guy broadband supports c-span as a publicervice, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal", the recent development in russia and president putin's future. we speak with harvard university intelligence project writer calder walton. political historian and author eli merritt talks about his new book, disunion among ourselves, the perilous politics of the american revolution on divisions along with country's founders during the american revolution and what they can teach us about today's political polarization. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, july 2. the supreme court ended its term

last week with three controversial rulings. thursday, the courts six conservative justices issued an opinion barring colleges and universities from using race-based admission policies. on friday with that same 6-3 split, the court struck down president biden's student loan forgiveness plan. in a third case -- a third case ruled a christian web developer can work with same-sex rulings. democrats expressed anger and highlighted the dissenting opinions written by the three liberal justices. this morning, we want to hear from you. what is your opinion about these opinions? what grade would you give the supreme court this term? democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202)

748-8001. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can text message us at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. we are on facebook.com/c-span where the discussion is already starting. you can find us on twitter and instagram @cspanwj. i went to start off by -- want to start off by reading about this supreme court term. i have this mornings washington post front page. the headline, a supreme court term of "mixed messages." starting with the second paragraph, it says the trio of ideologically divided 6-3 decisions rejecting affirmative action in college admissions,

favoring the speech of the religious over antidiscrimination laws and torpedoing president biden's plan to forgive student loan debt show the abiding dominance of the courts conservative super majority. they were among only a handful of decisions, five as opposed to 14 last term in which those ideological lines filled. that, in this mornings washington post. now, i want to switch to the new york times. which has a very interesting way it has talked about the rulings this term. there is a piece they have titled the major supreme court decisions in 2023. what i find interesting about how the new york times is treating it, they are not only showing how the justices rule but how those rulings correspond with public opinion polling. for example, on the affirmative

action ruling, that was decided in a 6-3 ruling on june 29. it shows the three liberals were in the dissent, the six conservatives were in the majority. where the public stands and the question wording was, some people think private colleges and universities should not be able to use race as a factor in admissions. other people think they should be able to. what do you think? of all 31% said private colleges and universities should be able to use race as a factor in admissions, while 69% said they should not. of course, there is a partisan breakdown. 42% of democrats said embrace should be -- said race should be admissible. 20% of independents and 22% of

republicans. i want to scroll down to one more before we get to your calls. this is a 6-3 ruling, but there was kind of a merger. the three liberal justices, as well as three of the justices who are more conservative in a 6-3 ruling. this one was not along those partisan lines. this is the ruling where the court rejected a legal theory that would have given state legislatures largely unchecked power to set the rules for federal elections. where the public stands on the question of whether state courts can exercise oversight over federal elections, 55% said yes overall. 45% said no. four democrats, it was 61% yes,

39% no. republicans, it was split 50-50. this is in the new york times. an interesting way to look at these supreme court decisions and how they align with public polling. our question to you this morning is, what grade do you give the supreme court? democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will start with susan in orlando, florida on the democratic line. caller: hi. well. it is depressing to live in florida right now. as far as the supreme court, it is hard to respect these people that are so in the news right now with what they are doing personally and how it might be affecting their decisions on some of the rulings they are

making. i would give them a d. i think they are possibly -- john roberts and brett kavanaugh are surprisingly try to be thoughtful about their rulings. the rest of the people that are appointed -- that trump appointed, they are out for retribution and revenge against everything that we stand for. it is the fourth of july, for gosh sakes. we need to have someone be thoughtful about everybody in the country. host: let's go to tom now on the republican line in birmingham, michigan. caller: good morning. on the decision regarding universities, i would give that

an a. i will tell a story as a white american man of arab ancestry. who was part of the american arabian discrimination policy. during goal for one, there was discrimination against arabs or those of us who are a rap ancestry -- arab ancestry. i made a case against the committee. i did not want anybody to think i got anything through any advantage in that regard. a economic case, i think should be made. that would probably favor minorities anyway in terms of the socioeconomic imbalance, rather than making it based on race. that, i think would be the approach to making it. one happy real story regarding the path towards their success

that was inhibited by race or racism, make it in the case that your essay, your interviews, that is absolutely legitimate. from my perspective, you can imagine having the combination of being a white american man of arab ancestry, especially in the past where there was a lot of antiaircraft sentiment -- anti-arab sentiment. i do not think it is a good investment in the long run to have a seed of bias, potential bitterness for those who may be of caucasian background but are quite poor. they should be given, i think, advantage as well. and address it directly but without it being about race, so ethnic minorities that are struggling. host: let's go to new jersey now. elizabeth is calling on the independent line. caller: yes, thank you -- yes,

first of all, it was done in the face of americans. they did not understand what the republicans were doing. started with nixon all the way down. they are taking out the core curriculum of our schools. they have made it where no students, black, brown, white, or poor white, they also include just as black, brown, whatever. they do not have any things we should. nobody has been coming to get them. what is wrong is, the deterioration of the core curriculum at our schools. they took out home at. -- home ec. they took out tailoring. they took out everything -- entrepreneurs. they do not teach civics. they do not know where any countries are. it is terrible. they do not know the difference between washington and washington, d.c.

the teachers are not allowed to teach cursive. how can you not teach cursive to your children? everything was pen and ink. host: that is your point, elizabeth. appreciate your call. our next caller is tom in tip city, ohio, democratic line. caller: good morning. i would love to see a business in colorado start discriminating against catholics based on their sinfully held religious police. i think the supreme court has made that legal. i am also getting tired of the republican -- i call it choke agenda. they are trying to choke back

everything. women's rights, voting rights, lgbtq rights, whatever. thank you very much. host: alrighty. again, of those last three rulings, were all along those 6-3 partisan divide with the six conservative justices on one side, the three liberal justices on the other. let's listen, this is president joe biden delivering remarks at the white house on thursday after the affirmative action ruling. [video clip] >> i have always believed america is big enough for everyone to succeed in every generation of americans, we have benefited by open doors of -- opening doors of opportunity a little wider. i believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. our nation is stronger because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation. i also believe while talent,

creativity and hard work are everywhere across this country, not equal opportunity, it is not everywhere across this country. we cannot let this decision be the last word. we cannot let this decision be the last word. the court can render a decision, it cannot change what america stands for. america is an idea, an idea, unique in the world. an idea of hope and opportunity. a possibility of giving everyone a fair shot, of leaving no one behind. we have never fully lived up to it, but we have never walked away from it, either. we will not walk away from it now. host: that was president joe biden speaking on thursday after the supreme court ruling striking down the use of race conscious admissions at colleges and universities. we want hear from you. what grade would you give the supreme court this term? democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are going to go to the independent line now. david is calling from akron, ohio. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i just want to reflect on the fact that how the court came to be with its current composition, let's not forget that when obama was president, he had at least a year to go. i think it was a little more than a year. scalia passed away. that post was obama to fill. what happened, mitch mcconnell denied him that opportunity, that was his right, he denied it and said, well, we do not know who is going to win the next election. that should not have mattered. it never said in the constitution you have to wait until the next election. scalia should have been replaced by a more progressive. my thinking is, i am more of a

social conservative, but economically progressive. i think a lot of big money has been behind the that her list society and they want the courts to be -- the federalist society and they want the courts to be on the right. the citizens united, i think that was a 5-4, that allowed a limited big money in political campaigns. they say money was re-speech. money is not free speech when you are buying politicians. the voting rights, i think -- i cannot remember the case, but there was a case where they ruled against the voting rights act. they said, that was written at a time when the southern states were still coming out of jim crow. well, what happened when the supreme court looked at that, all of these southern states started passing voter restriction laws because they

know that if everybody is allowed to vote, they will not win elections. i would have to give the court a d. it was nice to see they did come out against this crazy idea that the state legislature rules supreme. in other words, if the state supreme court rules against the legislature ruling, the supreme court said, ok, that will hold. a little bit of good there. host: david did mention a previous iteration of the supreme court. this -- did it strike down a major provision of the voting rights act, but this most recent supreme court actually upheld lower court ruling when it comes to voting. this was a 5-4 decision, in bringing up the new york times again. this was a june 8 ruling, the

three liberal justices you see. but, chief justice roberts, as well as justice kavanaugh oath ruled in favor of -- both ruled in favor that alabama had diluted the power of black voters by drawing up a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority. this 5-4 ruling struck down the congressional map and alabama, is expected to possibly lead to a new map that increases the number of black voter districts in the state of alabama. so, there was a voting case this congress. more from your calls. let's go to the republican line. barbara is in hewitt, texas. barbara. caller: yes. i agreed 100% with the supreme court. they got it right.

i believe red, yellow, black and white, they have a choice to make whether they want to go to school. if not -- i believe it is on their merit. whatever they want to do in life, they have a right to do. it is not the whites and asians, it is all across the board. they have the right to do what they want to do in life. they have a choice to make. i think everybody's life, god makes a plan for them in their life. they have to choose that plan for themselves. if they want to go to school by merit, they have a right to do that. red, yellow, black and white all across the board. host: appreciate your call. let's go to edward in bennett's bill, south carolina, democratic line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. what are your thoughts? caller: i think everybody has the right, and they should, if

they have the qualifications, go to whatever it school they want to ash whatever school they want to. it is hard to trust the supreme court incisions anymore. lately -- supreme court decisions anymore. when they show them taking vacations and keeping on, it shows they can be bought like anybody else. i got 35 years of military service, but i have no respect for the supreme court anymore as they stand right now. that is just the way it is. they just a bunch of crooks, just like the politicians. host: alright, edward. let's go to chad from -- let's go to north carolina, david is

calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. as an independent, i feel that the supreme court, i would give them a a on the recent decision. i think it was absolutely a correct decision. i feel as though in this country, the greatest country in the history of the world, everyone, everyone here, can succeed in life without certain advantages if they want to. i think it is all in what they feel like they can do. they can -- persistence makes the person. if someone wants something bad enough in this country, we have every opportunity by god's grace to achieve that. i agree with the decision. i support the supreme court and

i think it was a good decision. host: alrighty. next up is juliet in rockport, massachusetts, republican line. caller: good morning to you. how are you? i have to say that elections have consequences. donald j. trump was at the moms for liberty convention this past week. he brought it up again. he appointed three supreme court judges, which is almost unprecedented. many presidents never have an opportunity to appoint a judge, although a call alluded to the merrick garland incident. we have a super majority conservative wing of the supreme court, which is unprecedented, especially -- america is becoming airy progressive. the democrat party today is not a democratic party of jfk.

not even a bill clinton -- i voted for bill clinton, the only democrat i ever voted for. if hillary clinton just went to wisconsin or michigan and campaign, she may have won the election in 2016. donald trump won the electoral college by 40,000 votes. elections have consequences. i think we have strict -- on the court which interpret the constitution as it was written. no room for error, this is not a living document. it is strict instruction, everyone looked that up and that is why supreme court judges wear a black robe. they are impartial. they read the law, they read the constitution and how it is worded. no room for interpretation or for explanatory overkill. i think it is wonderful. i give them na+.

