heading into the fall election. then author and psychiatrist dr. jonathan metzl joins us for a discussion on gun violence and race relations in the u.s.. be sure to join the conversation with your calls, texts, and between. -- and tweets. >> ♪ host: good morning everyone. president biden arriving in south korea earlier this morning. his first visit to asia as president. with the goal of shoring up u.s. relations with asian partners like south korea and japan to help the u.s. economy create more jobs for americans. the president starts this morning with a tour of the samsung computer chip plant in south korea. according to news reports, this will serve as a model for a 17 billion dollar semiconductor factory that the electronics company is building outside of austin, texas.

we want to get your thoughts on the economy this morning. a lot of the economic news donating the headlines. the stock market is down, inflation is up, gas prices are still high and goods like beauty formula are missing from the shelves. what is red top economic concern? if you make under $30,000, dial in at (202) 748-8000. if you make over $60,000, your line this morning is (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8002. 3. join the conversation on facebook or you can send a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. we begin with floor remarks. mitch mcconnell was talking recently about the president's role, his argument in rising

gasoline prices and the overall economy. [video clip] >> yesterday, the average price that american families pay for a regular set an all-time high for the 10th day in a row. 10 straight days of record breaking gas prices. getting to work, running errands, driving to church. visiting loved ones, hitting the highway for a modest family vacation. all of this cost 88% more at the pump today than it cost when president biden put his hand on the bible last year. it is not either memorial day yet. the unofficial summer driving season has not i -- even begun. to be clear, this is not just president putin's price hike. the year 2021 saw the biggest gas price increased in three decades and that was before

russia's escalation in ukraine. farmers and ranchers, truckers and small business owners are struggling to keep their tractors, 18 wheelers, and other work vehicles full of diesel. in addition to having to fill up their own, working families are paying for high fuel prices again at the checkout counter. one constituent in johnson county road to my office and said rapidly increasing gas prices are making it difficult for everyday people like me to make ends meet. he said he is facing rising costs but stagnant wages. another in ashland described driving past a gas station on his way to work and seeing that prices had hit $4.25 a gallon. it is fortunate to be able to pay those prices but worries other was will start having to give up things to put gas in

their car. a third said the biden administration has decided to kill blank -- kyl -- he noted with disturbing disregard for the situation facing american families. since day one, from the keystone xl closure, president biden has put american energy independence on the chopping block. a lot of americans suffer and the far left digs in deeper. just yesterday for example, secretary granholm said this was more reason to accelerate the supposedly green energy transition that democrats are trying to force on the country, literally for years. they forgot that their preferred energy sources are not yet reliable or cost-effective. host: the leader of the

republican party of kentucky on the floor talking about gas prices. is that her top economic concern? that is our conversation with all of you this morning as president biden touches down in asia earlier this morning. he visits south korea and japan on this sick state trip. he visits a semi conductor plant by samsung earlier this morning and gave remarks about the impact of the production of technology that it can have on the u.s. economy. [video clip] >> this plant makes the most advanced semiconductor chips in the world. semiconductors power our economies and enable our modern lives from automobiles to smartphones to medical diagnostic equipment. when it comes to the most advanced chips like the ones made here at samsung, there is only one -- it is only one of

three companies in the world that makes these chips. it is an incredible achievement. because these little chips are only a few nanometers thick but they are the key to propelling us into the next era of technological and -- advancement. artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, 5g and much more. things we have not even thought of at this point. this plant also reflects the close bonds of innovation between our countries. much of the technology and machinery used to make these chips was designed and produced in the u.s.. by uniting our skills, and our technological know-how, this allows the production of chips that are critical to both our countries and essential sectors of our global economy. thanks to the incredible $17 billion investment that samsung

announced last may, soon to the u.s. in a facility like this one, a manufacturing the best chips in the world. thank you. host: president biden in south korea earlier this morning talking about our partnerships with asian countries like south korea and the importance of the supply chain and impacts of jobs in america. we're asking you this morning to tell washington were top concern about the economy. roger in illinois. you make under $30,000. welcome to the conversation. kick it off for us. good morning. caller: good morning. you have to understand the oil market. do you recall when the oil market was at $40 a barrel? when saudi arabia and russia were fighting's in terms of the capacity of how much to produce? saudi arabia has kept on almost

$2.5 million -- 2.5 million barrels a day. that does have an effect. the u.s. has to make clear to the world that the oil market is responsible in terms of what the economy is doing. host: but is that were top economic concern? caller: corrects. the way the market is acted, look at the profits that will companies have made in 2021. the use and billions. host: so what should be done about that? caller: i think president biden is doing the right thing. we have to move to some other aspect of new technology. we have to move away from fossil fuels. the environment is important. in my opinion, what is happening in terms of new advances in

technology would make our life much better. the republicans want to go back to digging oil. this is not the way to resolve the issue. that is my concern. host: roberts, in indiana. good morning to you create under $30,000, good morning. caller: good morning. i top concern -- my top concern is blankets and what i mean by that is that recently we have seen wage increases. before that, for almost 50 years, we did not see any kind of raise in the people and what they brought home. and what that could buy. right now, with inflation, it is taking away everything that was

gained by the workforce, as far as wages and that along with inflation just seems like it is a never ending cycle. that is not a good term but the lower class just never seems to get a toehold to move up. why don't we have smaller companies? rather than just -- making these type of -- that way, one goes down like abbott nutrition for example. host: i understand your point. the congress passed yesterday a bill to address the baby formula shortage. let me read from the washington post. a bill passed unanimously in the senate and with bipartisan support in the house would allow

mothers in the wic program who by half the formula in the united states a broader choice of formula during supply chain crises. that is one piece of legislation they have put forth. the president also implemented the defense act which allows them to bypass certain regulations and get more on the shelves. another headline to share with you on that is this shortage is expected to extend into june, according to u.s. officials. the situation continues here in the u.s.. with baby formula, the manufacturers, at least three of them, including abbott nutrition, their executives are going to be testifying before lawmakers next week on the house side. it will also hear testimony from the fda commissioner on this issue. we'll have coverage of it. go to our website c-span.org. yesterday when the fda

commissioner testified, we covered the as well as you can find on our website at c-span.org. his stature top economic concern? seeing the shelves empty without the baby formula? if you are a new mom, we want to hear from you on that. some other headlines to share with you this morning. here is the washington post front page. xers are saying more of -- experts are saying that a recession may be on the way. the essay headline on the front page of the wall street journal this morning. the s&p 500 index is near bear territory. the benchmark is down over 18%. below the headline, rising rates. the prices cool off home sales. below that is another one. borrowers struggle with car loans and credit cards.

do you fear an economic recession? is that top concern? stephen in new york. good morning to you. caller: good morning. republicans complain about the economy, drug prices, gas prices, inflation, and the price of food but listen carefully. they never speak up or propose any solutions. neither when they are in office today right or pass any legislation or solve any of these problems. in fact, they complained about the deficit only after they get $3 trillion to billionaires. host: so tell us what is your concern when it comes to the economy? what do you fear? caller: my concern is that the multinational corporations that run these countries will continue to raise their prices because inflation does not come from anywhere.

these corporations which are making record profits are raising their prices just to make the american people suffer until president biden is out of office. that is what this is all about, i think. also yesterday republicans voted against the defense act to make more baby formula created -- more baby formula. host: democrats are making a similar argument to speak on the floor when they put price gouging legislation about gas prices for a vote. listen to, during yesterday's debates. kim schrier, democratic congresswoman, and a member of the energy and commerce committee explained the rationale and provisions for her bill. [video clip] >> at a time when people in my district and across the country are feeling the pain of high prices at the gas pump, congress sees to be to being all we can to bring down costs. gas prices in my neighborhood

were already high at five dollars a gallon. but now for no apparent reason, just over the past week, prices are up another 10% at $5.50 a gallon. meanwhile neither the price of a barrel of oil or the cost of refining has changed. this is a problem. what is infuriating is this is happening at the same time that gas and oil companies are raking in record profits and then putting those dollars into stock buybacks. we understand when demand out shifts of supply and prices increase. but here is the thing. russian oil made up only 8% of our portfolio. the prices at the pump jumped more than 20%. that just feels like gouging. some might even call this profiteering. enough is enough. gas and oil companies should be

held accountable to be transparent about their pricing and should be penalized for unconscionable excessive or extreme price hikes during a national emergency. many states already have logs on the books that defined price gouging during a time of disaster or emergency. yet, no clear federal laws prevent price gouging. the federal trade commission needs more tools to crack down on price gouging and to protect customers. this bill will give the ftc the ability to go after gas and oil companies and retailers that in a time of crisis? prices without justice -- a time of crisis jack up prices without justification. my constituents deserve their prices. what is happening right now feels wrong. it feels like gas price -- price

gouging. the price of a barrel of oil has fallen in the past month but gas pump prices have -- are at an all-time high. the ftc needs the power to investigate and crackdown when there is true evidence of price gouging. i came to congress to stand up for the people of my district and i will continue to look for opportunities to go to bat for them and get some relief from economic pressures we are all facing right now. host: from the house for debate yesterday over gas prices. you are asking you to tell decision-makers in washington were top economic concern as the debate at the economy -- as they debate the economy nearly every day out here. it is your turn to let them know your concern. amy in gray, georgia. you are making under 30,000. that is how we have divided the lines.

under 30,000, (202) 748-8000. between 30000 and $60,000, (202) 748-8001. over $60,000, (202) 748-8002. amy, let's hear from you. caller: good morning. i am going to be fine. economic ups and downs happen throughout life. but my main concern is the fact that one of our two political parties, the republicans, have turned into an authoritarian party and by economic health is not going to matter if i did not have any rights. media needs to do a better job instead of hyping this economic downturn and put in -- it in context of how the economy works. the major political party becoming authoritarian is

different. host: ok amy. there are some bright headlines in the usa today of the economy. the economy could recover all jobs lost during the pandemic. the u.s. is on page two recover all 22 million jobs. overall, the nation lost 4.2% of its hundred 52 -- 152 -- jobs. the rebound has been decidedly uneven. of 557 industries analyzed, 57% still have payrolls below pre-pandemic levels. 1 in 6 is still down at least 10% according to the research to -- the research group. this is a text from ray in colorado who writes to say my primary concern is the creation of a new money by the federal

reserve. we put gold and silver in the national supply to compete with currencies and cryptocurrencies. then you have economy in a lot of trouble created by and done nothing to decrease gas prices. in california, six tillers $.49 to $7.59. anthony, you make over $60,000, what is your concern from the economy? caller: i took my retirement in 2020 because it seemed like the optimal thing to do at the time. this is a huge mistake because now that $65,000 has turned into a very small amount of money. my chief complaint -- my chief concern is that while congress is putting relief packages out, i do not think they are

addressing the long-term issue of our economy being out of control and no one is getting any use out of it. we need to put some real measures into place that allowed the working class to get real relief and a look -- in a long-term manner so that we can all get out of this hole we are at. you remember the great depression took almost 10 years to get out of. we are just now sitting to get into this back in 2019. that is my chief concern. host: what measure would give you economic relief? caller: thank you. unfortunately being retired means that i am not working. but i tried to put in for part-time employment which would give me about $10,000 a year, there is not any. only full-time jobs are available and of course

employers are looking for younger people. host: you said he has six to $5,000, and now it is down? -- $65,000, and now it is down? caller: it is down, yes. host: what happened? caller: taxes and insurance and things like that. host: what happened to that money? caller: everything started to bounce out of control. i just went grocery drip just shopping. a three dollar bill went to a $500 bill. -- a $300 bill went to a $500 bill. we have the expenses. my gas bill just jumps. i am so surprised. i sent a message to them and asked why. host: anthony, i want to bounce

this off of you. so kari arrives in the washington post opinion pages that president biden has the means to reduce inflation, why is he not acting? he writes that the appeal of most or all of former president donald trump's tariffs would be the single most effective way of reducing inflation in the near church. as a reminder, a terror is a tax on goods paid by the u.s. consumer who buys those goods. by definition, it is inflationary. it raises the price of goods and raises the price of domestically made equivalent goods as well. if a monster sells for more, than ford mgm voters also -- then ford and gm motors also raised their prices. in march, the institute for international economics produced

a study that reversing most of the truck tariffs would reduce inflation by 1.3 percentage points. many endorse that study concurring that the trade barrier was the single biggest microeconomic measure by some bot -- by far that can be taken to alleviate inflation in the near term. the second would be immigration reform. this is the time to reverse restrictions on immigration. many are still in effect which have caused severe worker shortages in industries such as farming, construction, and health care. we lost that color but any of you can react -- that caller but any of you can react as well. would you like to see this action taken by the president to deal with inflation? reversing tariffs from the trump administration and the immigration regulations as well. carol in colorado springs. good morning. caller: hello.

host: high, harold previewer on the air. caller: who was the congresswoman from washington that beautifully sums up price gouging with the oil companies who made billions just in the first quarter of this year? now, why did they make billions? because they wanted to buy back stocks. because they wanted to increase the stock value on the market of their stocks and make themselves the owners. now, i am sorry. california just announced last week that today have over 100 billion extra dollars surplus

because of sales tax. that is unbelievable. you mean california is the only state along the water, along the coast, that has a surplus? i cannot believe price gouging, which has as you mentioned just about five minutes ago, you showed a headline that 6% of houses are down 6% in sales price. i will tell you why. the prices are too high. americans are addicted to watching television and seeing these beautiful houses that everyone has. everyone does not have that. 80% of americans with paycheck-to-paycheck. our taxes are too high.

ask senator rick scott why he wants to increase taxes? every five years, social security and medicare. which means if reefs take over the house and senate in five years, -- if rupert -- if republicans take over the house incident in five years, we are in danger of losing social security and medicare. i am 76, i have a pension and make social security and medicare. now i have to worry about senator scott who stole when he was head of the insurer of a hospital chain in florida and nationwide actually. host: did you listen to senator scott's speech on this on his proposal? did you listen to the entire thing or did you listen or follow some reporting on it? caller: i actually looked it up

on the internet. but his entire proposal included which is the sunset every five years and every five years, that means the house and senate is in republican hands -- if in republican hands were destroyed social security and medicare. host: what was your source? caller: unbelievable. this guy not only is a thief and his net worth is 250,000 -- 200 $50 million. if you spend any time in jail for-- host: i'm going to leave it there. top economic concern is our question this morning. stephen, under 30,000. hello. caller: good morning. i would like to say that the worst thing for the economy is that the debt is the highest in the world. host: our debt as a nation?

caller: yes. we have the world's worst debt. host: and that's is her top concern? caller: yes. host: carlos in augusta, georgia. over 60,000. what do you think? caller: the federal reserve is my concern. because i remember when obama was in office early in the recession -- hello? host: yes, we are listening. he said the federal reserve very concerned? caller: yes. we are walking a tight rope right now because the administration under obama -- over an eight-year period of time, he got us out of the recession.

now, under his administration and including trump's administration, they never aros. now, they don't know what to do coming out of this pandemic, so many people not working. now they are trying to thrust everyone back into the job market. we are just in unprecedented times. host: what did you think about the move by the federal reserve recently to increase interest rates to try and cool the economy? caller: they should have raised it a little higher than they did. they moved to slow. america's appetite right now coming out of the economy, and we are still in the covid. host: let me share with you the washington post headline we

shared with you moments ago about more economists saying we could be heading toward recession. from there reporting, recession risks are high, uncomfortably high and rising, said the chief economist at moody's analytics. we need some very adept policymaking from the fed and a little bit of luck. this week, the former goldman sachs chief warned of a very high risk of recession. the wells fargo ceo said there is no question the u.s. economy is heading toward a downturn. former fed chair ben bernanke said the company could be poised for stagflation, a slowing economy combined with high inflation. those concerns, amid data that points to economic cooling, particularly in the interest-rate sensitive sectors that are already feeling the brunt.

new home construction slowed in april, mortgage demand continues to decline. your top event -- economic concern. kevin in windsor, connecticut making in between $31,000 to $60,000. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: that caller from colorado hit it on the money. the republicans get in, they get rid of social security and medicare, plus, what these red states are doing, rigging the elections, putting their own secretary of states in, that plays a part in the economy. these people in the red states, people are losing their right to vote. that is not freedom. i'm afraid that we are going to lose our democracy and go to an autocrat country. host: what about the economy,

kevin? caller: we all have to work together, democrats and republicans. enough is enough. host: what about undoing the tariffs that former president trump put in place? caller: if that would help, more power to it. it seems like everyone is for themselves these days. we have to stick together and be united. host: congress came together to pass $40 billion more in aid to ukraine, approved by the house yesterday. there is also talk that the senate will quickly advise and consent the president's recommendation that finland and sweden become nato members. the president yesterday talking

about that in the rose garden with the leaders of those countries, saying that he will try his best to fast-track their application. savannah, georgia, under 30,000. good morning. caller: good morning. i have something to add to this conversation. i think we need more mobility for people around this country. when i say that, i mean mobility other than cars. we need trains, electric transportation, light rail, take the burden off the individual. host: why do you say that, what would that do for the economy? caller: it would put more money in individuals pockets to put into other places of the economy, rather they're in their own car, their own gas tank. host: wellington, florida.

good morning. caller: good morning, gretchen. my big concern has to do with the lack of real competition that exists in the american economy. i am saying that because you have so few companies in each sector that dominate the sector, they operate almost like oligarchs. it is not real competition taking place. in florida, i bought my house six years ago. in those six years, this house has acquired almost $200,000 in equity. that makes no sense whatsoever, it is not sustainable. the price of rent in florida is skyrocketing. you have so few people with so

much money, they are coming into the communities, buying houses not to flip them, but just to increase the rent being charged. where are people going to be able to explore opportunities if they cannot find a place to live? do you know what the definition of a small business is in america? in america, a small business is less than 500 employees. how does that make sense? that is a political ploy. every time you hear these politicians talk about the small business, they are not talking about a small person. there is a point where tax to goods will begin to have diminishing returns. it is beneficial for the companies and the people that own those resources, but 50% of the population earns less than $30,000 a year. that is not sustainable with

what is going on in the economy. structurally, there are changes that need to take place. over is basically controlled by three major companies. the people that operate the stock market, there are just a few big players and they dominate what is going on. host: let me pick up on that point on the stock market and share some headlines with you. worst may may not be over for the markets as stocks fell again yesterday. in the business and finance section of the wall street journal this morning, they have this headline, eight stocks lead the downturn. the percentage point contribution to the s&p 500 17.2% decline in total returns this year is mostly because of these eight stocks, apple,

microsoft, amazon, alphabet, meta platforms, tesla, nvidia, netflix. it is these stocks that have contributed to the decline, from there reporting. they found the s&p has tumbled 18.2% in 2022, 17.7% when accounting for dividend and stock distribution. the stock markets former darlings have fallen even further. meta and nvidia are down 43%. the other five stocks have dropped between 23% and 36%. what did you think of that? caller: i think it proves the point about these large businesses. there are a few big players in the stock market.

their decision to buy or sell can result in a 20% shift in what goes on in the economy. can you imagine these guys talking to each other, the level of control they have over what we do and what happens in the lives of the average american? if we had real competition, there should not be that kind of power that is generated by any one company or person in terms of their decision-making. it should be millions of americans. that is what makes us stronger. i always say we have the walmartization of the economy. i would rather have 200 or 300 small businesses in my community where i go to buy my car, that money stays in the community. i go to buy furniture, that stays in the community. when we have these big companies coming in, they are just sucking

money out of the local economy, they become filthy rich, and then they tell us that they will forgive people's debt. host: more from the wall street journal reporting. apple, amazon, tesla, the parent companies of google and tesla, have gotten so big, they account for 25% of the s&p 500. the s&p 500 down 18% in 2022. let's go to paul in plantation, florida. we are talking about the economy and your top concern. what is it? caller: the stock market is tied to inflation. the reason that it is down is because they don't know what the fed will do about raising interest rates. my main concern is how beautifully the news media and the democrat party are gouging

the brains of people into thinking that there is price gouging going on with the oil companies. many times have oil companies been accused of this, investigated, and found not to be gouging? do you recall that in the trump administration a barrel of oil actually dropped to zero? the price per gallon was approaching below two dollars a gallon. host: do you attribute that to the lack of demand during the pandemic, people being at home? caller: why weren't these oil companies price gouging? no, that is not true. the reason is there was so much oil being produced they could not store it all. instead of making money, they were having to pay for storage

because the oil was not moving. we had 30 tankers offshore that were being paid just to sit there. don't tell me there is price gouging going on. allow me to explain to people a few markers that they can realize. the biden administration is lying, and they should know better, ok? the price at your local gas station changes from week to week, but the production of oil does not change from week to week. so what causes the changes in these prices? it is futures. oil is not priced on current production, as the biden administration wants you to believe. oil is determined by futures. here is how futures work. please give me the time to explain. if you are an oil company and you have a large amount of oil

that will carry you through three months but you realize that because pipelines have been shut down and requirements for drilling have increased, you will not be able to produce oil in the following three months. so what will you do with the three months where you have a lot of supply? you will get as much money out of that as you can because you know in the future you will not have as much. that is what is happening. the biden administration shut down the pipelines, so oil companies realized, in the future, they will not be able to get as much supply of oil for themselves and the world market. it doesn't have anything to do with refining. it has to do with how much oil comes onto the world market. oil companies know they cannot produce as much money and put it on the world market. if they could, the price of oil

would go down instantly. it would not take months. host: i understand your example. gary in fort myers, florida. caller: good morning. i would like to start off with, i have the luxury of living in florida, being managed by a team here -- i know this is a push for desantis -- but we don't have the trouble that the majority of the country is having, especially in the urban areas. i think we have a managerial team. i listen to the guy from colorado who claims that we are going to take away social security and all the benefits. where are they getting this stuff? you did try to challenge him on his source and you realize that he, like most democrats, they don't have any answer. when you ask them a question directly, they don't answer, they spin it out.

then the guy with the rail idea from georgia, light duty trains and everything, it sounds great. but it will be billions and billions of dollars to make this stuff. they think it is going to -- somehow save the taxpayers money. in reality, the taxpayers have to pay for those things. i don't know, i just think the managerial team running our country right now, especially mayorkas, he is a championship liar. host: we will stick to the economy. michelle and auburn, maine. good morning. caller: my top concern is simply paying for the things that we need most such as groceries, gasoline, home heating oil. i do like the previous caller's idea of more mass,

transportation options but i don't know what that would look like in a state like maine. we have some of the longest commutes. we are one of the highest estates depending on home heating oil. i am really worried about next winter already honestly. host: how much did you pay this past winter for oil to heat your home? caller: $1200 for 200 gallons. last year i paid $600, so it doubled. host: do you know when you are paying for groceries versus in previous years? caller: a bag of chicken wings is $35 at my local market. i have never seen anything like that. host: the chicken wing story is a headline on drudge report. caller: i saw that, and i said,

i saw it at my local store. i grew up in new york. i know that milk is much cheaper in new york. that is something that people don't know about here in maine, but it is over five dollars a gallon now. $5.08 is what i paid. it is outrageous. one more thing that i want to point out that not many are covering. i am a mom, i have children. normally this time of year i would get the child tax credit, the tax returns that would help us get through the spring and summer. because the way the monthly payments were structured last year, families are not getting the refund at the time when we need it most. a lot of families are struggling more than ever. that is just another thing that has been on my mind. host: how much money do you have after you pay these bills that are increasingly higher, how

much do you have left over at the end of the month? caller: now that it is summer, maybe $100, $150 just for discretionary spending. but that would be down in the negatives once october and november comes. host: because of the heating bill? caller: absolutely. that will crush families in the northeast, especially in maine. host: have you talked to your senators, members of congress? caller: i have called senator collins' office, jared golden here, but that's a great idea. we need help. i don't know if it is federal help, what we need, but we will need help getting through. the low income heating assistance program typically

gives $700 in assistance for families, but you'll be looking at $5,000 to heat your home. host: michelle in maine, thank you for joining the conversation. let's go to larry in albany, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning, america. i want to say a couple of things right quick. in 2009, under obama, i want you to know that vice president biden helped save our economy during that time in the recession. they can look it up. now, this president, speaking to those 18 to 55 years old,

president biden saved millions of lives when he started with the covid-19 all over the world. one of the greatest and smartest presidents in the world. now with the oil situation, he has given millions and millions of gallons to the oil companies to give to you to lower the prices, but the oil companies are price gouging. the oil that he has given to you, they are not letting that go right now because if they do, they cannot continue with these high prices. the president can only do that. he can give the rights to the oil companies to open land, and he did those things. now, for the economy, right now, it is the best in the world because of president biden.

but under donald trump, what happened was, it took eight years to get our economy up. i was there during the time of unemployment when we were losing 30,000 jobs a month. i was there when president trump took over, and all he had to do was sit there and say he did it. that is the kind of person he is. host: i will pick up on your point on price gouging. let's listen to republicans during yesterday's debate. jeff duncan, a member of the energy and commerce committee. this is why he opposed the bill. [video clip] >> these stickers of joe biden keep popping up on gas pumps across the nation. joe biden absolutely did that, he raised prices.

on the campaign trail, he told the american people he would kill the fossil fuel industries, and he is trying to do that. he canceled keystone xl pipeline to provide oil to our refineries. he emboldened vladimir putin by green letting the nord stream 2 project. pipelines, strategic petroleum reserve. he canceled oil leases in alaska and the gulf of mexico. you democrats can try to play the blame game because your policies are not working. first you blended on covid-19. then you blended on vladimir putin and the in ukraine. now price gouging. nothing could be further from the truth. this is simple economics, supply and demand. we came out of the pandemic, global demand was going up but joe biden lessened the supply. demand goes up, supply has to go up to meet it. if supply goes down, prices go up.

it is a commodity and it is more valuable with less supply. i believe every democrat should go back, not to college-level classes, but high school level economic classes. the whole biden administration should go back to high school economics 101. supply and demand. we resupply to meet demand and the price goes down. we can unleash american energy dominance. look at where prices were before joe biden took over. it was because it was an american first energy policy. we can solve this, but not by reducing american's ability to produce the natural resources that we have been blessed with in this country. unfortunately, cursed by liberal politicians who are causing americans to pay more at the pump. host: jeff duncan on the floor yesterday talking about price gouging in the gasoline

industry. in today's opinion pages of the washington post, republicans don't have a plan to fight inflation either. she mentions the keystone xl that you heard the congressman talk about. congressmen have tossed out some red herrings like reopening the keystone xl pipeline. the extension does not yet exist so it cannot be reopened, nor opened anytime soon. it was only 8% constructed when biden revoked permits last year, despite years of development and support from his predecessor. devon in philadelphia, you make over $60,000. what is your top economic concern? caller: good morning. love c-span. my concern the economy, i believe, is with these larger companies that you stated with

the s&p drop. these larger companies don't pay taxes anyway. that has a true coning effect on the economy. --draconian effect on the economy. if you are talking about billions, trillions of taxes not collected that could go to local economies, different states, that has a major effect. also with the pandemic funds that were allocated, not just under president trump but also president biden, mo of that money has gone to the states and is still sitting in state accounts. in pennsylvania, we have a $11 billion surplus. i talked to many people who are in shock that we could get $30

billion overnight to ukraine, but when it comes to packages to help america it takes a long time or does not happen at all. $40 billion for ukrainians and none for us, i don't understand. host: redding, california. you make over $60,000. what is your top economic concern? caller: good morning. i am actually concerned about our whole country. gas is a big part of it, especially when you are taxed like you are in california on gasoline. we are blessed. i got lucky and got sprayed by a bunch of agent orange, so i get some good v.a. benefits. coupled with social

security, we got a 7% increase in those checks in january and february. it was gone after that, another 8% the following month. i can see the handwriting on the wall. our 70,000 a year is about to become 30,000. i feel for people living on $30,000, living on retirement, i don't know how the hell they do it. i don't have a big house payment, i live in a very modest home. i bought a nice car in 2016 with the intent to drive the wheels off of it. but we are in the tentacles of a

chinese octopus. i would like to hear about this meeting coming up on the 24th, i believe, how we are going to sign over to a chinese influenced health organization, 194 countries, we have a pandemic, and they get to use the u.n. to enforce it. host: i will leave it there. mark is in st. clair shores, michigan. under 30,000. caller: i want to talk about the recession that i believe is coming in three years. the way that congress and everybody is fighting, divide and conquer. that is what they are trying to do, and it is not working. host: we are out of time anyway,

we will take a break. let me come back, we will be joined by henry olsen, senior columnist at the washington post. we will dig into recent primary results and what it may foretell about the fall midterm elections. and then later, jonathan metzl discusses the ration of racially motivated mass shootings in america and how to stop them. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, featured leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 eastern, "the right"

and populist challenge of mainstream conservatism which culminated in the election of president trump. on afterwards, mark esper shares his book "secret oath" on his time serving in the trump administration. he is interviewed by arnold penn aro. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. starting june 9, committee members questioned key witnesses

about what transpired and why, during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch live coverage beginning thursday, june night, on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online anytime at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. young matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

>> washington journal continues. host: henry also is with us this morning, senior fellow with the ethics center to talk about campaign 2022. we are in the midst of primaries. what is your take from so far from primaries? guest: turnout for republicans is massive. 32% more people voting in the republican primary. that suggest independents are choosing the republican ballot and republican voters are energized. with respect to the intraparty challenges, you have a clear pattern. populist conservatism, magaism, is the popular feature, but a lot of his indoor season lose to people so long as they also represent some type of populist conservatism. that is what we will see going

forward, how those patterns shake out. host: why do you think some of those that president trump endorsed lost? guest: republican voters flocked to trump in 2016 and afterwards because he was representing their ideas rather than shaping them. when they see other people representing those ideas, they are not slavishly devoted to him. as long as those ideas are being presented, they are willing to encounter other people, and i think that frustrates the president. he mis-identifies his representation of republicanism as some sort of personal devotion, and that is a much smaller group, then are devoted to the ideas. host: what do the voters want to hear from their republican candidates? guest: tone wise they want a fighter. they want somebody who understands what they believe, which is that the liberals, the progressives are fighting

against their deepest values. they want someone concerned with immigration, someone concerned with second amendment, they want someone concerned to fight for american patriotism. if you can talk about that and add in some support for business and tax cuts, the republican voter will give you a hearing. host: what does it mean since the former president has had a mixed bag result, what does it mean for 2022 and possibly another run for him in 2024? guest: in 2022, most of the candidates coming through are acceptable to broader electorate, cases that give republicans worry, who is out there on questions like election denialism, relitigating the election. generally the nominees are within the range of acceptability. with respect to 2024, the president needs to decide.

a recent poll said that he would get 55% support from republican voters, but 40% would like somebody different. if that number goes down a little bit, that means he will have a fight on his hands. the question is does he want to go through a fight that he might lose? host: what current issues are working in favor of republicans taking back the house and senate? guest: immigration, crime, concern about american patriotism, and above all inflation. these are the things that animate moderate republican voters out, or to motivate swing voters who voted for biden, to consider republican. a lot of these people who voted for trump in 2016, democrats in the last elections, they look at this and they say this is not working out. let's give the other side a shot. as long as those patterns continue, i think you'll look for a good year for republicans.

host: does it follow previous patterns of the pendulum swinging? guest: it's been going on basically the last 20 years. one side gained power on dissatisfaction on the other side and then overplayed their hand. we have seen wild swings of independents who will vote for one party one year, and that the next election they will go to the other party by similar margins. we are seeing that similarly this time. that is wholly a reflection of the fact that the swing voter in america doesn't like what they are seeing from washington. host: if you are one of those wild swing voters out there, we want to hear from you, how you voted in previous elections. if you call yourself an independent, call in at (202) 748-8002. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. our conversation this morning is

about the primaries and heading into campaign 2022. what are your thoughts on it, how do you plan to vote, what are the issues driving you? what if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, does that have an impact on the midterms? guest: two different effects. one is the effect on the marginal credit voter. i think that energizes their turnout. that voter is energized on the republican side, may be lukewarm on the democratic side. a decision that overturns roe, that will activate that voter. it is a jump ball whether it affects that wildly swinging voter, the independent person. the middle voter in america is weakly pro-choice. they never prioritized it before.

we don't know whether they will prioritize it once the issue becomes real. democrats hope they will. republicans hope they won't. we don't know the answer yet. host: is it a concern for republicans? guest: not to think they are frightened to death about but something they should be concerned about. ron desantis, despite all of his denials, has thought about being at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. he signed a bill in florida that only bans abortions after 15 weeks, which is probably where the center voter is. he is looking at public opinion. republicans in similar situations will come to a similar conclusion, go so far but not much farther. host: what are you looking for in the georgia primary next week? guest: donald trump's endorsed candidate, david purdue, is going to be annihilated. he got into the race about 10 points behind kemp.

the last ball had him 32 points behind. he is running no ads, which means he has conceded. the second thing i'm looking for is his endorsed candidate of secretary of state. brad raffensperger was in his crosshairs because he was defending the integrity of the election. he has backed jodey heist. the polls had raffensperger ahead. i'm looking at that margin to see if there is a repudiation of trump's election fraud theories across-the-board or whether or not the kemp victory will be due to his strength and not an overall rejection of trump's endorsement. host: what do you think about senator warnock, the democratic senator running for a full term? what are his chances? guest: it is hard in this environment. georgia has a very high base

democratic vote. most of the polls show herschel walker with a single digit lead, which would be consistent with a swing from 2020 to 2022. but we have never seen walker tested. warnock is raising unbelievable amounts of money. if they have something in the opposition research waiver. warnock could turn it around. host: because are lighting up. before we get to that, pennsylvania primary. what happens next? guest: 1100 vote lead for oz. they say there are some absentee ballots left. mccormick will gain some votes. this will be incredibly close. it could be 100, 200 vote either way. then it will go to an automatic recount.

all i can say is republicans will get a nominee by july 4. either candidate can win. oz, with his negative ratings among republicans, will have more work to do to bring back those people and say, you may not like me but the democrat is worse. host: what is it about mccormick, why was he able to almost, possibly eek this out? guest: two things. even when these candidates lose, like pat mccrory in north carolina, matt dolan in ohio, there is about a 20% part of the republican party that wants the old religion, calm, business friendly republicans. he was getting that. then you have people that are more maga friendly who say i don't want cathy barnett, i don't like dr. oz for various

reasons, and decided to back the karmic as the lesser of three evils. that is where he is now, which is a potential nominee. host: alex in brooklyn. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my concern is, i understand you are speaking about the logic, the senate and governor races. but with people like mastriano basically being the representative of the republican platform in pennsylvania, you have cpac having their conference in hungary with orban basically giving them a blueprint for the extreme republican party, how to continue this effort to divide, to continue this extremely racist rhetoric, and what concerns me, i listen to c-span

and i hear both sides. this is not going to go away. i know you say burnett may be an anomaly, but she is not. you can see it from the rhetoric of perdue, across-the-board. this rhetoric is going to get louder. host: let's take that point. guest: there is a segment of the republican base that is extremely angry and are willing to support a stronger localization of those values. but there is a faction of the republican party that wants the old time religion. there is a faction that wants the medicine taylor green, madison cawthorn performances. then there are people in between. madison cawthorn lost his primary in north carolina to someone who essentially ran as a

stable, old-time republican. i watched all the tv ads that chuck edwards put out. these could have been run in 2014. there was no not too angry magaism, just conservative values. there is that wing that the caller talks about, but it is far from clear that it is a majority wing. there is a battle being fought out in republicans, much as between progressive and establishment democrats are being thought out nationwide. host: if it is not the majority, what does that say about the 2024 presidential election cycle? guest: donald trump had better look over his shoulder. if somebody comes up and establishes themselves as i can represent your valleys without alienating wide salons of america, that person will get a hearing. that is where ron desantis's eye is firmly placed. others would like to have that

mantle, but trump starts as the presumptive favorite. i don't think you should say that this is a done deal. host: joe in naples, florida. republican. caller: good morning. i agree with your guest that we are -- i was a trumper from the word go when he came in. i think his brand has worn out a little bit, not in the sense of what he does. what he does is great but there is so much negativity toward him on behalf of the press, he is unelectable. desantis would be a great choice. but trumpism needs to continue. what we need to realize, the people that pull the strings on joe biden absolutely hates and want to destroy this country. once you realize that, then you have to pull the republican lever.

you cannot let these people -- their intent is to burn this country down and create an oligarchy with a few elitists running this country. host: agree with that sentiment? guest: i think there is a segment of the democratic party that really dislikes america. you ask about american patriotism and they will say many countries are better than america. people on the democratic party who will say basically america is a racist country. it is not a majority view but it is a nontrivial view. that is the sort of thing that you see in places like san francisco, the school board members who wants to rename schools named after abraham lincoln and george washington because of their alleged racist past. it is something that republicans and democrats focus on. be very scared of these people, but they are not the whole.

republicans will do the same thing. be very scared. they are not the whole. republicans have to control their vocal extreme, but democrats have to control their vocal extreme, too. the idea that that dominates, pulls the strings of president biden, that idea is common among republicans. host: but is it true? guest: i think what is true is that biden have been unwilling to confront the minority in his party on those questions because he knows doing that will create more of a conflict than is already in case. he would be wise to confront that and have that battle. what is happening, the tail is wagging the democratic dog. the more that happens, the more plausible it is that the american who does have a problem with the american dream, the longer he waits, it will be

harder to establish that brand of the democratic party. host: cindy in maryland. independent. caller: good morning. can you hear me? thank you for letting me speak. the gentleman -- i don't really know you, i guess i would have to look at some of your articles to realize if you are bipartisan or not. i don't get the paper, never have. i prefer to get my news from c-span, washington journal, by watching all the hearings myself. i am an independent. i know they like to call us unaffiliated, but i feel like i'm affiliated with an independent boat and spirit. i refuse to vote on a party line. i don't think it is good for this country. trump may or may not get my vote, but he has no influence on

whether i vote for a republican or not. i will say, i like to vote on the person, not the race, the gender, not the caller. -- color. i think we need a diversity of thought in the state of maryland. i went to a women's business convention a few years back and they were applauding all of these women that got into the state legislature. and every single one of them was an attorney. i don't believe in that. i don't believe just attorneys should be voted in to help us make laws, rules and regulations for our state. what was that gal's name, barbara mccleskey, a social worker, we need more mainstream people to represent us, not attorneys. we should have turn limits all the way around. as far as i'm concerned, the strategy for me is, you are in

one term, you are out the next. connie morello was one of our representatives years ago. she was an independent thinker. we have not seen that in the state of maryland for years. host: who is your representative now? caller: i think chris van hollen. i have to tell you, the only thing i liked about him, i was in the real estate world. i could not get gas because washington gas outsources all of their cause to thailand or something, and we cannot get the heat in the house because we had a big snowstorm in march. i had to go through all of the political lines, up to chris van hollen to get heat in the house in silver spring. i tell you what, he did that. host: i'm going to jump in.

henry olsen, what are you hearing? guest: in many ways, she is typical of independents. not wanted to be tied to a particular party, seeing elements in both they like, focusing on people. the polls suggest there are five to 10% of voters that are like the caller, and they often do jump en masse to one side or the other depending on what they see in a race. they have been decisive in producing the waves we have been seeing, moving blue one year, read the other year. that is the sentiment that she shared, shared by a significant number of people. they often decide the elections. host: she was wondering about your political philosophy. guest: i am a conservative populist, non-from supporter. i called for his impeachment after january 6.

i tend to be republican but not a lot of the old guard but i will often call out my party when i think they are moving in the wrong direction. host: where have you differed with them on policy issues? guest: i tend to be supportive on restrictions on trade with china, which is the minority position in the party. i tend to think we should not have across-the-board entitlement cuts, rather focused spending on people who can afford the cuts, which is to say people with higher incomes. i think we should consider raising taxes, not across-the-board, but taking away tax breaks from people in the top two brackets, which is to say people that make $400,000 or more year. host: so you agree with the president on that? guest: not with all of his specific ideas but i agree with the focus. rather than raise rates, i think there are many benefits that people in those regions of income received, that

supply-side economists have said we should take away, like the mortgage interest deduction. i don't think it should be taken away from the middle-class. for people making more than $400,000 a year, you don't need government subsidies to buy a house and i don't think we should give them to you. host: joe in dayton, ohio. republican. caller: good morning from rainy dayton, ohio. i want to make a couple of comments. i am a proud supporter of the ultra maga donald trump and i will vote for him if he runs, or desantis. i am very proud of donald trump. this country attempted a coup against donald trump, it has been proven. also they try to deny his election in 2016. jamie raskin and others. also, donald trump -- in people

he supported in the selection. those are facts for you. joe biden supported a couple, one got beat badly in oregon. what the media has done to this man. host: i want to take your point about the races in his win column, those in the loss column. guest: donald trump has endorsed a number of people that don't have significant competition. that is how you get to the 83-3. politico had a rundown of those with different competition and the answer is 7-4. seven of his endorsee's have won, four have lost. he has had to withdraw two endorsements because he got behind terrible candidates. in a sense, it is really 7-6.

as far as getting to the electorate, he has won seven contested races, lost for. host: what is going on with mo brooks' race? guest: he was endorsed by truck, was the front runner. he dropped, and then he lost the endorsement. since then he got a bit of a rebound. he could make it into the runoff. alabama requires a candidate to get 50% to enter the runoff. none of the three major candidates in this primary on tuesday are close to that. mo brooks may have brought himself back from the political dead. we will find out on tuesday if it gives him a second shot. host: david in clinton township, michigan. democratic caller. hi, david. caller: i just want your guest to say to the camera that there is a distinct difference between progressives and liberals.

i think that both sides paint the other with a broad brush. would you agree with that? do you think democrats really want to destroy america, and to what end do you think? that statement is not in fact divisive language? guest: with respect to progressives versus liberals, there is a difference. polling data suggests they often share similar objectives but it is quite clear liberals are people who are willing to go slow, make compromises. progressives had to be people who believe in a crisis, who want an immediate and dramatic change. you have been seeing that in the negotiations over build back better which fell apart largely because of what would be acceptable to conventional liberals, slow progress on some goals, was not acceptable to progressives who want rapid

progress on all goals. that is the sort about all you are seeing. on the other question, i'm not saying all or most democrats want that, but i think there are people in the progressive left who really don't like this country. they believe it was founded on racist goals, they believe the system we have is unfair and needs to be uprooted. i believe they are a minority, but the fact is they exist, they exist within the democratic party. you saw that in san francisco where you have the extreme school board members, and then once their true collars came out, they were rejected the by san francisco voters. this was a rejection of the progressive extreme by the mainstream democratic party. but there are still a quarter of people in the city who said, actually, we think people who say race insensitive things about asians should represent

our school board. we think that schools named after a famous american president should be renamed. that is not a trivial number. if i was a democrat, i would want to fight those people, rather than try to keep them within the coalition. what is happening is those people are taking the democratic brand. host: donald in reynoldsburg, ohio. independent. caller: i voted for biden. i could not stand what i perceived to be trump's personality or character. i stand middle-right on fiscal, middle-left on social. i love every governor here in ohio, however, he has run a ban on abortion completely. desantis -- it is a women's rights thing. i am pro-choice even though i go to bible groups twice a week.

all the other people voted for trump but they knew that i didn't. i will vote for desantis if he runs. i am really disappointed in biden across-the-board. it is unfortunate that dewine, i know that he is a catholic, practices as one, but he has lost my vote. guest: i think donna in ohio is representative of a large number of voters. both parties need to listen to people like donna. that they don't fit neatly into either party's space, they are willing to move back and forth. i think he is an example of why joe biden has gone from winning with 51% of the vote, popularity ratings in the high 50's when he took office, to an average of 41% in the real clear politics job approval rating. people like. have soured on him.

i think it is instructive for democrats and others. she said i would vote for ron desantis, not donald trump, but i did vote for joe biden. a lot of people's heads would explode. how can people think that way? that is middle america. understand voters like donna, you cannot really govern america because you're always overworking -- overlooking them. host: she probably voted for dewine but would not vote for him again. guest: there are people who believe that the republican party is bent on destroying democracy and that puppet masters of joe biden are bent on destroying america. it is a huge spectrum and if you only focus on the loudest voices, you are missing the people who will decide american elections like donna. host: enough of donnas vote? guest: absolutely. i know plenty of people who are

not democrats but they voted for biden because they did not like trump, who are swinging back this time. they have been the people who have been deciding the elections for the last 15 years or so. but what happens is when people take power in congress, they tend to listen to the base and people like donna feel rightly that they have been overlooked and ignored and they switch sides. at some point, someone will figure out how to play this game and unite the base with people like donna and that person and that party will start again consistent majority and move the country. host: david in south carolina, republican. caller: hi. three topics very quickly. i did not vote for president obama but i do not think there are very many americans that did not feel some sense of warmth or gladness for people that waited so long for a president of

color. what i did notice and i listened carefully, i did not hear one speech where he did not mention race and i think identity politics had a lot to do with the buildup and the division in the people. i'm trying to get my legislators and senators to propose sponsors and cosponsors that all federal regulations and legislation not use race. make it uncool to talk about race. as far as abortion goes, the mantra "follow the science," all medical science says life begins at conception. we do not support women in need when they are in trouble and

they feel they have to have an abortion. guest: i feel that these are common sentiments. we certainly have seen an increase in racial rhetoric over the last decade. we have seen in increase intentions -- increase in tensions. polls show that. it is an interesting question of how we ratchet that down while moving forward. i think that is where most americans are and that is what most americans would like to see us go and this is another example of where this general desire for justice and fairness for all is sometimes opposed by people on the extremes and not enough people listen to the broader sense and listen to much to the extremes. host: willy in katy, texas. republican. caller: good morning. mr. olsen, you describe yourself as a conservative non-trump

populist, if i got that right. you suggested that trump stood look over his shoulder, and i am paraphrasing, he is not holding the support that he used to for his ideas. do you know what is his record thus far this year of endorsed candidates in the primaries? can you tell me what that is? his record -- host: hang on the line and listen. guest: if you include endorsements in noncompetitive races where there was not a serious challenger, it is overwhelming and that is the number that trump talks about. in competitive races, he is 7-4, which is 64%. he will lose in georgia with perdue. that will bring him down to 7-5. there are other races he has

endorsed. it is a good record. it is not overwhelming. it is like if you wanted to count it what would happen if the yankees were playing college ball. they would have a pretty good record. what is the record that the 80's have an they play major league teams, 54% is good, but not overwhelming. host: how do you respond? caller: i understand that but i am looking at the total record. these candidates, whether it was close races are not, these candidates will go on to the general election and it will show. his record is going to show that his policies because there is going to be a red wave that sweeps the nation. his record is going to show that his policies and his ideas are still going strong and these are the right ideas for the nation. host: what do you think, henry olsen? guest: i think there is a lot of truth to that. there is a distinction among

republican voters between people who share the ideas with respect to tightening, protecting the border, putting national interest and trade ahead of commercial interest with respect to putting america first. a lot of republicans are saying i can get that without backing donald trump personally. that is where the republican party is. i think the election -- not the election, but the polls show that a majority of voters, the donnas, are willing to give them a chance. we do not know whether they will endorse it two years ago -- two years from now, but they say i see where the democratic party has been for the last 18 months. i do not now -- i do not want where i have been seeing the democratic party go. i am willing to give a populist conservative candidate a chance and i think that is where if the election were held today, that is what you would see and we will see how these orders

feeling two years. host: if there is a red wave, what do you think the president does? guest: i think the president will need to decide whether or not he wants to fight within his party. it is my view of what has been going on with respect to biden's three things. one is he is being hurt by circumstances that could have been within his control, but with inflation, it is rising and only belatedly are we coming after it. secondly, the feeling starting with afghanistan and the failed negotiation that this is a guy that cannot deliver. that is a view of non-competent. then you have the general sense that the democratic party is veering too far to the left, that they want too much government spending, they are not supportive of the police enough, and you get that middle opinion of people who might want a little more government spending, but not what the progressives want. they would like police reform, but they do not want to defund the police. where biden has been is trying

to unify the democratic party, but that means he is to the left of where the donnas of the world are and if he wants to talk to the donnas of the world, he will have to say no to the left. that will be good for him but he will have the initial party brought -- he will have the initial problem within his party , realize that the establishment will fight back more preserve firstly than they have so far. host: richard in montreal, canada, republican. caller: good morning, mr. olsen. i like having republicans like you and mitch mcconnell make donald trump really unpopular when he got 11 million more votes in his second term than his first time, which has never happened in american history where an incumbent gets so many more votes and loses and then you are against all of these canvases. we are finding out in arizona massive fraud, judge gable men,

i do not know if you saw his report. how can republicans like you never talk about the movie "2000 mules?" you do not want to talk about clear evidence of voter fraud, you do not want to talk about canvassing. thank you. guest: i'm sorry that the gentleman believes something untrue, that with respect, i have looked at this extensively and the reason donald trump lost is because of voters like donna, millions of them who are center-right on economics, centerleft on social issues. you can see that pattern in red state like tennessee. you see that in blue states where that type of voter has large concentrations. you saw a dramatic swing toward president biden compared to four

years before with respect to voter fraud, this is like whack-a-mole. everybody -- every time somebody present me with proof, i look into it and it does not pan out. i had somebody show me with respect to arizona, they said there are 70% more razor voters in this desert precinct than people. that has to be fraud. they were taking the population of a small town and the precinct went well beyond the town with a much larger population. in other words, they were not doing their homework. there is no proof that voter fraud was the cause of donald trump's defeat. the proof is in people like donna, which is that millions of people did not want that man even if they were willing to get republicans for other offices which is why republicans gained in the house, often times winning places that donald trump lost by significant margins. host: we will go to ohio from a

river is in ohio. independent. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: perfect. i agree with the last sentiment. before i became independent, i was a republican. i voted for donald trump twice. as things started to pan out after the election with widespread rumors of voter fraud, i looked into the so-called evidence and statements and court cases and i found it not to be true. essentially, disillusioned, donald trump and that wing of the party, which is somewhat forced by hand to be more independent. i will still vote for some republicans but if the other republicans in my state are leaning more towards the maga,

trump and widespread voter fraud, it is a detriment to our society and our democracy and that is all i have to say. host: what will you do in that situation? will you not vote? caller: i will be more than happy to vote for any common sense republican. host: what if there is not one on the ballot in november? caller: if there is not one in the ballot for the general, i would be more than happy to vote them in. if there is a democrat that leans more centerleft that can be better compared to a radical trump republican, i would be more than happy to vote for them. guest: i think that is what republicans fear is in a place like pennsylvania where josh schapiro, the democratic nominee for governor has been carefully crafting a centrist friendly matches and we have mastriano who is an archetype of the angry election conspiracy as a republican nominee. that would suggest that voters

like that caller in pennsylvania will say it is important to vote for somebody whose policies i may not agree but to keep the other more extreme election conspiracists out and that is why republicans are afraid that they will lose the governorship that they should win because of the identity of the nominee. this person will not rend the party with that and that is the thing that democratic strategists are trying to do. look at the mastrianos of the world. brand the party that way. this voter is saying actually we can distinguish between people. we know the difference between a party and a person and we are going to look at the person. on the one hand, josh schapiro's strategist said that is probably thing we will win. on the other hand, that caller, i did not think we will get the party why brandy we are hoping for because people can

distinguish between donald trump and his acolytes and regular republicans. host: that label, when they label all republicans. guest: yes. if you are talking about the marginal democratic voter, the democratic voter who will vote on the presidential race is but not in the midterms, it does help with turnout but the democrats will not lose because of a turnout problem. the democrats will lose because of an independent problem. they can reduce the scope of their losses if they excite the marginal democratic voter. but that is meaning instead of losing 40 house seats, they might lose 32. it will still be a bad year unless they can talk to the independent voter. host: henry olsen senior fellow with ethics and public policy center. appreciate the conversation. guest: thank you. host: we will take a break. when we come back, author and psychiatrist dr. jonathan metzl joins us to discuss the rush of mostly -- racially motivated mass shootings in america and

how to stop them. we will be right back. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv and c-span's "washington journal" will mark the 100 anniversary of the lincoln memorial with scholar hero for third to talk about the 16th president, the memorial's creation, and the democratic ideals that the memorial represents. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a book "campaign of the century" where he re-examines the 1960 presidential campaign between richard nixon and john kennedy and the close outcome of that election. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program

guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> 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 at the right bottom to sign up for this 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 any time. >> c-span has coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine bringing you the latest from the president and other officials, the pentagon, and the state department as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks, the c-span now

free mobile app, and c-span now/ukraine, our latest page where you can watch videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> in 1997, sovereignty over hong kong was passed from the united kingdom to the people's republic of china. sunday on q&a, the former bbc reporter and author of "indelible city" talks about the history of british rule in hong kong and crackdowns by the chinese government on demonstrations opposing their authority. >> when hong kong was handed back in 1997, it had a relatively free press. people could protest. there was freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, freedom of association. and in the last couple of years, china has brought in this

national security legislation and that has really changed all of these things. the things that made hong kong hong kong one by one are kind of being dismantled. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now at. -- eastbound now app -- c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is dr. jonathan metzl. he is a psychiatrist and socialist. he is also the author of this book, "dying of whiteness: how the politics of racial resentment is killing america's heartland." what made you decide to write this book? guest: i grew up in kansas city. i grew up having friends from

all across the political spectrum, people who were conservative, liberal, libertarian, you name it. kansas city has everything. in the kansas city i grew up in, people, even though they disagreed ideologically, we figured out a way to get along. what i saw was over the course of my growing up time, i live in tennessee now, but going back to kansas city, i would see that people are being pushed to these pole of -- poles of politics about guns, race. people were making decisions about, here is what it means to be, to be a good citizen is to reject your healthcare, to have guns under your bed at night. that was really leading to shorter lifespans for people. as polarization literally was killing people. i spent five years going across the midwest interviewing people,

particularly white americans about the tensions between politics, particularly conservative party six and longevity and i found some some startling find. s. there was a rise of politics, an immigrant antigovernment pro-gun politics. on one hand to people felt like they were winning. but the policies implemented by the politicians who supported those politics were leading to health risk factors in people on the ground. politics like rejecting your own healthcare was as dangerous to people as asbestos or not wearing your steeple in the car or secondhand smoke. the policies were creating medical risk factors that were shortening lifespans. that is the theme of the book, how did we get to a point where

politics are shortening the lifespans of everybody including the lives of their own supporters. host: you write in the book, " white supremacy is the key to understanding america's gun debate." what did you mean by that? guest: i wrote the book a while ago. i do not know if i would have used that terminology now that is what the book says. i would say there is a long racial history about who gets to own a gun, who gets to carry a gun, what does it mean to carry a gun in public. in the book, i tracked the history of who had the right to carry a gun in public and a lot of times, that meant often white americans. i traced it back to precolonial america through the period after the civil war, pre-civil rights, all those kind of things. i argued that you cannot understand the current gun debate if you do not understand the racial history of guns in america and really the ways in which white americans have been

coated as patriots were carrying guns in public whereas black americans and others are often coated as threats or gangsters or similar. host: our conversation this morning, gun violence and race relations with dr. metzl. we encourage you to join the conversation. dial now. democrats, republicans, independent. you can text us from your city and state, (202) 748-8003. we will get to your questions and comments in a minute. the buffalo shooter who killed 10, injured three, there has been a lot of discussion about the replacement theory. have you defined that and tell us about the history of it. guest: i am not a scholar of replacement theory but i have been following this along of course linked to the work that i do but this anxiety that white americans are being replaced, in my book i called the politics of racial resentment.

but this idea that other people, other foreigners or people who do not look like us are coming to replace us, take away our jobs, take away our authority, change our culture, that has been something that has been going on in the united states for quite a few centuries now. i know that it has history of who are the people we fear are going to replace. it has a history in anti-semitism and fears of immigration, fears of black americans. it is a strong motivating force. i saw it in my work. for me, the time i felt that the most in my work was with the affordable care act. everybody i was interviewing was supporting the affordable care act. when this narrative came down the pike, it was not that obama was a socialist. it was that mexican americans are flooding over the border and

they will take your healthcare and your resources and this is healthcare that is meant for you. all of a sudden, everybody thought of saying i do not support the affordable care act. this idea that basically dear is some -- the idea that there is some privilege that we have that is in danger of being taken away by other people is a way to rally white voters and white people for the history of the country. the by any is that -- the by any -- the irony is that we came to this land and replaced people who were already living here. there has been a history of replacement that did not start with us. but that has not really gotten into the conversation. host: i want to read from this brookings report just put out. brookings on hate crimes and white supremacy. from 2012 through 2021, nearly

three in four murders classified as domestic terrorism were committed by white wing extremists, most of whom were white nationalists. in 2020, 55 percent of perpetrators of hate crimes were white, 20% were black, and 15% were of unknown racial background. 62% of hate crimes were about race, ethnicity. .5% were about sexual orientation, gender, identity. 13% were about religion. why do these people who commit these hate crimes turn to this violence, gun violence? guest: i think you are right that it is a growing problem and the running question is -- the why question is a hard question because i study a lot of mass shootings and in some ways many of them are different. they have different histories, different psychologies and different shooters. i would say that this feeling of despair or discontent, anger, racial resentment, racism, is really beneath many of these

acts of aggression and i would say that the issue is not that we have racist people in this country or people driven by these extreme ideologies. it has always been the case and that always will be the case. the issue is that it is a challenge for us to come together as a country and say this will not stand. these are not our ideals. this is not what a democratic country will tolerate. i think the issue is not just the rise in crime, but the fact that our response to it. it is unequivocal that what happened buffalo is not something that should stand. it is not something we should stand for in a country like ours. i feel like we should come together to say this is not who we are and the fact that even our response to this horrible tragedy is so polarized really creates the conditions in which we cannot come together and say here is who we are and this ideology is outside of the bounds for us and i think that

sets us up for some bad things in the future if we cannot come together. host: do you think politicians are exploiting that? guest: yeah. many people are exploiting it. i do not think anyone wants to have a mass shooting. host: the division? guest: certainly, the division. i teach a class on social division at vanderbilt and i would say that we look at on one hand where is polarization happening. it is happening in politics, media, social media, are electoral system. these are systems where people are rewarded for taking ideological positions. you are not rewarded for being a centrist or being someone who says the other side has some points. let's work together. people are put into these positions to hold the line on particular -- in a way that

shapes not just politics, it shapes how we talk to each other, how we understand each other. where are the places where people are rewarded for collaborating with people who are ideologically different from them? the class goes silent because it is hard to think. our society is so polarized right now in a way that those everyday examples, people work together every day, but they are heard when you are looking at bigger political issues. i feel frustration as i was seeing in the beginning because i grew up in a place where people are very different in every kind of way. people found a way to work together. that is the history of the midwest which is what i write about and the fact that now people feel like you are different from me and therefore you are a bad person. your politics tell me something about your identity. it is the track we have gotten into and i feel like it is pretty urgent right now that we figure out another way forward if that is possible. host: joe in connecticut,

republican. we will go to you first. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: dr. metzl, how are you? guest: i am good. how are you? caller: i just want to make a couple of points but they will probably not to come across as i would like to say the. -- say them. don't you think white people are sick of this white supremacy and being called a racist? don't you think we are sick of that? guest: is that the question? do i think white people are tired of that? yeah. i think there are aspects of this conversation that have devolved into pro-or anti-this and i think the term white supremacy has lost some of its meaning. i have to say, i live in tennessee. i see firsthand how people feel like the argument is -- i assume

the argument you're making is i feel like i am not supreme or i feel like i have challenges in my own life and that rhetoric tells me that i am oppressing somebody. so in that sense just personally i hope we move beyond that. i certainly think it is important to talk about race. i think it is important to talk about what it means to be white in america right now. i don't think that should be done in a way that makes people defensive, they also don't think it should be done in a way that erases the history of race in this country. hopefully we can get to a place that is productive in a certain kind of way, but i think it is a fact we have an uncomfortable history of race in this country. i would ask you in return, what is a good way to talk about race and whiteness? let me just say, i agree. i don't use the term white supremacy often anymore, because of the reason you are saying,

but i think it is important to talk about what it means to be white right now. how would you address it? caller: well, you made a couple of points about white people owning all the guns. so it is obvious to me you don't watch the 6:00 news, you know? and all of these -- all of these politicians, they only put the spotlight on certain things. did they ever find that jeep that ran over those people in wisconsin? i don't know if they did or not. that jeep, you know the jeep? so that is the problem, you understand? people are sick of this. host: dr. metzl? guest: again, i think we are at a really uncomfortable moment in talking about race in this country, and it is happening in the context of a lot of other bigger political shifts, but let me clarify what the caller said. i wasn't saying that white

people on all the guns. i was saying there is a history of who gets the right to carry a gun in public in the history of america. that is important to understand how the american gun debate shifted, but certainly i think we have a broader problem with crime and violence right now, and it is something we should think seriously about, because i think, like mass shootings, hit is not something anybody wants. i would be happy to talk more with the caller. i think he makes some important points. host: we will go to norman in new jersey. democratic caller. you are next, norman. caller: good morning. i will strip -- i will try to stay calm, though i am not. it's it seems whenever there is a mass shooting, all the politicians condemn it, but i must say i don't believe it anymore. we are supposed to have three branches of government, but actually we have the most

powerful branch is the lobbyist. they make the laws. whenever there is a mass shooting, we get -- host: norman, would you like to see some bipartisanship, some center, commonsense agreement between the two parties on guns? caller: the lobbyists control the country now. host: ok. dr. metzl, will you take that? guest: i will gladly take that. the hard part about mass shootings -- i mean, certainly if anybody has read my book or other stuff i have written i can certainly say that on one hand the caller is exactly right. there is a broad history for decades now of bipartisan agreement among people about ways to address gun violence.

i don't think people are saying we should overturn the second amendment. i think that is a radical position that is not supported by many people on my side, but i would say that there is a general agreement that, for example, over 80% of americans support background checks on gun purchases. hitting a gun should be like getting a car or something like that. you know, at least have a drivers license when you get behind the wheel. so, 80%, 85 percent of people support background checks. they support closing loopholes on gun sales. it is too easy to get a gun from a gun show or on the internet in ways that are not regulated. i think the issue is any time there is that kind of common cause, unfortunately we don't have the political system, as i was saying before, that lets people work together. i certainly think the caller is referencing the nra, that the gun lobby has really subverted

attempts by people to work across divides to really find some common cause about better ways to keep people safe. i would also say one other issue, which is that inherent in my answer and the caller's question is this idea that gun control should be stopping mass shootings. i think mass shootings, the other part of this, they are quite hard to predict and prevent. people will probably recognize, if they have been reading the news this week, that the guns were purchased legally for this mass shooting, and many other mass shootings. for me that is kind of a red herring. now there is a report by the cdc last week, 45,000 gun deaths a year on average, and mass shootings, as terrible as they are, or -- are about 600 deaths a year. most shootings are homicides, suicides, accidental shooting, partner shooting. those kinds of shootings are very amenable to public health

interventions, so i think the other issue is there are many shootings. most shootings don't make it to the news, they don't make it to our national attention. those are really important to think about, because i do think policies would be able to cut our national debt rate from guns significantly. for me frustration is not just that we are blocking legislation and policy that would stop shootings, that we are not doing very much to stop everyday gun violence. and, to me, that is the ultimate tragedy when you add up the body count of what is happening in this country. host: george, conroe, texas, independent. caller: good morning. it is an interesting conversation, but i think there is something that should be looked at, and i would like dr. metzl to discuss the correlation between use of ssris as treatments in many people and their inability over a longer

period of time to control their emotions and whatnot. i have had a lot of personal experience of people who were on ssris for an extended period -- in my case it was over 10 years, and i noticed road rage issues developing. what i am suggesting here is, if you look at the shooters, in many cases you will see they were already under treatment by someone and they obviously were using these drugs. had been prescribed with them, and -- in fact. host: can you tell us what these are? guest: there has been a theory since the columbine shooting that ssris contributed to violence. that also goes hand-in-hand with the idea that a psychiatric diagnosis goes hand-in-hand with

violence. there are many thousands of people on these medications in the united states. and the percentage that can want to commit violence is incredibly small. incredibly small. i think the issue is, certainly when a mass shooting happens we want to look at, you know, all of the factors. psychological, social, political, all of those are important. but i would say the problem of saying ssris, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor indications caused these shootings, number one is that you are isolating one factor from the many, many factors that go into what might cause somebody to act this way. then the converse question is, what about the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on these medications around the world who don't commit violence, who don't commit mass shootings? how can you isolate and say, you know, this is the cause? certainly i think it is an

important piece of the information. i think somebody's psychological history is an important part of this. that i can say as somebody who studies mass shootings that when we start to think about what causes it and add up the factors -- buffalo is a perfect example. yes, this person had a psychological history, but also a past history of violence, access to firearms, social factors, racism, racist ideology, all of these things. many other factors contribute. i think you get into problems or where i push back on something like this is to say it is a correlation, one unfortunately it is much more complicated than that. host: what are the dominant issues when you study mass shootings, nasa shooters? what are some of the dominant criteria? guest: as a psychiatrist i often get asked, did a, b, c diagnosis lead to this crime? so i will say, yes, this person

had that diagnosis, but i can't tell you that was the causal factor. many people have depression, schizophrenia, addiction, asperger's, all of these diagnoses thrown around. but i can't tell you that is what caused that person to act. and when you add up the factors, again, past history of violence is important. there are studies that show people who drink or are on drugs or have an addiction issue or more likely to shoot somebody else. social networks, a lot of shootings happen within social networks. access to firearms is certainly an important factor of who is going to shoot. as we are seeing in the buffalo shooting, ideology, political ideology, racial ideology, those are important factors as well. i just think that it is understandable that we say i want an easy answer for why this thing happened. it is often much more complicated than that. but i would say that access to firearms is often a very important part of that story also. host: what about the role of

social media? guest: again, it is a similar issue. social media does radicalize people. we are seeing this in our country every day. there is a broad problem with social media in line with what we were talking about before. it doesn't create an avenue for people to communicate with people different from them. i think there are broader issues with social media, but again, you have many needs of people in social media, and how do you know that social media was the one causal factor? certainly in the buffalo case this person was radicalized for many different reasons, some having to do with the input of social media and ideology. but also intermixing with a lot of intrinsic factors about who he was and his ideology, his worldview, and things like that. again, social media is a problem, it is a broader problem then just mass should -- then just mass shooting. i could not say this caused that, in the same way we could

not say video caused violence. there is always a counterexample, so you have to look in greater detail. host: let's go to summerville, south carolina. republican. go ahead. caller: dr. metzl, thank you for being on the show. i actually enjoyed your book, "the working-class republican." it describes certain things i did not have the verbiage to express. guest: thank you. caller: my question to you, do you think there is a correlation between lower education and those who you mentioned earlier who are fighting to lose their health? is there any credence to elected officials prefer to have an ignorant voting party? guest: please finish, i'm sorry. caller: my other question, i'm sorry, i will be quick. i was taught as a kid when it came to race relations, gun

violence, and relate the second protection was there was a turning point in america when grassroots organizations like the black panthers decided to police their neighborhoods by enabling their second memo writes. i was taught -- second amendment rights. i was taught that is what turned other states to restrict guns. is what i thought wrong? you are an expert at this. i just wanted to lean more on your knowledge. guest: incus much. two really excellent questions and i appreciate them. in terms of education, i talk a lot about education in my book and the ways in which certain arguments that rile people up are meant to undercut education for themselves, their families, their children. so the value of education is thrown up for grabs by divisive politics on both sides. i think we have really lost the

sense of, what is the value of education? what is it do? what does it mean to engage with critical ideas? certainly this question of -- i would never use the term educated or uneducated. that is my personal preference. it feels a bit judgmental to me. i would say there are efforts to couch issues as, you know, here is what is happening in schools as a way of underfunding schools, which doesn't help anybody. in "dying of whiteness" i talk about lifespan. it actually leads to lower lifespans. the part about education is if you are directing your messages that people who have lower-paying jobs or lower socioeconomic status and you scare them by saying resources are being taken away from you and given to someone else, if he don't have unlimited access to resource that kind of message is going to be more resonant in a

way. i do think that beneath these race arguments people are living in austerity conditions. the irony is austerity is often created by tax cuts, for example, that take money and give it to wealthy people and corporations and things like that. so it is complicated, right? it is very complicated, but i would say this question of education is pretty urgent now. even though i wrote about this in 2020, we are having debates now not just about what is taught, but what is the role of education? i hope can come back to, here is the function of education in our society, which is something beneath all the noise that is harder to talk about. in terms of the black panthers, you are exactly right that there was a kind of movement in the 1960's, malcolm x, a man named robin williams, and other leaders of the civil rights movement, particular ones who are saying the second amendment

applies to me and as a black american i have a right to arm myself and carry a gun in public. you are exactly right that when the black panthers started appearing in public -- there was also a famous malcolm x image of narco max by a window with a rifle -- image of malcolm x by a window with a rifle. all of a sudden people turned and said, no, we didn't mean the second amendment apply to everyone. that apply to, as i talk about in my book, a lot of mobilization toward the gun control act of 1968. people said, there is too much civil urban unrest. that is a very different moment than we have right now. so i guess the question i ask myself -- and i would ask people to think about -- is, what are the racial politics of guns now? we are in a way doing the opposite thing. we are overturning sony gun laws in this country. the supreme court is debating a major case that might overturn many of the gun laws present in

new york and los angeles and massachusetts and other places. so the question is, when you have basically can -- anybody can get a gun without a background check, one of the racial politics of guns at those times? who carries a gun and what does it mean? the arkham and i have been making is a will lead to societal coding about who is coded as someone who is a patriot and someone who is a criminal. i think that is kind of the path we are going down now. it is important to think about that 1968 history, in part to recognize when right -- white america started getting afraid black people had guns, all of a sudden they changed their tune. and also to recognize how similar and different the current moment is in terms of gun policy in particular. host: grand prairie, texas. jonathan. democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. dr. metzl, thank you for your discussion and education.

i had a couple of comments regarding gun ownership. i live in texas and have a lot of friends who are hunters and gunowners. i myself am not a gun owner, but i do feel you have a right to own a gun. the problem i have is, like you alluded to earlier, the history of who can carry a gun and the difference between folks like myself, for example, who feel there is not enough gun laws to protect the safety of individuals. in texas we had roughly we or four incidents of shootings lately of asian-american-owned businesses. my wife happens to be asian and i worry about her safety when she goes out, particularly coming off the last administration, with the rhetoric we see from politicians , talking about shooting people and taking pictures with guns strapped to their sides to promote their agenda, which is to be reelected. i think it is very dangerous and harmful for society. the question i have for you,

dr., is what do you think needs to be done in terms of educating people and making people understand that there is a problem, and what can we do about it as a society? guest: thank you. in a way i'm in the same boat. i live in tennessee. many of my friends are gunowners. i think people should have the right to carry a gun. we have an american tradition that supports that, but i don't think there is anything in the constitution that leads to what we are seeing now, which is really every policy about where people can carry guns or the kind of guns is being overturned. in a way the question is, what is the role of society, what is the role of government? factors like that. that is the debate we are having about guns, and texas is certainly ground zero in that regard. people have the right to feel safe, but i think you are right that in a moment right now it feels like there is no brakes on

the car and we are hurtling downhill in a particular way because so many things are escalating, guns are such a central part of the problem. it is not just individual. the case in texas is another example of a racially-motivated series of shootings. the question is really kind of who is in charge? other societies, when they get to the point we are at right now, or maybe even before, say, look, this is a time where people come together. people to love the australia example, but i would say in australia in the 1980's and 1990's there was a series of mass shootings. australia is another country that has a history of gun ownership. there is a frontier mentality. people cared about the guns. australia, the issue was not that they did anyone policy. the issue was that people came together in the middle and said, look, enough is enough, and they

had a very painful national conversation about, let's figure out what works the best for us. they cap -- they came up with a series of restrictions and regulations. i don't think those particular policies would work in the united states, but i think the lesson of australia is enough people were fed up that they came together within the context of the political system to try to figure out a way to get different shareholders to the table and do something that worked for the majority of the people. i think we are very far away from that right now, but i think that without everybody at the table -- as many people at the table as we can get -- his problem is going to keep escalating. for somebody like me who studies this it is very concerning. host: david is in gulf breeze, florida. an independent. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i was thinking about this person that did this cruel act up there in buffalo, and he was identified prior to doing this act, and he was given one

day of counseling, it seems, according to what i have read and seen on the news. and counseling is not something that should happen in one day. the guy was probably on the internet, and only got one way of thinking. for me, i used to deal with people he used to have discipline issues. and i made counseling a daily thing for a long time, until they started to change. then i made it a weekly thing. the individuals that get identified are getting one days worth of counseling, and it is not really going to change their attitude or anything like that. they really need to be counsel. in this, as far as the race thing, this is on both sides, because i dealt with people of -- they are not really disparate races, there is only one race, and that is the human race. they didn't look like me, but they still respected me. i tried to show them how to be a

leader, how to do things like this and not follow things that were going to hurt them. and that is really what i'm thinking is, that we need to start -- when people get identified it has to be done at the local level, not at the federal level. at the town, at the district. host: david, let's have dr. metzl respond. guest: david, thank you. two excellent points. i agree wholeheartedly. first of all, the point about counseling or psychology. the issue is that if somebody is intent on murder, it is hard to get them to come back to therapy sometimes. for a lot of people, particularly people who have sociopathic or narcissistic tendencies, it is not like they see their symptoms as being order called ego this tonic -- ego distonic. they don't feel they need to go

see a therapist and work them out. the question is, what do you do in those times? there are interventions by the gun-control movement that are colloquially called red flag laws. the idea basically is that if somebody is spiraling in a downhill spiral, they certainly need the help of professionals. there is no doubt about that. if somebody is homicidal or suicidal and has access to firearms, the people that are going to see them, as you are suggesting, are the people in their own community, their families, the people that engage with them every day. it is shocking to me how little power people had in families to basically intervene in that way. so there are things called red flag laws, which have been supported by the biden administration and others, to basically say, let's give the power to communities to intervene. not to take away anybody's guns forever, but to say if somebody is spiraling get them help and that their access to firearms

for some limited period. to me that makes tremendous sense for two reasons. one is that people need help when they are spiraling like that. and the other is that it is not a federal response, which is so problematic for a lot of people. it gives the power to people who sue that -- see that person everyday. i think that is one avenue we need to really think more about. i realize it is a contested issue. then, about race, of course i would urge people to read the cdc report. he came out two weeks ago. 45,000 gun deaths a year, starting in the first year of the pandemic. i never thought i would see that in my career. that number is astronomical, and if you burrow down into the data you will see that many of the deaths are young black men. i think in a way to talk about gun violence, i think gun violence clearly is afflicting people of all backgrounds in our

society. it is not like anybody has, you know, has it better than anyone else in terms of, if you break it down by race in a particular way. it shows the global nature of the problem we are facing right now. in a way that it calls for is complex solutions. that, as i was saying before, bring the most people to the table as possible. because of so many communities are being fractured by this, and some more than others. host: chris in louisville, kentucky. democratic caller. you were talking with dr. jonathan metzl. go ahead. caller: good morning, dr. metzl. i have been following you for more than 10 years. first i want to know, is there a way for more people to see your classes, more white americans to see your classes? because you come from a perspective of truth and honesty, and not enough of that is being done. that is my first question. guest: thank you. yes, i try to -- as long as we

still have twitter, which seems like it is going to collapse any day now, i to open as much as i do. i do shows like this to talk to people. if you look on my website i try to post everything i do. certainly if you get in touch with me, if you dm me on twitter, maybe we can figure out a way to have you come into my class. caller: very quickly, the other point i wanted to make is the guy earlier when you came was talking about whites being tired of being called racist and white supremacist. i want to let them know, come to our world. what i am meaning by that is, we had derogatory statements thrust at us as african-americans all our time in america. whites for the first time or having specific words, negative words, give connotations of negativity toward them. and now they have to deal with being called a racist, being called a white supremacist.

and they have a problem with it. i will let you respond. guest: that is great. this is why i think guns is such an important window into these issues. in my book i talk about two particular experiences of people walking into walmart. in a state where open carry is legal. both, two registered gun owners. i talk about a white gun owner who goes into walmart with a long gun strapped around his back, walks around, does all of this shopping, actually holds up his gun in the store my things like that, and just walks out, no problem. the net talk about in the same town a black gun owner who had a registered, holstered gun, was going into walmart to buy some coffee creamer for his wife because they had run out. and the minute he walked in was tackled by a "good guy with a gun," arrested, harassed, all of these things. of course, there are many examples where people don't walk out of that situation at the end of the day.

the reason i think examples like that are important is to say, it was not so much about the intentionality of the person as just two different bodies walked into walmart, and they were coded very differently. one coded as a protector, a patriot. and the other, coded as a threat, a criminal. that is not about your own personal psychology, that is a will that dish that is about the way our society -- that is the way our society treats bodies differently. if we are going to live up to the ideals of a pluralistic country, you're going to have to fix that. i don't care what we call it. i think it is important to note that there is a problem in that regard. so, in a way, being honest about that, and honest about the different experiences. when people are saying i feel surveilled, i feel harassed, i feel unsafe, i think the answer of our country should be, how can we help? what can we do? instead of trying to blame people for expressing what

really is there daily reality often. host: dr. jonathan metzl, thank you very much. the book is "dying of whiteness: how the politics of racial resentment is killing america's heartland." appreciate the conversation. guest: thanks so much. host: the house is coming in for a quick pro forma session. they will gavel in and go back out. we will be back when they do so and we will open up the lines to an open form. any public policy issue on your mind. we will be right back.