, william reinhardt, senior research fellow at the center for growth and opportunity who talked of the new paul on american views on promoting economic abundance and environmental stewardship. then the residential studies director at the university of virginia miller center on the history of former presidents running for nonconsecutive terms. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, a facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. ♪

>> mid co. supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> tonight on q and a, historian douglas brinkley author of silent spring revolution talks about the conservationist movements and the landmark legislation approved during the 60's and 70's under the leadership of president kennedy, johnson and nixon. >> i'm grateful to that generation that we did get environmental protection agency, we did get the endanre species act, a vigorous clean air act in the 1970's that's made a difference. clean water act or 1972. so this silent spring generation i'm writing about that a lot of people in it, three presidents responded to t public and that's what great presidents do.

so in this regard i think nnedy, johnson and nixon all were truly good if not great environmental presidents. >> douglas brinkley with his book silent spring revolution and at 8:00 eastern on c-span q and debris you can listen to that on our free c-span now app. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington livened on demand. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, reports, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and by scheduling information for the c-span tv networks and c-span radio was a variety of compelling podcasts.

c-span now available the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. your front row seat to washington any, anywhere. host: good morning. it is sunday, november 20. president joe biden's birthday is today. the first term president said he is considering the second run for office. he turns 80 years old. he is joined by mitch mcconnell, also 80 years old. chuck schumer is 71 years old. should he run again, he would be challenged by donald trump who is 76 years old. the conversation about age and our elected leaders. do you think there should be an age limit for them? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000.

no, (202) 748-8001. you can text us your answer at (202) 748-8003. you can join us on facebook or send a tweet. there was a poll on this question recently. this is what they found. 67% of americans, two thirds agree that there should be an upper age limit for service as president, senator, a member of congress. they agreed equally with this idea. join us this morning to discuss a new study on this is the deputy washington bureau chief at insider. you did a project called the red white and gray. guest: we did it because we anticipated going into this election year and going forward

in our countries political time, this was going to be a bigger and bigger issue. we found that this current congress is the oldest congress in u.s. history. the gap between those who are leading and those who are being led is as wide as it's ever been. this raises some fascinating policy questions. is the current elected leadership reflective of the needs and wants of americans who are on average 38 years old. when it comes to climate change and social issues, technology of course, are they getting what they want? the answers that we found was that in the opinions of younger americans, there was a lot to be desired from leadership. host: how many members of congress are over 70 or 80?

guest: currently, one out of four members of congress are over the age of 70. it's going to be roughly the same. roughly the same going into the next congress, the most profound change is going to be the leadership ranks. we just saw nancy pelosi say she will not run for democratic leader. steny hoyer is going to step away. the top three members of democratic leadership in the u.s. house right now are 82 years old. that is going to change if the three who are coming in behind them are there, led by akeem jeffries from new york. there is going to be a 31 year age change, 51 years old on average for those top three. there seems to be a major generational shift taking place

in some aspects. our project anticipated there would be lots of changes and we wanted to look at the implications for americans. host: what does it mean? guest: younger americans don't feel represented. the government is not representative of them for age. we did our own polling with morning console in washington dc . we found similar results to the ones you just cited. the vast majority of americans, older americans as well, are very supportive of issues such as age limits. also term limits. these are very sticky. you've got the issue of ageism that is baked into it. many americans told us that there are age limits for pilots,

age limits for military generals, why should there be an age limit for a member of congress? what about federal judges who serve lifetime appointments? we found judges serving into their 90's, a federal judge who served until he was 104 years old. there were concerns that they might not have been in full control of their mental powers in a way that they would have been when they were 50 or 60. this is an uncomfortable topic. at the same time, we are talking about people who had an incredible amount of power who have been given the keys to leadership for a constituency. as a result, the decisions they make in the way they go about their business has a widespread effect on americans who have empowered them to be there in the first place.

host: our viewers can learn more if they go to the business insider website. david, thank you very much. let's get to your thoughts on this. should there be an age limit for elected office? you saw the first poll numbers on this general question for president or senate or the u.s. house. in the poll, they found that 61% of americans say with supreme court justice reaches an age, they should be forced to resign at the end of the courts term. mike in indiana, you say no. tell us why. caller: i say no, there shouldn't be an age limit.

i think they need to have a test to see their eligibility, how their mind is. everyone that's in the white house should have one. it's pretty obvious that we've got people in the white house that aren't thinking straight. when you have an open border over here with over 300 people a day dying from drugs coming in, surely people aren't thinking in the white house. host: cj in minneapolis. caller: good morning. of course there should be an age limit. i'm a grandfather. i will soon be a great grandfather. our kids are the future. i've got more years he had me

than i do in front of me. i want to leave something for them to build on, not for just to continue to be in power. my kids are educated now. they've even started doing more foreign languages. the younger generations are engaged in foreign languages. not only spanish, but russian and somalian. the future of the country is in the hands of the youth. host: cj in minneapolis. should there be an age limit for elected office? the associated press this morning writes a piece about president biden celebrating his 80th birthday. on this sunday, they begin the piece this way.

we are asking you, should there be an age limit for elected office? president biden in an interview in october was asked about his age when he talked with jonathan capehart. this is what he had to say. >> it's totally legitimate. the best way to make the judgment is to watch me. am i slowing up? do i not have the same pace? that old joke, everybody talks about a new 70 is 50 and all that stuff.

i'm a great respecter of faith. i could get a disease tomorrow. i could drop dead tomorrow. in terms of my energy level, in terms of how much i'm able to do, i think people should look and say does he have the same passion for what he's doing? if they don't, they should vote against me. they should encourage me not to go. host: president joe biden in a recent interview. from the episode's pole, they found that there is some complexity when you ask this question. demonstrating the complexity of it, three out of five americans agree that leaders who are older have valuable experience and should not be discounted because of their age. the similar number of americans say as long as a lawmaker or judge is in good health, they

should not be barred from serving. that is 55 percent. republicans and democrats agree on both points. mike in massachusetts. you say yes? caller: i say yes. i think the mental faculty discussion is debatable and there is a lying to be drawn. that's mostly why my yes answer is in there. subjectively, there's a huge culture gap here with boomers and everyone else. i see it in my workplace. i see it in politics. the culture gap is so big. host: can you describe it? what are some differences? caller: at work, the boomers have this idea of loyalty and

everyone else is realizing this game is up. those things that they believed in really don't hold true. it's extrapolated into a lot of things. their perspective on your effort or your worth. ladies at the grocery line at yelling at the cash register because she thinks they need to serve them in the way that they were -- the way they grew up to expect. there are all these disconnects. i really feel like boomers need to get out of the way. they are done culturally. they need to get out of the way. host: how old are you? caller: i'm in my late 30's. i'm really tired of boomers. i'm tired of the culture.

i want them to move out of the way. i don't think they are compatible with >> going on. host: who do you want to lead the country or -- who do you want to lead your party? caller: i'm as liberal as they come. i think the democrats are way too conservative. i think these boomers and conservatives get along because they don't want any progress and they're willing to do anything for themselves. for me, anyone under the age of 80 years old would be great. anyone under 50 would be nice. for me, it's less of an age thing and more of a cultural thing. when you get over 70, your brain is fried. we should have age limits like any other industry. host: give me some names.

caller: names? i don't have any leading candidates. people who don't believe in religious fasteners and, cops beating people and stopping their heads in the streets, people who don't want to put drugs in jail and it's not the 1980's. there is this huge cultural gap. it needs to be fixed. it really permeates through every angle of our lives. it's destroying us, these boomers and their culture. host: let's go to ronald and troy, north carolina. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i'm calling in.

i think the president is too old and he can't remember anything or keep up with anything. he also lies about every thing. he's not fit to be in office. host: you think it is his age? caller: yes. host: who would you support for a democrat to challenge him in the primary? caller: trump was on my side. i don't know what they are going to do about that. host: is the former president to old to run for office? he is 76 years old. caller: he's too old to remember what to lie about. host: catherine in new jersey. you say yes to an age limit.

good morning. caller: this is catherine in burlington. i think there should be an age limit. the president is my generation. right now, i couldn't do what i did when i was 65. there should be an age limit. i got cut off. thank you again. host: before you go, who are some younger leaders you would like to see in the top positions? caller: i'm looking at picking jeffries right now. he is a young man and looking pretty good. aoc. i could see her being in readership sooner or later. host: catherine mentioned akeem

jeffries, who is going to run for the democratic leader in the house. current speaker nancy pelosi announced that she would not run for leadership last week. she is 82 years old. steny hoyer is also 83 years old. he said he will not seek a leadership post as well as jim clyburn. all three of them are making room for a younger generation. katherine clark is over 60 years old. hakeem jeffries is young 50's. they are all running for leadership positions in the house. they will have their elections coming up at the end of the month. let's go to beth you say no. caller: as far as upper age, no.

you have to be 25 to get into congress. you have to be 30 to get into the senate. as far as upper age limits you have to look at the value of experience. you should be able to know how your government runs. we had a president for four years the didn't understand the basic principles of process. that's why he's got himself in so much trouble. host: i think you said that correctly. for president, you have to be age 35. for a senator, age 30. for represent of, age 25 years old.

in new york, you say yes. good morning two. to you. caller: can you hear me? i was thinking that the age factor is an issue. it's connected to temporary political thinking. it's not necessarily a question of numbers. it's because of his age, he just doesn't reflect any confidence. he doesn't exude any confidence. there are older people who are in position to lead. i just turned 60. i'm pretty frisky myself.

i do think biden is applicable to the times we live in. he thinks like a cold warrior, politician from the 70's. it's that thinking that makes them largely unqualified and makes him incapable of solving the problems of the 21st century. host: let's go to crystal in cordova tennessee. you say no. welcome. caller: i say no to age limits. i agree with the previous caller. the minimum age to run is where the age should stop. as long as they are competent and they are healthy, i think that is something we still need in government officials.

however, i think one of the issues or what the element should be is term limits. that's where we would see the most benefit, not just from age. we have seen younger people -- i mean maybe 50 and under, they have had strokes and medical issues as well. i think the age is not an issue. it needs to be an age when you can run for office. i think the better element would be term limits. right now, we have several political officials that have been in office for so long they are beholden to so many groups. that is where we can't get anything done it. host: isaiah's in san diego.