-- an a+. host: next call is mary in washington. democratic line. caller: where do i start? the last caller is an example of what is wrong in the country. i gave the supreme court an incomplete, f minus and a zero. apparently, the supreme court has decided that racism is no longer a problem. i beg to differ. they have decided they want to attack gay rights again. they are trying to erase barack obama's legacy. not going to work. i think it is time we let the supreme court know how we progressives feel. they are trying to go back in time and take this country back to total, ignorant racism. we are not going to let that happen.

the supreme court is rogue right now. i believe the decision was made strictly on clarence thomas'belief, because that man has a lot of self lactate -- self black hate. if you look at the decisions he has made, it has been against his own race. i think the supreme court needed to be disbanded. we need to do something different. for all you people that love the constitution, the constitution called black people 3/5 a person. we were not even a mule then. we made a new constitution. host: ok, mary. got your point. we will go next to burlingame, california. charlie is calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. in order to remedy this problem

with the extreme right running the country from the supreme court, i go with senator markey's idea of adding three more justices to the supreme court, which would even things out. otherwise, we are going to be stuck with extreme right for years to come. please, work hard to back up senator markey's idea of adding three more supreme court justices. thank you very much. good morning. host: alrighty. let's go to mcdonough, georgia. george is calling on the democratic line. caller: yeah. i was just watching this colorblind situation here. i feel that anyone that is

colorblind has a mental challenge. either get that business correct and have a good day. host: op gnocchi. -- okeedokee. ann is next in titusville, florida, republican line. caller: hi, i watch your show and i enjoy it and i like hearing both sides of the story from either side. but, i think that this country is divided because we do not consider ourselves all-americans. host: did we lose you? caller: no, i am here. host: keep going. i think we lost ann. john is in connelly's springs, north carolina, independent line. what are your thoughts this

morning? caller: i just want people on the supreme court -- if things was reversed, if that was six democrats and three republicans, you wouldn't hear none of them criticizing it. that is just the way it is. they hate the republicans, democrats, i do not know why. they talk about this gay stuff, the bible says it is an abomination. they can think what they want to, but anyways. i back them 100%. thank you. host: all right, john. let's hear a little more about that ruling that came down, striking down affirmative action in colleges and universities. the nonprofit group behind that challenge of university policies, students for fair admissions, held a press conference after the ruling with the group's president and founder, edward bloom,

celebrating the court's decision. let's watch. [video clip] >> the opinion issued today by the united states supreme court marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind, legal covenant that binds together our multiracial, multiethnic ration -- nation. the polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student's race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. these discriminatory admissions practices undermined the integrity of our civil rights laws. ending racial preferences in college admissions is an outcome that the vast majority of all

americans of all races will celebrate. a university does not have real diversity when it is simply -- when it simply assembles students who look different, but come from similar backgrounds and talk and act and think alike. moreover, these opinions reestablish the founding principles of the 1964 civil rights act, which clearly forbids treating americans differently by race. let me quote. at the signing ceremony of the act on july the second, 1964, president lyndon johnson made these remarks. "the purpose of the law is simple. it does not restrict the freedom of any american, as long as he respects the rights of others. it does not give special treatment to any citizen.

it does not give special treatment to any citizen. it does say the only limit to a man's hope for happiness and for the future of his children shall be his own ability." beginning today, america's colleges and universities have a legal and moral obligation to strictly abide by the supreme court's opinion. these obligations compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and postgraduate explication -- postgraduate application forms. host: that is the president and founder for students for fair admissions, edward bloom, speaking after the supreme court ruled in his organization's favor on that affirmative action case. we want to hear more from you.

what grade would you give the supreme court this term? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. before we get to more of your calls, i want to read a few responses we are receiving on social media. on twitter, they get an a. they are bringing normalcy back to the united states. pamela miller writes, fail. not because their rulings are personally upsetting to me, but because several seats on the bench are by design so to further an extreme, right-wing agenda. the financial gains made by these judges are proof. bonnie writes, accolades to tom for his suggestion to base entry into college on economical status rather than race. excellent solution to a very

difficult issue. thanks, tom, for sharing. sharing is caring. on facebook, beth writes, a. they are following the constitution of the united states. god bless america. mike writes, the fact they ruled on a hypothetical case without facts is concerning and convincing, along with the fact there is absolutely no accountability for having lifelong terms. one more before we go back to the phone lines. this is jim dahmer, they are doing their job at making decisions based on the constitution and the arguments put before them. i gave the court a b minus. it would be higher, but i will never forgive john roberts for upholding obamacare. let's hear more from you. what grade do you give the supreme court this term? maxine in leavenworth, kansas, democratic line. go ahead. caller: yes, i would give them a d-.

i think the problem with the supreme court is, it is my personal feeling of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the most powerful. they can change any law they do not like. they can change laws of the state, they can change the decision of the president, they can change the decision made by the senate, they can change the decision made by congress. anything. they completely controlled the united states. i would like to say to the people who have given the supreme court an a+ strictly for the constitution, i would like them to tell me where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court can choose the president of the united states. they are all powerful. there is no recourse to the

supreme court. anything they want to do, anything they want to change, any law they want to make and change, the country has to live with it. whether the country likes it or not. there are nine people who are therefore a lifetime, and to control everything anybody, the congress, the president, the senate, any state, anywhere, they can change that law. host: appreciate your call. let's go to frank in texas on the republican line. caller: yes ma'am. i back up the u.s. supreme court. if there were a grade higher than a plus, i would give it to them. a plus a-plus, a-plus. i think we need more great,

black, conservative judges like clarence thomas who is a great, christian, black man. i think he is one of the greatest supreme court justices we will ever have, even though he gets criticized by his own race for standing up for the bible. host: let's go to steve in chicopee, massachusetts on the independent line. caller: good morning, very thankful you took my call. i did not have much of a chance getting through, but here we are. i would give the court a healthy b plus on this term. i am a fellow on the other side of the affirmative action equation. i am a vietnam veteran, i could not get into law school. there were plenty of other people in the same situation. i am a lawyer now. i am a strict constructionist. right is right, wrong is wrong.

there is 10 commandments, they have always been cut and dry. i cannot get into this living, breathing constitution idea. go forth with the guidelines, you know? host: appreciate your call. we are talking today about the supreme court this term and what your thoughts are about how the supreme court performed in its most recent term. i want to bring up the -- quinnipiac has pulling out about views of the supreme court. 29% of those polled by quinnipiac said they approve of the way the supreme court is doing its job. 58% said they disapprove. on the question of whether the supreme court is motivated by politics, 68% said that they do

believe the supreme court is mainly motivated by politics. 25% said mainly motivated by the law. the same quinnipiac poll also asks whether people would support term limits for justices. 63% of respondents said they would support term limits. 29% said they oppose. that is quinnipiac polling from a couple weeks ago, conducted on june 23. let's go back to the phones. george is in mckeesport, pennsylvania. democratic line. caller: yes. my grade for the supreme court is a zero. host: ok. caller: they ain't get nothing. all right? thank you. host: all right.

ray is in syracuse, new york, republican line. caller: good morning. my comment is the one i have made many times on c-span and elsewhere. when we talk about our federal government. the job of our constitution, which is where we get our supreme court and the rest of our legal system, is quite simple. how do we bring all these people together from all these different places over 250 years now, and how do we maintain that system without killing each other? look around you. we are not killing each other. rarely have we even thought about killing each other.

