c-span's nonprofit operation. 's nonprofit operation. >> all this month, watch the >> watch the top 21 winning videos of our student documentary competition. one of our studentcam winners whose documentary told us how the federal government impacted their lives, can watch all of the winning documentaries anytime online at studentcam.o rg. " 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 come together during trump'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] ♪

under the war in vietnam, not everybody knew they were being recorded. certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of the conversations. make sure the conversations were taped. johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. you will hear some blunt talk.

>> folks, we have to listen to scientists, economists, and national security experts.