you are up early. caller: in 2016, i wanted to vote for bernie sanders, that he was 74 years old. now, i regret that. he was very competent. even now, bernie sanders is one of most competent people in congress. host: you are saying yes to an upper age limit? caller: historically, william jennings bryant was only early six when he got the nomination for president in 1896. he turned out to be a terrible person. i would like to see younger people go for elected office. there are people like bernie sanders that are very competent. host: here is the new york times

this morning. the president is turning 80. experts say age is more than a number.

dylan in you say no to an upper age limit. caller: good morning. i think the age doesn't matter as long as the mind works. there is a proverb that says a wise man surrounds himself with wise counselors. to run the country, you need wise people. wisdom comes with age. i heard the caller from massachusetts who was 30. he knows more than a 70-year-old. i think there has to be a mix. america is made up of many

different people and cultures. as long as the person is competent, i think age doesn't really matter. host: what about the cultural differences the 30-year-old was talking about? the difference between 30 and 40-year-olds and 80-year-olds? you heard our reporter joining us, talking about the average age of an american is around 38 years old. the average age of congress is much older. what does that mean for policy and the focus of policymakers? caller: by sitting around the table with all of those ages, there could be some understanding of those cultural differences as well as the age differences. how many presidents do you go back? you hear people talk about roosevelt and other presidents

and what they've done. some of them have serious health issues. the brain function was fine. their leadership was fine. they surrounded themselves with people that could steer them in the right direction and give them excellent advice. there was an old congressman. i was wondering, how do you keep voting this person in? the person said if there is a pothole in front of my house, within a week it is taken care of. although the person was older, they got the job done. it has to come down to results. biden might talk slowly, as long

as the job gets done it, i don't think age will matter. host: we mentioned in the poll that americans thought there should be an upper age limit for supreme court justices. look at the ages of th current court. the eldest member is clarence thomas at 74. alito is 72 years old. sonia sotomayor is 68. the chief justice is 67 years old. kagan is 62. the newest members are younger. brett kavanaugh is 57. neil gorsuch is 54. judge jackson is 51. amy coney barrett is 50 years old. let's go to robin in alton, illinois. you say yes to this question. caller: hello.

good morning. good morning. i've been up all night because i'm in the hospital. yes. we need age limits. host: you are watching c-span it, just to be clear. you said cnn. it's ok. it's alright. keep going. caller: there has been a lot of good comments. there are some things to look over. i think when we look at our congress and the senate, it's embarrassing. they are all old white men and women. i am one of those old white women.

i'm sorry to say that. we've got senators falling asleep in their chairs. i quit watching any kind of news after joe biden got in. host: you say yes as well in the illinois. caller: hello. it good morning. i do say yes. i'm going to speak bluntly. i don't find it ageist to say someone is getting too old for office. there are age limits on everything else. there's a retirement age. at the oldest, you should be at that retirement age. right now, i'm in my 40's. the same people that have been in office this whole time, it's

been like a dictatorship. the baby boom generation has taken the country hostage with their ideas and views that are completely outdated. i do agree with that guy. he was in his late 30's. we all know 30 is different then 39. i feel like a lot of this religious -- no one wants to be quoted bible verses. a lot of the older men in their have some gross views on women. they don't know about our bodies, but they want to make decisions. there are people that are still a part of segregation that are in there. i feel like it doesn't represent our country. it does not represent progress. we need to move forward.

the baby boomers are completely in charge right now. they will not let it go. some of these people are past retirement age by 20 years. host: who do you want to lead your party? caller: i am so glad you said that. i wrote my names down. host: you were prepared. caller: i've been writing for mcardle. he asked me and i completely blank. john, if you're listening. i believe that stacey plaskett and. i want katie porter, i would like elizabeth warren. that's not happening in the next 15 years of my life. i love elizabeth warren.

i really don't want to list a man. our country is more sexist than it is racist. i like pete buttigieg. i like akeem jeffries for vice president. things are moving around. i do think the younger, we still want age and wisdom. it's not a joke when people talk about having to take their keys away from their grandparents. we laugh about it. mom says, let grandpa say horrible things he's used to saying. that time is over now. we need to fly free. host: jennifer mentioning pete buttigieg, the transportation secretary. he ran for president as you know. he is 40 years old. let's go to keyport, new jersey.

good morning. what do you say? caller: i say no, we should not have age limits. i say that with a twist. as many people have said, with age comes experience and wisdom. what we need to do is raise the age limit for our representatives. no one should be in the house who was under 40. no one should be president who is under 50. joe biden was 29 when he ran for the senate. if these people want experience in government, let them work their way up. start at the state and local level and deal with the people. the people in san francisco keep voting for nancy pelosi. if you want younger people in

office, go support them and go vote for them. host: who do you want to lead your party? caller: right now, i'm a trump supporter. i'm not sure about leading the party. i look for people like jim jordan. i'm not sure how old he is. one of the ones that impressed me was mike pompeo. host: possibly mike pompeo. jim jordan is 58 years old. caller: he meets my age limit. host: what about ron desantis? caller: again with him, he needs more experience. he's been running at the state level. right now, it's just too soon. he's been running a heavily

republican state. we need time to see how he would play in the rest of the country. host: he is 44 years old. he just misses your age for president. caller: he's young enough. the president is term limited. that's where some of these people need more seasoning. host: hang on the line. i'm going to show you ron desantis. he was at the republican jewish coalition gathering. >> what we've shown is people respond to strong leadership. if you look at our election results, we had the biggest election margin than any governor has had in the history of florida. if you look at who we were

winning, we were winning across the board. you don't get that victory only getting republicans. we had a great republican turnout. we also won the middle. we won more democrats than any governor has done for long time. we are winning people because of these boxes the media wants to put people in. you can be strong. you can get things done. you can attract a coalition. most people realize, a lot has gone wrong in our country over the last two years. florida is showing away out of this morass. you've got to be willing to do it. you've got to be successful. in times like these, there is no substitute for victory. we are the light.

freedom will reign supreme with florida leading the way. i want to thank you for your support. we've accomplished more over four years than anybody thought possible. we've got a lot more to do. i have only begun to fight. thank you all. host: the governor of florida. i want to go back to you. after listening to the governor, what do you think? caller: i think he's right. it's too soon for him to start a two-year campaign for president. he just won reelection. let him continue the work in florida. next time around, i would support him. host: mike pompeo is on your list.

he is 58 years old. caller: i would look at that. he would be 62, considering he doesn't want to run this year. the president is term limited. it's a different job. host: harry is in georgia. you say no. caller: good morning. i would just say on the age thing, i don't think you could judge people by their age. you have to judge them by their ability to deal with ideas, new and old and concepts and old. we have a big problem in this country right now traditionally in who we allow to be educated. the fear of the other is holding

us back. the rest of the world has figured out you've got to educate everybody early to get the best out of everybody. it's easier to control what they think. you don't take books out of schools. host: let's go to dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 61. i am right there at the cusp. i have seen how boomers have basically ruined the world as far as i'm concerned. in terms of education, they have

taken away every social benefit to be successful. they are now removing books. i think it is cultural in nature along with the age. my son told me a long time ago, my generation can't think that way because we are mixed. we are young, families have expanded. people my age and older forget the tools they had to be successful. education was the first. i think they ruined education. they kept taking things away and taking things away. we wonder why young people don't know civics. they took it out of school. you have people who believe in gerrymandering.

they gerrymandered florida. his ideas seem to be more secular than thinking about all of us. i'm interested in bringing new blood in. i would like to see the old people bring in proteges and start grooming young people. i can't wait to see most of those guys retire. i do pay attention. there should be a turnover in age. there should be advisors and decision-makers. we all know trump as antiquated thoughts. host: who should run it? who should run then instead? caller: to be honest with you, i

like the california governor. i like katie porter. there's a couple of people in the south that i like. i do like stacey abrams. she just can't seem to get the votes to win. i think there are several. i do like buttigieg. i think he brings diversity to the cabinet. i would like to see more diversity in congress instead of old white men telling me what to do with my life and my body. i haven't had the experiences or the benefits most of them have had it. i think they have antiquated ways and they need to set on the couch. it is not the 60's or 70's. we are in an era now where things are moving fast.

they can't keep up. host: you mentioned katie porter. this is from and renew -- nbc news, she wins reelection after days of counting. she won third term in congress after defeating a former state assemblyman. let's hear from jim in new jersey. you say yes. good morning. good morning. yes? there should be an upper age limit? is that what you say? all right. theodore in canton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. some of these young people, i work with young people in schools, they come here with more than what some of us old people leave with. as far as young people are concerned, i think the age for

voting should be less, down to 15. i don't think there should be restrictions on an older person because of wisdom. i think that's diversity, having young people and old people work together. i think this would be a better country if we did that. we need to start people learning from young people are young people need to start listening to a lot of the wisdom of older people. that's all i had to say. host: in this next congress, the older members will hear from the first generation z member of congress. he made history tuesday night when he was elected to the u.s. house of representatives at just 25 years of age. he's the first member of generation z elected to congress.

he won the open seat in florida and was born in 1997. he will be two weeks shy of his 26th birthday when he is sworn into office january 3. frost will be the first gen z person in congress and the youngest member of the congress. just recently, madison cawthorn edged him out by 195 days. margaret in texas, you say no to this question. caller: i have to begin by saying you might think i have a bias because i'm going to be 95 in january. i taught at university for many years. you don't have to have a college

education to think rationally and critically. i have a lot of interaction with young people. i still do research. i am an independent. i haven't been able to vote for a republican in many years. i think joe biden has been a very good president for the people. when they complain about him, he sped has a speech impediment. that lasts all your life. you never get over it. i cannot say he should not run again. i do think he should consult with his family and make the decision. i think that's what all politicians should do. discuss whether it's good for the family, if it's good for the

person personally. i do think we need civics taught in high school and even the lower levels. we need people to know how our government runs. we don't seem to have that anymore. that's all i have to say. i wouldn't say a limitation on age. it all depends on the person. host: margaret in texas, thanks for coming in. on this question, if president biden seeks another term, he will be challenged by donald trump who said he will be running in 2024. a congressman spoke about the age factor. >> it would look like a bunch of old guys running.

biden would be 86. trump would be 82. most 86 and 82 years old are plain shuffleboard. they are not running the world. right now, it would be a tossup in terms of adding there. that's a big job to have when you are that old. there is a lot of pressure to have when you are 50. i'm not one hunter percent convinced we will see joe biden run again. i don't know if he has made the decision personally. it's a couple of old guys. the benefit of us as voters, we won't have to guess how they work. i imagine the republicans will stick with trump. the momentum and the outcome will be determined on where the independent voters are. host: that is the former congressman talking about a

matchup between them. bloomberg headlines, $85 billion say it's time to move on from the former president. stephen schwarzman won't be backing donald trump. they say it's time for the party to move on. we need a fresh face. the problem with trump as he has so many negatives. he can't get elected. let's hear from vicki in new jersey. you say yes. caller: good morning. how are you? i think it should be a combination of age and term limits depending on the job. my biggest fear is a lot of people think only within the united states. the president is international.

my biggest fear is at a certain age, you are more susceptible to having a heart attack or going into the hospital. that would temporarily put our country in a vulnerable position. that is my only concern. there are examples where older people are brilliant and have done wonderfully. i think at a certain age, committees can offer intelligence and wisdom. the president and the cabinet don't only work within it governance.

you should go into private. in reference to the question, i am independent, i am going to name republicans and democrats. i think larry hogan would be very good. i think the former governor steve bullock, he was a democrat. i also believe he's a democrat from texas. he was a football player. he went to law school and he is a voting attorney. there are democrats and republicans that are highly qualified and they are younger. they acquired wisdom and insight faster than people that live all their lives.

my biggest fear is when we get to old, people complain about cultural differences. our country is full of subcultures. host: are you talking about colin allred? caller: yes. i love him. host: who was first on your list? before larry hogan? caller: it's a tie between colin allred and stephen bolick. host: thanks. sophia in manhattan, you say no. good morning. are you there? caller: hello? host: good morning. we are listening to you. caller: i am 73 years old. host: happy birthday. caller: thank you, gretta. i wanted to say thank you for

doing this age thing. this is a birthday gift for me. i changed three months ago to independent from republican. you guys have a lot of calls from independent. it is a big gift for me. it's going to be good. i've been walking two hours a day. i am still working. it is beautiful. my mind works better. the older we get, we get -- i'm not a scientist. i'm not a doctor. look at what happened to nancy pelosi. she is successful. she is elegant. she is intelligent. i said this five years ago.

this is beautiful or all of us. i am so proud of what i did when i changed to independent. who am i going to vote for next? i have no clue. host: who do you want to run? caller: to tell you the truth, i have no choice right now. i haven't made up my mind. i don't care for trump or biden. being an independent now, i did not make up my mind yet. host: i've got to move on to kermit in virginia. caller: hello there. thanks for taking my call.

there is a decrease in cognitive skills, yes. as far as wisdom, no. i don't think we should look for that. there is intelligence, it has nothing to do with wisdom. i am 95 by the way. i don't the qui should look for wisdom. i think competence would be the best yardstick. host: let's go back to this york times article from this morning about the president turning 80 today.

todd is in michigan. good morning. what do you say on this question? caller: good morning. you've been reciting a lot of stuff from the new york times this morning. i do believe there should be an age limit because there is an age limit on federal judges and other elected posts. what did york times does not mention is that he has had aneurysms before. he's had to brain aneurysms

already. if you think he is getting better, i don't know what planet you were on. he has been a problem since he's been running. he ran everything out of his basement. he still have handlers to have to tell him what to do. host: john -- before i go to john, who do you want to run for president? caller: i'm an independent. i do vote republican. i would like to see abbott or desantis. i would like to see scott from south carolina. maybe scott could be our first two black president. we still haven't had one. obama was half-and-half. host: all right. you say yes to upper age limits?

caller: good morning, credit. i have a list of people i would like to see give a try out. i have a compromise for you. after trump put in a couple of conservatives on the supreme court, the democrats -- we are talking about supreme court justices. this is what i would like to see. an agent between 40 and 60. as far as the limits on terms, senators five years, reps six years. supreme court, 20. host: you were muffled at the end. 24 supreme court justices?

caller: i think -- there should be term limits on the supreme court. they are supposed to compromise. that's what we do. that would be the compromise. host: jay in washington dc. caller: -- host: good morning to you in washington dc? it is your turn. good morning. should there be an age limit for elected office? caller: -- host: let me try this. are you there?

caller: yes. we don't need discrimination against the elderly. we host: jay, good morning to you in washington dc. it is your turn. should there be a limit for elected office? let me try this. j in washington dc, are you there? caller: we do not need discrimination against the elderly. what we need is debates. more frequent debates in the longer debates. these 60 minute debates, downscaling of the public discourse.

we need mandatory 5 debates, 90 minutes each on domestic and foreign. that is what you need. host: all right. jay in washington dc. we will take a quick break. when we come back dara massicot will join us to discuss russia. later andrew jason cohen from george mason university discusses his tips for civil discourse athanksgiving this year. we will be right back. ♪

>> live on in-depth peter baker and new yorker staff writer stephen glasser will be our guests to talk about russia, the trump administration, and u.s. foreign policy. the husband and wife team have written 3 books together, including " the divider." join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook messages, texts, and tweets. peter baker and susan glasser, sunday, december 4 at noon. >> congress gets back to work in the wake of the midterm election.

watch in the next weeks as the 118th congress elects its leaders, creates new members and sets an agenda for january 2023. the outgoing congress uses its final weeks to tackle unfinished business such as judicial nominations and funding for the federal government, which is set to expire on december 16. watch live on air or on error free -- our free app c-span now. >> tonight on q and a, brinkley talks about the conservationist movement and t landmark legislation approved in the 60's and 70's. >> i am grateful to that generation that we did get an

environmental protection agency. we did get an endangered species act. we had a clean water act in 1972 . this silent spring generation i am writing about, the three presidents were responsive to the public. on this regard, kennedy, nixon, a.n. johnson were all great -- and johnson were all great environmental presidents. you can listen to q and day and all of our pod -- q and a and all of our podcasts on c-span now. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is dara massicot here to talk about

the russian invasion of ukraine. let's begin with the news from this week. what happened with that missile strike that landed in poland killing two people? caller: the russians launched around 100 missiles at ukraine. it appears from the polish investigation that one of those ukrainian air defense missiles went astray in trying to intercept a missile and landed inside poland. the polish government handled this with a lot of maturity. they said, " let's wait, we do not know what is going on." eventually they said it was ukrainian. president zelenskyy has been asked to be part of that investigation. host: is someone at fault here? guest: the u.s. government has said and poland has agreed that russia is the one who launched 100 missiles at ukraine. it is in their right to defend

themselves. this is a tragic accident unfortunately. . host: what is poland contemplating doing in response, if anything? guest: they announced they were going to do some additional air patrols in the region and increase readiness along the border but it has been a measured response given the tensions in the area. host: describe the system the ukrainians used and how this could happen? guest: it has been launching them against ukraine. they needed time to figure out where this thing came from, whether it was a deliberate launch are whether it was a ukrainian interception attempt. host: where are the russians launching these missiles from? guest: the caspian sea area.

i am not sure whether they are it near belarus, but my understanding it is coming from the black sea fleets. heavy air bombers are coming from southern russia or western russia. host: what is the fight like now? what is being used by the russians? how are the ukrainians responding? guest: in terms of missile launches? host: all of it. guest: there has been consistent assessments that the russians are running low. that has been ongoing for the past months. they are running low, yet they are still able to launch 100 or so of these at a time every few weeks, and they are drawing down as they do this. , they're targeting ukrainian energy water, fuel, things the

ukrainian military needs to have a functioning government. then there is the ground forces picture. it is a high-intensity war. they are lobbing artillery rounds, longer-range systems on the ground. it is not really necessarily maneuver warfare at this point. they are digging in. it is a high-intensity conflict. host: where is the fighting occurring in ukraine? guest: russia recently retreated from the kherson region. they have pulse of the other side of the river where they are digging in. fighting right now this week is most intense in the donetsk region, which is part of their northern frontline. a hodgepodge of russian groups are together. host: what is ukraine's move

next? guest: settling in for the winter. ukraine wants to continue with their momentum. they have assessed to that the russians are the weakest right now while they are repositioning, they are retreating, they're trying to bring in troops that have poor training. ukraine wants to press forward. they are creating a different -- the russians are creating a bunch of different offensive lines. host: what is russia trying to hold onto? guest: where they are now essentially. you have 4 ukrainian regions. luhansk, donetsk and part of kherson. i do not think they he the

offensive capability to try to take more. may be in the span of years, they could try to take more. host: what is ukraine asking for from the united states and others in order to, as they say, continue with this momentum? guest: they have a pretty comprehensive set of requirements. they are asking for air defense systems, a few systems have been provided and they have been engaging russian missiles. those are shorter range, medium-range systems, but they are effective. they are asking for continued munitions, whether it is artillery shells, bullets, tank grounds. they are . asked it -- they are asking for armored equipment.

i think most critically for them is maintenance. they do not really have a functioning defense industrial base because the russians have attacked it from the beginning of the war. host: let's hear from ron in california. caller: good morning, greta. it is good to see you again. thanks, dara, for appearing on the show today. a couple of important things that are not very much reported in the normal media -- one is the actual casualty figures that the russians have suffered. the last word i heard was 100,000, but that was a combination of dead soldiers and people who have been injured by the ukrainians. number two, ukrainians are attacking the black sea fleet around crimea.

i think people are really interested to know how much effort are they putting into taking out some of these russian ships and making incursions into crimea? host: thanks, ron. guest: at the bottom level you have the official russian numbers, which is hovering at around 5000. you have numbers that range up to 100,000. it is difficult to understand the exact figure. i think recently of the u.s. government had given numbers around 10,000 to 16,000. if you multiply that number times three you might get a wounded number on top of that. ukraine has also taken similar numbers of casualties. this is a high-intensity conflict. you see these kinds of numbers

--- there has not been a war like this in quite some time. ukraine is on multiple waves of mobilization to try and fill in its ranks. i think it is worth noting the casualties that russia took, as high as those are, it is disproportionately affecting what was its professional army prior to the conflict. every wave of personnel they will get after this will have rest your skills, less training. the advantage ukraine has is it has training abroad. some of its soldiers are being trained in the u.k. russia has lost a few ships. it has others that can shoot caliber missiles, not in high numbers. those ships can shoot between 4 and 8 per platform.

the craniums have been targeting russian bases on the crimean -- the ukrainians have been targeting russian bases on the crimean peninsula. i think they are learning. it will be harder for ukraine to target the black sea fleets. host: dave is next. caller: i'm not negative on russia winning or losing the war. i think there is a lot of misinformation, specifically maintaining the $100 billion we are sending ukraine. what you want to think about is this attack on the energy infrastructure. if her russia continues to bomb at well -- if russia continues to bomb at will, you will

potentially have a massive refugee crisis. guest: thank you for your question and observation. that is part of russia's strategy, at least part of one of their strategies, to attack the goal infrastructure. you make life unbearable by targeting electricity, gas, all the things you need to function in a society, and russia is systematically going after that, attacking power grids, transformer stations, knocking out power as winter happens for millions of ukrainians. you can see where the strategy on paper makes sense and their targets are appropriate. what i don't understand, and others are asking the question even -- how do you get from power outages and no energy to getting battlefield outcomes that you want, which is getting the government to capitulate. there is not a law in the middle

there in the russian strategy. the theory on the russian side goes, " life will become so miserable, that the people will rebel against their government or flee because they need to go where there is heat or power, and create a refugee crisis and other governments around ukraine will pressure them to go to the table with russia." ukraine is more unified than it has been in a long time in getting russians out of the country, and all the countries around ukraine are trying to help them with their defense. there is a logic problem in russia's strategy and civilians are caught in the crossfire of that. host: what does the infrastructure of? ukraine look like guest: -- host: what does the infrastructure of ukraine look like right now? guest: you have electric grids that are able to tap energy locally but not able to disseminate it. there are targeting kyiv in

particular. it is hard to get that online again, if there are continued missile strikes. they keep going for the same targets and destroying them. it makes life very difficult. host: will in long island, independent. caller: can you hear me? host: yes i can. caller: this is my first-ever time calling into c-span! i am about to comment on this issue. ukraine has lost most of its power and stuff. i wish we could leave for now. that area is not really safe. they're losing a loved their resources, they are losing their homes, and russia does not seem to want to stop until they are defeated. host: let's take that point. can ukrainians leave? guest: in terms of ukrainian civilians, yes, they could

potentially try to go to other parts of ukraine where they have friends or family, where there is power. when we deal with these things -- what would you do if there was a hurricane? you would go where the power was. in ukraine, there are not many places that are safe. this is a real problem. host: in north carolina, richard is a republican, good morning. caller: , greta -- caller: greta, i would like to mention the fact that our we always is supporting the nazis, yes or no? host: are we supporting what? caller: nazis. host: this is something you are hearing from the russian president. guest: that is russian propaganda. they have tried to recast the

word nazi as something that is anti-russian. it is part of their propaganda they are selling their people on, selling their soldiers on. there is no evidence to suggest that the ukrainian government is a nazi government. host: mark milley held a conference with the defense secretary last week. this is what he had to say about u.s. support for ukraine. [video clip] >> the ukrainians are not asking anyone to fight for them. they will fight for themselves. all ukraine is asking for is the means to fight, and we are determined to provide that means. will that on -- ukrainians will do this on their timeline. we will do whatever it takes. it is clear to me that that is

not only a u.s. position. we will be there for as long as it takes to keep ukraine free. host: dara massicot, for as long as it takes? what will it take? guest: i don't, know the exact figures but it is in the billions in terms of weapons, of financial support. to provide those -- in terms of weapons, other financial support to provide those to the ukrainian government. the u.s. does not have an infinite supply of air systems to provide to ukraine, nor do our allies, nor does russia. we are coming into a phase of this conflict where if it is protracted it will be a dual of sustainment. there timelines -- there are

two different timelines. over the long haul, if we are talking about the span of years, next summer, the summer after that, russia still has an industrial base. it is under export controls. it is not operating potentially very effectively, but they still have one, and that is important. ukraine does not have an operational defensive industrial base. host: this is from the new york times. " the battle for ukraine f sure remains a grinding war of attritio with relentless artillery attacks and other world war ii era tactics. de primarily rely on soviet era weapons. even as the traditional warfare is underway training in ukraine

is being closelyonitored for the way it will change the fight. technology inclus remote control boats and an air defense system build in germany that the german military itself has yet to use and this delta technology is a real-time online information system that ukrainians use to track the russians. what do you make of this new technology, and is making a difference? guest: this is a 21st century battlefield. there is constant reconnaissance of russian units whether it is system delta -- it is ingesting commercial satellite imagery or drone footage or other assessments like that and providing targeting level data to ukrainian forces.

the russians have drones too. they are learning in this war. they are trying to catch up. in a battle space that is so heavily covered it is difficult for units to move around without being detected. that is something to consider moving forward. we have seen the russians use technology that has existed. it drones have been around for a few decades now. they are using makeshift missiles into launching them into -- counter drawn technologies will be important moving forward. there are elements of this war that are very traditional but there are technologies that are making their way onto the battlefield making an impact. host: let's go to doug, boston,

massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: in 1991, james baker promised gorbachev that in exchange for the reunification, nato would not expand one inch eastward. when russia was in a state of weakness that is exactly what -- putin is a case of reaping what you so. as far as changing borders by force that is exactly what nato did with serbia and kosovo. i would like to hear what your analyst has to say about my observations. guest: i don't follow political questions like that, i follow

russian military forces. the force they had during the cold war was very different from the force they have right now. host: explain that more. guest: they do not have a million people in the military. they do not have wave after wave of divisions of tanks, they don't have the requisite type of forces to do something like this . they dismantled their military 10 years ago to be one that is capable, or resigned to, small flareups on the border not large-scale land warfare, occupation world war ii style battles. they said we will not fight that way anymore, and here we are. host: why did they make that decision 10 years ago? guest: it was the understanding that their democracy was different, their role in the

world is different. they are not a global military, more of a regional one. they cannot afford a military like that one anymore. that was underpinning the necessity to move. host: what has changed in 10 years for vladimir putin? guest: he made some assumptions going into this war that ukrainians would not fight back, that it would be easy. it may be he was drawing on what happened when russia annexed crimea. i have a network of -- " i have a network of spies that will run this government for me when zelenskyy capitulates." host: greensboro, north carolina, independent, james, good morning.

caller: i have mixed emotions about this ukraine conflict. first of all, it is all over the pipeline. the whole war is about a pipeline. by having a gas pipeline and all the way across northern ukraine. they wanted to get another pipeline down to the black sea in the eastern part of ukraine, which is not heavily populated. they turn around -- a soap opera star was elected by the craney and people.

as in as this invasion start -- the ukrainian people. as soon as the invasion started, the former president was jailed. when biden went over there or his representative, -- they in turn -- it is stupid on my part -- they should negotiate to let that blasted pipeline go through the swampy area of eastern ukraine that is not heavily populated.

, next i don't believe the current monarch of ukraine. i call him a monarch because he is. if someone in his parliament or congress objects to something he does, the monarch has them jailed. they had politicians put in jail who do not agree from the monarch. host: where do you get your information? caller: it came from cnn, fox news, nbc. nbc is relatively neutral pn all of -- on all of these decisions. guest: thanks for calling in. in the run up to this war, russia had several justifications that they put on

the table for what it was doing. at the time it was this belief that ukraine would join nato, and it would place intermediate range missiles, and those would be able to target russia. it shifted again. whether it started last summer, some variant of " ukraine isn't an independent nation>" this was an artificial distinction made during soviet times. this is from putin. ukraine belongs as part of the " russian world." i hear your questions about the pipeline and the role of transit to europe. that was not part of the rollout for what we are seeing now in terms of this invasion. the justification has shifted so many times at this point it is an invasion because they did not want it to be part of the west. host: mike in reston, virginia,

democratic caller. good morning caller: -- caller: good morning. progressive democrat. i supported biden. he was one of the first >>

i still think he had the right to protect his border. so, this war, no one is a winner in this war. mostly the ukrainian people are the losers. it is fueling inflation around the world.

it is not about your right or democracy. yen is destroyed, people are displaced all over the world. host: kent anyone when -- can anyone win? guest: this war is a tragedy. if russia could choose again today, i think the war would be over. they would continue to be supported for as long as they want to negotiate. host: listen to where they are in the conference. >> it is incredible what they are able to do. they went into the offense of and had great success even in

curacao. they physically, geographically are relatively small, compared to the whole. that military task of kicking the russians physically out of ukraine is a very difficult task. it is not going to happen in the next couple of weeks unless the russian army completely collapses, which is unlikely. probability of a ukrainian military victory, defined as kicking the russians out of ukraine to include what they claim is crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high. politically, there may be a solution where the russians withdraw. they want to negotiate from a

position of strength. the russian military is suffering, tremendously. leadership is really hurting bad. they have lost a lot. numbers are classified. they have lost a lot of vehicles. they have lost a lot of their fourth and fifth generation fighters. the russian military is really hurting, bad. we want to negotiate at a time were you at your strength. it is possible, maybe that there will be a political solution. i am saying, there is a possibility. host: your reaction? guest: i think that is a sober assessment. i would agree with him that they are really at their weakest right now before they start to see any type of benefit from

globalization. i agree with him in terms of where they are at in the timelines that they are on right now. in terms of the proposition to evict them by force, i agree with him also. on to talk about some successes that ukraine has in their strategy that has worked for them and may continue to work if they have the means to do so. that is taking and choosing areas of the russian front line that are weak and pushing them. they did that in the early phases in northern ukraine on the russians were trying to move forward. the russians faced significant losses. later on, up near khaki, -- kharkiv, some areas were not

designed for combat. the ukrainians did a counter attack. we fast-forward to the third issue, russian forces were on the other, the western side and the ukrainians blew most of the bridges behind them. this strategy of pushing on the front line where it is weak usually results in them pulling back in little pieces. that is a strategy that could continue. it is a large front line. several miles long -- several hundred miles long. they are putting more people into a smaller frontline so it will be more and more concentrated over time. the more time they have, the more they will dig in. they should start pushing on these areas.

host: good morning. caller: good morning. i don't want to spill much of the beans. do you have a staff for russian media or who watches them on television or radio, how do you collect your data? how come the russians were successful in czechia. -- czechia? guest: thank you for your question and asking about sources. i like talking about this. yes, my colleagues and i do read a lot of different types of media, whether that is russian media, russian social media to the extent we have russian lee

waste, they follow on the ukrainian side. we get that picture. we also follow different types of trade publications. it is really all over the map. the issue is, i would say this is both sides, there's always challenges. the russian media is heavily controlled. you're getting a variant of what is happening. there are things they do not talk about. you can get patterns. if there is a topic you know is important and yet there is a negative space, whether it is uncomfortable, they are not sure if they should talk about it, you can see the contours of something that is important to them by something they are not saying. it is a roundabout saying to get at that. mostly, they are trying to cooperate of rumor or some kind of development with multiple sources of information and

trying to put a composite picture together. the russians are trying to present their view of the facts. ukrainians are as well. it makes it difficult to try and weave through all of that. we do our best. professionals will tell you, i have confidence -- or i don't have information to tell you about how confident i am. language is very important. in terms of russians being successful in czechia. i will give you a brief answer. what defined success? chechnya is stable. that came at a heavy price. what they call a counterterrorist operation against their own people was a military operation with

extensive shelling of villages, containment, all sorts of things like that. they have a toolkit that the russian government knows how to use. unfortunately, that is what is happening in many places in ukraine. this is something that in many ways they have learned in their conduct during that war. they are flipping that upon ukrainian civilians. host: we have an independent. caller: good morning to both you. i am almost the same as joe biden who celebrated his 80th birthday yesterday. host: today. caller: today. yesterday as well. i would like a moment to pass on frustrations. for the last 60 years, my life

has been consumed by being a forensic investigator. i am very pleased that there is expertise in the topic discussed today. i am an addict of c-span. i watch it every morning. i am very interested in hearing from various colors and listening to different experts in those kinds of things. now, one thing i have noticed, and i'm sure you will probably click me off. a little while ago you received a call from someone who was republican. you immediately challenged him about where he got that

information. you have never done that and i have been watching closely for a long time. not when they identified themselves as a democrat. now, let's get to the real topic. i am unclear because i have not done my part in investigation about all the facts. i will stop there for what it is worth. i continue to listen, i continue to watch. body language, torx, this and that. host: before you go, are you still there? dan, in sioux falls, south dakota. independent. caller: i think this goes back to the political thing. when president trump asked zelinski for dirt on biden.

zielinski was like, what is this ? i don't want to deal with mudslinging in american politics. he did not give any dirt on biden. president trump keep saying, if i was president, this would have never happened. i think it is because zielinski never got the dirt on biden. i think him and put in figure that if trump gets reelected, then, well. i am just saying that because if zielinski would have gotten dirt on biden, who knows what would have happened. i also think that president trump also set things up for biden -- host: we will leave it there. we go to north carolina, democratic call. caller: good morning.

host: good morning. caller: i have a comment. i think that united states should give all we can to ukraine. let's learn something from world war ii. anyway we can get information to the russian people to end this quickly and save billions of dollars is for the russian people to take out putin. that is my comment. thank you. guest: it is difficult to get information to russian people. there are a few different ways that that is challenging. the majority of russian citizens in certain parts of the country get their news and information from television. russian tv is heavily controlled. there is no, what we would consider, independent media in russia. not anymore.

there is that. there are some people who do get their news from the internet. they are able to go outside of russian media space and see what is there. there are people who feel less and less confident over time that russia can win. it is not majority but it is changing. there is some information seeping in. you can see it starting to come into the margins on some election programming. there is some chatter on russian social media about the war. it is not really at eight groundswell yet where it would manifest. it is challenging to get those narratives in. i can say that russian people are not not getting the

information, they are just not acting on it. host: one more question from dave in minneapolis. what is the pub ability of a nuclear missile hitting a nuclear power plant and creating a crisis? guest: that is something that we have thought about, what would be the effects of that? would it create contaminated zone and would russia come -- russia claimed they were not responsibility -- responsible for it but there is still that nuclear disaster. the russians have occupied ukrainian nuclear power plants in the north. they are kind of in control of the situation.

i have limited ability to do anything about it. on the money, there is a discussion on capitol hill about how much money the united states should be sending to ukraine. the main wire looked into this question. according to the german think tank that is tracking the money, the u.s. have transferred 54 point four $3 billion to the government of ukraine. -- $54.43 billion to the government of ukraine which brings it almost to $100 billion. thank you for this conversation. host: we are taking a short break. when we come back, and jason cohen, a pluralism and civil

follow discusses his tips for thanksgiving and all your long. we will go back to a question that we asked earlier, there is on your screen and the numbers. start dialing in. we will be right back. ♪ >> are you a nonfiction book lover, this holiday season listen to many of the podcast that c-span has to offer. interesting interviews with people and authored's -- authors with books on history. listen to book notes plus for conversation with authors and historians. best-selling authors with influential interviewers for conversations.

we talk about the business of books on about books with information from the publishing industry and authors. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's latest podcast on books. best seller lists, trends from insider interviews. you can find this on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up to our news later using the code on your screen. to see the schedule and more. every sunday on c-span two.

>> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span to get it free from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters. americus are watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> tonight on q&a, a historian and author talks about the conservationist movement in the landmark legislation in the 1960's and early 1970's. >> i'm grateful to that

generation. we did get that endangered species act. we did get a clean air act 1970 that has made a difference. this silent spring generation that i am writing about, had a lot of people but they were responsive to the public and that is what great presidents do. they were all truly great in that. >> with his book "silent spring revolution" on c-span. you can listen to this and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back.

should there be an age limit for elected office? today on this sunday, november 20, it is president biden's 80th birthday. we join -- he joined sarah and leadership roles around that age. chuck schumer, the democrat leader is 71 years old. former president trump said he is running in 2024. here is a poll that you saw the results of. americans want and upper age president. 60% say a limit needs to be in place. democrats and republicans agree on this point. 72% of republicans agree and 69% of democrats.

american state when supreme court justices reach a certain age, they should be forced to retire. let's hear from all of you. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i love all of the advice. we are getting good, smart conversation today. they were requesting $50 billion for vaccinations. we did have the money. by the end, over $80 billion for the war. my thing is, the swap needs to be drained. the best way to drain the swamp is age limit and term limit.

i think tony is far too young. he should be a staffer at age 25 to gain the experience. 35 i believe is a little bit young. 40 years old would be more appropriate. biblically, that would be an appropriate age. host: four president? caller: correct. we have term limits for our president, there is no reason we should not have term limits for congress and the senate. i think 20 years would be sufficient. what i like is that they should not get 180,000 dollars a year for their service. they do not do enough work. they should live in or around

washington dc, mainly in their district and states that they represent. when they have work to do, they should then go to washington. they could spend time there, pass the laws. in this way i was told for out of the five counties, richest counties, or in and around washington dc. i know you do not live in washington, d.c., c-span does not pay you enough. by the way, i would vote for you for president. a lot of the contractors and lobbyists are always after -- they in washington, d.c.. if you push them there, there

would not be enough lobbyists. term limits, age limits, i think those would be appropriate. also, cutting the salary from $180,000 over $290,000. they should also live in their area. we should also think about removing to senates from each of the smaller states so we have better representation. host: let's get in more voices. tom. caller: no, we already have a limit, it is called voting. the major problem is that people do not have the discernment to vote responsibly. they need to ask themselves the question, can this person be

trusted to represent responsibly? that is really all we need. host: thank you, tom. twitter, age effects different people differently. a quote from reagan, i am not going to exploit for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. westbrook says, no, we should not encourage ages, no matter where one works. in ohio, you also say no. host: i do. thank you. i have a lot of respect for what you do. i agree with tom. this is a freedom that we all have. it is not necessary to implement

nationwide. if there is an age that we think the center is too old, we need to decide that individually. it is not necessary for a nationwide limit. host: president biden said it is a legitimate question. take a listen. >> are you concerned about anyone's age? >> i think the best way to make the judgment is to watch me. my slowing down, don't have the same pace? am i slowing up, the same pace? that old joke, 70 is the new 50, all that stuff. i could drop dead tomorrow. but in terms of my energy level,

in terms of how much i'm able to do, i think people should look and say, does he still have the same passion for what he's doing. if they think i do, that's fine. if they don't, they should vote against me. host: president biden in the recent msnbc interview. "new york times" has an article about the president turning 80. "mr. biden, according to experts, has a lot going in his favor. he is highly educated, he has social interactions, a stimulant job that requires a lot of thinking, is married and has a strong family network, all factors that studies show protect against dementia and are conducive to healthy aging. he does not smoke or drink alcohol, according to the white house. he exercises five times a week. he also has top-notch medical care." mark in florida, you say no to an upper age limit for elected

office. mark, good morning. caller: good morning to, greta. i was heartbroken when i saw the wedding ring on your finger, but that's ok. i just want to say that if it was, it would be 72 when you are supposed to retire, but you can hold on until you are 80. but the voters themselves take care of this. and i think we do reasonable job where we live. i just think that what we need to get back to is frivolous lawsuits, but they don't seem to matter anymore. i thought at one time we had it. today it is just they take all of our rights away because, and then they turn around into all this stuff. what's good for one should be good for the other. host: ok.

mark in florida. larry, you are a yes to upper age limits in lewisville, texas. caller: yes, i should be age limits now, but term limits as well. i would like to see the term limits put on the ballot and allow the citizens of the united states to vote on it. as far as who i would like to see on the ticket, i would like to see amy and liz cheney -- amy klobuchar, i think i mispronounced her name. host: no, you got it, klobuchar. caller: amy and these cheney on the ticket. it is time for this country to have a woman as president and vice president thousand that is all i have to say. host: liz in new jersey, you say no. caller: yes, i think it is up to the citizens. we need to be cognizant of who we are voting for, and if we feel the present is not up to the job, whether they be 80 or

40, we shouldn't be voting for them. i don't believe in term limits. as far as -- i think we are letting ageism take over with everything that is being run from political -- run for political reasons against the president -- and happy birthday to him today. we had a four-term president who was wheelchair-bound and was capable of getting us through both the great depression and world war ii. and he did it competently. we didn't use his disability against him. it was somewhat hidden, but he was able to do the job and got for americans things like social security and on employment

compensation and welfare. -unemployment competition and welfare. there is more than one factor of age. host: business insider took a look at this new congress that will come into session at the beginning of january 2023. "red, white, and gray -- key findings into the investigation of the united states geritol chrissy.-- gerontocracy. there is a growing age gap between americans leaving the government and americans being led. and some officials feel blocked by those clinging to power and their issues downplayed." archie in four oaks, north carolina, yes to an upper age limit. hi, archie. caller: how you doing? host: good morning. caller: good morning to you. host: you say yes to an age

limit? caller: yes, i do. i say yes, it's not an age limit, than some kind of test has to be given to determine what kind of -- they do it for the civil service ops, you take a civil service test for government positions. some people can do it much longer, some people cannot. a test would be the most ideal thing to do to make sure you get to do the job. some have called this morning and said that to get -- they get paid too much money, which they do. i agree with him on that. that is not the issue right now. it is the age limit. some kind of test or limit for the president of 80 years old. 80 years old would be about the max. you slow down a great deal at the time mentally. physically, too.

everything has a life, so it is common sense to do that. host: all right, archie. harry in pennsylvania in a text message. "i'm 71. i think old are getting in the way of american progress. commercial airline pilots have to quit at 60. that is a good stop. politicians, agency heads, cabinet officers, and judges, too. move on, get a hobby." rick and i will get what you say to this question? caller: i have to edit go -- echo archie from north carolina exactly. if you have an age limit, 80 would be the absolute max. maybe a little less than that. i think they should do a cognitive test. i think that that should be a necessity more than the age limit. host: rick, who would you like to see lead your party in this next presidential election in

2024? caller: oh, boy, somebody good. and right now i'm not seeing a lot of that. i don't have a good choice and i don't have a good answer to that. host: are you republican or democrat? caller: well, i'm kind of an independent. i have voted for both parties. host: ok, and in either party don't see a good candidate? caller: well, joe biden i don't think has done this country a good service, and donald trump i think kind of is his own worst enemy. that is where i am at. host: ok. florida, you say yes. good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning. i think 80 is a good limit. my concern is that sometimes as we become older we get stuck in

time and her decisions are based on how we used to do things. i think that 80 is a good number . however, we do have young people that coming up behind us, and their ideals, and the country have to address them as well. yeah, i think 80 is a good number. host: and who are some young people coming up that you think would be the next leaders, elected leaders? caller: for me, i'm really keeping an eye on that guy, the governor of california. i'm a democrat, and i think that he would be a good selection for president. host: gavin newsom. caller: yes, ma'am. i really like him, and i like his spirit. he seems to have a lot of energy. he is doing some things over there in california, the electric cars, and my

understanding is he is stopping the gas automobiles i think in 2035. so he's a smart and he is ambitious. i like him. host: he is 55 years old. mike in woodstock, virginia. hi, mike. good morning. caller: thanks so much for having me on the air. yes, i definitely support an age limit on elected office. as you know, the u.s. constitution has minimums for our federal government elected officials. but i think maximums -- for me, i am 68. i think it should be that if you are running for federal -- that is, d.c. office, particularly the chief executive, that when you file your papers to run, you should not be older than if you

took office -- that is, when you were inaugurated, age 62, so that if you served two terms, you would be age 70. again, i am 68. a school bus driver or commercial truck driver, insurance companies won't cover anymore 70 forward. yes, i think there should be an age limit, and i think that should go down the chain. you asked one of your previous callers about so-called up and comers. i'll give you four , two on each side. host: ok. caller: i support gavin newsom, like one of your callers said, and the governor of colorado. on the republican side, mr. sununu, governor of new hampshire, and larry hogan, the governor of maryland. all four of those governors have worked for -- have worked with

both parties to achieve good things in their country. and in my life, i'm a lifelong moderate, and a moderate democrat, but i've supported both sides depending on the individual, their ideas, their thoughts, their integrity that i can see. i think the biggest threat to our country is the first three words of the preamble, we the people. lincoln said united we stand, divided we fall. if we don't come together and get over this finger-pointing, talking over each other, shouting, etc., etc., then what's going to happen for our grandchildren? thank you so much for taking my call. i appreciate the show. host: all right. coming up, we're going to be talking but the shouting, the talking all over each other, with andrew jason cohen about politics and civil discourse as we get closer to the

thanksgiving meals. bob in yeary, pennsylvania. don't believe in term limits. "i believe you should be 50-plus to become president. must take a polygraph test before getting elected." someone mentioned as a potential presidential candidate is the governor of florida, ron desantis, republican. he is 44 years old. he went before the republican jewish coalition in their gathering over the weekend. yours what he had to say. [video clip] >> what we have shown is people respond to strong leadership. if you look at our election results, we had the biggest election margin, 1.5 million votes, that any governor has had any history of the state of florida. if you look at who we were winning, we were winning across the board. don't get that type of victory only getting republicans. what we did is we had a great republican turnout, very

energized base of supporters, but we also decisively own the middle, we-- won the middle, we won more democrat than any governor has in a long time. we are winning people regardless of these boxes the media wants to put people in. we treated people as individuals and fellow americans, and they responded. so you can be strong, you can get things done, and you can attract a huge, huge coalition, because i think most people realize there is a lot that has gone wrong in our country, particularly over the last two years. florida really is showing a way out of this morass and this mess. what you got to be willing to do it and you have got to be successful in implementing it. at times like these there is no substitute for victory. we in florida are the light. freedom will reign supreme with florida leading the way. i want to thank each and every one of you for your support. we've accomplished moreover a

four-year period than anybody thought possible. i can tell you this, we've got a lot more to do, and i have only begun to fight. thank you all. god bless you. thanks so much. host: florida governor ron desantis. marilyn in portland, oregon. you say yes to age limits for elected office will tell us why. caller: because somewhere around the age of 80 to 85, there just is a change in a person's thought process. i believe that if you limit it to 80, even if you are in a four-year to six-year office, you go into that timeframe. as for term limits, that is the ballot box. people just sometimes -- a lot of times do not take the time to actually investigate the candidate. they just vote for whatever name they happen to recognize on the ballot, which is just a failure

of our educational system and person's cognitive thought process, even when they are younger people. as for up-and-coming persons, i would like to see nikki haley on the ticket. i wouldn't mind seeing sarah palin on the ticket. greg abbott, and of course ron desantis. but we do need younger people. i think that after a certain amount of time, you just get stuck in your same thought process, and we need the thought process in our whole system, whether it is local or regional or federal. host: before you go, you saw this past week senator mitch mcconnell, who is 80 years old, leader of the republican in the senate, challenged by rick scott of florida.

rick scott did not get enough votes. he only got 11 of his colleagues devote for him to replace--to vote for him to replace mitch mcconnell. do you think that the senator, senator mcconnell should have stayed on, or should he have made room like speaker pelosi, james clyburn, and steny hoyer did on the house side? caller: i believe he should've stepped aside. you shouldn't have even p-- he shouldn't have even put his name forth. you can find pluses or minuses with his leadership, and i have several, but he should've stepped aside. we need younger thought processes, a different thought process sometimes just changes the whole way a group of people approach a problem. and if that is not allowed to emerge, you have the same thought processes guiding you, and you come to the same conclusions a lot of times. host: an rick scott, who challenged him, the senator from coda, 69 years old full--senator

from florida, 69 years old. who should be the leader of the republican party in the senate? caller: well, i'm not certain who should be the leader. i like rick scott. i like john kennedy. i like marco rubio. so there is lots of possibilities. you just need to have room. the way that our politics works, it takes a strong person, first of all, to challenge someone who has been in leadership for long, and it takes strong people to say to themselves, we need to vote for the new person and not worry about if he loses that we might lose our committee chairmanships or whatever. and that is hard. host: ok, marilyn mentioned marco rubio. he is 51 years old. caller aforementioned tim scott

of south carolina, 57 years old. eddie in. , illinois. -- eddie in illinois, you say yes. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? host: doing just fine. why do you say yes, there should be an age limit? caller: i say yes because along with the two-term presidents, i think the age limit might be -- to bring along just like the supreme court, they have people in there -- bring someone along to groom someone for that position. every aspect of the working world, corporation does not. in fact, the ceos only work until they are 65, i believe, at some corporations. the corporation i work for, the ceo could only stay until he is

65. i say yes. i'mma say like this -- this political racism, where it is the red against the blue. they should be for the country. i think the senators and the house, i think they should have term limits also. thank you. host: cj in falls church, virginia. good morning. caller: hey, good morning, how are ya. happy thanksgiving to everybody. you know, it's funny, we live in a time where we are almost -- we fetishize youth. if you are not under 30, like you, greta, it's like you've got nothing to offer anybody. and yet our public policy votes have been going to the oldest people ever.

and i think that is a real insight into even young people get that we need wisdom at the helm. i am a democrat. i like joe biden's basic policies and his ethics. i would rather have joe biden with a group of people who say, hey, by the way, joe, you kind of banged up a sentence or two there, as opposed to donald trump, who is also an elderly dude, who would never take advice from anybody. so it's a matter of character, it is a matter of wisdom. and i think as american voters, we all have the wisdom to vote people out of office when it is time. and it might be biden's time to

be voted out, but it certainly isn't time to vote trump back in. host: let me ask you, if the president were to decide not to seek a second term, who do you think should run for the democratic nomination? caller: i've always been a huge fan of susan rice, our old secretary to the united nations. she got kind of a rough deal because she just happened to be in town having to speak for the benghazi issue. people paint like, ooh, four people died -- hillary and obama and susan rice's watch. yeah, well, 10,000 people died on bush's watch. i just think she is about as smart internationally, domestically. i think she comes from a

ridiculous background as far as achievement. i don't know, i always liked her. i like karen bass, but she just got elected l.a. mayor. i like katie porter. i'm not sure if she squeaked out a win. host: she did caller:. caller: well, good. she is a breath of fresh air. i don't think she's presidential majority at, but she would be a breath of fresh air as a vice president candidate. i like elizabeth warren. hakeem jeffries, i'm all good for him being the minority speaker, so to speak -- host: minority leader, yep. all right, cj. i'm going to leave it right there because we're going to take a short break and the right

back. enter jason cohen is with us. --andrew jason cohen is with us. a fellow with the george mason university center. you will give his tips for civil discourse thanksgiving and all year long. we will be right back. ♪ >> middle and high-school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in this year's studentcam documentary competition. picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this use competitors, what are your top priorities and why. make a 5-6-minute video that shows the importance of your issue from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. be bold. amongst the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 rent price. videos must be submitted by genera 20, 2023. visit our website at

studentcam.org for competition rules, tips, resources, and a step by step guide. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio," and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, importing congressional hearings throughout the day, and 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch "washington today" for a fast-paced report on events of the day. she spent, powered but -- c-span, powered by cable. >> book tv, every weekend on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, live coverage of the miami book festival continues with several others, including journalist april ryan and her book "black women will

save the world," and stacy schiff, author of "the revolutionary sam adams." former vice president mike pence speaks about life in faith and his time in the trumpet of nutrition with his book "so help me god--trump administration with his book "so help me god." find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information for congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. scan the code on the right to preorder your copy today. it 25,000 $.95 plus shipping and handling. c-spanshop.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: andrew jason cohen is with us this morning, philosophy professor at georgia state university also with the george mason university mercatus center , a pluralism and civil exchange fellow. let's talk about your work, mr. cohen. you are studying civil discourse. what is that? guest: great question. first, thank you for having me on, pleasure to meet you. so, civil discourse i think is discourse that is intellectually engaged, not necessarily polite, but it is respectful. we have to make sure that both parties are agreeing to have a discussion and that they recognize that disagreeing with one another is not any sign of indication of disrespect. in fact, is what respect requires. disagree with somebody, you are

basically saying to them "i think you're are capable of understanding where i'm coming from, i think you are capable of understanding the truth of the matter, so i will explain to you what the truth is." similarly, you have to be in a position to accept that from other people. you have to be in a position to accept a disagreement with what you believe from them, because they also think you are capable of understanding the truth as they see it. hopefully this a dialogue you have that way, you can come to mutual understanding at the very least and possibly even some sort of agreement about what the truth of the matter actually is. all this requires a bit of humility, and it requires that you go in as willing to learn as you are to teach. host: what do you not do during civil discourse? guest: there are a lot of things you don't do during civil discourse. name-calling is of course a bad thing to do. assuming bad intentions is a terrible thing to do.

i think that a lot of people in our society today have a tendency to assume that people that disagree with them are, if not evil, at least misguided. there's a tendency to assume that anybody who disagrees with what you think should be done publicly, government funds, what have you, is necessarily selfish, while you who wants the person -- while you the person who wants the thing on his thinking about we, the nation. people have different views about what is best for the community, what is best for everybody. that is where the discriminant comes in. an track--disagreement comes in. and trying to figure out what is best for everybody is where you can move forward with civil discourse. host: as people start to think about where to seek people -- se at people at the thanksgiving tabl write this in a recent article, people resort to telling their children,iblings, and spouses

discuss certain topics at the family gathering for fear of setting off those relatives or just giving them an excuse to rant about whatever their cockamamie v is that day. the suggestion that we should not discuss the controversial pi du jour is often defended with claims about how it is uncivil or disrespectful to disagree with anyone or bring up controversial issues that are sure to encourage disagreement. despite the popularity of this view, it is a mistake." explain. guest: yeah, so there is a lot of discussion about the degree to which america has become polarized and the degree to which other countries have become polarized. there is some debate about whether or not we debate about r or not we are as polarized as some seem to think but the general view is right that we are more polarized than we've been in a long time. people say thing like were more polarized than any time since

the civil war. i'm knocking to take a stand on whether that's true or not but clearly there's a great deal of polarization. when you think about how our culture raises children, how people raise children in our culture it's not really surprising the results that we see. if you raise children to think disagreement at the thanksgiving dinner table or christmas eve or wherever it might be is going to cause problems, if you raise them to think disagreement is disrespectful and they grow up to be adults who think disagreement is disrespectful. and they don't want to dixit -- don't want to disagree with people. whether the getting and i gauged dialogue or civil discourse they keep their views to themselves and that causes problems. instead of thinking about what the other person might be capable of understanding and trying to reason with them, they accept this view that the other person is just not capable of agreeing with them and accept

the view that this other person is bad or evil and that leads to more polarization. my point of view is very simple. if we raise children from the beginning to think about how they talk with others and to be willing to disagree with others and do so civilly, then they will be used -- used dialoguing that way when they grow up and the more frequently engage in that dialogue which is what we need to reduce polarization and get people on the right track. it's too often the case that people identify with their political party or their race or whatever it might be where everybody has their own view about things. and we need to have people recognize their space for disagreement even with those in their same groups whether it be political party, race, religion, reagan republicans wouldn't agree with trump republicans about various things. clinton republic clinton democrats wouldn't agree with

democrats behind alexandria ocasio-cortez. there just are different views within each group and if we actually will engage in honest dialogue and willing to disagree we see that more often, we have less commitment to the group as a group and more commitment to figuring out what the best way forward is. host: i want to get viewers reaction to what they're hearing so far and what the plans are for civil discourse at the upcoming thanksgiving meal. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. you can also text us, giving your first name, city and state. 202-748-8003. recent poll was conducted by georgetown university and this is what they found paid 60% said most friends share the same

political beliefs. 57% said close friends are in the same political party and 55% said most friends and family vote for the same candidates. is that a problem? caller: i think it is -- guest: i think it is. there's a phenomenon called sorting, people sort themselves in such a way they only ever dialogue and interact with people that agree with them about major issues. we find ourselves moving into neighborhoods with people with like minds, working for companies of people with like minds, going to churches with people of like minds. so we never engage with those who disagree. if we are not to have people in our lives that we disagree with and can have an honest conversation about whatever topic we disagree with, we have to expect that will make a difference in when national politics occurs.

we absolutely need to have people in our lives but we can have respectful disagreement with, that we can break bread and have a good honest on -- conversation about where we disagree. host: here is one of our viewers and a tweet this morning. there is no middle ground on insurrection. you are either for violently overthrowing our government or you aren't. i do not listen to anybody who supports the former president trump anymore because after january 6 they have no argument to defend him. how would you respond to her? guest: i think we have to make a distinction between who participated in the violent insurrection and those who want to talk about it after the fact. there's a lot of misinformation about what happened on january 6, there people out there that believe what happened was not violent, was not in insurrection. i think those people are mistaken. but i think not dialoguing with them is knocking to help. what we need to do is help them to see the truth of the matter.

i think if we treat everybody with respect we expect for ourselves, treat them as capable of understanding the truth, capable of being corrected, we can hopefully make some headway. i'm not saying to dialogue with insurrectionists, if somebody commits a violent crime you don't try to have a dialogue. somebody coming at you with a knife you don't try to have a dialogue with them. there are limits obviously. but the insurrectionists and the people who want to say things about the insurrectionists after the fact are not the same people. we should treat the former in one way, the latter in a different way paid the latter deserves respect. we can hopefully encourage them to speak truth. we should engage as much as possible. host: derek says this on twitter. this would all make sense in a world where we had a shared set of facts. what we don't anymore. we are in the midst of an ongoing information war. so civil political discussion is

hardly possible. guest: i think -- first of all let me say we do have a world of facts which is to say it doesn't matter if they are shared or not. it doesn't matter if they believe one thing or another, those are just facts of life. the point is to figure out how to get everybody on board with believing what the facts are and that requires a great deal of discourse. i was in a discussion this past week about science communication , very difficult. we have to figure out how to dialogue with people so that they can understand. dialoguing about the facts of science, the facts of politics, these are hard things to do. we can't just give up and assume people aren't capable of it. talking about science, it might be hard because some of it is much harder to understand, but we have to come at it with the

spirit of humility recognizing i'm not a scientist, you are not a scientist, let's try to think about these things together and figure out what the truth is. let's listen to the experts. we have to respect experts and recognize when were talking about science is an ongoing process. scientists themselves realize this. it doesn't mean they don't know anything. they know a lot more than we do, but we have to try and listen to them with humility, our ability to critically reason about what they're saying and figure out what we should believe. and we can do that is much too pessimistic for me. i think it's obsolete possibility that it's only got a work if we engage with people we disagree with. host: let's hear from david in texas, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm assuming based on your call

for more discussion that you're not a proponent of micro-aggression so that tells me a little bit about you though i can tell about your political beliefs which i think is a good thing. the only thing that gives me kind of the insurrection. i really don't even know -- i'm not sure if that's in insurrection or not. i'm willing to listen to it. from what i understand of the findings, i don't recall anyone being arrested or founding to have a firearm. despite what president biden said about two police being killed. there were no police killed during the riots. host: so is your point about january 6 or about civil discourse? caller: my point is everything, i'm just getting to the point

here. the professor use the term insurrection. that to me identifies a particular line. the blm riots of 2020 were far more insurrectionist aiming to destroy our political institutions. not just an election, they're looking to take down everything. the neo-marxist movement. host: david, i need to get your point on civil discourse we have other people waiting. caller: my point is i don't believe we have greater polarization in the past. there's always polarization. as far as that's concerned it's a degree of what political freedoms you have to express those different opinions. in the past up until not that long ago you have nations that restricted what you could do based on your religion. there's all kinds of countries and laws that restricted those

things. we discussed the civil war and a lot of varying degrees as part of this discussion and references were made. so i don't see this -- our current situation being one where we have more polarization. i do view that different ways it's being controlled. being a republican, and a feel like one of the ones being more controlled where you've got mass media favored to limit what's being said with political censoring or canceling people on social media. things like that. so i think there's definitely differences in the way. host: i'll jump in. andrew jason cohen go ahead. guest: i'll just try to address some of what you're saying here. i think it's very clear what we saw in january 6 was in insurrection. i think it matches the definition you were using for blm and others and other recent events.

i think they were in fact trying to overthrow the government. but that's neither here nor there the end of the day. i'm not politically partisan here, i'm not a republican or democrat. what i would say the end of the day which is most important for sort of all the points you're making is simply i, as close to being a free speech as you can be. i don't believe we should cancel people, i don't believe we should stop people from having a voice. i also don't believe that there is a right to have your views aired on any particular platform. facebook, etc., these are privately owned entities that have a right to keep people off of they want to. it's government entities that don't have a right to silence you at all. newspapers, i don't think they have an obligation to publisher editorial. but government entity does not

have a right to silence you. i'm the purist -- pure and absolutist as i can be. host: your twitter handle is dr. toleration. >> before i started working with speech and discourse i was work -- writing about toleration. now working on a book on civil discourse which makes use of that in some ways. the toleration work really pushes my own view about the way moral and political issues should be decided and what the right views are. in the book on civil discourse and working hard to not have my own views, through but really it's trying to be an instruction manual for civil discourse so the regardless of what you believe is the right way to go forward, you can engage more civilly with people you agree with and people you disagree with. host: let's hear from diane in kansas, republican.

caller: good morning. i think at this point in time in my life, i'm 76 years old, i've never seen the world as politically involved in civil discourse. it has invaded corporations, it's invaded medicine. it has invaded education with extreme views on coming through in entities that used to just do their job. educate our kids without getting into politics to the extreme. host: are you referring to political correctness? caller: not just political correctness, i'm talking about things like there's this movie -- there's is movement which is

with regards to energy and corporations are involved in this and you have to commit to this or you won't get a bank loan for that. or medicine i've even heard of money behind big journals or publishing articles that have been practically bought and paid for by political entities. but anyhow, i think we've gone over the edge with regards to political discourse and involvement. they should just stay out of it. host: i want andrew to respond to that. guest: so i don't think civil discourse is invasive. i think it's kind of an odd thing to say. i think civil discourse should be everywhere, that's my view about it. what we've seen in the last 50,

70 years is a reduction of civil discourse. which i find to be hugely problematic. it sounds to me look what your concern is a particular set of beliefs being imposed on various constituencies. whether it be in corporate america or elsewhere. i'm not sure what i think of that to be honest. i've never heard of someone being denied a loan because they wouldn't say they believed something. never heard of someone being denied medicine saying they wouldn't believe something. but are there ideologically thence in different institutions? absolutely. academia we know is ideologically bent in a particular way. i don't think it's nearly as problematic as people think, but it is true. in the humanities is overwhelmingly people on the left. corporations are very different

story. corporations are doing what they need to do to sell their products. if they think telling the world that they're in favor of black lives matter they will do that. if there -- if they think it will help their bottom line. that's not in a change prayed what we need is more civil discourse's of their people in boardrooms, across the world, cross academia engaging in discourse about the issues that are concerning them. and if we have that i think you would find the sort of polarization that you're worried about rather defused. host: what is your advice for the moderator at the table on thanksgiving to achieve the civil discourse? should there be a moderator, is there a role for a moderator? host: -- guest: ideally a thanksgiving dinner there wouldn't be a single person responsible for moderating the

discussion, but in point of fact there might be within certain conversations of the dinner table that some but he would be willing to step in. if they are about to jump on each other with anger, someone should step in and say something. i think what the moderator should be doing is saying let's have a good civil discussion about this. obviously the two of you disagree about the issue. that's fine, let's hear the reasons, let's leave the name-calling out of it. let's hear why you believe what you do and why you believe what you do and why you don't believe what each other's saying and let's get into the reasons for it. if we can do that i think we get more mutual understanding and understanding about the way the world works. sometimes to admit you're knocking to be able to understand the views somebody has for their belief. it might be that they don't have

a reason specifically. i don't think it happens often but it can and does happen. but when that happens you should look to see what made them believe that. what came about, what caused them to believe it. it's worth trying to figure that out. it could be a matter of where they went to school or some trauma they underwent. and understanding that can lead to mutual understanding. and again it might even go past mutual understanding understanding better how the world works. host: we will go to chicago. adria, an independent there. caller: good morning. i have a lot of thoughts on this, but i want to begin with the word absolute. too often we find people take a position and they are absolutely certain that they are right. one of the things we know is

science is an ongoing investigation and inquiry. and while solutions may be reached and agreed upon by most, it is not absolute, even scientists know that. but when we the general public look to science and expect for them to give us the definitive answer we are kind of setting ourselves up in a way to be disappointed. that's just to address some of the issues around the political discourse over the latest scientific discoveries in terms of our vaccines. but as long as we seek absolute solutions or assume that our point of view is absolutely right, civil discourse is threatened and certainly it is a point where -- it is at a point

now where our leaders are not honoring their roles as civil servants. instead they are engaging in the democratic or republican point of view and into many instances they are looking to stay in power and will us about point of view and policies that really don't address the role they were sent to serve. guest: i think i agree with everything the caller said. this is why i say what's necessary is a bit of humility. you have to go into the dialogue not just assuming that the other person is capable of reasoning and capable of being corrected, assuming that for sure but also assuming that you have your reasons in your own belief but are capable of being corrected. you can be wrong. scientists absolutely know this.

continually unfolding looking for the truth, absolutely. if we fail to recognize this, if we believe we have the definitive answer and we are done, that is a problem. i should note i do believe there are facts. there are truths, we may not know them yet, they are out there. there are some things we do know to be true, a lot of things that are false. we know absolutely that the earth is not flat. we know absolutely the earth is not a pyramid shape. there also things we know with good certainty. i don't think much will happen to change our views about the earth being flat. but absolutely, when we are looking for the things that matter we have to go in with some humility, if you don't recognize that we are not really open. host: larry from new jersey wants to know do you believe

that the phenomenon of instant communication data and information search have greatly affected opinions and political understanding? guest: yes i do, but i will say it's not a particularly new thing. with every new technology we get changes in the way people process information and gain information. when the printing press came about, all of a sudden there was the printed word. we got all sorts of major changes in the world in terms of religion and politics. and then we had radio and television and then cable television and now you have the internet. each of these things makes a difference. do i think that those differences at any point are so huge or problematic that they can be overcome? i think we are already seeing and have been seeing for the past for five years attempts on the internet to figure out better ways to do things and i

think we will continue to see that. there are all sorts of alternatives to facebook and twitter for example the try to promote civil dialogue. braver angels is doing work and over the pandemic a good number of things online that really interesting workshops, it wasn't clear they would work online but they did. so if you're interested in doing more civil dialogue i would encourage you to look into that online or in person. there are all sorts of other organizations out there doing similar work. absolutely, the internet with a massive amount of information allows for problems in a massive amount. there will be misinformation and we know there are some bad players who push disinformation. but if you think we can work with it and overcome the problem. host: we will go to rose in

illinois, a republican. caller: how are you today. i get a little nervous when i call in, my stomach goes in my mouth but i will try to stay -- say what i'm saying. when i see the family get-together at thanksgiving, it's usually the kids who come back from college with their all new ideas and their all new philosophies who are afraid to say anything because it might upset them but we have to listen to their spiel. colleges are our big problem and changing our philosophy and children and breaking up our family. they are a great influencers. i believe the bottom of the pit of these influences is the history -- history of herbert mark cousy who is a communist nazi philosopher who hit all of our colleges before world war ii. host: is college the problem? guest: i think he was terrible

by the way. he wrote an essay on toleration is repression. i think it's one of the worst as is ever read. the real issue about college. do i think it's a problem, it depends what you mean? does it tend to be disruptive in the way rose is suggesting, sure. why is it that? likely because it's the first time you're getting these teenagers going away from home and meeting people from a whole different array of lives. they are meeting people for the first time that don't come from their same church, from their same small town, whatever it might be. so for the first time in their lives they are seeing things they've never seen before and hearing things they've never heard before. so all that new information coming in they will start questioning what they believe. that's just natural. so they can come home and be like oh yeah, this was all new

stuff to me and now it's totally different here. you still believe that stuff that i think is probably not true anymore. so absolutely it's good to be disruptive. is that a problem? i don't think so. if anything it's a good thing. we need more people exposed to different points of view and then bring those back to their family and friends. that's the way the world is going to improve over time. if you stay sequestered in your own little provincial lives, you are not going to be exposed to anything and you're not can have your mind changed and i think you're not to grow in a way that you could. college is disruptive for a lot of people but i don't think it's a bad thing, i think it's a good thing. host: kent is watching in maryland, independent. guest: good men -- caller: good morning and thank you for this topic. for 20 years i've been longing for some civil discourse. i am a retired physician 75

years old and i've never seen it as bad as it is now in my lifetime. i think that a large part of it is two different things. one is that the media is divided between one narrative or another narrative and people think -- tend to listen to the media that affirms what they believe rather than informs. you can take statistics and skew them anyway that you want, to make your point. and without civil discourse and having people who disagree with one narrative deplatformed on the others, it ruins the chances of having civil discourse. the other part of the problem to me is that we have -- i'm sorry

i'm losing my train of thought. host: let me jump in and have andrew respond to you. guest: i think the first point is on target. a cultural shift toward general -- parents are recognizing that disagreeing with each other is ok. you have to disagree without animosity. can disagree civilly and you point out to people why you think they are wrong. if you do that i think you'll find people will continue it their lives. frankly it's fun to have a good disagreement. it's fun to get into an argument. i disagree with you and you disagree with me, not that we are yelling with each other. but it is a fun thing that people would enjoy a more if they were raised in a way to recognize that it's not a problem. if we raise people that way i think they're not just in a turn on if you're on the right, you're not in a turn on fox.

you can look for different points of view in your media as well. the guy absolutely we should do that. i guess i sort of wish all media had a mix but absent that we have to be open to have media from all sides. host: if you are encouraged today to have that civil discourse at your thanksgiving dinner, you can read more if you go to this link, how to talk politics, the thanksgiving without causing a family feud. andrew jason cowan, we appreciate the conversation. thank you very much. guest: thank you for having me. host: that's it for today, we will be back tomorrow morning. enjoy your sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

>> comcast is partnering with community centers so students and films to get the -- families can get the supplies they need. c-span, giving you a front-row seat democracy. >> tonight on q&a historian douglas pringle -- douglas brinkley talks about the conservation's movement and the legislation approved during the 1960's and 1970's under president kennedy, president johnson and president nixon. >> i'm grateful that we did get an environmental protection

agency. that president nixon signed a clean air act in 1970 that made a difference. the act of clean water in 1972. this silent spring generation that i am writing about, it had a lot of people in it but the three presidents were responsive to the public and that is what great presidents do. in this regard i think kennedy, johnson and nixon all were truly good, if not great environmental president. >> douglas brinkley with his book tonight at eight of five eastern on c-span's q&a -- tonight at 8:00 easternn c-span's q&a. c-span now app is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep u