out further checks the people -- there is a specific debate to the extent which that lead to inflation versus keeping people afloat, but one thing to know is that congressional spending will be a lot less this year. that is actually going to lead to lower growth this year. so it will be very interesting to see because we have a lot of

factors at once where the economy is seeing higher interest rates, seeing less congressional spending, seeking headwinds from russia's invasion of ukraine, so all of those things sort of come together to decrease growth and potentially inflation. host: let's talk to annie next in sugar grove, north carolina, on the independents line. caller: thank you for c-span. i hope you give me the time i deserve. listen, mitch mcconnell, last year invested $1.42 million from walmart, kroger, chevron, johnson & johnson, and ford -- nearly $1 million from walmart, gm, pfizer, united health care.

his wife in zip with -- ends up with $250,000 in stock. they are increasing their prices 30%. and with coca-cola, speaking of the sugarcane, they said there is nothing we can do, we have to raise prices. prices are up 65% in year with coca-cola. coca-cola spent $68 billion on dividends and stock buybacks in the a decade. [inaudible] to $18.7 million in two years. this is not inflation, this is price gouging. host: what do you think? guest: this is a big piece of the debate, the extent to which

corporate greed is causing price hikes. it is interesting bureaus -- because corporate greed is sort of factored in with inflation. companies, if they can raise prices, generally do raise prices it's a part of the question is, why are they able to raise prices? the other piece of the corporate greed argument that you hear is related to the supply chain crisis, which is basically, you know, over decades, companies have tried to make it so that the way that they produce goods, like getting this input from this country, this input from that country, everything is very specific. so part of the criticism is that the way that supply chains were designed to maximize profit also made them a lot more fragile when the pandemic happened, because all of the sudden, they were broken. there was not a lot of redundancies, so people could not necessarily immediately just

switch and source them somewhere else because that is a whole new relationship. in addition to this question of whether companies are price gouging, there is also a question of how you deal with sort of this incentive to have more fragile supply change and what to do differently moving forward. host: debbie is calling us from roswell, new mexico, on the independence line. caller: yeah, i know you are right about economics. i do not know if you actually understand economics are actually went to college about it. this corporate greed -- and i don't know why everybody turns front and says, oh, it is because of supply chain -- yeah, a little bit. it would have brought it up a few percentage points. but the amount it is up now is way off mark, and it is just greed. if you understand economics, i will show you a corporate example, look at diamonds.

the price is up, and is there a shortage? no, there isn't, but the price is up. there is no policy. prices are set by the owners, and corporations make $2 trillion in profits during the pandemic. they know that we have money, so they are going to get it back. that is all it is. i do not know why you say this and that, it is greed, simple. that is all it is. guest: yeah, so i do not think we disagree that companies generally try to maximize profits. but i think part of what the issue is here is companies always try to make mice profits, so why is inflation going up so much now? -- companies always try to maximize profits, so why is inflation going up so much now? corporations generally try to make more profits, everyone agrees. host: going back to the need for more workers, do you think the

u.s. should increase legal immigration to address that? guest: yeah, so this is a big question, right, or if you are having shortages in the workers in all of these different sectors, particularly lower paid sectors where you have a lot of emigrants that want to come here and do those jobs, should you increase immigration? i think there is a question as to how much the labor supply problem is the issue versus just covid holding things back or just more demand than we need to but you are really starting to hear that as a potential solution. host: on the republican line, al in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. the economic conundrum that they are trying to figure out, we were told about six month ago that inflation was not transitory by this administration. what happened to build back better? everyone wants a demagogue

profit, but we found out there was a great benefit from pfizer and other companies during a pandemic. everyone has their peace in this economy. and of course, the left wants to demagogue it because that is how they gain power. inflation was caused because of pumping all this money into the economy, for paying people not to work, for banning rent. this administration came in on day one with their executive orders against oil. what do you think is going to happen? i suggest everyone listens to the late great milton friedman to learn about economics. donald trump came in, we had the lowest unemployment in 50 years, no inflation, highest stock market level, then it would crash when he left. the problem is government regulation, and people have to

make a profit. all you are being paid this morning. the left loves money. rachel maddow is being paid $30 million to come in one day. it is all just demagoguery. host: let's get a response. guest: i mean, one thing i will say is inflation is actually up globally, not just in the u.s., although it is actually higher here than in a lot of other countries. in europe, particularly because of the oil crisis, but even before that, you are seeing inflation globally. so this is caused by a lot of factors. giving people money that they are going to spend does then stimulate spending, which can lead to inflation. but thanks are not actually -- more complicated than i think a lot of people give it credit for. the result is always kind of

supply versus demand, whether they are out of sync, but there's a lot of different things that can feed into that. you are right that the economy was in a great place before the pandemic. we had been in the longest expansion in u.s. history in about 11 years, and unemployment had gone down to about 3.5% and inflation was still quite low. but one of the things that tells us is one of the healthiest things for the economy is to have a long recovery where you don't have a recession that you constantly then need to shoot back out of, so fast growth and then it recession, fast growth and then recession. ideally, you want a more sustainable level of growth. the economy under donald trump was sort of evidence of that, where a lot of these gains were finally starting to get to lowering some of these things, and we saw unemployment start to go down. it sort of dictates that healing and growing an economy is a very long process. host: let's talk to paul in