we do have violence in our country, but every country has violence. in general, we get it done. we have the highest standard of living in the world, long-standing. we have the best freedom, otherwise we would not have people dying to get here -- literally dying. that has been for a long time, that did not just come up out of nowhere. i give them an a. they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, along with the rest of our federal and state courts. we are able to go to court, seek redress and live with the results without killing each other. host: all right, appreciate your call. let's hear from kevin in bloomfield hills, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. after listening to every sunday,

thank you for your program. i came to the conclusion with the following. i am not surprised. i do not agree with the decisions. i do agree with what they have to stick. i am concerned that the majority is not ruling properly, only because they are injecting their own religious overtones. i say that because, listening into the callers --i cannot remember everyone's name. frank in texas. they are christians. religion should not play a part in this, ok? at all. and they are legislating. and, they are all recite of their own flock with the certain financial recording and

documentation of how they are operating. it is disgusting. real quick, i am not surprised. if you think about it, when they are picked, the applicants to be supreme court justices, it is a process. it is a confirmation process. i say as an independent who used to be a republican, two republicans --democrats in getting your own people. i am not surprised. they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. host: we are going to have to move on, but we appreciate your call this morning. let's go to shirley in stratford, connecticut, democrat line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i want to give the supreme court a d and clarence thomas in

particularly, an f. i do not think this country can be colorblind in any shape or form while we have organizations like the proud boys and all the other white supremacist organizations that exist, like the kkk until the supreme court rules against them and rid of them. then, may be the rulings that they have will stand and can stand because we all want a colorblind society. but, that is an impossibility in america so long as those organizations exist. until we start to care and have love for one another and stop imposing our own, personal views on one another and look at each other as all-americans, then we can say that the rulings

are just. but, until that time occurs, those rulings are unjust and they know it is. host: sorry about that. appreciate your call. thomas is in lincoln park, michigan, republican line. caller: thank you, c-span. odd bless america, one nation under god. i think the supreme court gets an a+. i think they are doing a great job with this second amendment stuff, first minute stuff. one question for america. who puts a man with two aneurysms with the highest position in america? thanks for everything. host: let's go to donald in raleigh, north carolina on the independent line. caller: yes, i gave the supreme court an f for this period. the courts are there to rectify wrongs. if the court cannot rectify a

wrong, there is no need for the court to be there. for example, when someone is severely injured or you have a relative that is killed in an auto accident or a car crash or whatever, and you litigate that wrong in the court, the court awards compensation. now, if the c-span listeners do not think it was wrong to enact slavery on an entire race of people, where you work for nothing, you live basically for 300 years -- you live basically just to have the clothes on your back. if that is not a wrong, if that is not the deprivation of someone from their inalienable

rights, the nothing is. i would like to say this about the supreme court, as well. the six, what most of your viewers on their call, conservatives -- if i had a case that went to court and there were three courts i could choose from as to who would adjudicate my case, and if among those three courts were the six conservatives and the u.s. supreme court, or a russian court, or a panel of monkeys, i would choose the panel of monkeys to adjudicate my case. i know they cannot talk. host: all right, donald. we are going to move on to atlanta, georgia. gary is on the democratic line. gary. caller: yes, good morning.

i concur with the young lady who called and said elections have consequences. when democrats were hollering bernie, bernie, bernie, the republicans were plotting on changing the law. the best thing donald trump did was when he came up with that list of people he was going to put on the supreme court. republicans who did not care for him too much voted for him. we were hollering bernie, bernie, bernie. we should have been hollering hillary, hillary, hillary. if hillary had one, we would not have these problems. elections have consequences. if you cannot play with the republicans -- you have republicans, poor, white republicans but living like democrats, you are going to be standing at walmart when they do away with social security, you are going to be standing at walmart greeting them mexicans at the front door because that is what it is going to lead to. we have got to realize when

elections come around, judges are picked by presidents. we have to learn that every election, republicans were relentless. they knew they were going to change that abortion. they knew they were going to change these laws. they kept saying to us, these are federal laws. federal law, we ain't when to bother that. they are doing the same thing with social security. i guarantee you when they get to congress, the senate and the presidency back, they are going to do away with social security. take you very much. host: before we go back to the phone lines, i want to pause and read a statement that senate leadership put out -- senate leader chuck schumer put out in response to the supreme court rulings. this is senator chuck schumer, democrat from new york. he wrote in his statement, after

a multi-decade, special interest funded eff to reshape the federal juy, the fanatical maga right have achieved dangerous policies they could never obtain at the box. feels free to accept lavishcourt gifts and vacatiom their powerful, big-money friends all they refused to help everyday americans. the ill-founded and disappointing decisions from the supreme court are a stark reminder that it will take a sustai effort toance our federal courts and resto the values that have made the united states a beacon for freedom, democracy, equality and opportunities. that is senate leader chuck schumer's statement about the supreme court after those three controversial rulings to end the scotus term. we want to talk to you. what grade would you give the supreme court this term?

democrats, call (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our next caller is ranked in catskill, new york -- frank in catskill, new york. caller: good morning. i want to weigh on this. i give the supreme court a solid b. we have colors coming in and going back in time. when obama, former president obama was denied his choice for a nominee. what about ruth bader ginsburg? she was in health and she probably should have stepped down. -- in ill health and she probably should have stepped down. john roberts votes with the left

for quite a bit. he voted for obama care, went against the conservative party. i want to go back to last term, last year when they voted -- they overruled roe v. wade. they also, that very same day, they gave president biden the right in his purview to set foreign policy. he overturned trump's remain in mexico policy. i was not for it, we've got 6 million people flooding our border. it was right because it was the law. the supreme court got it right. they most often do. one other thing. all my life, i never remember controversy about the supreme court like i am hearing constantly. it is just not right. chuck schumer, who you just put

up there, stood at the steps of the supreme court and announced, we are going to unleash a whirlwind. the comments you just read work were sit -- that is all i want to say. thank you. host: next caller is donna in erwin, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: i feel they made the right decision. i feel every american has the right to go to college. i think if you earn that right, you will be granted that possibility. i just was heartbroken this spring when i saw this oriental boy who had a perfect sat, valedictorian, could not get

into one of the top universities in this country. everyone he applied to, he was not accepted. i hope that everybody has a chance to go to college. my granddaughter is right now. my husband was puerto rican. they get special treatment. why doesn't anybody who is not strictly american heritage or is a different nationality, middle eastern, we have such a diverse -- spanish, all of them. everyone deserves a chance. i love this country and hope we can all work this out. host: jessica in wichita, kansas. democratic line. caller: good morning. first off, thank you for doing the show. this is a great service to the country.

secondly, i think the supreme court is doing a horrible job. i give them a b minus. personally, for clarence thomas, an f because of all the stuff you pooled -- he pulled his despicable. i would like to talk about trump. remember, he started an insurrection, people. he is a traitor to this country. not only that, he has been hiding classified documents that could compromise the security of this country. he should be put in prison. going back to the supreme court, i think, again, despicable, especially with the overturning of roe v. wade. i have mild autism. when i heard that the alternate

-- i thought to myself, what if something horrible happened to me? what if i were to be, god forbid, sexually assaulted? i would not want to have my child knowing they were the product of sexual assault, to have to live through that. nobody should have to be put through that. four the supreme court to go back over 50 years is just horrible. thank you. god bless. host: alrighty. next, we have jackie from whiteville, virginia, independent line. caller: hello? host: yes, jackie. go ahead. caller: i would give the supreme court a c, but i think they are political. that is because they have to go

through all of that crap to get into the court, they have to go through all of the senate and the house and everything to get into the position. i also think that all government positions should be limited in their terms. and, i think that it is a disgrace that they have somebody that obviously has alzheimer's as president, the way they have indicted trump -- which is

political, all of it. i do think that the supreme court should step up and do their job. host: all right, jackie. got your point. we are going to go to our next caller. carolyn in georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. i would give the court a good rating, a good grade because we, the people cannot most times evaluate the supreme court because we do not know which what we ought to know in order to be, to evaluate the court. we use words like i feel, i believe, i think. those are like a 50% margin because it may rain today, it may not. the words feel, believe and think are not to be used.

also, the factual information. i know clarence thomas is doing a very good job. i know us african-americans do not believe so. but most of us believe he is doing a very good job because we do not know all in which we ought to know to evaluate him. i like what the supreme court did, put it back to the states. the states may want to have different time frames to have an abortion. it may be some states give 15 weeks, maybe some states six months, may some states, six weeks. the states have the right to decide when they want to do it and how they want to do it. how do we come up with evaluating the supreme court? anyway. have a good one. host: alrighty. our next caller is a need in

orlando, florida. democratic line. nev? caller: hello? yes, thank you for taking my calls. right now, the courts are a conservative majority. we have to live with it. we have to live with it. back in the day, when the courts where majority democratic appointees, the same people calling now would love it and give it an a+ would give it a zero or what have you because they did not like the rulings of the supreme court supreme court at the time. we as a people have to accept them for what they represent because now, because of trump, you've got three conservatives there and a six majority supreme court nominees. the same people calling about how they love clarence thomas hated obama because of what he represented. it is all about who they want to

make decisions for them. they now hate the fbi and the doj because it is ruling against their former president. it is all about what these people want. they have no regard the rights of the laws or what they represent, it is all about them. remember, they supported the january 6 onslaught of the capitol. the same people, who are now talking about a for the supreme court. it is what these people represent. i hope people see it and all these people making -- host: got your point, nev. let's hear from steve in missouri, independent line. caller: hi. i would give the supreme court a c. i find it odd that when the court splits on other decisions that we do not ever talk about,

the only ones we talk about is when it is split, basically democrat and republican. when they do that, they get yelled at. when the court splits, it is not good enough and we give them no price for that. i also find it absurdi find it p putting things from the chuck schumer up there when that men consistently lie to our country, and we keep acting like we should listen to that guy. host: we are going to take a quick break. coming up on washington journal, we will speak with 2 authors. first up is calder walton who will be discussing the latest in russia and his book "spies." later on this fourth of july weekend, political historian eli merritt discusses his book.

how the political divisions among the -- it is about the political divisions among the country's founders during the revolution. ♪ >> celebrate independence day during our july 4 sale going on right now at sees pawn shop.org, c-span's -- c-spanshop.org, c-span's online store. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. skin the qr code -- scan the qr code on your right. >> in 1814 francis scott key

wrote the national anthem of the united states. tonight musicology professor mark clay discusses his book "o say can you hear?" about the cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> it is actually a living document. it is not a frozen nikon. it is not -- frozen icon. it is not static. it is brought to life in performance by jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song, we elevate the questions, the tension, and the hope that is in that song the new. >> mark clay good with his book"o say can you hear, -- book "o say can you hear," on

c-span's q and a. >> francis fukuyama returns to take calls on politics, international affairs and more. he is e thor of "thendf history." during in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. in-depth with francis fukuyama live today at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with author colder walton of harvard's in -- colder walton of harvard's intelligence project. good morning caldur. guest: thank you for having me.

