political party. public and's, (202) 748-8001. democrats, -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002 . you can also send us a text message (202) 748-8003. you can comment on facebook. does your religion influence your politics? a few articles from major newspapers in recent weeks on this here is one from "new york times" earlier this month. rituals of christian worship have become embedded in conservative valleys as praise music and prayer with political anger over vaccinations and a 2020 election. that is the "new york times." to political magazine, you need

to take the religious left seriously. the religious left is growing and already transforming the conversation about political issues. one more from the los angeles times recently as the supreme court weighs the abortion issue. christians challenge what it means to be pro-life. speaking of the supreme court. it was last month at the confirmation hearing for judge jackson in which judge jackson was asked by senator lindsey graham her faith and religion. here is that conversation. sen. graham: on a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion? i go to church maybe three times a year so that speaks poorly of me. do you attend church regularly? judge jackson: i am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way because i want to be mindful of

the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views. sen. graham: how would you feel if a senator appear said in your faith that dogma lives loudly within you and that is a concern? how would you feel if somebody appear on our side said you attend church too much for me or your faith is a little bit different to me and they would suggest it would affect your decision? would you find that offensive? judge jackson: senator, i -- sen. graham: i would if i were you. i found it offensive about judge barrett. i have no doubt your faith is important to you and i have zero doubt that you can adjudicate people's cases fairly if you are an atheist. if i had any doubt, i would say so, but the only reason i mention this, judge, you are reluctant to talk about it because it is uncomfortable.

just imagine what would happen if people on late-night television called you a nut, speaking in tongues because you practice the catholic faith in a way they could not relate to or found uncomfortable. judge, you should be proud of your faith. i am convinced that whatever faith you have and how often you go to church will not affect your ability to be fair, and i just hope going in the future that we all can accept that. host: senator lindsey graham last month at the confirmation hearing with judge jackson, now confirmed justice in waiting ketanji brown jackson. does your religion influence your politics? we mentioned at the top we are having this conversation at a time when more americans than ever saying they are religiously unaffiliated. this from the pew research center at the end of last year. roughly three in 10 adults now

say they are religiously unaffiliated. you can see the chart over time from the mid-2000's to now. the red light on this chart, the percentage of americans who identify with some form of christianity. back in 2007, 78%, down to 63% at the end of 2021. that great lined there, the percentage of americans identify themselves as unaffiliated, no religion. close to 30% today. it was just 16% back in the mid-2000. this morning, asking you this question. does your religion influence your politics? let us know the issues and the reasons why. it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will head to bristol, tennessee. james come on line for democrats, you are a first this morning. go ahead. caller: yes. yes. our problem is we have seen the

entire evangelistic community, they are absolutely for nothing but the republican party and donald trump. i hear them get on the pulpit and say the democratic party is trying to destroy the land. donald trump. how on earth can you live on lies? it's what i don't understand. host: james, do you talk to your pastor about that? have you talked to members about your baptist church about that? caller: to be honest, i have not come forward to speak about that. no, i haven't. but i have spoken to some different ones and so on like that. these people, they absolutely believe, you know, in a parallel

universe. their lives are truth and are truths are lies. user know that yourself or get it they don't care about truth at all. all they care about is donald trump. and what they come up with regardless of what the conditions are is killing babies, killing babies. the rest of the world, anything else does not matter. that is what they are using, killing babies. nobody wants to kill babies. nobody wants people to die because of some illness if they can't have a child. host: that is james intricacy. david is in riverside, california, line for republicans. does your religion influence your politics? caller: of course it does. i say happy easter to everybody out there. host: happy easter. caller: that makes everything look different to me. the fact that this world is not

and six feet under for me as far as i'm concerned, that affects my politics. when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay marriage, that is pretty clear. abortion, the bible says, before in the womb i knew you. so that is pretty clear. homosexual marriage, male and female, that goes into transsexualism. we got only two. that is also scientific. 50% of babies born in america are female and 50% are male. how does that happen? are they talking to one another? how does one have enough of the opposite sex to get married? i'll see how that can be random. that is clearly a god thing. host: joseph in boston, massachusetts. caller: morning, c-span. yes. i am an atheist. i never really believed in god.

i went to catholic school and went to church of christ university and i see how faith -- i remember a psychology teacher at the university. she said never criticize something you don't understand. i went in church and i see how happy he is, the position of my mother and grandmother in church on sunday. but i think america went from the idea of separation of church and state. that is very important. based on the prewritten england. we see what is going on in texas with the transgender and all of the comes back down to religion. religion, you do not wear it on your sleeve. you have to put it aside. but because certain people have money, it pushes the agenda and everybody jumps on it. three critical points america made, teaching evolution, 1929.

a professional high school teacher. number two, the red scare in 1950 when russia became russia. the 1970 revolution, it was an atheist country and america was afraid that we were going to go that way. we put in god we trust on the dollar bill. trying to fight against that. i think the only way we can solve the problem of america with peace in the world and ukraine, it is teaching evolution in school. just like galileo. host: before you go, do you mind if i ask you, have you always been an atheist? if so, why go to catholic school? what did you get from the church of christ university?

caller: i have been christian. i did not want to go to catholic school at 12 years old. i protested that. but i was too young to fight for my rights. i came to find out the best three years i spent in grade school were in catholic school. we also learned the theory of evolution. i learned a lot about evolution from so many jehovah witness. the problem is you need to teach the young people the truth. if they want to keep their family and parents' religion, that is fine. i enjoyed catholic school. church of christ university in west texas, i thought everybody worshiped the bible. those people have a whole totally different view from catholics. they don't worship statues and all of this and that. thanks for taking my call. did i answer your question? host: yes, sir.

thank you joseph from boston, massachusetts, this morning. on the line for republicans, democrats, as usual. joseph mentioning the separation of church and state. a little more from the same pew poll pulling on issues of religion in america today. the question they asked, wanting to know the percentage of u.s. adults who view the separation of church and state as strongly important, moderately important, whether they had mixed views. 28% say they have strong views about the separation of church and state. 27% say they have moderate views about it. those who want the church and state to integrate, the 14% of americans have that opinion. somewhere in between, about 18%, have mixed views about bringing together church and state issues that they don't want to restrict the separation of church and

state permitted from the pew research center is where we are finding some of these polls we are talking about this morning permitted to landon in richmond, virginia, republican. good morning. caller: yes, good morning permitted besides the moot question, the question is moot because we live in a democracy permitted we do not live in a theocracy where the church and the state work together. they call it a theocracy. and a democracy. thank you very much. host: rodrick in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. this is rodrick robinson. i would like the viewers to get a copy of the chief inspector general correspondence number 202007240003. host: does that have something to do with religion and politics? caller: it has to do with the

people in jails around america permitted systemic racism. a majority of those being murdered are minorities. they kill black -- host: did you want to finish your comment? caller: they are killing whites too, but the majority that are dead are minorities. it has been going on for some time. i would like the readers to get a copy of that letter. from the attorney general's office in florida. they can see for themselves. host: rodrick in florida this morning. the question we are asking, does religion influence your politics. that is our discussion this easter morning. the phone lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002. a reminder from earlier this

month on the senate floor that these questions are not new questions in american society. it was dr. martin luther king, junior, who brought it up specifically in his letters from a birmingham jail. that letter from a birmingham jail read in its entirety by a bipartisan group of senators on the senate floor. it was back in early april this month. here is a section of that letter . this being read by mitt romney, a republican from utah, about dr. king's views about southern churches and white churches and whether they were supporting the civil rights movement at the time. sen. romney: when i was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the protest in montgomery, alabama, years ago, i felt we would be supported by the church and they would be among our tongass allies permitted instead, some of them outright opponents refusing to

understand the freedom movement and mr. presented as leaders. ultimately leaders have been more cautious than courageous and have been behind anesthetizing behind the stained glass windows. in spite of my shattered dreams, i came to hope to see the justice of our cause and with deep moral concern would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. i had hoped that each of you would understand. but again, i have been disappointed. i heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their workers to apply with the desegregation decision because it is the law but i have heard white ministers declare "follow this decree because integration is morally right and because a negro is your brother." the injustices inflicted upon the negro, i have watched a churchman stand on the sideline. in the midst of a mighty

struggle to rid admonition of racial and economic justice, i have heard many ministers say, those are social concerns with which the gospel has no real concern. and i have watched many churches commit themselves to completely otherworldly religion, which makes a strange un biblical distention between body and soul, between the sacred and secular. i have traveled the length and breadth of alabama, mississippi, and all the southern states on sweltering summer days and crisp mornings, i have looked at churches with the lofty spires pointing heavenly upwards. i found myself asking, what kind of people worship here? who is their god? where were their voices when the lips of governor barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? where were they when governor wallace gave a call for defiance and hatred? where were their voices of support when bruised and wary

men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest? yes, these questions are still on my mind to get in deep disappointed, i have wept over the laxity of the church but be assured my and are tears of love. yes, i love my church. how can i do otherwise? host: mitt romney reading from dr. martin luther king junior's letter from a birmingham jail two weeks ago. does religion influence your politics? having a conversation on easter morning, and having it not too far away from the annual easter sunrise service that is taking place at the lincoln memorial, just down the national mall about two miles from here, down west of the united states capitol at the lincoln memorial. that is sunrise returning today after a two-year hiatus and a

photo of what the service looked like just about one hour ago before it started at 6:30 a.m. eastern. from michel moore steam on borstein on twitter, a picture of the service and those gathered at the easter sunrise service. taking your phone calls this money. stephen is in lexington, kentucky, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, and thanks for having me. i do not let religion play any parts in my politics. i think they should be very, very separate. i don't have a religion and i am very happy to see that number is increasing permitted individuals like me, there are more of us in america. we are letting go of all of this religious persecution that has been holding us down. i think religion brings the biggest problems to the world. always oppressing others, always

telling people what to do. it should not play politics. i do think the united states has a problem with commercial christianity. i will say it again, commercial christianity. these mega, mega churches that do not pay taxes and have such influence on our politics. it is ridiculous. it should be as separate as possible. host: david in brighton, michigan, republican. good morning. you are next. caller: religion should be separate. from government. because oil and water don't mix. and my name is david. i have been a christian all my life. host: that is dennis out of michigan. this is rich in kingsport,

tennessee, independent. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning, john. happy easter. host: same to you, rich. caller: thank you. i feel like i am experiencing deja vu i don't this question has been asked before and i actually called in before and my perspective has not changed. i do see i am a little puzzled sometimes when i have debates with atheists or even others who protest to be followers of a religion. they say that religious beliefs should not influence their politics. my understanding is that your religion -- yeah, you get your beliefs based upon something, whether it is what your parents taught you, the way you are raised, religious beliefs or something.