indianapolis, indiana, on the independence line. caller: -- on the independents line. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. a couple things i am concerned about. checking my bank account this morning is that there really is absolutely no incentive to keep your money in a savings account because interest rates are like .04%. the second thing is i am more worried about a long-term built-in inflation due to the drive to -- what do they call it -- sustainable energy, because then they are going to add millions of new jobs to do this, but all those jobs are going to be paid for in our energy bills. energy affects everything throughout the economy. we seem to be driving using the technologies which heavily

require massive imports from china, so we are shipping money overseas to buy technology, which will increase the cost of almost everything. eventually, hopefully, sustainable energy will have new technology, but we really are not ready for it. so aren't we do for a long period of expensive times because energy will cost a lot more than it does now? guest: i have good news for you, interest rates actually are going up here the fed hiked interest rates in march and is expected to do that several more times this year. they might even do it by larger increments. there is not a perfect one for one or every time the fed raises rates, your savings account rate will go up. but as money becomes less plentiful and as the fed makes lending it more expensive, you

could start to see some of your savings rates, but little bit. it is probably not going to be what you saw a few decades ago, but there might be some high-yield savings accounts that will yield something that is worth putting your money in. in terms of long-term inflation from senior energy, this is a big question. if we are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, it is not going to be a quick and painless process. i think what we have seen over the last couple of months has been evidence of that, that basically we cannot just cut them off all of a sudden, our dependence on oil, and have a just go smoothly. so these are factors back into the dynamics we have been talking about, which is basically making sure that we have the energy sources, making sure that you have secure supply chains, kind of getting to what

you were talking about, making sure that sort of the long-term ability to make clean energy technology is feasible and not just going to be wrecked by some geopolitical conflict or pandemic or whatever. these are absolutely complicated questions that the government will have to grapple with. host: that will be our last call for this segment. victoria guida, politico economics reporter, thank you so much for coming in. later on our spotlight on podcast segment, you will meet ramona arizona state university's joshua sellers and henry thomson, talking about contentious issues and respectful way. first, open forum after this break. you can start calling in now and weigh in on anything you heard today on this program or

anything on your mind public affairs wise or politics. the numbers are on your screen. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents (202) 748-8002, and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. make sure you tell us your first name and your city/state. and we're on social media, facebook.com/cspan. send us a tweet at @cspanwj. and follow us on instagram. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the presidency, part seven of our eight part series, first ladies, in their own words, we will look at the role of the first lady and the issues important to them. this week will feature michelle obama. >> with every action we take, with every word we utter, we

think about the millions of children who are watching us, who hang onto our every word, looking to us to show them who they can and should be. and that is why, every day, we try to be the kind of people, the kind of leaders that your children deserve, whether you agree with our politics or not. >> the white house historical association hosts a conference on the american presidency, focusing on topics such as history and civic engagement, digital history, first ladies, impact and influence, and interpreting slavery and race at historic sites. watch american history tv every weekend, and find the full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org. ♪ >> the book is titled "the lords of easy money." subtitle, how

the federal reserve broke the american economy. the author is christopher leonard, current director of a watch dog writers group at the university of journalism. publisher of his new book, simon & schuster, claims on the book flap, "if you ask most people what forces led to today's income inequality and financial crashes, no one would set the federal reserve." author leonard explains why so few people understand the language or inner workings of how american money is managed by a seven-member board in washington, d.c. >> christopher lender on this week's episode of but moats plus, available on the c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcast -- christopher leonard on this week's episode of book notes plus. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring what is happening in

washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, reports, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: good morning, and welcome back to "washington journal." it is time for open forum, so anything you would like to talk about public policy wise, anything you heard on the program. give us a call. i want to show you first what is happening in russia-ukraine war.

this is from "the washington post" about -- the headline says russians shall kyiv after loss of worship. the article says this, the russian warship that sank this week and the black sea was hit by two ukrainian antiship missiles, and a senior u.s. defense official confirmed that yesterday, as relentless russian attacks continued in the east. the southern port city of mariupol, which has held out against weeks of bombardment, a."'s to fall into russian ground forces. says that ukrainian satisfaction of a guided missile cruiser was tempered by the situation in mariupol and by the russians morning it would step up strikes on ukraine's capital. that is the latest coming out of russia. i would like to know what you

think about that, what you think about the situation with twitter. on "the washington journal" front page this money, it says twitter makes a move to stop musk. as you know, elon musk, the billionaire, has wanted to buy twitter. it says twitter moved to prevent elon musk from significantly increasing his estate -- stake a day after he unveiled an unsolicited takeover bid for the social media company. it says the company on friday, yesterday, adopted a so-called poison pill that makes it difficult for mr. musk to increase his stake beyond 15%. he currently owns more than 9% in the company. so tyrone, what do you think, from illinois? caller: great to be on your show. i am calling more about retail,

i am a retailer myself, and when you talk about inflation, i am looking at the container prices that are coming off the ports. so i wish you could have gotten into that a little bit. container prices used to be around $30,000 just about a year ago, where two years ago, for a 40 foot high container for goods of about $3500, so that is a substantial increase. when you consider the average container we get from overseas only has about $40,000 to $50,000 of goods in it. so you're looking at an area where our government really needs to step in and take a look at the container prices, because that is price gouging, i think, at its finest. the other problem i have is some of our ports, the infrastructure