host: thank you for joining us. let's start by talking about your background in intelligence and tell us about the kennedy school. guest: my background is studying intelligence. it is an unusual field. i got into this area of research 20 years ago at cambridge university in england were my phd supervisor really was the person, christopher andrew, was the person who established this field as an academic field of scholarship worthy to be studied. he gave me an extraordinary opportunity in 2003 to help write mi5's official history. that involves looking into its 100 year history.

i have not looked back since. that was the opportunity of a lifetime. moving over to the u.s. in 2016, witnessing trump, russia and all of that, witnessing the rise of china, and then with putin's war in ukraine, this book i was writing became more urgent than ever. the book is a result of 6 years of research,. the book is as old as my son. i i'm glad it is now out. the belford center, on dear second question, -- on to your second question, is an incredible place to be. there is a combination of both practitioners and scholars, and the intelligence project there

is the foremost center for the study of public policy, intelligence, and national security in the u.s.. it is my privilege to be part of that. host: thank you for that introduction. let's dive right into some current events in russia. what is your take over what is happened there over the last 2 weeks and do you consider what prigozhin pulled, would you consider that a failed to attempt? -- a failed coup attempt? guest: i was watching the events, wondering what are we watching unfold on their screens? putin has ruled russia with an iron fist.any political opposition leader who got anywhere close to him would find themselves silenced, if not

physically eliminated. the spectacle of pre-goshen doing what he did -- pre-goshen doing what he did revealed that putin's rule is no longer what it once was. i have some fairly pessimistic views about what the future holds, i'm afraid. when a dictator has a challenger and a dictator becomes a damage dictator that is when a dictator like putin begins to think about doing something dramatic in order to show a force of strength to show off that he or she is a powerful leader in the way that they want to be. i fear that whatever it was, mutiny or coup, it will

cause a crescendo reaction from putin himself. on your second question, was it a coup or a moot any -- a mutiny, if we're being honest we just are no. if a defector comes to the west with thes secrets of what was goi's -- the secrets of what was going on in putin's kremlin, did it crescendo into something looking like a coup and then scale back? possibly. it is fairly reasonable to say that pre-goshen -- prigozhin would not have started whatever this was without some buy in

from the russian oligarchs around putin. now when he got going with the march to moscow did perhaps the support that he thought he had, was that not forthcoming? that could have been what happened. i will stress this last point. even though we in the public do not know what happened can guarantee you that russian intelligence agencies do. during chaotic moments when things are moving quickly, trip send field commanders invariably -- troops and field commanders invariably fail to use secure

field communication. that is going to be a gold mine for western intelligence agencies, eavesdroppers at the u.s. national security agency. we don't know, but i'm confident to say that during the chaos of the prigozhin mutiny-coup the secrets of what was going on what have been collected i western intelligence agencies. host: so we may know more soon? guest: i think we will know more soon, and definitely one day when some records come out either through a freedom of information request or people like myself going to the archives 20 years down the line. host: i want to open up the phone lines for our viewers at home. if you have questions for all third -- for author colder

walton -- for author caldur walton, we want do to call now. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. dependents -- independents, (202) 748-8002. prigozhin, out -- caldur, i wanted to ask you with what we just saw and russia there were a lot of comparisons to the failed coup in 1991 against gorbachev. after that coup the soviet system collapsed. do you think with what happened 2 weekends ago this could be the same for putin, that it

foreshadows a collapse of his regime? guest: i think the first thing to say is that it seems to be a very good analogy 1991 with the abortive coup as you said against gorbachev. what history also shows is never say never. we just don't know. we need to be honest about that. it could well be that in 6 months time this coup leads to a cascade of events, which like in 1991 led to the unraveling of the soviet union after the coup. we simply don't know. it has shown already just 2 weeks after just how damaged putin's rule is. as i said earlier in the program, what he might do is

what gorbachev did not do. there was an abortive coup in 1991 against gorbachev. gorbachev could have decided to crack down hard. he didn't decide to do that. the hero of the hour to emerge from the coup was or skelton, who went on to become -- was boris yeltsin, went on to become the leader of russia. it seems more likely that putin will use the state to clamp down and show his strength up to and including -- i do not rule out putin using a tactical nuclear weapon in order to blackmail and snatch a victory from defeat in ukraine.

if his rule is damaged, he is going to look to some way of demonstrating his absolute strength, and he is still at this point in charge of russia's nuclear arsenal. i could see that as a nonzero possibility. this is the dangerous territory we are in right now with a dictator who has many echoes and parallels with stalin, and i am using that analogy very carefully in terms of his rule and the way in particular that he uses intelligence and misuses it. here is a dictator with nuclear weapons. it is impossible to say whether this will lead to a events like 1991. it is a striking parallel, but my inclination is to say

that putin will do what gorbachev did not do, and that is to dig in and crackdown, i'm afraid. host: let's take some calls now. as a reminder, democrats, (202) 748-8001. republicans -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is craig on the independent line. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i had a quick question. i am a global issues analyst, and one of my specialties is modeling different issues, including conflict. i was just wondering do you feel like at this point that russia

-- what is the possibility that they will use a tactical nuclear weapon, and if so do you think globally the rest of states will reciprocate? i'm wondering what you think the actual threat of that is, an do you think this has any way of panning out positively for the ukrainian people? guest: thanks for the question, craig. it is a really important question. i can guarantee you that this is occupying the front of mind for people working in intelligence communities across nato countries. will putin use a tactical nuclear weapon? again, we don't know, but it is a nonzero possibility. before the war in ukraine, the

probability of this happening was incredibly slim, and it has only increased since then. the disaster of this whole war in ukraine is that a said at the outset, this is a war that putin cannot afford to lose. he has staked his repartee -- his reputation to the war in ukraine. ukraine in his view does not exist as an independent country. heasailed everything to this war. it is a war he cannot afford to lose. if the ukrainian counteroffensive does well, as we all hope it will do, this actually pushes putin into a corner.

how does he create a victory for himself and his reputation? in his mind, he conflates himself with russia. when answer is he has the ultimate get out of jail ticket, which is a tactical nuclear weapon. i think that during my research for this book i just published, there are two areas i am looking at very carefully. the first is about what the soviet kgb calls active measures. this is whatw e in -- what we in the west would call covert action. it includes warfare dirty tricks everything from propaganda through to coups and assassination. this is the toolkit, which all

nationstates use. one of the most striking episodes i found during the research of this book was records from ukrainian archives. they reveal how the kgb went about peddling disinformation after the turn noble accident -- chernobyl accident in 1985, i believe it was. viewers may remember the remarkable hbo series chernobyl, which came out a few years ago, which showed the extent to which the soviet government mismanaged the aftermath of chernobyl, but it did not scratch the surface of these records and how the kgb manipulated foreign press reporting and domestic reporting about this disaster to create a

false narrative. in one circumstances, some french investigative generalists went into -- investigative journalists went into the contamination zone, got some irradiated soil samples, and the kgb broke into their hotel room and swap the soil samples with non-irradiated ones. this is the way that the soviet government, and i would argue today the russian government, because putin is former kgb officer is very adept at creating false narratives about nuclear disasters, and for that reason i'm looking very closely at the zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in ukraine. this is a grim narrative, but it

is important to say. it is not beyond the realm of possibility that putin and his military dungeon service would create a false accident there and then create misinformation on top of it about it -- you would imagine the kind of narrative they would say. "this is ukrainian mismanagement, which requires russian troops to move in and manage the area." we need to be careful about -- paranoia and doomsday, making everything worse, but i'm afraid the only reason i i'm looking at this is because there is a. track record here the other part of the track record is what the kgb and russian intelligence today called false flags. that is another active measure/

covert action by which russian intelligence services would do something, an act of sabotage for example, as then a pretext in order to do what the kremlin actually wants to do. undertaken action that is then pretext for what they want to do. you may remember that u.s. and british intelligence were spectacularly successful before the war in ukraine at understanding putin's intentions and his false flag operation plans, and then the british and the u.s. government declassified that intelligence remarkably in real time, and by exposing that remove putin's room for maneuver about creating pretexts.

this is a long way of saying there is a long history of russian active measures, disinformation about nuclear accidents in chernobyl and false flags. you bring the two together, and for that reason i am looking very carefully at nuclear power plants in the ukraine that i think would give putin the pretext of what you wants to do in terms -- he wants to do in terms of blackmailing nato countries and ukraine of course without having to set off a tactical nuclear weapon. host: oliver is calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning, oliver. caller: if putin wanted to knock out the wagner group, he could

have knocked them out using his air force when they were out in plainview on the highways. could this be a trick move having the wagner group going to belarus to open up a second front with the ukrainians in the east with their offense? couldn't they be coming down from belarus? it's funny how putin transferred with tactic goal nuclear's a few weeks before the wagner group went to belarus. why didn't putin knock them out with his air force when he could? guest: great question, oliver. this is the thing i have discovered researching this 100 year history of russian intelligence and this long, epic struggle that i argue we have been in. one quickly gets into the

wilderness of mirrors, and it is difficult to tell what is going on. the picture you laid out, oliver is, plausible we just don't know, and i think we need to be honest about that. i agree with you, oliver, the whole thing does seem very strange, and i'm confident to say that there is another layer -- perhaps many layers -- going on below the surface. we cannot see the deals that have been done. why putin did not wipe them out, well, i think that would have effectively involved kicking off a bloody civil war. whatever else, wagner does have supporters within the russian population, so putin wants to be seen as a strong man. this has revealed that perhaps he isn't.