i was under the impression that people voted and supported political issues based upon what they believe is morally right or morally wrong. it is based upon something. to say that you should not vote based upon your religious beliefs but you can vote based on your personal beliefs or your whims, that makes no sense to me. host: rich, you are talking about values. caller: yes. yes. host: go ahead. finish your comment. caller: no. i want to hear your question. host: do you think that religious institutions should take political positions? that this is what this church, this faith believes in, and to be a member of this faith, you need to believe in this issue in society. abortion gets brought up but there are other issues as well. caller: sure.

yes in a general sense. i am not talking about advocating for particular candidates or particular political parties, although it becomes rather obvious. if people are informed, they know what political platforms are supported biblically or according to their religion. and again, the issues, they are going to come up. they should if religion has any influence at all. so, yes, i think religious institutions -- just like we heard from martin luther king, junior, and we hear from political leaders from both sides who cite -- i know president obama cited scripture. sometimes they don't get very specific, but they do quote.

and using to support general principles such as loving neighbors and helping the wea and so forthk. those are religious values. so religious institutions should take the lead come in my opinion, advocating for those positions that would benefit society. host: in that section in the letter from the birmingham jail, dr. martin luther king, junior, is saying that and expressing his disappointment that those white churches in the south were not there on the front lines of what he felt was a place where they should be speaking out. caller: yes. exactly. and i think that was a failure. they should have been supporting. they should have been taking the lead and been right there beside king and his followers.

now, if they had other differences or things about political philosophies or fear of communism or some thing like this, that is a different issue. but as far as civil rights, definitely the churches and institutions should have been right there taking the lead. host: rich, before you go, you mentioned the question that we ask occasionally and easter is a good time to reflect on it and ask about it. do you think it is good to continue to have these conversations, to continue to talk about this issue? or do you think that we are not moving anywhere closer to consensus on this or that it is unhelpful? caller: no, i think it is a great question. i see it from both sides. i see liberal churches who are very concerned, whose main focus seems to be social justice to the exclusion of the gospel,

salvation. but i also see conservative churches who they are preaching the gospel's salvation, which i think democratic principles flow from that. there is a priority, but that does not mean we exclude political issues too. host: rich, thanks for the call from kingsport, tennessee. talk to you again down the road permitted we will take your phone calls. about a half-hour left in the segment come asking you, does religion influence your politics? i mentioned the picture from "the washington post" writer there. a beautiful picture from just before the beginning of the sunrise service on the steps of the lincoln memorial. that shot from those steps looking eastward as the sun is rising over the national mall. that picture from just before 6:30 a.m. this morning. the sunrise service about ready to wrap up after one hour,

returning after a two-year hiatus. this is jerry, broadway, virginia, republican. thanks for waiting. caller: morning, america. happy easter. host: same to you. caller: i kinda would like to comment on joe biden, about his religion. he claims he is a devout catholic. supports abortion and using taxpayer money to pay for abortion and transgender surgeries, same-sex marriage. and he claims he is a devout catholic. no catholic supports that statement. host: jerry, got your point. sorry about your connection. we will work on that a little bit as we go to diane in arkansas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

happy resurrection morning, everyone in america. it definitely is going to influence my decisions because your values, if you are a christian, should be based in the word of god. not everyone saved has made their mind by the word of god so not everyone will be living with jesus' values. that is why your comments on the southern churches, they were wrong not stepping up and doing what was right. not everyone who goes to church is saved. but jesus loves all of us. he died for all of us. he warned you, 30%. every mouth will confess. every knee will bow. you are dead already if you are not saved. host: that is--

host: -- caller: good morning. in my life, it never crossed over. my parents were democrats. my first girlfriend was republican. my politics evolved over the course of my life. my religion has definitely evolved over the course of my life. in a broader sense, the founders saw religion -- they saw our republic required virtue. religion provides the foundation

of virtue that is needed in society. that part is important. the church supporting specific political positions, i'm not sure that is helpful. host: let me get your thoughts on this aspect of this discussion. ryan birch brings it up in a recent column, on politics being another divisive or separating force in society. this is what ryan birch writes in his recent piece. one of the most important developments in american political science and literature over the past few decades is the mounting evidence of political parlors asian. -- polarization. the democratic party has moved further to the left and the republicans have shifted further to the right. he says bipartisanship is

verboten. the same phenomenon appears to be occurring in american religion. on one side, a growing number of americans identify as secular and on the other side, a significant portion of the american population is devoutly religious. they attend church at high rates and have strong belief in gods. american religion has boiled down to either being very religious or completely secular with little in between. i wonder your thoughts on that kind of separation in society today. caller: that is an interesting piece. i will have to go look that up. i read an article in the atlantic about how the last 10 years are part of a stupid era of america. in politics, we have a big

schism. religion, i never thought about the religious side of it. it is an interesting point. i don't know -- i don't know that that is influencing the political side. the political schism came first. i would think the political schism came first. i'm not sure how the -- i can't deny what the article says. i would have to put some thought into that. host: the question is whether it is a chicken and egg issue, but the political polarization is a result, in some ways, -- whether the political polarization is a result, in some ways, of the religious polarization. caller: might belief would be may be the political schism started it.

evangelical christians adopted the republican party starting in the 1970's and 1980's. that might have been the genesis of some of that. myself, i am relatively secular now. i do meditation. i'm not an atheist per se, but my religious and metaphysical beliefs don't really inform my politics. i kind of keep those separate, personally. host: thanks for the call from lawrenceville, georgia. having this conversation as we do every day with the capitol building in the background, behind us. a look at the 117th congress. this was at the beginning of the 117th congress. there has been some change in membership since. taking a look at the religious

affiliation of the various members of congress, of the 468 members of congress, 88.1% identify as some version of christian. whether it is protestant or baptist or methodist, presbyterian, anglican or other. 88 point 1% of congress identify as christian. that compares with 65% of u.s. adults overall. when it comes to catholics specifically, about 30% of congress, just under 30%, identify as catholic. that compares with 20% of the united states overall. when it comes to jewish memos of the congress, six point 2% of congress identify as jewish. 2% of america overall identifies as jewish. when it comes to muslim in this country, about 1% of the country is muslim. just under .5% of members of congress identify as muslim.

that was from the beginning of the 117th congress. this is ted. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a born-again christian. but i believe that we should have a separation of church and state. my political views are separate from my spiritual beliefs. i have no problem with that. i am afraid that one of my fears for this country is that there are people in this country who want to turn us into a theocracy. this country was not built that way. that is about all i have to say on that. host: i wonder your thoughts on the pledges -- pledge of allegiance, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. you ever have any concerns about that statement? one nation under god? caller: no.

i believe under god came in after world war ii, if i'm correct. i don't have a problem with it. you know, i have been saying the pledge of allegiance since i was a little kid and i am 74 years old now. i don't have a problem with it. it is like, for instance, when you go to court and you have to testify and you have to swear, you have some people who say they can't swear. semantics. i'm not trying to get into the fine details. i won't nitpick over stuff like that. to me, that is minor in the overall scheme of things. host: thanks for the call. this is carol in idaho, idaho falls. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning.

i do believe that church and state should be separated. actually, our country is founded under a christian religion, i believe. it is not something i practice by going to church. the problem is a lot of churches don't follow their beliefs as written in the first 10 commitments. one of them is now shall not kill. it doesn't say except for war. i don't think it is applicable to say that we are a truly christian nation. that is my comment. host: marie, your neck straight --you are next. caller: hello, can you hear me?

i used to be a baptist until one day when i went to church and i was 27. the church was building a new church and the pastor said is anybody saving money to get yourself a car? don't buy the car, take the money and give it to the church. and start catching the bus. i got up and i walked out to my mother and i kissed her and i told her i'm done. to me, religion is the worst thing in the world to ever happen to african-americans. when we came from africa, there was no book that nobody has showed me until today and i am in my 60's, that was written in our language, even in the smithsonian institute. if you take the bible away from african-americans, whatever you choose to call us, african-americans, black people, whatever we would call them, because it is not our religion.

we are going by what was forced on us. that is it. when it comes to the politicians, if i had to vote as far as a religious politician, they would never get a vote. they are some of the most crooked people in the world. there is no religion for me. and i'm glad i got away from that. thank you, have a good day. host: marie in maryland. republican, good morning. caller: i want to explain what the difference of church -- separation of church and state is. it means the government cannot persecute you for your religion. i think people get confused by that. host: april, in terms of the last caller, we are saying any politician who talks about their

religion is not getting their vote, what are your thoughts on politicians talking about their religion and how it influences what they do and how they vote? caller: this country was on judeo-christian -- the 10 commandments. everything. people left england because they were being persecuted for their religion. and that is why we are here and that is why we built the religion aspect that we have. in this country. and it is sad that i think people get it very confused. like the whole abortion issue. i'm not a religious person but i do believe in god and i do -- i think that women should be able to have an abortion up to a certain point. like the first trimester. but if you have a baby and you are nine months pregnant and you

can literally have the brain sucked out of the baby and killed the baby inside of your body, i don't agree with that. i guess most people would understand the difference between -- understand the separation of church and state. host: one caller was quoting bible verses and pointing to the bible, specifically when it came to the issue of transgender rights. what are your thoughts on religion and that issue? caller: i don't think those two things should have anything to do with each other. i mean, there are men and there are women. i want everybody to be happy in this country. i don't care if somebody is gay or transgender, i don't want them to suffer at all. we are getting into issues where we have men -- women against

women in sports. to me, that's just wrong. because, it doesn't matter what kind of hormones you take, you are still taller, bigger, more muscles. it is getting too confusing. i sure as heck don't think we should be talking to kindergartners through third-graders about any sex, period. host: april in illinois this morning. a few of your text messages as we have been having this conversation. this is connie from tacoma, saying her christian faith dictates she care about others, especially the vulnerable and that does guide my political views. a few more text messages. this is ron in danville, pennsylvania. one nation under god, believe in it or not, this country is the greatest in the world. one more text from richard in las vegas.