of our ports, like in california, i believe the last time we updated our port in the california was back in the 1960's. so it does not have the room, does not have the newer technology to move the goods. we have backed off in the u.s. on rail, which is one of the most affordable ways to go. i think that is an area for inflation we need to look at. host: you know, tyrone, there is funding in the infrastructure bill that got past, to update the ports. caller: which is great, but how long is that going to take? as a retailer, we are looking at -- we are buying goods eight months out, so we are buying our christmas stuff eight months before we get the goods. so when somebody comes to the store and they say, ah, this is

a new, hot item, well, it was ordered eight months ago. we need to look at manufacturing more in the united states. you brought up the covid thing about prescription drugs and stuff, the drugs we get from china, but i heard nothing about building factories to produce more of our drugs and stuff here in the united states. it has kind of been dropped as a subject. i think we need to take a look at what we can manufacture here and start doing more stuff in the united states. as a retailer, i would rather buy in america than from china, but we are given not much choice. thank you. host: mike is next in montgomery, alabama, on the independents line. caller: good morning. your previous guests stated at the onset that she -- that when she was young, said we were

experiencing the highest inflation since 1981 with president reagan. but in 1979 and 1980, president carter really put us into a tailspin with inflation, with 18% interest rates on credit cards and 14% mortgage rates. mr. reagan's cabinet member, during his term, really went to supply-side economics and bolstered defense spending and really stabilized the economy. so i feel at this point mr. powell does not have the tenacity of a bulldog, as we need, to get our economy stabilized. i think he is taking a page out of ben bernanke's economic philosophy, printing more money, hence inflation rises. that is my comment, and thank you for taking my call. host: speaking of the fed chairman, here is the headline from the hill.

it says, recession fears rise, as set by inflation. now tulare -- to larry in minnesota, democrats line. caller: good morning. there is only one thing causing inflation, and that is demand for product. [inaudible] just because you have money does not mean you should just spend it. you have got demand, there is no inflation. you are upset about inflation, then stop spending your money on -- [inaudible]

host: next to scott in tampa, florida, republican line. hey, scott. caller: i would like to make a comment about the politicians and rest of the world commenting about fossil fuel. fossil fuel, hydrocarbons not only go into your petrol tanks of your cars and your trucks and fuel all the machinery, they have been turned into polymers, and polymers are in everything. oil plays a direct and and direct part in the production of everything that is man-made. that is something that no one talks about. they think that the oil that

comes out of the ground just goes into your car, but it goes into everything that is man-made , literally everything. when they took the polymers and moved molecules around and created different products, everybody was just happy plastics were made. and now we as a society, older generation just never taught the younger generation how to properly dispose of plastics. that is all i got to say. thank you. host: take a look at this from "the new york times," on a separate subject. it talks about the border crossings in texas, says, amid backlash, texas governor repeals border clocking immigration order. it says that governor greg abbott said he would reissue the policy under which all

commercial vehicles arriving at the border would be inspected if illegal crossings into texas increase. it says facing an intensifying backlash from political parties and business groups, governor greg abbott of texas yesterday ended a policy of inspecting all commercial vehicles crossing into the state from mexico. it is a time-consuming process that caused traffic jams of 14 hours or more at the border. michael is calling us from texarkana, arkansas, on the independents line. caller: good morning, and thank you for being there. congratulations. i am a disabled veteran and live in texarkana, live 70 miles from the va hospital in freeport louisiana. i watched hearings, and the price of gas is so high. no one asked, how many are

sitting idle and how many are pumping? i go down i to shreveport, dry 52 miles, i counted 22 oil wells that i could see from the interstate. interstate has been there about four years. not one of those wells was pumping, not one. it is like the oil embargo, with oil will triple in price because they were off the gulf of galveston, and they would not be unloaded to bring the price of oil up. we're doing the same thing again. oil companies, big banks, wall street found the politicians and lobbyists to make laws. politicians do not pen their own laws. they are written by lobbyists. obamacare was written by the insurance lobby. that is what is ruining our

nation in this country, greed, the worship of the almighty dollar. i've fought in vietnam for two years. i am disgusted with my country. i am disgusted with my country. it has turned into nothing but honoring the god almighty dollar, which that will be the fall of this country, you watch and see. thank you. host: all right. take a look at this article from foxnews.com. ken line, a warrant -- headline says -- the article says an advisor to the mariupol city mayor warned saturday, today, that russian troops are preparing to shut down the city by april 18 and will "pilfer all men for forced service, labor, isolation." occupiers report that on monday, they will not only finally close all entries and exist to the

city for everyone but will institute a ban on movement across the neighborhoods for a week. during this time, 100% of the city's remaining male population will be filtered. that is from a ukrainian news outlet. gerald next in north carolina, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for having me. you are doing a great job. i just want to say that we are at an inflection point. i love our country. constitution calls it a republic even though we are basically a democracy. we cannot let anything go in the country anymore. we are now controlled by special interest groups. the federal reserve is a private entity, not a public, as well as the post office. we have to come together as a people and make decisions and not be afraid to make decisions. i believe we are at a point similar to rome, and i do not

want to disrespect anybody, but rome before it failed went to a homosexual society, and i do not want to disrespect homosexuals, but we need to come together and realize we are more alike as a people, black and white, whatever, and i do believe what the man said, we have become a worshiper of the almighty dollar per thank you so much. happy easter. in god we trust. thank you. host: susan is calling from fort myers, florida, on the independents line. caller: thank you for taking my call, and happy easter to everyone. i am not at the computer, i don't trust the internet, so i do not want to be involved. but apparently, twitter, my girlfriend told me twitter had some kind of a comment by somebody that putin has thyroid cancer.