quite why prigozhin has gone to belarus and with the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons there, i am confused. there is something else going on. what i would urge, having looked at this history in detail is let's have some modesty and humility about stuff we are seeing, because it definitely isn't the whole picture. the whole picture will come out through the good work of investigative journalists, through hopefully defectors and we have to remember that in this chaos, and in last week's coup -- this is a really important point to stress -- even before last week's coup, you may remember that the cia produced this incredibly slick video

aimed at recruiting russians, and the video was really well-made. it was targeting despondent, bitter russians working for the russian government who they wanted, the cia was saying "your life must be worth more than this. is this really what you wanted when you signed up to work for the russian government? if it isn't, this is how you get in touch with the cia v of the dark web." the cia produced a this video and put it out on the dark web on telegram. even before the abortive coup. i can imagine that since then,

there are a significant number of fed up, despondent russians who are looking at putin's rule and saying "he is not even the strongman that he was supposed to be to 'protect us.' i what to do what is right for my family, and what that means is betraying putin for the greater good>" that is the time-honored tradition of espionage. we will not know about this until one day far in the future, but i am confident that this is happening in the shadows right now. host: let's go back to the phone lines. tyrone is calling from ohio on the independent line. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: a live down there in florida.

i did business down there. i had to do what i had to do. i stayed in hereford county, a place where blacks and mexicans don't stay. i dealt with all kind of people, klansmen, kkk, all of them. what is going on on the dark side of the moon, a surprise attack. russia, all that stuff that was shot up in the space? those are weapons of mass destruction. it's not nice. they're trying to overthrow democracy and change the history of our nation.

that is what i'm trying to tell y'all, but nobody listens. host: any response to that caller? guest: the audio wasn't coming through all that well for me, but i think what tyrone was talking about is weapons of mass destruction and how their is more going on then meets the eye. host: i think that is the gist of it yes. guest: there are a couple of things to say. on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the u.s. government, huge miscalculation of weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of iraq. that was a colossal intelligence failure on the part of the u.s. government and the british. it seems to me that it has taken a long, long time to get over that and for people to begin to trust the intelligence agencies

of their governments again. i think that things might be changing with the war in ukraine and how the u.s. government, biden administration did a very notable and brave decision to declassify this intelligence about putin's war plans. is this what we have seen recently the readjustment in terms of public perception of u.s. intelligence? i think it probably is. there are guaranteed to be future intelligence failures again. it is impossible to be right all the time, and despite everyone's best efforts and the u.s. intelligence community, but the

stain, if you like, of the weapons of mass destruction and war in iraq has profoundly lingered over public perceptions of u.s. intelligence and quite rightly so because i was a tester for. host: let's go to the democratic -- it was a catastrophe. host: let's go to the democratic lines now. ishmael is calling. caller: i have a quick question and comment for esther walton. he mentioned chernobyl -- for mr. walton. he mentioned the chernobyl disaster in 1986. they already controlled

europe's largest nuclear power plant in ukraine and there were a lot of close calls. my question is how dangerous is the world right now with this situation that putin has created for the past 2 decades and the last few presidents from bush to biden? my question is how safe the world is, especially with the upcoming election we are having? we don't know who will be in the white house and what u.s. foreign policy towards russia will be. thank you for taking my call. guest: thanks, ishmael. another great question and important. i should also say happy fourth of july. despite my english accent, i was

actually born in this country so i feel the ability to be able to say that. happy fourth, everybody. putin has been in power now for 2 decades and counting. he has seen however many presidents and english prime ministers come and go, but he has stayed the same. when we look back at putin's speeches, particularly his security conference speech in 2007, if you go back and look at that, it is remarkably consistent with his speeches on the people of the war in ukraine and since it, particularly with putin's speech -- press conference with china's leader xi jinping where they announced they were in an agreement with "no limits." in that speech like the speech

back in 2007, putin effectively rejects the post-cold war international settlement. he says that the cold war ended in a way that it shouldn't have done, and the united states and its allies have since then been bossing other countries around, and the war in iraq that we just talked about revealed how the u.s.-led international alliance is involved with regime change. putin says this is not true democracy because it is not taking into account what other countries want. from putin's perspective what he is trying to do is to contain u.s. influence in eastern europe. we in the west see this entirely

the other way around. it it is like going through the looking glass and the world is upside down. we see it that there is an alliance of authoritarian autocracies, dictatorships that are not democratic. what we in the west are trying to do is contain their influence, so this has all sorts of echoes with the cold war in the 20th century, but your point the question is it more dangerous now than in the past -- well during the cuban missile crisis, in october of 1962 the world was genuinely on the brink of nuclear armageddon. in the 1980's again there was a near nuclear crisis between east and west, which slipped by the

u.s. government effectively unnoticed. incredibly alarming. i think it is important, when you look at the history of this, to put things in perspective. the world is in crisis at this point. who would have thought just two years ago we would say these words -- there is a land war in europe. at the same point, we need to remember that we have been your before. the one thing that the u.s. government is really very good at once it gets going is thinking creatively about how to collect reliable intelligence on closed police states. this is what the u.s. government after a slow start in the postwar years became very good at during the cold war.

i unconfident to say it will happen again. it will not be the same tools as the previous cold war. this centuries cold war between the west, russia, and china will involve commercially available intelligence, so open source data. whoever controls, owns, and controls data will be the astor of this century. in the west -- the master of this century. in the west, that is the private sector. what the west needs to do is harness the capabilities of the private sector, and to create what i think should be a public- private partnership of intelligence, using the tech giants and start up capabilities to collect intelligence on russia and china in ways that

traditional espionage is going to be difficult, if not impossible to do. i would also just like to make one other point related to your question about the post 9/11 period. is the world more dangerous ? when we look back on this history now in the post 9/11 period and i come to this bid at the end of my book, there are few records available so i've had to rely on interviews with former intelligence officers, but what we can see is that while the u.s. government and its allies were consumed for understand up over reasons with counterterrorism and plowing resources and prioritizing counterterrorism in the face of

clear and present danger, threats to the u.s., terrorist plots, as the u.s. government was consumed and distracted by this, the russian government under putin, and the chinese government saw this as a huge strategic opportunity to collect intelligence on the united states, while it was distracted, but most importantly for the chinese government to steal as many scientific and technical secrets as possible from the u.s. government. what i have tried to show towards the end of this book is that the war on terror as the u.s. government was looking over here was a a golden opportunity for the so-called resurgent great powers, hostile states, rush ho -- states, russia and

china, and that is the chapter i have tried to write a first drop aft of. host: we are taking your calls and questions for author caldur walton, who recently wrote the book "spies." democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are going to the independent line now. vivek is in london. caller: my question is about the escalation of war in ukraine. it is a visible escalation. following on what mr. walton is saying, it seems the only reason that this war has not escalated his lack of ammunition on both sides.

when will the west move to a war economy, and the war factories will start working and then there will be plenty of ammunition to confront the russians and also -- by war economy, i mean when 10% to 15% of gdp is spent. when is mr. walton's prediction on when the west will move to a war economy? host: it is great to hear an english voice -- guest: it is great to hear an english voice. great question. the war economy -- that conjures up memories of when the

economy is geared towards a war effort. we saw that during the first world war. i'm not sure that we are there. hope lee, we will not have world war iii -- hopefully, we will not have world war iii. i see the better analogy as the cold war. in the later period of the cold war in the 20th century, the principle of mutually assured destruction or mad men to as ronald reagan said that a nuclear war between superpowers could never be won and therefore must never be fought. both sides have the capability of incinerating the planet, therefore, we have to find any and always not to go to hot war between the superpowers. the same principle to me applies

today with russia and china and the west. i think that the cold war analogy is perhaps better than total war, world war, second world war. if putin though does what we talked about earlier and either fabricates an accident at a nuclear power plant or sets off a tactical nuke over the sea as a way of blackmailing nato, i don't know how we will respond other than following whether national security advisor has said over here. there would be a devastating response. your point about the economy and how we will drive this forward, this is what makes the situation with russia, and particularly

china more difficult than if you like the previous cold war. the soviet union like russia today produces very little that the world wants. apart from oil, petrochemicals, the soviet union was effectively ring fenced off from the world economy as a pariah state. that is clearly not the case with china today. this is why policymakers in washington, and indeed london are bending over backwards to say this is not a cold war. we don't want to think of it that way. it is because the economic interdependence and china's massive economic weight makes it more complex than the cold war in the 20th century was. if putin were to do the

unthinkable and break with the entire history of postwar international security to detonate a tactical nuclear weapon, then i think that we are in the territory of what you described where economies need to be put more on a war footing. i don't know when that will happen, and i think we all pray that that does not happen. that is a long way of saying i don't know. i think that looking at total war is thankfully not where we are right now. it could very well become like that, but a cold war, the cold war analogy is where we are. it is a cold war in that it can't turn hot. we have to pray that it remains cold. host: we have calls lined up,

but i want to get to a quick question i saw on twitter. "do we have any idea who is next in line after putin is gone?" guest: it is a great question. looking at this, i think we would all hope that one of russia's democratic opposition leaders, alexei navalny or let america mas of -- vladimir karmazov would be released from jail and take over the kremlin. i'm afraid i see that is very, very slim possibility. afraid more likely from my perspective, and history shows this, is that if putin were removed, assassinated, or a coup

against him i think it is more likely that his successor would be someone cut from the same cloth as him. putin surrounds himself with these so-called men of force were from the same background as him in the security and intelligence services, the military. if for example putin were removed and one of his principal advisors on the national security council, nicolai petra shive were to take over, if someone like that were to take over, we are in the same position regarding russia as we are right now. he has the same background, kgb background. we are going to be in exactly the same situation, which is why, and this is quite an un-pc

thing to say, but having looked at the history of this, we have not so much a putin problem but a russia problem. in the west we need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that this is not just going to be resolved as soon as putin is not here. there are plenty of people in the military and security intelligence services who think just like he does, and operate in a similar way, and by the way i'd actually have clearer military heads -- might actually have clearer military heads on their shoulders. prigozhin, one of the many things that he did was to expose putin's big lie about his pretext for the war. he has since the mutiny-coup, he

has effectively said this is an unjustified war. if prigozhin were to ride into the kremlin, we might be in different territory than what i just described, but history also shows that we didn't is someone who doesn't ever forgive -- that putin is not someone who forgives trail -- forgives betrayal. if i was prigozhin i would be worried about my future. let's put it that way. we don't know who will be next, but the entire sort of -- all of

the people around putin, the likely contenders are i'm afraid cut from the same cloth as him. host: back to the phone lines. sal is in new jersey on the republican line. caller: hello, mr. walton. is it quite possible -- russia was never a genuine democracy. is it possible if in the russians psyche and in russian history that russia will ever become a genuine democracy aligned and friendly with the west? guest: what a great question. is there something in russias'dna -- russia's dna that makes it disposed to autocratic,

nondemocratic leaders? i point you in the direction of wonderful russian scholar steve hopkin who writes about this. we cannot say never say never, but the history of russia is one of getting to the point of democratic reforms, and then those reforms not happening. the greatest tragedy, as you just sort of illustrated, is to my mind in the 1990's. this is why i am, afraid pessimistic, but i believe realistic about what comes next after putin. in 1991 the entire soviet system, obviously, collapsed. what we find happened in the years thereafter? well, the security and intelligence services -- the kgb

was disbanded and the rest of the world thought this was it. we were talking about the end of history in the west. what do we find though using both soviet archives and recently declassified u.s. and u.k. intelligence records? the kgb quickly reassembled itself into extraordinarily powerful agencies within the russian government of boris yeltsin. it is out of this bitter kind of environment in which russia was humiliated, no longer a superpower, no longer even a great power in the 1990's, its economy tanking, it is out of

that bitter stew putin emerged to become the head of the security service and then, yeltsin's successor. word on the ground was he would go soft on yeltsin when yeltsin left the kremlin, and he kept his bargain. to your question is russia ever going to become a democracy? we can hope. we we can be humble in our expectations that even russia's democratic leaders like alexei navalny are not western democratic leaders and have different views about things like lgbtq issues than many

people in the west do. in the best situation, this will not be a. it -- it will not be a transplant of western democracy. it will be a russian type of democracy. to your question about russia and is there something in its dna -- russia is a big country. time and time again we find a propensity for autocratic rule just to control this huge country. you need a strong, firm later. that is the narrative. let's hope that at some point the weight of history can be dispelled.

there is genuine democratic russian opposition leaders both abroad and, i would again point to someone incredibly brave like vladimir karamazov. if there is a way to get someone like that out of jail and have legitimate democratic elections, we can all pray that that will be the future for russia. host: we are going to do one more call. cal in oklahoma, democratic line. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. hopefully, it quick two-part question. the first part relates to the remaining wagner troops. are any of them joining the regular army? what is happening to the ones who are overseas in africa and

syria, for example? that is part one. the second part relates to prigozhin himself. is it too out of the possibility to think that he might be negotiating with the united states for sanctuary? he is the possessor of an and norma's amount of information -- an enormous amendment for me. could that -- an enormous amount of information. guest: are they being observed into the russian army? i have seen reports that they are. what are happening -- what is happening to wagner troops in africa? that was an agreement between putin and prigozhin, that to he

could keep his empire in africa. they have been extraordinarily active in africa, and it seems prigozhin -- maybe that was part of the deal reached in that quick succession of events two weeks ago. prigozhin and the u.s. government, what a great question. i don't know the answer but it is entirely possible. if the u.s. government could get hold of some of the secrets that prigozhin holds in his head, we can imagine that would be a gold mine. we shouldn't know about that right now but, we will hopefully know about it if it does indeed happen in the future. it is the kind of thing that would have happened in the past and it makes me think, looking at this history that it is the

exact, thing the cia would be looking to explore. host: we have time for one more. rhonda, sacramento, california. caller: it is an honor to speak with you. do you see a glimmer of hope that we can come to negotiations? i think about history. i'm 64 years old. in our history we have had peace talks many times. do you see a glimmer of hope that we can come to the table so we can not be on the edge of nuclear threat? it is an honor to speak with you. i will take my answer offline. host: we have a couple of minutes. go ahead. guest: thank you for the call, and thank you for getting up very early out in california. is there a glimmer of hope?

it seems to me there is an analogy for us to think about with ending the war in ukraine. it could be for example the situation with ending the war in korea in the 50's, essentially a frozen conflict with both sides unhappy with the result. the way i would think about this , for anyone who has gone through a divorce, if both sides are unhappy with the result, that probably means that it is the right result. that is, i'm afraid the grim reality. that would mean both russia agreeing to take things that -- agreeing to things that it

but that would look like, i don't know. crimea, i think president zelenskyy is government we need to ask itself clearly whether they really want to have crimea back in ukraine for the good reason that there is now a russian population in crimea and i have seen telegram videos coming out of crimea's list kindergartners pros putin assembling rifles on the storerooms tables. does zelenskyy really want to have control over that or could it be a mandated area perhaps under you and peacekeeping control. both sides are unhappy with the

results but at least it is a result. that is the kind of diplomatic solution that we hope -- it's not a good result but at least there would be an end. host: so appreciate our chat. thank you so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: his book is the epic intelligence between east and west. up next political historian and , auth merritt discusses his book, the perilous politics of the american revolution, right after the break. ♪ >> former president theodore

roosevelt died on january 6, 1919. he was 60 years old. the author in his book focused on the last two years of his life. theater roosevelt final days. he takes us through the feud with president wilson. he wanted to form another soldier regiment. wilson turned him down despite the u.s. senate and u.s. house had approved those requests. >> his new book, a last charge of the rgh rider o footnote plus. it is available on the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> celebrate independence day

during our july 4 sale, save up to 35% onrocts. something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofits. shock during the july 4 sale going on right now. -- shop ding the july 4 sale going on now. >> on in-depth, taking calls out politics, international affairs, liberalism, and more. the author of the end of history and the last man. he has published several books since his 2006 appearance. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments,exts, and tweets. live today at noon eastern on

book tv on c-span two. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy work. a republic thriving, straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nations capital to wherever you are, the pinions that mean the most are yours. this is what democracy looks like. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with political historian and author eli merritt who will be discussing his new book looking at the political divisions among the country's founders during the american revolution and what it can teach us about today's political polarization.

good morning, eli. guest: good to be with you. host: inc. you for joining us. what does the book focus on? why did you decide to write it? guest: is based on a misconception that we have and specifically that the american revolution. historians have taught what the founders feared the most during the revolution was the power of the british army and navy. the book reveals that is not the case. what they feared most about was breaking apart and the disunion that would lead to civil wars. the book tells a story about that major themes and elucidates briefly a theme i discuss is you look at why the founders of the united states perpetuated

slavery. there are many explanatory models. known to us is the example of white supremacy and why they perpetuated slavery, and economic reason, and they both north and south intimately tied to a heinous economic system. my book introduces the survivalists interpretation. if norton states and delegates to the continental congress had insisted upon ending the slave trade or a gradual emancipation of slaves, he would've had a secession of all southern states even then. that would've led to the force over finance and land. host: that is interesting. we know there lots of books written about the american

revolution. why do you consider yours different? what do you hope readers may learn that they have not learned other places? guest: the survivalist interpretation, to perceive what motivated the founders. for -- history is my second career. i actually practiced psychiatry for 20 years. some time ago i came to the conclusion that most motivating factor is fear. i came to the conclusion it is the driver of life. i looked at the american revolution and the vast majority written about the revolution are military but this is a political history. i learned what they feared most and the consequences of that

fear. an overriding discovery was i said they did what they did to save their souls from civil wars. they made compromises, they perpetuated slavery, they adopted the declaration of independence and elected george washington as the commander and chief. all of these had to do with the fear that if they broke apart it would fall into civil wars. that is the conclusion that has not been written before about that founding period. host: i want to been up the phone lines and let the listeners and viewers know they can call in. we are taking questions for author eli merritt. you can have's -- ask questions about his book or american history, particularly the american revolution. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001,

independents (202) 748-8002. you can also send a text message to (202) 748-8003. we will get to those calls in just a moment. i want to read an excerpt from the book. the title of the book is disunion among ourselves, the perilous politics of the american revolutio the founding of a single united stat w hardly the easy mayor of 13 homogenous liberty loving states so often depicted in american history. a single united states was not ordained or even desired as a matter of first preference by most of the founders. instead,merican union was an unwelcome allfor colonies in regions for the maintenance of internal and external security. capturing the spirit of the early republicans, that of the

shotgun wedding. it is the new utrn states that have chosen to walk away from the union of 13 and they would have had wars raking out. i know we have been talking about this perspective as far as preserving the union, but can you give us more of a lay of the land where was the country, of the disputes between the colonies and founders as they began to focus and play out during those times of the american revolution. guest: you had a great summary of the book. what i will try to do particularly since we are so near the fourth of july is i will say a word or two about how and why all of the 13 colonies adopted the resolution for independence on july 2 and two days later agreed unanimously to

the declaration of independence on july 4. the situation was combustible in the month of june. for all of that month, the union counties and most of the southern colonies had been waiting a long time to declare independence. the middle colonies and south carolina, looking at the situation of the middle colonies. on june 7, they said the time is come, i am proposing a resolution for independence. the next day, thomas jefferson said the middle colony from south carolina is in the center of the continental congress in which they said, if this move forward without approval we will secede from this union. that is the dynamic they were experiencing at the time. that was a situation too hot to

handle. they were not going to back down so they said let's give it more time and we will formerly vote for independence on july 1 was the date. even on that date the pennsylvania and south carolina voted no. new york abstained and delaware split its vote. so why did those little colonies ultimately decide to join into the independence movement the next day? if you envision the map, we have new england and to the north of the middle colonies, virginia and those to the south. middle colonies were squeezed in the middle and in a desperate military situation. they were either going to have to fall into civil war against the pro-independence southerners and new englanders or they would have to join in. they realize this because the super majority voted for

independence, select the theme of do or die, on july 1 they decided to join in. one of the best examples of the book of i shotgun wedding. -- of a shotgun wedding. host: you talked about the fact that preserving the union meant preserving slavery to avoid civil war, but we know that 100 years later there was a civil war and my question to you is, do you consider that something inevitable that something they were able to delay it or what are your thoughts that there was eventually civil war at the founding fathers feared. guest: what is most remarkable and reveals more is in fact this fear.

there would be the fear of a secession and there were considerations. even that was not a problem for them. many thought it might be better to form separate confederations. they were convinced they would fall into civil war. at the time the fear was not civil war over slavery but the fear was that there was civil war with 400,000 enslaved people would rise up and join them. there was a sense of continuity. the survivalist interpretation of a shotgun wedding, the civil war started in 1774 and the first continental congress and persisted all the way to the civil war. whether or not the civil war was inevitable, and away if there

had not been an american revolution and had not formed the united states of america we should assume, based on the history of great britain, that slavery would have ended in 1838 when britain ended slavery. for those who don't know, that is conjecture. the reason the civil war took place is human beings, namely southerners, they fell into sectarian politics with one another and there was a concept they needed to protect their property. host: ray is first up in aurora, colorado, on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a registered libertarian and i wanted to touch upon your mention of fear.

i personally fear the idea of a central state in size and scope that they would have complete control over its people. i was wondering if you could comment on that and if you could name some of the people during that period who shared those kinds of concerns. guest: i think you said of fear of two large of a federal government? caller: basically, central power. guest: you hit the nail on the head. that was the dominant fear for most of the founders. independent colonies went on to be independent states and they weren't sure whether they were forming 13 republics, which each of the state would be there republic and they would

confederate with other states the concept of state sovereignty was overwhelming and they were extraordinarily fearful from taking power from the state into a central government. that is one of the reasons by it took six or seven years to get our first constitution and the articles of confederation torn ratified to 1781 was the best they could do because of this fear of centralized power. so the question today is do we fear centralized power? i think we have to have checks and balances and separation of power. the states do act somewhat as a check on federal power.

we have a unique system where i think states do have too much power. host: let's go to the democratic line, carolyn from stroudsburg, pennsylvania. caller: i would like your guest to take it one step further. we can understand fear generating their actions, what motivated the fear, was it not greed that they wanted to hold on, they had vast new land that they wanted to hold onto. they couldn't do it without slavery and they couldn't do it as individual colonies.

think people gating factor was agreed. guest: want to agree with you on that, as there might be many powerful motivating factors. greed is one. what i like is what i think of as complex history. we have a problem with oversimplified history and that there is over -- only one interpretation. i find if you only adopt one view you miss a lot of opportunity for intellectual depth but also for us to mature as people and as a nation. this idea of greed and economic interpretation is 100% correct but i also think the white supremacist interpretation is

correct and the survivalist interpretation is correct. one of my most important reasons for feeling disappointed at the reaction to the 1619 project is the all or nothing thinking. it is important to look at the origin story of the african-american in this country , 1776 july is the origin story. that is an example where we could have one and one origin story in the united states. i love complex history and i agree with you plus other interpretations on top. host: next up is joel in idaho, independent line. caller: there's always been a debate over whether the civil war was due to slavery, it seems

like you lean toward states rights. i would like to get your, on where you think the civil work belongs. guest: the civil war, what we find is the essential history going back to the 16th 19 was slavery. if that had not been divided the country, almost 250 years we would not have had civil war. the question of estate sovereignty was important to them but i do think slavery, the number one cause and there was distention with regard to state sovereignty. it is important to remember and deepen our sense of history of what happened leading to the civil war and that is that abraham lincoln was elected and that caused worry and fear about

the determination of the republican party to end the expansion of slavery in the country. so they seceded and then civil war came about because secession was determined on this basis of the need to unify the country. so if slavery is the number one cause the driving factor we should look to how we can try to other factors such as state sovereignty. host: let's go to salisbury, north carolina, lewis is calling on the democratic line. caller: top of the morning to you. i have a comment and question. we know the slave owners used money because they had to free the slaves and reimburse.

what do you think about reparations that the blacks haven't received. if the blacks could have received some type of reparations, we wouldn't need his student loans, housing, social service anything the government is fighting against for black people to receive. my question is, do you think the white governors and mayors of the southern states are going to crt your book in the future? guest: i appreciate that question. it brings to mind what did happen in the british empire about slavery in 1838, they did -- should've been compensating the enslaved people but compensated those who were

freeing the slaves. about reparations, my deepest belief is that our country has so much to do to reconcile with the history and the harms and the intergenerational transgressions passed down to the african-americans from 1619. i believe in terms of the value they would give. i am not sure where i come down on that but i think i am more interested in the symbolic and emotional and apology that may take lace in association with reparations. i am in favor of that.

i write a weekly newsletter on a sub stack account called juneteenth. i decided that the day we celebrate the image patient -- the emancipation of slaves is the most important. i wrote that essentially it is july 4, i don't want to downplay the importance of it because i value it hugely but there are 1.59 people oppressed someone, and tolerated at the martial law. let's compare the harm and oppression that african-americans have suffered since 1619. at the time the emancipation proclamation at the time of juneteenth there were 4 million slaves in the united states. i'm comfortable in saying the

most important event that has ever happened in our history is the emancipation of enslaved people, no matter when you want to pick the date. let's just stick with juneteenth which is now a federal holiday. host: i was going to ask you about juneteenth. you wrote on your sub stack and i appreciate you mentioning it. you can find his essays and posts about juneteenth. the headline is why juneteenth matters far more today than the fourth of july. let's go to the phone lines. as a reminder, democrats you can call and have a question or comment for eli merritt. the number is (202) 748-8000,

republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you can ask him about american history also the author of a book titled disunion among ourselves, a perilous politics of the american revolution. let's hear from tom in vermont on the independent line. caller: good morning c-span and thank you for a wonderful show. host: what is your question or comment this morning? caller: you do a great job. i would like to talk about our history with corporations and when we first came over 100 years at least before 17 76.

they were the founding fathers. they came over with corporations and the royal marines. in the indian company and others , they had poor whites from the 17th hundreds they treated as slaves. they also had bounties on indigenous tribes. they still have up until 40 years ago, the marines were protecting corporations and now we outsource to people like blackstone and others. it is just the money that runs the world and we have done a horrible job of it. there was a book 10 years ago with the economic hitman and

there was a wonderful book by walter mosley, man in my basement. i better stop. host: go ahead, eli. guest: i am also in vermont right now near lincoln. i would say an answer to your question, it is so important. if you look back at these interpretations we discussed in regard to slavery, i think what she meant to say it was capitalist greed. the problem we have is is obviously not capitalism. problem we have is extremism of any kind. i think you could also say when capitalism becomes too extremist

and there are not checks on capitalism and if i could pick my favorite form of government it would be a mix between a capitalist society and a european-style socialism where we are not at the whims of power-hungry and greedy people. it is a critical piece of our history and stability, but i do believe we have a bit of capitalist extremism in our politics. host: let's hear from michael: from boston on the republican line. caller: thank you. i definitely have a couple of things i want to say. i called on the republican line

because i am a republican. people forget in 1954 the republicans basically came democrats when lbj and barry goldwater basically stole the republican party. the second point i want to make, he mentioned 1619. the united states had different ports. slaveowners burn to death based on their color. it captured the atlantic slave

trade captured by pirates and brought to the u.s. coastline as indentured servants. indentured servants is a seven year sentence. in 1631, that all changed. when he says black people have been suffering here since 1619, have to remember there was one point of import of enslaved people. he had him of the northeast coast and imported it down in the south. they were imported in, the first, as indentured servants. it turns out they work extremely successful. host: i think we got your points. i want to let eli get a chance

to respond. guest: i think what you have done is added texture to the early history and the period surrounding 1619, which is appreciated. you are obviously a a student of history. what you commented on captured my attention is that you are at republican and we will all agree that we have unfortunate polarization and specific ways of doing labels and party affiliations of others. it wouldn't be a problem if we had more parties. but most important is that all of us put the u.s. constitution and the rule of law and democratic norms and democracy and voting rights above self but above party.

being a constitution loving publican, we need to keep reminding citizens of what our duties and obligations are when it comes to the country in relationship to political parties. host: our next caller is and who not calling from philadelphia on the democratic line. caller: what i would like to say is the beauty of history cannot be changed. the united states when they talk about history, especially if they are not black, to try to tell us how we should feel and the simple truth is that through history passed down through generations, we can only rectify what is the cause and effect of slavery.

we can no longer foundation only continue to be humble and be constantly disrespected as far as you rectify the effects of slavery. you can't keep pushing it back. there is a gentleman who is really at the catalyst for reparations and that is jason blake. thank you for always keeping us in perspective. we always show our resilience and strength. we are not simply, as far as reparations go we know what the definition is, but the government continues to keep that on our backs. instead of saying we apologize,

the jewish people, datum american people, asian people. when it comes to us, it keeps planning to be a fairytale. i agree with the lady saying it is greed. it could be nothing else. all of the contributions black people made that were stolen. you really can't price on 400 years. the scale let you even up. host: weight got your point. let's let a light to the comments. guest: i agree with what you have said. the thing that gives me a sense of optimism is the nation's history has been based on

progress towards greater rights and freedoms for all people and i am dedicated to the proposition that progress is essential to a democracy. we have to keep moving forward and we are moving towards a democracy based on the quality and equal justice and equal opportunity. i will say that i have a favorite sonic that is going to come out and the title i gave to it is 1776 and the right of revolution. i just briefly want to say that essentially the declaration of independence was embracing this concept of the right of revolution but it means the right of resistance. to make progress on these pains

described, we need to embrace this resistance. mlk said that we have a moral obligation to oppose unconstitutional laws and i also quote john lewis who said, have to stand up and make good trouble. my last line is the inaugural poem at biden's inauguration, she said the nation is not broken it is just unfinished. i think it is a fight we have to fight the fight in a nonviolent way the way the founders intended. the declaration of dependence does not say one word about taking up arms. it says how we want to withdraw and form our own free country

for white people, that is. host: i want to ask you, does the early history of the country compared to the current polarized political landscape we see today and are there any lessons you think could be applied today? guest: i think one of the general themes of the book is don't mess with disunion because as they feared and as we saw during the civil war i don't see any good reason for reckless demagoguery taking place. so discussion of disunion is damaging to us.

within their own white compounds of politics, the founders practiced this virtual where they interacted with one another even when passions were high and from the perspective of civility and respect and attempts to understand and cooperation and compromise. my biggest fear is demagoguery and demagogues, fear mongering, hatemongering, bigotry and things like lies taking place. people will lose face in the government if these are the dominant forces taking place. the future can be bright but if i had magic buttons i would turn off demagogues in government, media and for both political parties i would turn down the

extremism on both sides. host: let's go to florida, frank is on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i am calling from the independent line because i was republican but i no longer recognize the republican party. we know history has a tendency to repeat itself. our history as black americans is clearly stated. we are seeing the return of jim crow type legislation all over the nation. i am curious as to what you think the endgame is here and the other question i have is that i have never seen enslaved

or marginalized people when their freedom with anything other than bloodshed. considering the fact that nothing here in america has changed and we are digressing back toward a time that america was not a great place for black folks to live and not that it has ever been, what do you think the real solution is, because we are putting band-aids on things but something is actually happening. the only thing that is happening is that it is progressively getting worse. it is definitely not getting better. what is your take, real world?

what you think is happening or is going to happen or needs to happen? caller: favor in the nation is martin luther king. we need to turn -- my favorite in the nation is martin luther king. we need to turn back to him. we have forgotten what his teachings were and his nonstop, nonviolent protesting and dissent. we know it is fundamental aspect of democracy and pushing towards progress and safeguarding freedoms and rights. so lots of people are pessimists and many things are happening. the only thing i can say is mass demonstration and protest and as mlk said, the struggle just has to continue. i have faith that we do this and

fight against demagoguery. i think we can overcome this difficult time. if they have led shed, i hope it will be the type that took place in the 1960's in the civil rights movement. it did happen but the premise was not bloodshed but sometimes in the nonviolent protests mlk was organizing, there was some bloodshed by white supremacists. if we succeed at some point i don't think it will happen in the next decade or two. i would say let's study the american revolution where we say, we just want out of this to

radical government and we are going to separate and form a government based on equality and fundamental rights. i'm not predicting that. i would say this fourth of july pay attention to the right of revolution and right of resistance best embodied by mlk. host: i want to ask you a question we received on twitter from steve who asks, was aaron burr the type of character are founding fathers feared most? guest: i wrote a piece about amber because alexander hamilton , aaron burr was going to become president and could have if alexander hamilton had supported him. aaron burr was not necessarily a demagogue but he had a personality that i think would be correct to say could tilt into authoritarianism.

they had some political rivalries but if a personality like aaron per had reached the presidency, -- aaron burr if he had reached presidency, i think it would've been a very dangerous person. i am not an expert on him but that is what i would say. host: norma in las cruces, new mexico, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am 78 years old and it is a shock to me all the sudden that people think this is the worst country in the world that exists.

i have a degree in history in 1984. things have changed a lot in the way history is taught. every country in the world can go back and look at mistakes that have been made, but this country has tried, regardless of what others inc., two rectify the issues that existed back when the country was founded. my family came to this country in 1912 from italy and they were very happy to come here. they wanted to work, get a job, let their children's have an education, and they were not of means at all. they had to have a sponsor and learn english and go through all the rules, and they did. even though they left their

birth country of italy, they were very happy for the opportunities that america has given. my one question is, as far as reparations go, i reject the idea that every person alive till now is responsible for the civil war and slavery. my people weren't even here then. so i'm going to absolve myself from that issue because there a lot of sides, my father was in the marine corps and served with a lot of different people. what was done to the japanese americans citizens during world war ii under fdr confiscated their property and put them in

camps. many of those japanese-americans went to fight in world war ii for this country, even though their property was taken and businesses were confiscated, they did not get reparations. as my father use to say, he was a 30 year marine veteran, when you are fighting in a war, it doesn't matter who or what you are, we all lead the same -- bleed the same. host: i think we have your point. let's let eli respond. guest: so glad you know all of this history but i want to encourage you that when you run into people, encourage them to study history. i don't necessarily have an answer but i will say the idea of complex history for me

provides an answer. we a founding period, the mirkin revolution, what we discover is the glory of it, which is the encouragement they had to accomplish what they accomplish they took on the might of the british army and took on extraordinary dangers of this war. we had the tragic part and they are both deeply real and i believe we need to accept both. we need the ability to seek multidimensional history. it can be hard to take that in. psychologists talk about cognitive dissidents. when there are two contradictory concepts we tend to ignore them.

the way as people mature as a society is we stay with it and let the truth of the past melt away our cognitive dissidents so we knew, more complex and we can say two things are true at the same time and take the either or approach. host: sam in glencoe, illinois, democratic line. caller: this is the first time i have ever called into the show. i didn't realize the middle state issue going on. but the time spent writing the constitution and establishing the federalism aspect of our government, when we had the civil war, i hate to talk about what could have happened if abraham lincoln would have lived , but don't you think at the end of the civil war it was time for

a constitutional conference whereby a lot of the things that brought about the civil war were the powers of the smaller states. equal senators or the electoral college, these are things that give advantage to the smaller states and detract from true democracy. as long as we have a handful of senators in small states that can control everything, including the supreme court, we seem to have fallen into a state of tyranny of the minority. i was just wondering if you thought the civil war really never ended. we just ended slavery but we

didn't end our system of government that allow that to happen for so long a true representative government. i would say that my first area of interest is the american revolution but i have two areas of great interest in the work i do. one is the founding period and also the period called the critical period. my other greatest area of interest is actually democracy and what happens in democracies when there is too much democracy. we are at a point in history where i hear frequently more democracy, more democracy. a part of me agrees but i do want the maximum democracy but we can't forget there is something else in a democracy as

important and that is checks and balances on all forms. if you take the history of democracy back to athens and the roman republic onward, what was created in 1877 and ratified was a system of government that was not democratic enough but had explicitly imposed checks and balances. i am not certain at this point the senate has a check on the very democratic house of representatives but that was the original intent. i do believe we have to be very careful with expanding democracy, democracy and one example is, in the early 1970's we decided we were going to democratize the primaries. we would not only have the democratic vote in the general election for president but also

the democratic vote that led to the nominations for both parties. i know on the face of it that sounds wonderful, but if the parties had been in charge of choosing the candidates, we would have not gotten our first demographic -- demagogue as president, and that was donald trump. the checks and balance would stop demagogues and authoritarians from getting into office. host: next up is rich in ohio, republican line. caller: great conversations going on. it is interesting on defending people's rights. in the civil war we went to war for people's rights. right now we are flipping over

to superior rights. are you going to start a war so you can have superior rights over me. when you start to say, i am going to give you superior rights over me by going to war. it gets liquid and also part. on rights, we don't talk about responsibilities. when you drive, you have a right to drive in wreck a car every five minutes. i am wondering in the civil war when we could avoid it, it could have been different if we had had people who could argue better. guest: you said a number of things and i speak to the one that seems most important to me that you emphasized, and i would say it 99% of the time when

people talk about rights and duties of democracy they don't mention the word duties. we do have a rights and we have duties to safeguard our democracy in order that it will continue to give us rights. at together some of the things discussed is how do we overcome antidemocratic measures and push for a true multiracial democracy. it is nonviolent but i think of alexander hamilton's musical that says rise up, open your eyes, rise up. we need to do that nonviolently. it is our job to fight back against tyranny. our job is if the officials aren't doing their job we have to protest and throw them out. we are rising up nonviolently

against oppressive measures. we have a moral obligation to oppose unconstitutional laws. if i could press another button i would establish say 10,000 mlk nonviolent protest training centers throughout this country. i think that might help get us there. host: we are running out of time but i want to ask you, you talked about the rhetoric and toning it down. what would you do to tone down the political rhetoric of today? guest: a great question. we look at twitter. technology is implicated in the problems we are having. we do not want to restrict free speech but another thing i have written about is we have lost our center in ethics, what we

call democratic norms and ethical leadership. one possible solution could be how do we once again insist, take the media that they operate like how they were under rush limbaugh. the code of ethics, is with everyone's time is the npr handbook of ethics. it will warm your heart but also inspire you to see. they are striving for the code of ethics. ethical behavior and electing folks who are ethical. that is a tough things because we are passionate voters. host: we are going to stop it there. eli merritt, historian at

vanderbilt university and author of the book disunion among our selves. thanks again for joining us. guest: great to be with you. host: that will do it fort washington journal today -- that will do it for "washington journal" today. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