of course, his religion influences politics. we all do and we should not apologize for it, either. a few of your text messages and the conversation happening on twitter and c-span wj on facebook. facebook.com/c-span. about 50 minutes to have this conversation. does your religion influence your politics? republicans, (202) 748-8001. kratz, -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. this is met in dallas, texas. democrat prayed good morning. caller: good morning and happy easter. host: same to you. caller: i grew up in a catholic family. i was one of the first people baptized in my church. never on sundays did i hear about we need to be strong on a

particular issue or we need to advocate for a certain group. it was always lord have mercy and after the mass, go in peace unto the world. even though i did not hear any political messages, i have to think at some point, maybe on an issue like immigration, i had catholic friends who were staunch conservatives and antiabortion. i had friends who were big-time democrats who were big about helping the poor and trying to help immigrants. so, it probably did affect me at some point. there was nothing overt about my religion that may be political. host: have you ever lost a friendship due to religious differences and politics? caller: yes, i have. yes, i have. i've been involved in the

democratic party for a long time. every once in a while, you come across an issue. i think it was on the muslim ban that i lost a friend. they were very anti--- that we should try to stop muslims at the border. and i did lose a friend over that. one thing i want to say is it is interesting. the church across town is a mega church at southern baptist. they were political. they had something like five members of their state legislator -- legislature in their church. i'm grateful my church did not try to make anything political. host: that is matched in dallas, texas, having this conversation. phone lines, split by political party. republicans and democrats and independents, phone lines for

all three this morning as usual. the previous caller bringing up the muslim religion and this being easter and a passive weekend, a caller from the -- a column from the connecticut post. calling this weekend, today, a rare and timely confluence of state. robert with that column. this is what he writes. he says this month brings us a remarkable -- of religious observances. the holy month of ramadan started april 2. passover begins on sundown on friday. the same day christians mark good friday and easter falls on sunday, the 17th. today. this is a relatively rare occurrence. it happens once every 33 years. this comes at a moment of great tribulations. overseas, the murders invasion of ukraine has horrified the civilized world. in the u.s., we seem to be

emerging from a two-year nightmare of covid-19 but a sense of relief is shadowed by a new variant that could bring -- but this season can be a time of new beginnings. the fact that these three great religions are celebrating holy events during the same span of time can be a symbol and a catalyst for coming together with renewed determination to embrace the things that unite us. faith, hope and courage. robert writing for the connecticut post last week. this is nick in irvington, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. happy easter. host: happy easter. caller: america was founded for religious people. most of america, for religious freedom. it never said it was only christians that came here. but because of the british taking over the rest of the

tribes that came over from europe, they have tried to impose that on other religious people. america was not really founded on christianity. i believe it was founded on religious freedom. swearing on the bible in court is a symbol of enforcing christianity and it does not separate religion from the state. we shouldn't swear by the bible. we should swear by the constitution which is the law of the land. i don't understand why most people -- every religion has good and bad in it and values. most religions believe in the universal good.

we don't need christianity to lead the way. we all know what is right and what is wrong. thank you, that's my comment. host: l.c. is in denver, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. why don't all religions and politics have been that man doesn't understand that religions and politics have to do with interpretation and terminology? it is also that laws serve a perv -- purpose. when we look at politics, my god, your god, their god, it all

has to do with natural resources. from the beginning of time. it doesn't matter. it's a natural resource. if you sit down and think about it, really think about it, no religion will -- host: speaking of war, this political cartoon from the op-ed pages of the washington post today, michael is the political cartoonist. that is a ukrainian easter egg and what the easter bunny is saying, it is rolling over vladimir putin. this is susan in tampa, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i would first like to emphasize what you just read from the last

newspaper piece. it brought to my remembrance that two years ago in 2020, it made me think the first time since the first passover in exodus, that the whole world was locked down during passover. that was unique in itself, concerning the article you read about the uniqueness of everything. as far as the question goes, politics and religion, i will tell you that i was raised in a democratic family. and i believe in all of the things that the party promotes except i did change solely because of my views on abortion.

as far as politics go, i think at this point, looking back, that politics is treated like religion. and it is a shame that we don't govern more by humanity and more by political affiliation. i think that is our biggest religion in this country. i appreciate being able to speak with you this morning. host: you bring up passover. one more op-ed for you from today's washington post. leo leibowitz and mark oppenheimer, cohosts of the unorthodox podcast. they write this about passover in today's post. the passover story is here to remind us about journeys of liberation, personal or

national. they are not pretty. they are not heavy sequences of crimes. like any other endeavor, they are marked by crippling doubt. by bouts of despair and moments of wondering if it wouldn't be easier to give up. they say the feelings that freedom -- of freedom and democracy is a lot of work and something many of us share today. we barely had a chance to recover from two devastating years of the pandemic when along came the first war on european soil in decades. as we continue what, to many of us, seems like an unending trudge through the wilderness, we might be willing to throw in the towel and binge watch cooking shows. in short, we may decide that too much freedom is a bad thing. thank fully, as the passover story reminds us, freedom is within reach.

whatever your promised land is, equal pay for equal work or health care for our, -- for all, we can get there. but it won't be right now. and it won't even come at the end of a five hour meal. it might take 40 years. that's how long it took the juice to get to their promised land -- jews to get to their promised land. caller: good morning per how are you doing today? host: i'm doing well. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, religion does play a big part of why vote for in a candidate. i think it is important that we also look at the candidates character and the essence that he or she will bring to that community, state or country.

also, i believe candidates who are running for office should have a close relationship with their heavenly father. that is going to help that person make decisions that will be beneficial to their constituents. i would like to read romans chapter 13, versus one through seven. -- verses 137 which talks about people should obey the law of the land. it says in romans chapter 13 verses one through seven, for no one rules, there is no authority unless god has given him the power to rule. no one rules without that power from god. those that exist are appointed, established by god.

those who are against the government rebel against the authority and are really against what god has commanded, ordained or instituted. they will bring punishment or judgment on themselves. those who do right or good do not have to fear the rulers. only those who do wrong. do you want to be unafraid of the rulers authority? do what is right and good and they will praise or command you. these verses in romans chapter 13 one through seven are talking about people must obey the rulers if they are following the all meter -- almighty creator, the heavenly father. host: a couple minutes left in this first hour of the washington journal. we have two more hours to go afterward. michael in sterling, virginia. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my

call, c-span. i think this is a wonderful topic. i found it interesting listening to folks. i just wanted to say that i have a set of core beliefs and values and those values have driven me to my religion. they also drive my politics. so, in that sense of the word, i have to say that my religion and my politics come from the same place and are influenced by the same attitudes, beliefs and values. although i would say that i think politics is a little different from religion. politics is the place where we negotiate structures and policies that allow us to live

together peacefully and productively. whereas religion are forces that bring us together spiritually. that is what religion is all about. host: you say your values drove you to your religion. caller: that's the best way to put it. what i mean is my values and beliefs inform my religion. i chose my religion because the people i go to church with believe the same things i do and have the same set of values. so, i can live in that community without any guilt or shame or argumentation.

those same values also inform my politics. i'm on the side of yes, they do influence each other. host: thanks for the call. another michael waiting in san diego, california. michael, thanks for being up early this morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank c-span for giving us a place to vent our opinions. i would say i am agnostic, bordering toward atheism. i think organized religion is one of the biggest scams that has ever been perpetrated upon makeup -- mankind. it is used by people in power to control the masses. they want to put the fear of god into you. why should you be afraid of him? evangelistic, white christians, who used to be the majority of the people in this country, are now the minority and they are freaking out and they are trying to impose their wills and their beliefs upon the majority of the

people in the country. 77% of the people in the country believe in a woman's right to choose. i believe in a woman's right to choose. i will never say the pledge of allegiance again, until they get the phrase "under god" out of there. that is presumptuous that god is looking upon and everything like that. the one lady who talks about separation of church and state, she meant freedom of religious choice. not separation of church and state. host: before you go. i have less than a minute left. i wonder how you feel about the declaration of independence. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. caller: who is to say that god is our creator? could it be darwin's theory? that's what i believe. i don't believe one guy woke up with his finger and we are all here. the woman came from the rib, the bible is written by man. it is not the word of god. it is the best work of fiction ever written by man. host: that is michael. stick around. plenty more to talk about, including an easter morning discussion with clarence page. and later, craig shirley will discuss his new book "april 1945." ♪ >> this week on c-span, congress

is in recess. 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. on tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, 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 happens in front of the house financial services committee. wednesday live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, a conversation on the modern presidency with cedric richmond. in jen psaki, kellyanne conway and jay carney. watch this week on c-span. 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. >> now available to c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this compact, spiral-bound book is your guide with contact for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smart phone. every c-span shops purchase helps support a nonprofit organization. >> washington journal continues. host: on this easter morning, we are joined by a longtime friend of the network, clarence page. good morning to you. guest: thank you for having me. host: on this easter morning, we had an hour long discussion about religion and politics and the intersection.

on the whole, do you think religion in this country has done more to unite people in this country or to divide people in this country? guest: i've given a lot of thought to this. i will give you a wishy-washy answer. yes and no. host: [laughter] guest: i think you could certainly say that we americans are divided by religion. religion has given us the fundamental basic and moral code upon which our laws are based. how to get along with each other are heavily determined by religion, whether we are strong believers or not.

they all talk about the damage that has been done by religion. a more objective view is that we are a lot better off with it than without it. i am alarmed when someone like vladimir putin, who calls himself a christian, commits mass murder like he is doing right now in ukraine. at the same time, i am not catholic but i have always appreciated the popes, the current and past ones, for the basic moral code they have given to the world, whether people believe in the follow schism or not. martin luther king, one of the great religious leaders, mahatma gandhi, also helped to hold up the fundamental code that kept us going.

they believed in the creator without defining who the creator was. they weren't all believers. we have a real love-hate relationship with religion in this country. i think we are better off with it. host: religion has given us our basic moral code. what does it say to you that more americans than ever before say they are religiously unaffiliated? and fewer americans than ever before say religion is very important in their lives? guest: we have been saying this for years and years. i don't attend church like i did when i was a kid. my parents took us to church every day. not just sunday.

but prayer meetings, deacons club, choir rehearsal. it was a firm part of our lives. i don't attend church like i did back then but i always remember those fundamental principles and the bible quotes and those stories that the bible offers which provides a moral code for the judeo-christian tradition. i think that a lot of folks, if they give more thought, they will say religion plays a role in my life even if i don't recognize it. host: clarence page is with us. phone lines are as they were before. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. democrats, (202) 748-8000. the urban religion league

released their annual state of black america report. i wonder your thoughts on the state of black america. guest: i've been receiving the urban league reports since the 1970's, early in my career. the bottom line every year is the same. the state of black americans is not well. it is worse than the state for white americans. but, we have gotten a lot better off from when i started -- when i was in the school in the 1960's. where black folks had a poverty rate that was over half. today, it is around 24% of black americans that are in poverty. the civil rights revolutions in the 1960's had a tremendous impact in improving our material condition, opening those opportunities. today, we still struggle over

getting more opportunities. education, housing, jobs, the fundamental opportunities. we are also talking in terms of race relations, about the condition of white americans. i noticed if you look at problems of employment, life expectancy has declined. a black child can expect to live 74.7 years, four years less than a white baby. black women are 59% more likely to die from bearing a child. we find that the problems like drug overdoses and eviction

between white and black, the mortality rates are about the same. white people are more likely to have cirrhosis or liver disease. blackman are more likely -- black men are more likely to die by homicide. you have some disparities that are not material enough to say that white folks don't have their problems too. that is affecting our politics as we find racial elements sneaking back into politics the way they have not since the 1960's. a lot of white, conservative voters feel like black folks have it better than white folks do. that really strikes me.

this is why we have backlashes. there has been a backlash, whether it was post-reconstruction or the george wallace campaign or the trunk campaigns today, you see element of those backlashes and the backlashes reemerging. i can't be sanguine about the fact that blacks and whites, among other groups, are doing better than they were in the past. host: you covered a lot of the key stats in the report. the median household income for black americans is $43,682 per year. that is 30% less than white

americans. $69,823 per year. i wonder what you think the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson, how that fits into the state of black america. guest: my three word response is it's about time. you heard that. up until thurgood marshall in the 1960's, supreme court's were always white males. that is why it boggles my mind when people say black people have it better off than white people. ketanji brown jackson, this was supposed to be a shoe in confirmation. she is qualified.

she is replacing another liberal, judge breyer so it would not make a difference on the liberal-conservative balance. and look at how vicious her confirmation questions became, questions that are essentially irrelevant from the right wing republicans. many of them were to generate sound rights -- soundbites, that's the only conclusion i can make, when they asked her questions about what books were on the library shelves of a private school that her daughter went to. questioning critical race theory in these books for kids who are preschool and lower grade school age. this shows you how crt has been weaponized as a buzzword, like

communist was back in the 1960's. i think it is appalling that she had to go through all of that as well as a line of questioning designed to cast her as a defender of pedophiles. whereas the cases that occurred when she was a federal public defender, and that was her job. it has always been basic ethics and courtesies and norms on capitol hill that said you don't play dirty like that. this is not something that shocked black people. black people expected her to face faculty. black people are not shocked by the white black -- backlash that we are seeing. the main thing is as senator

cory booker said, there is that great joy, we won't let the naysayers get in the way of our joy. not just for a black woman but fundamental fairness. host: clarence page is with us until 9:00. republicans, democrats and independents, clarence page joining us via zoom. as we occasionally do, the on-air adjustments, can you tilt your camera up a little bit so we can see a little bit more of you. guest: i'll sit back rather than mess up the camera. i get excited. host: which is why we love having you. we will have alexander from brooklyn, new york, as the first color. mcgrath, alexander, you are on with clarence page. -- democrat, alexander, you are on with clarence page. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for speaking

about the supreme court justice and how long it has taken this country to have a female on the court. speaking about religion, my main concern and question is how do we focus on the fact that we are running out of time to deal with pressing issues like global warming and the exceptions of masks because of religious beliefs. even dealing with ideas of abortion. we always speak about the woman. what about the man? we never even considered the reality that a man is responsible for impregnating a woman. a man is responsible for the choices that allow a woman to be pregnant. and yet, our whole history in dealing with this is the fact that we have to vilify a woman, it is a woman that is not making

that choice to begin with. we are dealing with these issues for so many hundreds of years, in just the way religion handles all of these issues. we are running out of time as far as global warming. host: we will let clarence page jump in on which ones you want to talk about. guest: thank you for bringing up those issues, alexander. let me say something about abortion. roe v. wade, the decision came down as i was finishing college in the early 1970's. it was a big deal for us college age young people. it was a big deal for america. it was a sign that our government was not going to get in the way of a woman's right to

choose. just like with civil rights, a backlash movement emerged which has been a fundamental generator of energy for the conservative movement ever since. the political waves we saw that brought reagan into office and led to the creation of the moral majority and the christian coalition. and a variety of religious movements rallied around the abortion issue. because it was a way to pull in people, whether they were christian or not. the right of choice versus the right to life, you are about two of the most fundamental issues any country can deal with. that is why the argument does

not go away. i told my friends in the pro-choice movement that you can't be apathetic about this. people have backlash. we see that it has lived up to a majority of states coming under republican dominance. it has led to the current situation. -- the current situation you see with the electoral college the confirmation process with mitch mcconnell and the senate majority leader getting in the way of the supreme court appointing of merrick garland. there was nothing anybody could do about it.

he had enough votes in the senate that he kept barack obama's choices out of office until obama was out of office and then donald trump we see the majority of conservatives on the supreme court that we have now. young people, we are talking about their grandchildren, the same people who had rallies in the 1960's and 1970's are going to turn out now in favor of choice and help swing politics back toward the left. for now, that issue is not going away soon. it is too fundamental. host: frances in texarkana, texas. republican, good morning. caller: i was surprised you

thought the brown hearing was contentious about the way she was asked questions about the way she decided things on the bench. it wasn't that she was a public defendant, she was a judge. the way they treated kavanaugh, they asked him questions about his school book, what was written in it, whether he drank beer on a friday night or saturday night and whether he would still drink beer or whether there were rate trains at parties he was at. i think those questions were more contentions than the questions they asked judge brown. the judges on the republican side were treated like jerk. -- dirt. guest: i agree that republicans were treated unfairly too.

judge robert bork -- senator ted kennedy pulled no punches going after bork and casted him as the spirit for rising fascism. it worked. it blocks and otherwise qualified -- an otherwise qualified bork because he was conservative. -- her confirmation was blocked. that was bill clinton, he nominated her. it was blocked when someone went back into her record and cast her as a communist or a sim pfizer. -- sympathizer. every hearing has generated a

strong clash -- backlash and a strongly divided vote in a court that used to give appointments and a confirmation process that used to give us a more balanced courts. -- court. and give us more balance in the confirmation voting. now, it is polarized. so is everything else on capitol hill. it is very much a political reality. host: clarence page is with us until 9:00 a.m. eastern. a syndicated columnist, you probably know his work best from the chicago tribune. this teeing off of findings in an annual report from the research center, the number of full-time statehouse reporting staff that there are in this country, in the various states,

back in the early 2000's, that number was 368 full-time statehouse reporters working around the country. today, it is down to 206. it has been declining steadily over the years. i wonder how much are you concerned by that and how concerned are you? guest: for me, journalism is a way of life, ever since i was in high school. it pains me to see what has happened. statehouse reporting, yes, it is suffering now. that shouldn't be the case. an excellent example, as we touched on, the statehouses are as important or more important in the lives of folks in the country than the federal government is. at the same time, mark twain, one of my journalistic role models would say in -- say let

no man rest easy while the legislature is in session. i feel the same way now. you find so many scandals that break out at the state level across the country. at the same time, the legislatures are the ones who determine how much funding the schools get. which way the curriculum goes. all of these different laws that affect our day-to-day lives. they also set the foundation for our national politics. it is not just statehouses, the city hall's, police is a -- because crime is such a big issue. not covered as thoroughly as it used to be. the fundamental problem for the print media is the internet age

has put us in competition with ourselves. there are so many more places that we have to do all we can to make sure people have the internet, text and video, etc. which is a great advantage in some anyways, we have sony instruments for delivering news and information. but there is greater competition. buyer beware, the readers have more response ability to decide what is good information and what is disinformation. they have a lot more response ability -- responsibility to be judgmental in their choices and not just pick one political side. you could do that. but so much information is

siloed. if you are liberal and never want to hear anything coming out of conservative mounts, you can get that information. if you are a conservative who doesn't want to mess with msm, you can do that. but are you doing yourself a service? these crane g -- crazy movements, qanon, propaganda, it is the paranoid style of americans and government and politics. that now is much more strong, abundant, and moves faster than ever before.

a lie goes around several times a world -- around the world several times before the truth can get its shoes on. i am quoting mark twain again. newspapers have been in decline ever since i got into it. ever since tv came along, really, newspapers have been fighting for survival. now, with the internet, it is much more difficult for newspapers to survive or for the paper to survive. but we will still have news. it is just the question of peoples resources and funding. i have to say quickly, the big problem has been with newspapers that have been struggling and

struggled building financial support. the los angeles times, the washington post, they have done well. wall street journal, they have been oriented toward news and paying for better news coverage. they have benefited from it. the rest of us, some papers have that benefit. others are owned by hedge funds or various other entities that might be oriented more toward profit than news. that is a change from the way things used to be. we will have to deal with it. one otherone other avenue is not-for-profit journalism. we are seeing that with other news operations. we are seeing the biggest

changes in media since gutenberg and the invention of the printing press. host: tim, in asheville, north carolina, is waiting. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. page, i am a longtime fan of yours. i'm am a 79-year-old white man. grew up in the baptist church. and like you, did time in the army. i am a card-carrying member of the naacp. my question for statement is sort of a carryover from the previous session. i see religion as being divisive . if you look at religion in northern ireland or between the

different groups of muslims, and lord knows the number of different protestant religions, it is obvious religion is divisive and creates bigotry, religious bigotry. i would like to know what you think about that. guest: there is a new movie out that i have not seen yet, "belfast," about the struggles in northern ireland, the divide, and the civil war really that occurred in the 1960's. the director and the producer of the movie got together because

they saw the parallels with what we have today. i can see what he was talking about. he produced and starred in it. i see the parallel. it can be very divisive. at the same time, when you look for some kind of moral compass or reasonable argument for people to make, no, vladimir putin, you cannot get away with invading ukraine, if people halfway around the world are moved by the slaughter they see on the news every night. on easter morning, i woke up thinking about the quote in the bible when christ was on the cross saying, "my lord, my lord, why has to thou forsaken me?"

even jesus lost his faith at that moment. we all have had our faith shaken and need justification to go on. religion offers that to a lot of people. it is a fundamental part of life, whether we recognize it every day or not. host: in grand rapids, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my question. host: what is your question? caller: i need to speak with mr. page of the "chicago tribune." a couple of things have been bothering me. i don't know about the "chicago tribune," but the "minneapolis tribune" always uses a capital b for black and lowercase w for white. in the lgbt, now they put a q

on. what does the q stand for? guest: it stands for q. it has now become a title for those questioning or do not feel like they fit into the normal categories. my age probably has a lot to do with this. i get in arguments with my son about it. my newspaper decided to capitalize b for black but not the w to white. i said to an editor friend that you are looking for trouble now because i have many white friends alarmed that the world

is turning against them. i have gotten emails about it, too. i think language can be one of our big challenges around race and gender issues. the more clarity we can have in our language, the better. i am a conservative on that side of the question, as well as the pronoun issue of whether or not he/she or the various other choices should be used in defining someone's gender. i think everybody should have the right to call themselves whatever they want to call themselves. but at the same time, i think we are asking for trouble if we get too punitive about those of us

who may violate the educate -- etiquette once in a while. we should use language to educate, not to invalidate various people who may not share our views on everything. i am reminded of the 1960's when we started the 1960's using "negro" or "colored'and ended the 1960's using "black." actually, "african american" caught on in the 1980's. jesse jackson led the movement at that time. now, we are back to being "people of color." i was originally a colored person and am now a person of color.

the label clarifies and helps people understand each other better, but it begins to blur the lines and make them more confused. i don't think we do ourselves a service. host: on the independent line, harold, in humble, texas. caller: yes, i have a two-part question regarding constitutional structure. what is the one thing that prevents presidents for running for more than two terms? is it the law or is there a constitutional amendment that prevents that? the second part of my question is i want to give a scenario and ask if it is possible in the confines of the way government works.

let's say somehow a republican, maybe the former, becomes president again and he has his majority in the conservative area. theoretically, could constitutional amendment be passed to allow a former president to become president for life, theoretically? i wanted to give those two parts and will listen for the answer. host: i can help on the first part. the 22nd amendment limits the president to two terms. clarence page, i will let you answer the next. guest: that is correct. that was passed after franklin roosevelt was elected to four terms. it was decided two terms is

enough. on whether you can pass an amendment to where someone could be president for life, i am sure donald trump dreams of that. theoretically, you could pass a constitutional amendment for anything provided you get enough votes. the question of getting enough votes is a big one. i don't think there is a big push for that. this is all taught in schools or is supposed to be taught in schools which brings us back to the question of how history is taught in schools which has become a big issue. i have always been in favor of more history being taught. unfortunately, critical race theory is a way of weaponizing the very idea of studying black history now because crt is not taught in schools put is a term

borrowed out of the law school faculty at harvard and various other law school curriculum. at the manhattan institute, chris ready led the campaign nationally and is still a major leader of the anti-crt campaigns . truman distraction because whether people understand what it is or not -- tremendous distraction because, whether people understand it or not, there is suspicion about the way history is taught in school. i say for years, history was distorted in ways that left out black folks, native american points of view, the participation of women, etc. let's have a serious examination of history and not just use it as a political weapon. host: let me take you to last

week's house hearing on the issue of free speech. this is congressman jim jordan talking about threats to free speech. it is about a minute and a half long. [video clip] >> right now, where are the biggest concerns about free speech actually happening? >> i think the two biggest problems are the lack of viewpoint diversity. it is not enough to have free speech or free expression rights. you need to be resented with ideas that challenge you to think outside of your comfort zone or outside the box. >> is that more so on college campuses? >> i think the situation on college campuses is much worse. >> much worse. we have safe spaces where you can go and cannot be triggered, like free speech zones. >> miss burke and i were talking about the fact that a lot of the

things you put trigger warnings on in college are a lot of the things students are trying to remove from the curriculum like depictions of rape in classical literature. those are things they're talking about in middle school and high school. >> when it comes to elementary or primary education, that is about what is appropriate for kids. that is a different debate tha n college campuses and free speech. >> you can never remove a book to restrict access to political ideas or social perspectives. however, and this is from justice blackmun, first amendment principles will allow a school board to refuse to make a book available to students because it contains offensive language or is psychologically or intellectually inappropriate for the age group or because the ideas are endemically unhelpful.

host: on discussing what is appropriate for kids versus what is free speech on college campuses, how do you see it? guest: to a large degree, that is common since that material for adults are not necessarily appropriate for kids. do we have common sense these days? i love hearing him talk because it takes me back to my high school debates. i am a native ohioan like jordan and i went to ohio university. he was with ohio state. when i was on campus back in the 1960's, we advanced free speech. mostly at that time, free speech for left progressive causes like the antiwar cause, the civil rights cause, the war on

poverty, etc. today, we find arguments for free speech are largely generated on the right because they feel censored by people on the left. maybe they are in some circumstances. this is an endless debate that goes back-and-forth. it is easily weaponized by politicians. i see this happening around the question of what is appropriate to be taught in schools and what is not. the don't say gay bill, called that by its opponents, deals with whether kids ought to be discussing matters of sex and gender in the third grade and below. well, no, i don't think that is appropriate personally. at the same time, i don't think

teachers should be so intimidated that they are afraid to speak in their own classroom because of that law. that is what is happening now because of that and laws welling up around the country. i'm not going to say that teachers should have all of the decision-making on what should be taught. we saw what happened to the former democratic governor of virginia when his statements in that regard work mischaracterized. but at the same time, teachers have an important job to do and should be as balanced in their approach as possible. we should not turn their job into a political football. host: in l.a., democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. you are on with clarence page. caller: i am a democrat.

i am 54 years old now. [indiscernible] about the schools, my uncle [indiscernible] segregation and got his house burned down in the 1970's. they do a segment on him. it has been like 40 years. why did they blow my family's house up? he did not want to send his kids up to where they will be next door to kids that are white. it will never go away. nobody is perfect. on religion, we are not perfect

on that. that is why god made different races. understand? all we have to do is read the bible and follow the instructions. everybody wants to take this out of context. they don't even know how we got here. host: clarence page? guest: sorry, i did not hear all of that. i certainly got the last part about all people have to do is read the bible. it is ironic to hear that right after we are talking about how fewer people call themselves religious these days. as i said, fundamental principles are just as endearing as the problems these principles were created to address. i think we will see that continue. host: virginia, republican, good morning. caller: hey, man, john

maclachlan. first time i ever saw you, i remember you. i have so many things i would love to sit and talk with you about. with putin, with crypto, with the illegal immigration coming into our country, with the liberalism, with the lack of morals and ethics we seem to hold as who we are, and we don't appear to be any more, people do whatever they can get away with. and i just would love to hear what you think about the link between put in, illegal immigration, the covid, crypto. something is going on there. we all have a worm's eye

view of it. i am getting more of a bird's eye view of it as i am dealing with worldwide trading in the market. what is being on the street i think you probably here and i will not say. host: clarence page? let you pick up on those topics. guest: thank you for bringing up john maclachlan. i love john. some new people do and did. -- so many people do and did. people on the street ask about what happened to the show. we did make an effort to try to continue it after john passed. unfortunately, things got in a way that were more technical than anything else. i hear that a lot of people believe there is a need for a show and has people from both sides debating. that is what has faded away from

major media. john maclachlan's vision was four or five friends who get together on sunday afternoon to have their favorite beverages and argue politics for an hour or two and then pay the 10 and say -- tab and say that was fun, i will see you next week. the point is they could have a vicious, angry argument about the issues, but they would part as friends. that is what is really missing these days. people don't understand that. you should not be arguing just to argue. you should be trying to reach some kind of consensus that enables you to say i look forward to seeing you next week.

today, we are so siloed by all it ideology that we can get all of our news from one point of view and not bother with anybody else's. i don't think we have benefited from that. thank you for your comments. host: you brought up mark twain a couple times today. in your recent columns, you have written about comedy a lot in america. why the focus on comedy and stand-up comedy? is there anything we can learn about the state of discourse in this country by studying stand-up comedy? guest: i absolutely believe there is. thank you. you found me out. nominee people are good enough readers to pick up on a pattern like that. i have always had great regard and respect for the underappreciated role comedy has played in moving our politics.

i think of when i was a teenager and dick gregory first appeared on the scene. he was not only the first black standup comic to get booked into white nightclubs, he was the jackie robinson of standup comedians, but he was able to on stage make some biting but salient comments about civil rights and race relations. he was able to get white people laughing at themselves, in short. it was startling at the time. it was a sign of heartwarming progress. i could go on and on with the role comedians have played. george carlin, the free speech issue, the vietnam-era.

so many others. phyllis diller was a great feminist. look at her comedy. she broke barriers that were important at the time. mark twain, we must appreciate him. we need to up really she -- we need to appreciate that. in new york, he does satirical poems calling them and deadline liberal or something like that. deadline poet, excuse me. it is important for people to see the ironies of life, of our politics. it helps us to stand back and be less cutthroat and a little more understanding about the diversity of people and points of view that we have. and also, the contradictions

should not tolerate and should do something about in some positive way. there are so many ways the various between us get broken down by comedians. i have a tremendous appreciation for them. i've also tried it. i was invited to compete in the funniest celebrity in washington contest. i participated two or three times. one year, i actually came away with the third-place trophy, one of my most cherished prizes. the big lesson of my trying to do standup is i learned the meaning of the phrase, " dying is easy, comedy is hard." i don't know where the slogan came from, but it is true. host: if you want to check out some of clarence page's columns,

it is chicagotribune.com. he will post a link to them on his twitter page. just about five minutes left in our time with clarence page. let me try to get in one or two more callers. david, independence, missouri, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a native american. i'm also familiarized with the point in time when we were first diagnosed as being savages. then we became redskins. now we are known as indigenous. i was asked, why do you feel so offended by being called a redskin? this was with the washington redskins. let me give you an example.

instead of the pittsburgh steelers, how about pittsburgh becoming the pale faces? then he understood. also, the reduction of our people to being only 1% of the population of this country really gets me to the fact of i hear a lot of the holocaust with jews, but you don't hear about the holocaust that happened to my people in this short time from the invasion. it was not the discovery of america. it was the invasion of america. all the things they're talking about with ukraine and genocide, i can relate very well to what has happened periodically through time in this country are european americans. but i am not racist against european americans.

i am offended and do not like having nazis or white supremacists. there is a place for them. it is called europe. it is time for them to go back. your-up, time to go back. host: clarence page? guest: labels have changed a lot. it almost pales in comparison to the way labels for native americans have changed over the years. it is still to butte -- disputed. i might toss in as well "eskimo," that is a label for immigrants in alaska in particular. it was long disputed by and

within those communities. this goes back to our need to understand american history. a friend recently referred to the conquest of native americans as a genocide. it startled me. but the more i have learned about it, it was a genocide. there were wholesale efforts made to reduce the native american population when it got in the way or even when it did not. it was not a national policy per se, but sometimes it was under president jackson and the trail of tears. there were campaigns against native americans. when you add them all up, it looks like genocide. can we discuss that without

getting some people so upset they want to go burn down the school or have the teachers arrested? these are truly, pardon the pun, inflammatory issues. but at the same time, they are necessary issues because we need to understand our history and be able to talk about it without going ballistic, without being so punitive that people are afraid to talk. thank you very much for your question. don't get me started on that. host: one last call, patrick, falls church, virginia. thank you for waiting. can you make it quick? caller: thank you. when you laugh at oneself, you are on a mission from god. trump nomination on the mclachlan group, he did not bring up that

subject until the following week . can you comment on that? guest: that is going back a ways. i am not sure when the nomination occurred. i think it was before the show went on so they had to hold it until the following week. the important thing was at that time i did not predict donald trump was going to win. predictions were a big part of that show. a lot of america did not expect -- i did not expect ohio to vote for trump and they did. it was an indication to me of how much politics in the ground -- on the ground had changed in ohio since i grew up there. and this steel mill were -- where i worked my way through college.

ohio university only cost me $770 tuition in my freshman year and $1200 and change with room and board, so a lot more than that now. i did not need to go any further than that to say opportunities are not available now like they were when i was coming up. we americans are rolling backwards and taking care of future generations. that is the larger story about those days and about those predictions. do not get me started on this. thank you very much. host: we will see you down the road. syndicated columnist and on twitter. thanks so much. have a great sunday. next this morning, a

conversation with presidential historian and author craig shirley. he is out with his new book "april 1945: the hinge of history." stick around for that discussion after the break. ♪ ♪ >> weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, from the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville discussions on american colonialism.

and the book winning and losing the nuclear piece. and a former republican congressman with his book, american reboot. he argues that america needs a restart to address the challenges of the 21st century and offers his thoughts on how to move the country forward. he is interviewed by utah republican congressman blake moore. watch book tv. find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our studentcam video documentary competition. every morning, we will hear one of our winners, whose documentary told us how the federal government impacted their lives. you can watch a documentary

anytime online. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for the email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. host: on this easter morning, we are joined now by historian craig shirley for a conversation on his latest book, "april 1945: the hinge of history." explain what you mean by the hinge. guest: because so much happens in the month of april. every day is a red letter day. fdr dies hiller commits suicide.

mussolini is taken down by the mob. the battle for okinawa is raging, the staging of the final invasion in japan. the battle is still raging in europe. buchenwald has been discovered just a month or two before. every day something is big news. the united states is changing radically from being an isolationist nation as it was in the 1920's and 1930's after world war i to becoming a totally internationalist nation at the end of world war two. we sponsored the united nations. marshall plan is going forward to rebuild europe. one congressman whose name escapes me from michigan was

drunk on internationalism and proposed an international printing company that would print school books for children of the world. so the children in saudi arabia would receive the same things as the children of the united states, forgetting local custom, local governance, anything else. that tells you how insane internationalists. we had swung from isolationism to internationalism. host: from americans -- for americans who feel like right now, with the new varied of covid the countries dealing with, war in ukraine, immigration issues, for americans who feel like events in history are moving fast right now and are concerned by that, what is helpful about looking back at 1945? guest: if events are moving at hyperspeed pace -- every day something is happening, with rationing.

the national speed limit is 35 miles per hour. can you imagine driving at 35 miles per hour? foodstuff is being sent to the american fighting men but also to the british and soviets in uniform. so we are feeding not just our own men in battle, we are feeding two other nations. for a time, fdr was in essence president of the world. he was not only managing the united states in a two front war in europe and the pacific and he also has four sons in combat, but he is also feeding the british and soviets. the united states is taking care of everybody in the world, all the good guys in the world.

when he dies, the flags in moscow are lowered to half staff for an american president. i find that remarkable. host: the book "april 1945: the hinge of history." go ahead and start calling in with your commons and questions. republicans, (202) 748-8000 -- comments and questions. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you wrote "december 1941: the 31 days that changed america saved the world." were you always planning to write it that way? guest: i do not have many long-term plans. sometimes i do not know what i'm going to do for the weekend. it just so happened that way.

the reason i wrote december 1941 was that i grew up, like many people, in a family that was deeply involved in the war. i am not saying my family special because i think they are special, but there were millions of other american families. both my grandmothers were rosie the riveters. one was testing machine guns. it would come down the belt and she pick it up and fire it. then shoe pick up the next one. that was her job. my other grandmother was a bomb inspector. i wish i got a chance to ask her what a bomb inspector does because i am not sure that is something i would sign up for. my mother was 14 at the time. one time i queried her about victory gardens because i

thought they were a pr stunt and she got indignant with me. everyone had a victory garden. there were victory gardens and small farms. at one point in 1944, victory gardens provided something like 25% of all the groceries grown in america for americans to consume. victory gardens produced a quarter of the vegetables. that is remarkable, the level of commitment that shows. my father was a boy scout at the time and the government used the boy scouts to distribute promotional posters, like loose lips sink ships, things like that. he would go around and put up posters in neighborhood bars and restaurants and churches and grocery stores. that is what the government did with the boy scouts. my grandfather was a civil

defense captain. he tried three times to enlist and three times he was rejected. they said, you are blind as a bat. you are 42 years old. we are not that desperate. he became a civil defense captain. my father was too young to serve in world war two but he enlisted years later. his oldest brother enlisted at the age of 17. he joined the u.s. navy, was in the navy for 3, 4 years and was killed in the pacific on his birthday in 1945. i used to sit there every sunday after church. we would go to my grandmother's

house. i would be sitting there amid aunts and uncles and parents and grandparents and the conversation always turned to the war. my grandfather might say, i bought that before the war but did not sell it after, a car made in the 30's and 40's and 50's. so everybody -- the talk -- they talked about you get a package full of dye and add it to make the flavor more palatable because it did not look like real butter. it looks like a pasty white so you got dye to add to it to make it look more appealing. everybody talked about gas rationing and how far you can go on see stamps --c stamps.

everybody in america was involved in the war in some way current rationing or some other way. that is how i started getting interested in why i wrote this -- why i wrote december 1941. >> your family and millions of americans at that time, living through an amazing series of events. run through a timeline for viewers. january 25, it finally comes to an end. the yalta conference takes place. the battle of iwo jima begins. the raising of the flag on mount sarah bocce, the bombing of tokyo happens here and onto april 1, 1945, the battle of okinawa begins. fdr dies. the battle of berlin begins. bonita mussolini is killed by partisans. hiller commits suicide. in amazing series of events that in this book you try to view

both big and small. -- hitler commits suicide. an amazing series of events that in this book you try to view oath and small. guest: i do not write from 30,000 feet. i write from ground level. i want to know -- that is in here, but i wanted to know what the average dog face was riding home at the time. that is in here, not just the generals but the foot soldiers. not just the senators and congressmen but their constituents, the farmers, the car dealers, getting a perspective. i do it deliberately in this way and it is secondly i write in an up-tempo fashion. the pace is constantly moving.

some people take a wild to get a handle and then they see my writing style and descendant email saying, i like your writing style. host: craig shirley, a man who is causally moving as well. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. we will start you on that line for independents. marjorie in ohio. caller: i am looking forward to reading your book. my dad was born in 1915, april 4. he spent his 30th birthday recovering from wounds from iwo jima. he was in the seventh regiment in new york city and they nationalized the tank core. he wanted desperate lead to be a flyer, but 28 was the upper age

limit and that was his age, so he could not join, so he enlisted in the marine corps. guest: good for him. thank him for his service. caller: they called him the old man because he was older. when you talk about putting the coloring in that margin stuff, when i was a little girl and helping my mom in the kitchen, i got the job of kneading that stuff into the margarine. guest: brings back memories, doesn't it? caller: sure dies. i'm looking forward to reading your book. -- sure does. i'm looking forward to reading your book. guest: she hits on an important point, which is that 28 was old for an american g.i.. first they had draft boards and

then they started another process, but there were boys that would go before draft boards as young as 15 years of age and convince who was on the draft board, the local minister, clergy, something like that and convince them to allow them to serve. they would go in and fight. host: let me show you a picture of one g.i. with one russian soldier. this is from the national archives, that image of american and russian troops meeting on the river. in light of u.s.-russian relations today, the soviet troops and u.s. troops meeting on this day, i wonder your reflection on that today. >> the marriage between frank

than roosevelt and winston churchill was genuine and affectionate. churchill said that meeting franklin roosevelt was like opening a bottle of champagne. winston churchill was equally praiseworthy -- franklin roosevelt was equally praiseworthy of winston churchill. with stalling, it was standoffish. it was a -- stalin, it was standoffish. it was a matter of convenience. hitler invaded russia. that is why joe stalin became a member of the big three. he was always a junior varsity member and always suspicious of churchill on roosevelt. that is why he insisted that the conference be held at yalta and not miami beach, where i am sure fdr would have preferred,

because he was terrified of being assassinated and he wanted the situation under his control. that is why he insisted on the peace conference young at yalta. having said that, the russian army did discover shorts -- auschwitz. they did march into berlin. they did provide adequate counteroffensive's against the german offensive. they lost a lot of men. a lot of carnage went on that may be called for some other type of maneuver. he was not a member of the big three. churchill and roosevelt were too much alike. their governments were too similar. they were too friendly. they had history together going

back to when fdr was deputy secretary of the navy. host: fdr comes back to the u.s. and reports to the american republic on the results of the yalta conference. this is from a war department film after the yalta conference and fdr's message to america after the conference. >> the president arrived in washington. 37 days which will leave their imprint on history, history which frank lynn roosevelt lived and made -- franklin roosevelt lived and made. >> i come from the crimea conference with a firm belief we have made a good start on the road to a world of peace.

never before have the major allies been more closely united not only in their war aims but also in their piece aims and layer continued to determined -- and they are content -- and they are determined to continue to be aligned with all peace loving nations and the ideal of lasting peace will become a reality. peace can indoor only so long as humanity insists on it and is willing to work for it and sacrifice for it. american fighting men fought and suffered. we failed them. we filled them then. we cannot fill them again and expect the world to survive again. i'm confident the american

people will accept the results of this conference and our structure of peace from which we can begin to build undergone a better world in which our children and grandchildren, yours and mine, children and grandchildren of the whole world must live and can live. host: that was fdr's message to the american people, but the image of fdr there, he would be dead in just over a month from when he made that speech. guest: right. david brinkley wrote a book. it is a terrific book. he talks about meeting franklin roosevelt as a young reporter

and meeting roosevelt for the first time and meeting this old man. his skin is not flesh tone like ours. it is gray. he was only 63 years old when he passed away, but 12 years of heavy duty as president, the great depression, and a true world war and everything. he has a demanding wife. he has four sons in the military. he has the demands of limited resources to go to the navy, army, british, soviets. he is dealing with stalin, who is suspicious of him and churchill. he had a good appetite, not the healthy appetite we will consider today. it was a lot of meat and whole milk and fatty butter and stuff like that and also he smoked 2,

3 packs a day. even with the cigarette holder, he is still sucking in smoke from cigarettes and he had his drinks every afternoon at 5:00. there is no record of him drinking himself to excess or anything like that, but he had often an old-fashioned or manhattan. those were his favorite drinks. one time i saw a story in which she was with his cousins and serving them tea and crumpets. there is no way he is serving them tea and crumpets. it was alcohol, especially with these two cousins he adored and loved to gossip with. host: it is amazing to see that image and realize he was 63 years old. jeff, virginia, republican line.

good morning. caller: i wanted to share a memory with mr. shirley. my grandfather was a civil defense block warden in san francisco at the time and i remember asking why he did not -- i was just a little kid, why he did not get enlisted in world war i or why did he fight in world war ii. he said, i was two -- too young for world war i. i was 18 at the time. world war ii, he said he was too old for world war two. guest: interesting. the caller proves a point. everybody in america was involved in some way in the war effort. they used to say there is a war on, but everybody sacrificed,

everybody gave something to the war. the other thing i would say, i was at the reagan library a couple years ago talking about a new book and i urge the listeners to please write down your stories. your stories are invaluable to historians, big stories, little stories. absolutely invaluable. when i said that at the reagan library, this woman came up to me and she said, i have a story. my father was at pearl harbor in 1941 and he was in one of the battleships that was torpedoed. the arizona exploded. the other one capsized. he was hanging on a rail in the cold water for 3, 4 days with

men around him screaming and dying. finally, the torch cut through the whole hu -- hull. he got out. all the time the torch was cutting, he does not know whether it is americans coming to save him or the japanese coming to kill him. the other thing is he is stuck in this mental torture for three or four days and he went right back in the navy. he did not get a 30 day furlough or go to agi hospital. he went right back to the service -- to the gia hospital. he went right back to the service. -- gi hospital. he went right back to the service. caller: i am wondering about the juxtaposition of where we are today compared to 1945 and what you think about our leaders today and what we are marching

toward and there is nobody fighting back. there is nobody talking peace at all and it looks like our leaders are just marching toward war aimlessly. guest: i'm hesitant to comment on today. in my opinion, frank and roosevelt was one of our four greatest presidents. there was a book written about 20 -- franklin roosevelt was one of our four greatest presidents. there was a book written about 20 years ago. this liberal who wrote it came to the conclusion that reagan was one of the greatest presidents because like washington and franklin roosevelt heat freed or saved many people. i thought that was a good criteria to judge the success or failure of an american president , that he was able to save or free many lives. franken roosevelt was a superb president, especially in

wartime. there are comparisons to today, the way putin is chopping up ukraine reminds one of the way hitler chopped up czechoslovakia and claimed it was more dramatic in culture. the second thing is american public opinion. before december 7, there was no will in this country -- we had not been attacked, so there was no will in the country for us to get involved in a european war. we already had world war i. there was no desire on the part of the american people to put boots on the ground in ukraine today. those are the two best comparisons i can think right now. host: to tie off your four

greatest presidents, i assume your opinion is fdr, washington, lincoln, and reagan. guest: those four, yes. host: the c-span presidential historian survey, the rankings of all the presidents, 10 different categories of leadership, abraham lincoln, george washington, fdr. ronald reagan makes it in the top 10 at nine according to that survey. take a look through that survey on our website. guest: ninth is a terrific position to be in, but the ground has not cooled yet. we are able to look back with history at washington's presidency and judge him in a certain way and same thing with lincoln and fdr but not so with reagan because he just left the presidency in 1989. we need more time to judge him,

but that he is in ninth position tells you he is probably going to move up as years go along. host: viewers can see that in the surveys since 2000 and changes in presidential rank. if you just take reagan, he was originally at 2000 -- in 2000 and 11 in that list and has moved up to the 10th spot and now the ninth spot, these surveys coming out every time a president leaves office. c-span working with historians and other professional viewers for these surveys. atlanta, georgia, robert, democrats, you are next. caller: your comment a little bit ago is a segway for what i -- segue of what i was thinking of. i was astounded to hear there was a 35 mile per hour speed limit. in an era where a certain segment of our political class, mostly the conservatives, gop,

trump led folks, have defined freedom as this obnoxious, self-interested individualism, essentially screw everybody else, i want to do what i want, i am concerned if we were ever to face a situation such as the nation faced during world war ii we will not have the uniformity of the community all working together to accomplish its goal, the victory gardens, collecting metal, women working in factories well ahead of equal rights movements. as a biographer of reagan -- i am wondering if you can comment on that. guest: thank you. you bring up an excellent point. this is one i should have brought up before myself.

america in 1945 was far more homogenous than it is today. 1945, we all ate the same breakfast cereal, listened to the same radio shows, read the same newspapers. it was a far more cohesive society. we listened to nbc, cbs, or mutual radio, those three. there was no tv, no cable, no internet. the diversity of opinion was narrow. it was just in those major newspapers, which then were sent out often on wires. the new york times wire would go out to 1000 different newspapers and about 500 50 daily newspapers in 1941. we were far more cohesive as a

society than we are today. it is hard to get uniformity of opinion in today's environment. you look at washington and say, can't they agree on anything? there is no overlap anymore, no such thing as liberal and republican, as conservative democrats. there used to be and that used to form the ability for the parties. host: is it the diversity that is the problem or the polarization that is a problem? guest: diversity causes polarization. people get dug into their own particular viewpoints on the right or left and are not willing to give them up. host: to noel in new york, a republican. good morning. caller: i wanted to add something to the conversation this morning. my father was a captain on a destroyer during the second world war.

he was one of the destroyers that escorted roosevelt to the yalta conference. before the yalta conference. among other of his deeds. he was a very young man, 28 years old when he was a skipper on a destroyer running convoy duty in the north atlantic, so he had a lottery experience by the end of the war. -- a lot of experience by the end of the war. after a while, he would talk about some of them and major stories, very interesting and that is all i have to say. thank you for writing a book. guest: thank you. happy easter. you make a lot of good points, one of them that your father came back from the war and did not talk much about it.

i heard that many times from people, grandchildren and children, about their fathers and grandfathers who served in the war. they came back and they were the greatest generation but they went back to work. they did not much like talking about their exploits in the pacific or atlantic, so i think that is uniform. also, any stories your father has come up please write them down. there are a lot of repositories, the smithsonian or world war two memorial cannot to collect the stories. host: the library of congress. guest: i should have mentioned that first. i did a lot of research in the library of congress. so please write them down. host: the book, "april 1945: the hinge of history." .

craig shirley with us to talk about that book and the early months of 1945. let me go back to another event. this is part of harry truman's address to congress, april 16, 1945. [video clip] >> with great humility, i call upon all americans to help me keep our nation united in defense of those ideals which have been so eloquently proclaimed by franklin roosevelt. i want in turn to assure my fellow americans and all of those who love peace and liberty through the world that i will support and defend those ideals with all my strength and all my heart.

so that there can be no possible misunderstanding, both germany and japan can be certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that america will continue to fight for freedom until no resistance remains. our demand has been and remains unconditional surrender. we will face the problems of peace with the same courage that we have faced and mastered the problems of war. in the memory of those who have made the supreme sacrifice, and the memory of our fallen president, we shall not fail.

host: on that first address to the american people as president and who harry truman was before that moment. host: he was vice president. it was a political decision. they wanted to get rid of henry wallace because he had become an embarrassment to the roosevelt administration so they kicked him off the ticket in 1940 four and put harry truman on, who was more of a mainstream democrat from the state of missouri. he did a good job the year before. he was the head of the wartime profiteering commission. it really went after the illegitimate profits generated by the war department, for guns that were not needed commit munitions that were not needed.