and i watch as much news as i can, both sides, and i have not seen a report on that. the other thing i would like to point out is i have forgotten more history than i have read. three things that always seem to be present in any kind of war or disagreement, whatever, is power, money, and religion. those three things are always in the -- always there, and i have not been against religion. there's about 4000 different religions on our planet, and only a couple of them are always in the forefront. so where's the fairness on that? i think we're also having our

own humanitarian crisis. people, especially old people, i am 79, they're kind of nervous about going out alone. i woke with a cane, i hobble. you are kind of nervous that somebody's going to attack you. i think we all have the civil right to walk your dog or do lawn work or go to the grocery store, ride your bicycle, without getting attacked and shot. that is just the way i feel. thank you so much for your time. i really appreciate it. have a good day. host: have a good day, susan. i cannot comment on putin's health. i have not heard anything about

that. here is an article on cnn, acn and exclusive. here is the headline, we need ammo, need fraud examples, need it this weekend, what the meadows text reveal about how two trump's allies lobbied the white house to overturn the election. cnn.com. the next call is from fort myers, florida, on the independents line -- i think we need to go to beverly next. beverly in casper, wyoming, democrats line. caller: hello, and good morning. and god bless us all. and i wish the people would get together and be nicer to each other. and i understand about that ladies fear about going out and being around the public. it is all the rhetoric of the

republican base. i wish they would not be so mean . just tell people such things -- but one thing i wanted to say is the children really need us. every man and woman and grandma, please help them children, because we are in a spot that we need them, so we have to teach them. and i just had a hard time because i have grandchildren and love them very dearly, and i left my family, but we are torn apart with all these people fighting. do you know what to do about that? host: all right, jeff is next in

the act, new york -- nyack, new york. caller: i appreciate the open forum. with the oil being released from the strategic reserve by president biden, one million barrels a day is not going to stop the increase in gas prices in this country. we have got to get back to having fuel created. i understand you should go to better electric cars and cleaner energy, there has to be a transition period. it is not being done that way. it is just being stopped. there will be no more fossil fuels. you cannot expect oil companies to jump back in and create more energy when they have a sword over their head.

besides that, oil, it is a national security situation. it is for the protection of this country. the southern border, that is another problem. crime. so many things happening in this country that we have to address. and you have the squad and the moderate democrats and republicans, you need them to get together and congress and passed laws instead of biden sent executive border. he has signed 60 of them. that is not how it is done. it has to be by the people, all the representatives. i do appreciate the open forum, and god bless america. thank you. host: there was an editorial in "the washington post" about inflation. it says what goes up is not coming down, inflation is likely to stay high. there are smart and dumb ways to respond. it says inflation remains the biggest threat to the u.s. economy, the data this week only adds to the angst.

consumer prices are rising at the fastest pace since 1981, and producer prices are experiencing the biggest surge since the government started tracking them in 2010. it says the best approach is to let the federal reserve lead. we have been urging a long-overdue half-point increase in interest rates for months. the fed finally seems ready to take this advice at its may meeting. one step that mr. biden can take is to increase legal immigration. it also mentions tariffs and releasing nearly one third of the oil from the u.s. strategic trillium reserve was also the right call. it says that there are also some bad proposals out there. democratic accusations that companies arthritis -- driving inflation by price coaching do not pass the logic test.

but there have been calls for price controls on certain essential items, such as energy and food. but price controls would backfire by making this products more scarce because companies would have less incentive to produce them. let's talk to rick in west hope, north dakota, independents line. hi. caller: hi, how are you? a quick comment, the pump checks not cycling up and down, a lot of times those wells, there should down because they are on a timer. there are so many people out there with misconceptions about that, it is amazing. that is just one of them, just because they are not going up and down does not mean that well

is not in production. host: that will be our last call for open forum. coming up next is our spotlight on podcasts every saturday, and this time you'll meet the arizona state university's joshua sellers and henry thomson, host of "keeping it civil," a forum about potentially divisive issues and discussing those emma is -- discussing those in a respectful way. we will be right back. ♪ >> next week on c-span, congress is in recess, and on monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, government officials and scholars testify on insider trading and stock trading reforms for congress before the house administration committee. tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, executives for home appraisal firms and equal housing organizations testify about the undervaluing of homes for people

of color compared to similar homes in white communities. wednesday at 7:00 p.m., conversation on the modern presidency with cedric richmond and a member of the biden administration, kellyanne conway from the trump white house, and from the obama administration, jay carney. watch next week on c-span or on c-span now. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focusing on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act come at the presidential campaign, the gulf

of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, the number assigned to me now. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise i won't go anywhere, i will stay right behind these gates. >> presidential reporting, on the c-span now mobile app. >> now available at the c-span

shop, the 2022 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy, a spiral-bound book, your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments, and contact information for state governors and the biden cabinet. order your copy today at cspans hop.org. the purchases help support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> all this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our c-span studentcam video documentary competition. every morning before "washington journal," we will have one of our studentcam videos, documentary on how the federal government has impacted their lives. you can watch them all anytime online at studentcam.org.

" washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." it is our weekly spotlight on podcasts. today's is called "keeping it civil." i have the two cohosts on zoom with us. joshua sellers is the first cohost from arizona state university, also henry thomson from arizona state university. gentlemen, welcome. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. thank you. host: anybody that would like to join the conversation can feel free to call in. phone numbers by party affiliation, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents (202) (202) 748-8002. joshua, tell us about the podcast. where did you get the idea for it? how did you two meet? guest: it is funny, henry and i

both started at arizona state in 2017 and met as a new faculty organization. we have been friends since then. i teach law, he teaches political science. we were asked to reboot this podcast by a program on asu's campus, and the school collaborates with arizona pbs a lot, and they wanted to bring us in as cohosts because we were friends, thought it would be a good idea to have deep, interesting intellectual conversations with thought leaders and academics and scholars and others. host: when did you think of that idea? guest: this was new for both of us. neither of us had experience with podcasts or with media of this type. i was a little reluctant, to be honest. henry is a good friend of mine, so he thought it would be a good team. so far, i have found it very

enlightening and have enjoyed the conversations we have had and the people we have spoken with. i find it really gratifying and interesting. host: henry, describe yourself politically. where do you fall? guest: i think we probably have similar interests, i am probably more to the right than josh is. part of the idea was that we might ask questions from slightly different sides. not sure how that has played itself out in reality. but that was part of the idea of having the two cohosts. host: it is interesting where you disagree. what are the areas when you disagree? guest: a great question. it is not something we normally get into one having lunch together something. we probably disagree about up double marginal -- optimal

marginal rate of taxation, those sorts of things. josh my filter lee. guest: i am less liberal progressive, and henry is more centrist, more classic liberal. i favor a strong girl -- stronger role for government. i would favor a more generous social safety net. so the kind of standard political economy stuff. but what also makes it interesting, and why henry and i often have this fun debates, he is from new zealand and i'm from the united states. so we come with different perspectives as a result of where we are from. but we really let the guests try to determine where the conversations go. we like to show more of ourselves in the podcast, but so far, we have had rich conversations with the guests. host: joshua, tell us a bit

about those guests, who they are and the topics you pick. guest: it is a wide range of topics. civil dialogue, free-speech speech, race in america, american politics, international politics so a wide range of things. we had a conversation with jonathan rauch, and that episode is actually up now if listeners and viewers would like to check that out. we had a great conversation with h.r. mcmaster, and that is coming out in a couple weeks. a harvard historian, leading voice on race and crime, we talked to him. andrew sullivan, the writer. we also had what i thought was an excellent conversation with our producer who was born and raised in russia and was a journalist there and was forced to flee a number of years ago with her children for fear of their safety.

and that was not a planned conversation, but when we learned her story, we thought it was worth sharing with our listeners. so that is one of the more affecting, powerful conversations we have had. host: henry, do you pick topics based on how controversial they are? how are you picking these topics, and how are you presenting it in a way that stays true to your mission, which is about civil discourse? guest: among our guests and people invited, the podcast was rebooted for us, so a lot of them have been selected for us. josh and i hope next season we will have a little more input into the guests. but what we try and do with the guests, we read their work, often they have had a book out in the last few years or they might have some opinion writing

or something that they might want to talk about. and we try and draw them out on the main ideas that have come into relevance with public policy or public debate. we try and ask questions that make people present their ideas in a fairway but we also interrogate those ideas from different perspectives are that is normally how the conversations go. host: since you guys are on the college campus, i want to go to the university of virginia. former vice president mike pence was there this week and spoke to a conservative group about the free expression of ideas. here is a portion. [video clip] >> this generation, i believe, is a freedom generation. we treat it as if every one of you must be prepared to stand on the ramparts of freedom. spoke to a young man at a reception just before we came over, he said, you know, there

is this thing i read over the weekend about students on campuses around the country tend to self censor because they feel they don't want to speak out in class if they share a conservative worldview. he says, what do you suggest? i said, speak up and smile. and that is what all of you need to do. and when you do it, i want you to know, young men and women, you're going to be standing proudly on the legacy of people like jefferson and madison. the one who founded this university, helped found this nation, and another the father of our constitution. host: i wonder what you guys think about that, specifically we were talking earlier in this program about self-censorship on campuses, some conservatives are feeling like they cannot share their conservative views on liberal campuses. what do you think? guest: i think maybe our

perspectives might differ a little bit because we teach such different subjects. i teach a class called political economy where i am pretty much compelled to teach perspectives or theories ranging from marxism to liberalism to neoliberalism, humanitarianism, things like this. so we do sort of force that engagement, a very wide diversity of views because of the subject material that i teach. same goes for some of the other classes i teach on democratization or international trade. in my classroom, there is really no room for censorship of views because the diversity of views is on the syllabus. i am interested to hear about

josh' experience. host: josh, what do you think? guest: part of my job as a law professor is to kind of cultivate a classroom in which a variety of opinions are aired out, some from the students and some from me. i think what former vice president pence is referring to, something that i think is happening among students. ideally, in the classroom, the professor is kind of steering the conversation, as henry said, or curating the syllabus of there is a wide range of perspectives. what a number of our guest, jonathan rauch is a good example, we also had a conversation last week with the head of the heterodox academy and was at brown university for 27 years, and what we heard from them is they have concerns about this viewpoint of discrimination on campus, particularly among

