>> "washington journal" continues. we are joined by tevi troy at the bipartisan policy center talking about presidents and divided congress. you are with the bipartisan policy center, what is your organization's purpose and mission? guest: i the presidential

leadership -- i have the presidential leadership initiative to talk about how important it is to maintain the relevance and respect for the office in this time of political turmoil. working for freedom and against fascism on the right and socialism on the left. we strive for bipartisan solutions. host: what do you think of the leadership challenges right now for president joe biden coming into this divided government? guest: biden has a number of sniffing it challenges. he has lost control of the house so that will be very interesting. the senate remains very closely divided, although they did gain one seat. we have an economy where people are very concerned about what is going on and the rise of authoritarian nations, including

russia and china. biden, as we all know, is a little aged and it seems like a very tough time to deal with a lot of challenges. jimmy carter said he didn't think he could do the presidency at an age much older than he was at the time. host: our guest is the author of several books. you are a presidential historian and in working with the george w. bush administration, what does history tell us about, especially this close, divided governments and presidents being able to function and lead during closely divided governments? guest: we have had many periods of closely divided government in our history. we generally don't like it when there is one party dominant. if you are going to be a successful leader, you have to

figure out how to navigate during a period of divided government and get things done. host: is part of the problem they are banging the drum for their side as opposed to working together? guest: yes, politicians are always banging the drug for the -- banging the drama for the next election -- banging the drama for the next election. i never have people have talked about c-span and transparency and legislators can't have it behind the scenes negotiation if everything is on camera because they go home and get yelled at fort negotiating with the people other side. host: what are the motivations, particularly for the minority group, in a divided government scenario? guest: i like to look at orrin

hatch and ted kennedy. they found ways to work together because they knew if they didn't work together, things wouldn't get done. the legislators who recognize working with the other side is the only way to pass significant, long-standing legislation that can stand the test of time, those legislators were willing to make changes and recognize the other side has a different effective and wants to pass things that will help the american people. those legislators are more likely to get things done. host: you think there are enough of those today? guest: we have a new congress so it is hard to tell. i think right now we are in a particular partisan time. i don't think it will last forever. who knows what will emerge on the political landscape.

people think in straight-line extrapolations and think what happens now is going to continue in the same way uninterrupted. that is not the way it has worked in american history. host: we are talking about governing in a divided government as the republicans take control of the u.s. house in the 118th congress. we welcome your calls. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents and others? , 202-748-8003. [video clip] >> you said you don't need to do

anything differently. if republicans control the house , don't you need to recalibrate to some extent to work across the aisle and a republican led house? pres. biden: i don't have to change the policies i have already passed. that is what they said they want to go after. i just said i have a pen that can veto. i don't have to recalibrate whether i'm going to continue to fund the infrastructure bill or continue to fund the environment, etc.. i hope -- i think there is growing pressure on the part of the american people, expecting both parties and all elements of both parties to work out there

differences and not just, i'm not going to do that because it would benefit that party, by making it personal. it remains to be seen what the makeup of the house will be, but i am hopeful that kevin and i can work out how we will proceed with one another. host: is the president to optimistic their -- there? guest: he seems little tired in that clip and it is distressing. one thing i have been disturbed by with president biden is he often talks a good game of bipartisanship but he has done a couple of things that have been a finger in the eye of republicans, the bolt letter and ultra mag a stuff. i think he needs to take some

steps himself to make sure he is not unnecessarily alienating the other side when he works to make those deals. i like that he talked about the likely speaker to be, kevin mccarthy. i am optimistic in the second part of his first term he will try and avoid some of the sharper comments he made in the first two years. host: you mentioned the bipartisan work and pointed out examples of ted kennedy in orrin hatch, what do you think the characters of those men and women like them that allowed them to work in that manner, not really regarding worrying about the media and public could assist him they may get back home? guest: i don't think it is the media they are worried about so much as i think they are worried about primary challenge. i heard the description of congress as 400 members much more worried about a primary

challenge from the left if they are a democrat or right if they are republican in never losing an election in november. i don't think ted kennedy ever worried about losing a primary and orrin hatch didn't worry about losing the republican primary in utah. that is a change we have seen, the parties have lost our. -- lost power. it is much harder for them to be able to make those bipartisan across the aisle deals without facing these challenges. host: tevi troy it is with us and is written books and has published in the wall street journal. your opinion piece the -- pieces are among the leaders that help

make the american story. there was the lighting of the national menorah and what was your point about hanukkah in the wall street journal? guest: i know people talk about christmas and traditions but it was important to point out that we have almost 200 years of hanukkah traditions that are part of the american story. that is why i wanted to point that out. there is a presidential history that defined cases of presence referring to hanukkah. i think it is very encouraging in terms of talking about how the america story is a story of multiple nations coming together and feeling comfortable maintaining their traditions but still being part of the larger american nation. host: we saw and last night's event at the mo, attorney general -- at the mall, attorney

general merrick garland spoke to the crowd. the more secular america comes, does it get harder to show your faith in public as an elected official or a government official period? guest: i think it gets easier. i did an analysis of the states of unit addresses and presidential inauguration addresses and i found that in the last century the presidents were more likely to cite the bible than they were in the first of our republic. i think there is comfort in looking to religious traditions. my own expense in the bush white house was they couldn't have been more accommodating of my own religious customs. the white house is a tough environment but they respected the fact that i took a day off for sabbath.

the white house waiters knew what i was going to order that were legitimate for a jewish person to eat. i found a very accommodating environment and that is something we can celebrate. host: the scope first to larry in st. joseph, missouri talking about the divided government. -- let's go first to larry in st. joseph, missouri talking about the divided government, democrat. caller: we are talking about a split congress, republicans controlling the house and the democrats controlling the senate a little bit. what is going to happen if republicans and democrats can't get along but the house of representatives, even the republicans can't get along with themselves? how do you see that creating more conflict in the trying to

get legislation passed? thank you and you all have a merry christmas and happy hanukkah. host: so the divided caucus, somewhat, and the challenge kevin mccarthy has hitting elected speaker. guest: i think it creates some unusual alliances. we have had many years that a republican speaker won't bring a bill to the floor unless it has the support of the republican majority caucus. if speaker mccarthy feels he doesn't get reliable votes from his own caucus, you might have a bill or debt ceiling, i will work with democrats if republicans won't give me the votes i need to get where i want to go. once you have these alliances

break traditional lines, will see things pass that you would normally see past. host: wanda on the republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to know all of this programming about anti-trump and he is going to go on trial, i want to know when does the defendant, trump, get to speak? a trial without a defendant and i just saw biden in his face but no mainstream media watches, when does trump get to have his day? host: wanda picking up on the previous our cost -- our's -- hour's conversation. guest: there were some

bipartisan aspects to it but it would have been better off if they had gone in a more traditional bipartisan way, letting the republicans for their people. i know there were some people the republicans wanted to bring on that the democrats didn't think were cooperative, but that is what happens. i am not sure the committee it advance the cause of bipartisanship. host: history indicated that people think a divided government they think stalemate. is that usually the case? guest: sometimes divided government leads to some real steps forward. look at bill clinton after the republicans took over in 1994, we had welfare reform, a balanced budget act, at only reducing the deficit but the debt. we haven't thought about that in

40 years, unfortunately. also, ronald reagan never had a republican house and it didn't always have a republican senate, and he was able to get things done legislatively by working across the aisle. host: from a historical perspective, do you think there are items president biden could use to his advantage working with republicans on something like immigration reform? guest: immigration reform is quite contentious so i wouldn't put that on the first list, but reorienting how we think about china, for example, is one thing we could do. working on telemedicine and all sorts of medical approaches that were exposed during the pandemic that are actually helpful. cybersecurity is something both parties could get behind, so i think there could be work on what both parties don't see as

the most contentious or partisan issues. host: let's hear from richard in oceanside, california, democrats line. caller: merry christmas. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to mention historical perspective you said a minute ago and presidents in divided congress is a good topic. i am an old guy now and i think about the times of the early 1960's and john kennedy and a fellow you might know about who was in russia at the time. he was a bit of a rebel but notorious for decrying that the common folks would bury

ourselves. he said we will not bury you and you will bury yourselves. he was on the podium of the u.n. i saw him bang his fist and make a lot of trouble. i think he was right. i wanted historically what the gentleman thinks about that. john kennedy was able to get things done and ronald reagan was able to get things done but i am losing hope we will ever do that again. the german commented that things do go up and down, but i know a lot of people in san diego -- the gentleman commented that things do go up and down but i know a lot of people in san diego who are radical. guest: that was a really interesting question.

khrushchev was an antagonist of the u.s. and did warn the u.s. that we have real challenges, and i do think our biggest challenges are internal. we do things to ourselves that our enemies may not be capable of doing. but that doesn't mean that the current partisan situation we are in is always going to be as partisan as it is now. i think they go in waves the historical perspective changes. you look back to the 1990's when clinton was president and people look at it as hyper partisan and there was no way of getting along and now we look back to the 1990's as a good time. sometimes the struggle perspectives -- the historical perspectives change things when you look back. host: and he had the majority in the u.s. house. guest: he did and they passed something and working with

clinton was the most effective strategy for getting stuff done, especially with the welfare bill and the balanced budget act. host: let's hear from sergio in pompano beach, florida, independent line. caller: my question is this, i have a couple of things that i am confused about, particularly the republicans. i don't understand why they are not getting along and trying to get things done, particularly with kevin mccarthy trying to become speaker of the house. that causes confusion to meet as well as kyrsten sinema now became an independent, turning

on her own party and the party that made her. i don't understand how we can fix these problems to make this country better. from what i know, democrats and republicans are supposed to be working together for this country and i don't understand why it is going out of control, especially the ukraine situation and china. what can we do to correct those situations to go after former president trump for what he has done? what can we do about it? host: a couple of things on the plate. guest: in terms of ukraine, i think it has been somewhat encouraging. it is terrible what the russians did but they are not been performing impressively militarily.

an article talked about the blunders the russians made. the tactics on the air and ground aren't working and reveals they are a bit of a paper tiger so that is encouraging. in terms of kyrsten sinema, the democrats have been incredibly harsh on her, even though she was 93% supportive of president eitan and didn't want to bust up the filibuster. credit to her, -- president eitan and it didn't want to bust of the filibuster. credit to her for that. i recognize she is switching to become an independent because i don't think she could win a democratic primary in arizona so she sees a pathway to stay in the senate going the independent route, something like joe lieberman in the past. for kevin mccarthy, it is true there are a core of five republican members who are never kevin but there was a report

this morning about how the republicans, who are not those five, are working to shore up kevin mccarthy and they are nothing but kevin carthy and the key is doing a good job of trying to make sure he has the vast majority of the publicans. he needs that -- majority of the republicans. he needs that to become speaker. host: jerry, publican line -- republican line. caller: i don't have any questions, just because i don't trust anything i hear on any news broadcast or any political talk or anything like that. when you have an illegitimate president and you have stolen an election from 100 million people and you want to know why there is no bipartisanship. how can you treat that many people and then go after your opponents and try to lock them

up and smear them? another point is that i think the main problem with america is the media. i think if people turn their tv's off and there was no more television come this country would flourish and there would not be near as many problems. as far as the january 6 debacle, you had the trump people at the rally and that they show up at the capitol and there is already a right going on. you have police officers letting them come in. trump offered the national guard. nancy pelosi is in charge of that. she should have allowed it and called for it. host: several things there, and to be clear, nancy pelosi does not have control of the national guard and the district of columbia.

guest: he is mentioning a number of concerns that republicans have. trump had 74 million votes out of 100 million votes and some the to be aware of. i think he is onto something when he talks about a larger level of people distress with the media, not feeling they are getting a fair shake from the media. as you have the alternative media sources, and then you have republican not watching the new york times a reading new york times and the new york times says our fan base are 90% liberal, so they service who the readers are. i think it does affect the product. i think the new york times since i have read it since the kid has gone in a more liberal direction and you feel that they are trying to force it on you, whether in the sports pages or

cultural or news pages. i would like to get back to more of a hard news situation where the reporters report the facts and don't see themselves as actors in a play. host: what you think is behind that with the media organizations, that more in your words an agenda behind the reporting? guest: i think the new york times recognizes it has a lot of power and sway and they use that in order to shape the narrative. i think it has backfired against them. it used to be everyone of the key leads on both sides of the aisle read the new york times but now you see republicans who say they don't even read it and i am surprised at my democratic france who don't read it. they harmed deaf -- democrats who don't read it. they harmed themselves because they feel like they are activists. you do see some pushback.

we saw some of this at the washington post where the newsroom said we are support -- supposed to report the facts and let's speak to that. 2 chris -- host: chris is on the democrat line. caller: you mentioned the bush administration was accommodating to religion. i think we are too accommodating to religion. we have people going to the supreme court under the shroud of religious beliefs trying to deny people services and you have evangelical teachers out there using political speech and getting tax free benefits for being a nonprofit entity. who decides what is "religious

cortical and why they should have the benefit they are allowed -- religious" and why they should have the benefit they are allowed? host: finish your thought. caller: what is the difference between religious leaf and simple thoughts, for example, if i believed in being against gay marriage, but i was not religious, another person who is religious can use that as an excuse to nine service because of their religious believe. who decides what is religious leaf and why it should it -- really just belief -- religious belief and why should they get that? guest: we have religious exercise freedom in the first amendment.

people are allowed to exercise their religious believes and when you get the question of who decides, ultimately things get too complex and they are the most difficult and challenging questions, they ultimately go to the supreme court and that is how we decide it. this country has accommodations for religion and i am happy we have these kinds of accommodations. there are ways in which the state has an interest in limiting certain accommodations. for example, you can't have everyone say we can't join the military because of religious leaves. -- religious beliefs. there are things the state has to do in order to maintain an effective state. for example, if you had religious people say they didn't believe in paying taxes, i don't

think that would work. host: this is from the washington post and the headline on the menorah lighting, fear in the festival antisemitic text has made juice -- jews anxious. what do you think is going on? guest: i am extremely concerned about the rise of anti-semitism in the last recent years. you are seeing attacks on people in the streets in brooklyn, graffiti and elite high schools in mug armory county where i live. you are seeing kanye west talking in hysterical anti-jewish ways and having dinner with the former resident of the united states. it seems like there is an emergence from the left and the right and i think each political party asked to say, it is just on the left or just on the right

, but it is happening in multiple places and is very stirring. -- very disturbing. antisemitism comes up when people are in distress or worried. one of the earliest signals is antisemitism. host: do you think the former president missed the opportunity to avoid that conversation and secondly to more strenuously reject the beliefs of kanye west? guest: i think he should have objected to them more strenuously but should not have set to dinner with him and had the others with them. we need to get -- speak out against it whether you are a republican or a democrat. it is wrong. there was a piece in the wall street journal that only two people have been prosecuted for

beating up jews. republicans should speak out about that. host: let's hear from cy on the republican line. caller: speaking of antisemitism, i feel that the members of congress are antisemitic on the left. the squad and a number of others that are aligned with the squad have ultimately been anti-israel and anti-jew and also the democrats have moved so far left , i don't see how the two sides can ever compromise. i feel the left has become so woke that they allow things like

letting people out of jail, rapists, murderers in some of these so-called progressive cities. they are so diametrically opposed, i don't see how they can ever work across the aisle. joe biden said he would bring people together, the opposite is true. thank you very much. guest: there is a good book out by my friend called woke antisemitism which talks about this phenomenon of will is an and antisemitism going -- this wokism and antisemitism going hand in hand. they can make compromises and

knowing that the squad and others will not be a part of those come from rising -- compromises. host: going back to the history of the divided government, jimmy carter was the last who had complete unity during his four years as president. has that helped or hurt him? he didn't get reelected, that is one way to view it. guest: he didn't get reelected and has one of the worst reputations of any president. it is not necessarily the best thing to have the government of one party for your entire term. one of the things carter did wrong was alienate his own democratic numbers of congress. he famously didn't provide enough tickets for the inauguration for the speaker of the house and his legislative

staff would tell him to bring members of congress to the white house to play tennis or do -- or to watch a movie and he would do it and then leave and not talk to them after and say it, well i played tennis with them or did a movie but that is not what his staff wanted. he was just not great at doing it. host: let's get ann in maine on the democrats line. caller: two point, one is the media, like the washington post and new york times, do include right-wing columnists routinely, so i would like to point that out. more importantly, i would like to point out the overturning of the constitutional protections from religion.

it protects us from the imposition of religious doctrine and practice by the state, but for decades the hub of the network funnels money from big donors to dubious antidemocratic entities and he has been the architect of the supreme court which has the majority of people who are basically races white ring extremists who are overturning our constitutional rights under the influence of church doctrine. that is not just the supreme court, that is just in the judiciary across the country. he has been a useful man to people who have a lot of money and who have aggregated that money through unfair among

undemocratic economic injustice, and they are using it to really overturn what we know is american democracy. at ranges from the supreme court to groups involved in the insurrection. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: there are conservative columnists at the washington post and washington -- new york times and there should be. i am talking about when you're ideology affects the news pages. the recognition is you should have a straight down the middle news page and the editorials will reflect right or left and that is a better way to go about it. in terms of leonard leo, he is one of the chief strategist at the federalist society and has indeed tried to promote a certain type of originalist

judge. there was a long time with accords in general do not believe in the idea of originalism and the judges felt they could make things up according to it they felt was the right policy. leonard leo and the federalist society of undertaking a revolution saying let's look back to the constitution to determine what judges should decide when they are looking at cases. even justice kagan said we are all originalists now and that is what we do and look at the text. that is an important step forward in american history and i would reject the negative characteristics she mentioned of leonard. 2 next -- host: next from maryland on the democrat line. caller: the thing with kanye west talking to donald trump,

isn't his son in law, jared kushner, religiously judaism? that doesn't go with the diplomatic's of it. host: what is your question about jared kushner? caller: i think he is going to be upset, is this not going to affect the relationship? host: i am not clear on his question. we will go to john in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: the gentleman who said the squad is anti-israel. i would probably say they're not anti-israel, they are probably calling out israel for how their violating international courts, particularly with the settlements on the west bank. that is my main point there.

and how the palestinians are forced to travel and what they go through and they are creating it and perpetuating it. the fact that i say that doesn't make me anti-israel and a friend of israel, i am stating fact and they are bringing that to light which i don't see a problem with. guest: there is a distinction being critical of policies of the israeli government and being anti-semitic. there are some things when omar talked about it is all about the benjamin which plays into jewish stereotypes, that crosses the line into antisemitism. if you just talk about the government it does not make you anti-semitic. there's been a lot of debate about what level of criticism the israeli government is equivalent to antisemitism, and the famous person who left the soviet union who is in prison and is now in israel, he said if

you are demonizing israel and having double standards how you compare the human rights records to other countries who are worse and you don't criticize the other countries, that is when you are bleeding into anti-semitism. simple criticism of the government isn't antisemitism but when you demonize or have double standards, that is when you are going over the line. host: the trump administration's the moving of the u.s. embassy in israel, it was the most change in israel policy? guest: this gets back to the idea i have talked about straight line extrapolation. you think things will always continue the way they are and then you have a real paradigm shift in their is recognition is not just the middle east conflict, meaning israel and

palestinians but conflicts and the abraham accords helped solve some of those between israel and the gulf arab states and other states as well. i think this can help shift things in a positive direction in the future so we can eventually have some peace deal with the israelis and palestinians they recognize there are benefits to be had by making a peace deal with israel. host: thank