a lot of money was wasted and he ferreted out billions of dollars. he did a good job at it. he came from fairly humble beginnings, from the prendergast melitta: machinery -- political machinery. he served honorably. roosevelt kept him in the dark. he did not learn about the a-bomb until after fdr passed away. they did not treat the vice president in those days as they treat them now. now they bring them in and they are part of all cabinet meetings and conferences, national security, stuff like that. in 1944, they are more windowdressing than they are for substantive reasons. first come he pledged to continue roosevelt -- first, he pledged to continue roosevelt's policies. he kept roosevelt's men and

their position. henry stimson stayed there under truman for a time. he wanted to continue the continuity as long as possible. most people would agree once he found his sea legs he was a good president. i would not rate him in the top four, but i would rate him high, what he did for the military and things like that were nobly handled. host: this is brian, an independent. caller: a different generation, bringing the normandy, the u.s. military cemetery of normandy.

more people should know about that. that changed my life as a young man serving in the navy. my father was a world war two marine gunnery sergeant. i did not know that until the mid-1960's. as a young boy, i found a uniform in the back of a closet. it was clean. i brought it down and my mom said cannot you put that back -- and my mom said, you put that back. i found notes recently from that timeframe and he said, i always knew there was people in the world and remember to forgive. he was a highly successful man, tough, but he was quiet. but every day he worked. he worked hard. he was a good dad. thank you for this talk. host: what was your dad's name? caller: donald haley.

he was just top-notch. he raised five boys but he never spoke of those things. he was tough, but he was fair. when he said something, our heads turned. guest: god bless your father. i would say again i hope you write down these stories. they are too important to history. these things have to be recorded . host: to wayne, pennsylvania, nick in the keystone state. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment to what the guest said earlier around ronald reagan. i would not necessarily say he was that great of a president with the death squads in central

america as well as various demonizing of gay folks back in the 1980's, but i did want to mention a story i thought the guest and other viewers might appreciate. i was not a boy scout, but a friend of mine was and i helped him with his eagle scout project and interviewing veterans. one of the veterans ended up serving later in world war two. earlier on, he was a track star in his high school and running in a race for his high school. as he is running, he knocks down a woman. it is just about at the finish line, and he turns back and sees this one guy in a suit chasing after him and the other guy lifting the woman up.

he does not realize who it is and the guy does not catch him. he finishes the race. the next day in the paper, he realizes someone knocked down eleanor roosevelt and it was him. i find that to be a funny story. he goes on to serve in the navy in the pacific and so on. just wanted to share. guest: i have come to admire her vary greatly. she obviously created a modern office of the first lady, but she took on so many. she was in her own sense a renaissance woman. she had her duties and the government. she had her duties doing promotional work. she wrote a day column. she did a radio broadcast every day. she did not operate as if her dance card was all -- was almost filled. she was busy constantly, yet she did so without complaint, with

grace and charm. she could have left fdr, especially with the affair. she stood by him. fdr always said after that that she was his best political advisor. i would like to say one thing but the previous caller. i pushing his memories, but reagan was very compassionate about gay people with aids. in 1984 -- aids was first discovered in 1981 and we did not know what it was for some years. at some point we thought haitians got it and it could be transmitted by mosquito. he was asked 1984 by a reporter and replied he was pouring millions of dollars into research. in his 1985 state of the union address, he committed to billions of dollars in research for its funding, so reagan would never belittle homosexuals.

host: for viewers who do not know your background on ronald reagan, how many reagan books at this point? guest: five. i am working on two more. it is endless. this man wrote letters from the time he was a young man to the time after the presidency. he had a half-dozen successful careers. this was an endlessly fascinating man. most presidents are one-dimensional or two dimensional. a bram lincoln was a railroad lawyer, but reagan was a movie star and radio announcer and president of the screen actors guild and governor and in the newspaper and a president. he had all these careers, so it makes him endlessly interesting to somebody like myself.

for obvious reasons. host: the buckeye state. this is nathan, an independent. caller: i had a good story about my dad. he was 16 years old in 1943. he joined the navy on a brand-new destroyer and i took him -- he had 10 battle stars. i took him to his one and only reunion 58 years since he saved those guys and one guy was there that he wanted to see but jack could not remember dad. that night in the motel room, dad says, jack cannot remember me because he owes me $30. host: did he ever get the money? caller: he did not get his money. the next day they were telling stories, and jack says, i know who you are, you are from

arkansas. it turned out dad thought he was the youngest kid on the ship at 16. it turned out jack was 15. i said, what is wrong with you guys? i came of age in the vietnam war , so i said, are you guys crazy? you quit school, you lie about your age, you get in the middle of a war. and dad said, we were afraid it would be over before we could get in it. jack said, plus they were paying us $50 a month. that is my story. host: the uss porterfield, a destroyer in world war two. in tennessee, republican, good morning. caller: like this guy, my dad come all i know is that he was -- my dad, all i know was that

he was in austria and japan. then i have a scroll of other soldiers but as far as presidents i think what george washington did on the battlefield, he is number one. trump was number two and reagan is number three in my opinion. but if you can elaborate on people in austria or japan, it showed them i guess in a bar with beer cans on a big roundtable. there is limited things that i know about any of this and i may have a brother or sister in austria. host: anything you want to add? guest: just interesting perspective. it reminds me of one thing. i discovered in the research for this book that for fdr's funeral

william buckley was part of the army honor guard. here's a man who created a magazine, who spent 30 years beating up on the new deal, and he had been it -- an honor guard for the funeral. host: that first draft of history, written by the war correspondent at the time, you talk about bernie pile in your book. what should viewers know about bernie pile? -- ernie pile? guest: he traveled with gis on the ground and wrote a column a day until his death in the pacific in 1945. he is the standard by which all other war correspondents are measured.

his columns were funny, human, touching. he was a marvelous writer. he wrote a book in between on the old typewriters, writing out 7, 800 page column a day and working on a book at the same time, which was a new york times bestseller about the war. just the standard by which all other war correspondents should be measured. host: marianne, new york, democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. it is a real honor to be talking to craig shirley. i wanted to talk about one aspect of how these veterans -- how human these veterans and people involved in world war two were. my father was drafted at 26.

his younger brother had been drafted in 1939 and the tour was supposed to be here. before he was discharged, it got extended for another two years and then he had six weeks to go and pearl harbor happened and all bets were off. he was in the army. he hated it. pearl harbor or no pearl harbor, he wanted out of the army. when my father got to visit him, my father was sent to biloxi. his way of protesting was that he would not salute officers and my father was terrified for him, horrified that he would end up in the stockade or something. my uncle had always loved deer hunting before he got drafted

and came up with a formula to prevent rust and field weapons. he presented that to the army and they were so impressed with it. he was then artillery. they were so impressed with it that he got the second highest medal for that, i think a legion of merit, and a promotion from private to lieutenant, so now everybody had to salute him. this story was told after my father died by my mother, who said it was hilarious. my uncle went on to serve in france with an honorable discharge and a medal. i would like to retell that story. host: did your uncle ever salute your father?

caller: my father was a staff sergeant, so he would have had to salute uncle. host: everybody has a different story and we had a -- my wife and i had a neighbor who was part of west point. he passed away and his wife has passed away as well, but he was in west point and came out. he was flying close air support for the d-day invasion and was shot down, crashed in a belgian farmers -- former's pasture -- belgian farmer's pasture. he was unharmed and was secret and by this farmer into his barn and was kept there for a number of weeks before nazi patrols

picked him up. he gave as a gift to the farmer's wife a silk parachute. silk was highly prized at the time because everything was being devoted toward parachutes and nothing for clothing. his wife found out years later that that wife had taken the silk parachute and made it into a wedding dress for her daughter and that had been worn by all the women in the family for multiple generations up until 10 years ago, so something like 3, 4 generations of women from this belgian farm had worn the silk parachute. host: just a couple minutes left in our program. thanks for waiting, henry. good morning. caller: i am wondering if you could tell me what reagan really did. host: it could be another show

if we were to do that. guest: he defeated soviet communism. he revived the american economy, created 18 million new jobs. he caved inflation down to a tolerable 3%. he reduced interest rates down to a manageable 7%. he restored american morale because he knew that a happy people are a productive people and a productive people can create a growing economy that pleases everybody and created the tools to fight soviet communism, so i think -- i could go on. host: it could be another show if we have the author of five books on reagan. i want to get through one or two more calls.

denise, good morning. caller: i am calling to talk about my father. he retired from the military. he served in world war ii and he was in a segregated unit and talked about his experiences about that. he served proudly. he went all over europe. he reenlisted in czechoslovakia and then went to north africa. he enjoyed his service but did talk about the indignities that they suffered by being black in the military during that time. host: i will give you the final two minutes on that. guest: i dealt with that deeply with japanese segregated units and african-americans segregate units who performed nobly and honorably in the war. they were not treated fairly not

pay the same. they did not get the same tools or equipment. they were treated horrendously. it is a blemish -- when you have a great country, there are also people making great mistakes, like the japanese internment program or slavery or what we did to american japanese. these are not from the homeland. these are people born here, as american as you are i -- as you or me. i hope she writes about it. i hope she writes a lot about it and let everybody know about it because these things need to be known. all the history is important. host: the book, "april 1945: the hinge of history," the author

craig shirley. guest: happy easter. host: that is going to do it for our program. we will be back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. have a great sunday. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [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. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet, bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged family at a time. >> cox 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 reunification of germany in 1990, u.s. secretary of state james baker told mikael gorbachev nato would not expand eastward, not one inch. in the lead up to the russian invasion of ukraine, vladimir putin used those words to suggest the u.s. and nato were not interested in peace and cannot be trusted. tonight, mary surratt he, history professor and author of not one inch talks about the 1990 comment and the impact nato expansion has had on u.s.-russian relations. >> sorry about that language. we are not going to use it anymore. the problem is it took mikael

gorbachev a while. he starts prepping to get that in writing. when push comes to shove, there is a treaty negotiated. that treaty allows nato to move eastward. >> her book not one inch tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> all this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our c-span studentcam documentary competition every morning before "washington journal." whose documentary told us how the federal government impacted their lives.