students, maybe undergraduate students predominantly, where they feel some social pressure that they cannot speak openly. there was a controversial op-ed in "the new york times" not long ago actually about this. so it is a phenomenal that a lot of people are paying attention to. it is nothing i have experienced in a law school setting would we are hearing some stories about law schools around the country where this is happening. but there is no question it is on a lot of people's minds. at a university, there is an open exchange of ideas, and you can put your ideas to the test. that is part of what we are trying to cultivate on the podcast, giving people space and time so they can expound on various issues. host: josh, you mentioned the op-ed in "the new york times" from a uva student. i have that to show you. it says this, i went to college

to learn from my professors and peers. i welcomed an environment that champions intellectual diversity and rigorous agreement. instead, my college experience has been defined by strict ideological conformity. students of all lyrical persuasions hold back in the class discussions, in friendly conversations, on social media from saying what we really think -- students of all political persuasions hold back. even as a liberal writing about abortion or racism, i feel i cannot fully share what is on my mind. that is from a student. a call from indiana on the democrats line. good morning. caller: i just think the times we live in today are so polarized that it is difficult to see where we meet in the middle and come forward with any

effective policymaking. the republican party, in my opinion, has really abandoned any commitment to our democratic constitutional framework that is embedded with domestic we were in very different times. we cannot continue to talk as if emma kratz and republicans want the same things and are just arguing in good faith for various views of accomplishing constitutional aspirations. i am not sure how your civil with an organization like the republican party that doesn't even have a platform. host: let's get a response. henry, what do you think?

guest: i think the fear about democratic a is pretty widespread not just in the u.s. but around the world not just among -- citizens but among political scientists like me who study transitions to democracy and democracy around the world. we have to take it seriously. most of the people we have on our podcast, they are theorists in a way about politics. in the future, i hope we will have people who are more scholars or scientists like myself, people who can tell us more about, for example to what extent is the democratic regime in the u.s. driven by the polarization you mentioned and i think this viewer is referring

to. is it more threatening than the situation in poland or hungary or other countries where we see democracy? it is a topic on the top of our minds as political scientists and hopefully we can bring that into the podcast next year. host: josh, howard was saying you cannot have a conversation civilly with republicans and he really blamed former president trump for setting that tone. guest: i am super that if what the viewer described. my expertise is in election law so i am concerned about the democratic ask lighting we are seeing, often referring to the republican party and i would argue from the republican party. i don't think that precludes us from having conversation. those conversations are essential to moving forward.

i have met some people -- i do put speaking and i have been in environments where i felt it was a challenge to find common ground. that is the question i always pose, what can we find in common. what solutions can we come up with? that is the tendency we need to have if we are going to come out of this period. host: let's talk to david and on the republican line in virginia. good morning, david. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i think these two gentlemen having the podcast is great. most of the time on the channels like cnn or fox, they only allow their guests one minute or 20 seconds. in a longer podcast, you can get a better understanding of positions of people and so forth. they are absolutely right, the division in this country,

especially in washington, and equally so on the democratic side and the republican side. there are very few politicians like susan collins that will be in the middle and they are not too worried about their positions. i am glad to hear about that. i think it is also true that if you don't take the party position on an issue, you are not allowed to have committee assignments. that is where all the power is for legislation. i would like to hear their comments on that. host: henry, what do you think about that? the partisanship in congress. guest: i studied transitions in democracy and international

relations. i am a little low to weigh in on rudimentary matters in u.s. or congress. host: but i am sure you are watching it, it is obvious. guest: i watch it somewhat. i would say even more so, the constitution needs to be set up to create spaces. i come from new zealand. we have one chamber of parliament that used to be elected by a simple runoff race and a controlled cabinet. you could do whatever you wanted to do. you can imagine my dismay when i moved to the u.s. to grad school and i see there are not only two chambers of commerce -- two chambers of congress and the veto power of the legislation

and the judicial review system. it is remarkable. i lived in germany for a long time as well, we have coalition governments. when they want to do something, then norm -- nonetheless when they want to do something, they normally can. a lot of frustrations in the u.s. are driven by the fact that they think the government should be doing more. the system does not seem to be set up to work that way. it seems to be set up to create stasis. you have these people like joe manchin or kyrsten sinema who provided the swing vote and anything to happen. that becomes so incredibly important. host: josh, what you think about that? is it a systematic problem or a civility problem? guest: i think it is a bit of both. henry described the system which was designed to have these veto gates and periods to promote

collaboration. some of this is system base but this ability has broken down. norms have broken down. i'm not sure how you move past that. part of the problem are people we are electing. we have a system which is a primary system which seems to favor the most activist elements of the parties and they are sending ideologues to others in congress were not inclined to participate. that is one problem. another problem is campaign-finance and extent to which you can be a political entrepreneur and raise funds often by making inflammatory statements. you are not beholden to the party in a way that was true 40 or 50 years ago where the party played a more active role in vetting people and keeping members in line. we could talk at length about a

lot of the system-based issues but there is no question that it is a dangerous time and we need to be thinking hard about reforms that might work and ways we can implement values, particularly among young people but really for all of us. the stasis we are living through now is not productive. host: let's talk to mike from akron, ohio. hi, mike. caller: good morning. when i was at kent state in 1974 -- i am 68 right now. [indiscernible] i went to an all boys catholic high school in the late 1960's.

[indiscernible] getting backs -- getting back to nixon, i'm glad he did a few things like -- [indiscernible] when it comes to trump -- ♪

[indiscernible] what i want to know is, is there a conflict of interest? there are extremists on the right and on the left, extremists on the right had the most power. it is all white guys. on the left, they are people from multiple backgrounds. host: all right, mike. it is hard to hear. if you want to comment on that, he mentioned nixon and trump. i guess the question really is, how much does the sitting president have an impact on civil discourse? he also talked about he thinks there are more extremists on the

left but the extremists on the rights have more power because, as he says, they are old white guys. guest: i had a hard time hearing the caller's comments. i will say that there is a view out there that they left has more cultural power and is more predominant in institutions like journalism and media and the right has more political power. i don't have much to say about it just to say -- ezra klein, for instance, who made that point. whatever the case, the ability for us to work across these various lines and find common ground is what we should be striving for. again, i could not hear much of what else the caller was saying. host: let's talk to lynette in

chester, new jersey on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a progressive wondering if you have ever had bernie sanders on your podcast. i personally think he has motivated millions of people, in particular, young people, to become politically engaged and i think that is a great thing. host: who wants to take that? guest: we have not had bernie sanders on the podcast or any actual elected official route -- elected officials. if senator sanders is listening and he wants to come on, we would love to have him. it is interesting in american politics because he has views much closer to an orthodox marxism than any other american politician i can think of.

i might be missing someone. i think he has ideas that are a little outside the norm and the status quo. i would personally love to have an orthodox mock cyst on the show to have a conversation. although orthodox marxism is kind of out of fashion, i think it falls a lot of people's political views these days, not only bernie sanders. host: one issue that is divisive is gun-control. president biden spoke about how they can industry has made it difficult to get more regulation on so-called ghost guns. here's a piece of that. [video clip] pres. biden: the gun lobby tried to tie up regulators and work for a long time. i'm about to announce extreme --

what i'm am about to announce they called extreme. is it extreme to protect our children, to keep guns out of hands of people who could not pass a background check? the idea that someone on a terrorist list could purchase one of these guns is not extreme. it is basic common sense. if you buy a cat you have to assemble, it is still a catch. if you order a package like this one here that includes the parts you need to assemble a firearm, you bought a gun. take a look at this. it comes in this package. you can see the pictures down here. this is the gun. it is not hard to put together, a little drill is all. it does not take very long.

folks, a terrorist automatic abuser can go from a gun kit to a gun in as little as 30 minutes. host: what you think of that? have you guys discussed uncontrolled on your program? i thought it was interesting that he used the word extreme which a lot of our callers have been using that phrase, as well. guest: we have not had that topic come up on the podcast. it is a hot button issue. 30 years ago, there was much more political agreement on background checks and the assault weapons ban and the like. i think it is an unfortunate sign of the times that we have moved away from that.

i am a law professor. we are awaiting a ruling from the supreme court on gun control -- i should say, the right to bear arms. i don't make predictions about what the supreme court will do but there is a possibility we will see a ruling that would give individuals the right not only to possess handguns in their homes but also carry them openly in public and transport them openly in public. that concerns me. this is not a topic we have discussed on the podcast yet. host: let's talk to larry from maine. caller: thank you. i know the democrats have resisted the whole four years of president trump and now we need to come together. do you ever have a topic on hunter biden and how he got his

money or joe biden releasing his taxes? he released his personal taxes but not the shell companies he has. he was talking about paying for reparations. when he talks about the big guy, that must mean the money he is giving to charity. come on, do you ever discuss real stuff or is it just january 6 and conspiracy theories about republicans? host: all right, larry. who wants to take that one? guest: we don't discuss media issues on the podcast. if it is about hunter biden or president trump's taxes, or anywhere sixth -- or january 6, we don't talk about any of that stuff. host: he said nobody wanted to

comeo's time, now everybody is saying let's get along. what do you think about that? guest: i think trump was a divisive figure in american politics. people ended up either really liking him over the hitting him. he certainly was truly divisive. to some extent, now that he is left office, the call was right. april -- maybe people are not really interested in politics or not as polarized as they were before. host: let's talk to coleman in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: the idea that trump was

-- if you had the whole government apparatus led by the democrats and the apparatus is controlled by the democrats. if you were called a russian spy from the beginning and the news media jumped in on that, you have to defend yourself. and that was called divisiveness. it is the same thing about if you protect the elections and say the election in adelphi and atlanta were all the places data showed that ballots were stuffed and republicans were not allowed , insurrectionists. the first caller said republicans are insurrectionists. in fact, you cannot talk to republicans. talk about divisiveness.

we have to deal with facts. your podcast must be interesting. you have a socialist liberal and a guy from new zealand that doesn't want to take a stand on american politics. anyhow, i think civil discussions require people to talk about facts. twitter is the example right now in the news where freedom of speech is not allowed on twitter if you are a conservative or if you wanted to do the hunter biden episode. you are censored. host: let's get a response. josh, what did you think? guest: i would say that the caller brought to mind a conversation we had with jonathan rauch, the public intellectual and writer and journalist. the interview with him was

posted a couple of days ago. he is talking about his recent book, "the constitution of knowledge." the argument he makes in that book is that we need to have a society-wide commitment to facts and reality and commitment to the reality-based community, putting our ideas to the test recognizing they might be wrong. that is how ideas evolve and how we reach common ground. i would encourage the viewer, the caller, to check out that interview because he does as good as a job -- as good of a job as i have seen laying out how far we have gotten in society agree on foundations. we are going to disagree on some things so we need to understand how to evaluate evidence and how to identify and distinguish truth from fiction.

i would encourage the caller to listen to that episode. host: connie is in havana, illinois on the independent line. good morning, connie. caller: good morning. i have never listened to your podcast because i don't listen to podcasts, but i like the name. it has been a long time since i read atlas -- since i read "atlas shrugged," but one paragraphs dichotomy. she wrote that the best way to silence someone is to make him feel guilty. if a man feels guilty, he won't fight back because he won't feel worthy. in the last few years, i have seen that happen a lot. if someone expresses an opinion, they're called a xenophobe, sexist, racist, etc.

i wonder how you feel about that. guest: josh, what do you think. -- host: josh, what do you think? guest: name-calling is not productive. that is not advancing in the conversation in a sophisticated way. it is to be about ideas. it needs to be about respect and tolerance and that does not mean compromising one's core beliefs or conceding things. it just means being reminded and entering these conversations and baits in good faith. host: what you think about cancel culture and even the term cancel culture? guest: i say this in one of the interviews, i somewhat resist the phrase because i think it has become overused and it

describes something. we talked at the outset about students on campuses who feel stifled in what they can say. part of that is fear and that is largely a social media phenomena. they are afraid of a pylon, of getting attacked. people are afraid of losing their jobs or being shunned. the term is a bit overused. there are grounds for disagreement and criticism. every time someone gets criticized, they say there is an attempted cancellation. i think it describes some phenomenons happening but i would like to see us retire the term and think in a more nuanced way about these different institutional settings and what exactly those claim to be describing. host: let's go to johnstown,

pennsylvania on the democrats' line. caller: here's one think you want here on fox and friends, derek kushner got $2 billion from saudi arabia and so does steve mnuchin. why? we don't know. we guest for investment purposes. that is something that should be investigated. trump withheld aid to ukraine to get dirt on hunter biden. all of the people were bashing hunter biden. they want talk about that, will they? host: obviously, people are pretty passionate on both sides. what do you recommend as far as finding common ground, talking

to someone who disagrees with you politically? guest: all of our neighbors have different political points of view. talk to your neighbors and colleagues in a civil way about political issues. i would say try to avoid social media. josh and i have slightly different stances on this. i have a kind of total social media blackout because i think social media tends to polarize people and get people hot under the caller about things they shouldn't. seek out people you trust that have different political opinions from you that you feel you can talk to in a civil way. i think there are a lot of good conversations to behead if you don't allow yourself to be part of the polarization.

these conversations can be had. host: billy is calling us from texas on the independents' line. caller: thank you. i would like to commend c-span, you are a great station and you allow people to tell the truth. the great thing about america as we have more people who believe in god then people that give out thick news -- that give out fake news. when you tell a lie, you can tell when people are telling the truth. even though we have crooked people like trump and other people who want to be on their team. the world can see there are more -- people in america than there are crazy people people. -- crazy people people. that is why america is the best

nation. thank you. host: do you want to take that one? guest: i don't have much to comment on what i appreciate the caller's optimism. host: i want to ask you about immigration because you have done several programs about it. a lot of people are polarized about that issue. what have you learned on your podcast and what have your discussions been? guest: we had a conversation with nicole and -- with michael lind who works at university of texas at austin and has a book called "the new class war." he was our guest that spoke most at length on immigration issues. he has an interesting take. he thinks we should have a more lip will -- a more liberal immigration policy. he thinks that is an important

step towards pushing back against elite dominance in this country. this episode is not posted yet but i would encourage people to listen to it when it is up. i think it is a complex issue. i think the biden administration is seeing how complex it is. there was a belief among many that the biden administration would undo or reverse what we saw during the trump administration. it is more complicated than that. there is a challenge not only for this administration but for future generations and the nation about what we want our immigration policy to be and what our role in the world should be. host: henry, i will give you the last word as we wrap up. guest: thank you very much for having us on the show. i would like to encourage your viewers to check out the podcast "keeping it civil."

we hope you click and subscribe. thank you very much for having us. host: joshua sellers and henry thomson, the podcast is "keeping it civil." thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. guest: thank you. host: that is it for today "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. in the meantime, have a [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [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. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communication. >> broadband is a force for

empowerment, why charter has invested bill in -- billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> during discussions over the ratification of germany in 1990, u.s. secretary of state james baker told soviet leader mikal gorbachev that nato would not expand eastward, not one inch. in the lead up to the russian invasion in ukraine, vladimir putin used those words to suggest that the u.s. and nato were not interested in peace and cannot be trusted. sunday on q&a, a history professor and author of "not one inch," talks about the 1990 comment and the impact nato

expansion has had on u.s.-russia relations. >> it showed baker went right back to allies and said, sorry about the language, confusion, and drop it and will not use it anymore. but it took mikell gorbachev a while. [inaudible] no longer an offer, just a claim. when push comes to shove and there is actually a treaty negotiated, that treaty allows nato to go eastward across the former cold war lines. >> her book is "not one inch," sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen on our free c-span now app. host: