announcer: celebrate independence day going on right now. save 5% on all c-span red, white, and we products.

-- and a blue products. you can check out our independence day sale n online at c-spanshop.org. announcer: coming up on washington journal william gholston discusses campan 2024 anwashington times's martin di caro discusses h podcast "history as it happens," and tv host and ahor alexander heffner discusses his new series "breaking bread." bringing politicians on both sides of the aisle together in an attempt to support political stability. -- civility. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: welcome to washington journal, july 3, we discussed bidens reelected strategy. and summing up what he calls

bidenomics with decisions made by the administration. his opponent pushed back on that saying he is spending and resulting in higher inflation area recent polling says the president could be tasked for this. this morning we want your take on bidenomics and if you think it is working or not. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on our social media site, facebook.com on c-span and on twitter both at c-span wj.

and last week in chicago, the administration sent out a tweet of what they call bidenomics. they say it is about growing the economy from the middle out, bottom up, not the top down. and where there are smart investments in america where you educate and empower american work. -- american workers. that is one of the definitions of bidenomics. this is in the speech in chicago where he elaborated on the concept. here is a ocean of this from last week -- here is a portion of this from last week. >> guess what, bidenomics work. when i was -- first moved into this position businesses hundreds of thousands were on

the verge of closing. today has the highest economic growth rate leading the world economy since the pandemic. the height in the world. [applause] >> we have 13.4 million new jobs. that is as impressive -- as far as it has ever made it before. that is bidenomics in action. it is about building a new economy from the middle out, and the bottom up. not the top down. we made some decisions in congress and we have been able to do it. first, making smart investments in america, educating and empowering americans to grow the middle-class. and lowering cost to help small businesses. host: you can see all about on

c-span. and the administration making its case with the political announcement and headline from last week where the economy when it was reevaluated first quarter for domestic product exceeding 2%. in the first quarter but in recent polling, about the administration tackling the economy, it does not show a positive future. this is from the associative press. they say what it takes to look at the administration and the paneling of it overall 34% of think the administration is handling it properly. 2% of her publicans and 89% -- 10% of republicans and others. speaker kevin mccarthy sending out a tweet saying the same

style -- saying bidenomics which they think is about blind government spending and regulation. an economic disaster where there was high inflation, lower pay t-rex -- lower paychecks, and it leaves americans worse off. those are some of the views of bidenomics if you want to add years to the mix and tell us if you think it is working you can call us at democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. it was after that speech in florida where florida republican gave his view of bidenonics here what he had to say >> everybody's income have fallen in inflation. under the trump economy black

voters were earning her money and building wealth. in this economy we have interest rates that are higher, serious concerns with the bank, the energy is become a more dependent on foreign sources. we could go down the list. participation rate is worse than it should be. and if biden just set in the oval office and did nothing our economy would have rebounded faster than it did without the crippling inflation which has hurt everybody. that is the biden economic record which is a record of disaster. that is why voters almost 221 -- two to one want someone else leaving them. host: that was him giving his

own take. when the administration put out a policy paper, they highlighted the three things that president biden did in a speech to make smart investments in public america. empowering growing the middle-class and lowering the costs and helping small businesses thrive. in the first section, when president biden came into office, the economy fell from 7% to half of that. and they say the targeted public investment can attract more sectors that have been crowded out especially true in sectors that are in the national security interest of the united states in roofing semiconductors, clean energy, and climate security. under the worker section of educating the middle-class they write that it recognizes the benefits of growing the economy are -- independent individuals

like -- they said it would not fall below 4% until 2025 but unemployment fell four years before expectation and his stay that way the past 18 months. and the administration writes that bidenomics recognizes the benefits of growing in economy and only are designed to promote and empower workers. more competition means lower-cost for consumers and higher rages -- wages for workers. and they are hoping to increase competition across the economy. that is some of the take on the administration bidenomics and you can call in with your take on whether it is knocking -- working or not. democrats (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001

independents (202) 748-8002. let's start with democrat line,. , good, thank you for calling. p, in florida. caller: this is terrel. host: sorry wrong person. , democrat line. hello. caller: hello you're on. i love when you have republican only our. it is like a political -- but let me get into bidenomics of course it is working. this guy has done nothing less than a phenomenal job as a president in the first two years he was in office. the only other president that did that was barack obama. i cannot believe that with a straight face they can say all that crack. biden's programs were paid for.

-- trump being better on the economy. it is not bidens fault that we have -- host: when it comes to bidenomics itself you say it is working what do you used to measure that? caller: everything in the economy. he has gotten the economy back on the right way. it is not his fault that people do not realize is. most americans know little to nothing about policy, government, how it works or does not work, that is why we keep electing the same fool. he knows how trump was on the economy has about one third of the debt in four years. host: robert in massachusetts, independent line. on bidenomics and whether or not it is working. good morning. caller: good morning. that guys that just called he just --

host: robert hung up. let's go to montana, democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think it is working as well as it can, but i think it were better if he could have permission to bring back postal thinking and let workers own their own business and workers own the bank that they make. i think they could do a lot more on that side. he is doing what he can under capitalism, but you know, he is trying. host: when you say it is working -- how would you measure that. caller: that he is not donald trump or others. he is still doing all he can to prevent them from coming in because they will make it worse. capitalism is bad but they will make it even worse. but you have to kind of pick your battles and just, you know, woman up, i guess.

and you do as good as you can in capitalism but there's so many other things you should do. host: republican on this line of bidenomics. good morning, dave. caller: thank you for my call. bidenomics is another word for socialism. we are capitalistic economy. biden is just trying to destroy everything the trump made. prices are up, gases are up, he screwed up the strategic oil reserves by letting -- releasing them way too early and waiting until oil went high to fill backup. biden has been wrong on every decision in his political career. host: that is that the only measure you look at which is gas prices when you gauge whether the president policy is working

on economic or not. caller: in general they are all out. host: when you say all up give me a specific. caller: oil. host: how has food changed since -- how has food prices changed from year-to-year where you live in florida. give me an example. caller: they have gone up tremendously. host: ok. he is there in florida. this is scott on facebook saying and it comes to the idea but -- of bidenomics you a there is nothing in your account and your deep freezer echoes when you want something for dinner and want something to eat, you look in the cabinet to see -- vehicles are gagging on fumes, and gas is low. this is the key mayfield saying that it is not enough that food and -- prices are more.

but i have to pay escrow charges on my career. -- and there is an anti-energy per legal inlet -- immigration policy for killing the average american. we voted for joe biden and you are in denial. and then tom -- i'm sorry if i say your last name wrong, to correct. -- the lowes world prize wages are up. the dow is up, manufacturing jobs are booming, the group is taking -- republicans are hoping for this to materialize. you can make those comments on our facebook page on facebook.com/c-span. let's hear from shall in georgia independent line. is bidenomics working, tells what you think? caller: yes, i think they are

working i can say that because we can see, i am. in florida at the beach. i just left charleston at the international exam opening in charleston. with that development on the water. the real economy, look sick it will be have. we have an economy that has working people like today. we had the economy come to take care of the laundry and we went to the grocery early morning so to be able to take care of the menu for the week here with the children. 10 children, five adults, what we have now look at what we have. we have the real economy the people that work every day. the housekeepers, the nannies, the truck drivers, the people

who work at the school, in terms of the whole economy, not just summer, but i am speaking of the daily working people that we could not survive without, who are is central workers. they were is central -- essential in covid. but then we look at the workers to work to deliver the packages they have come now to the delivery economy where a few people do not come to deliver the packages and that is important. but the biggest problem is the power-sharing. if you look at all the -- the sec has the ceos they keep upon -- business channel that i look at. they talk to their shareholders about how it is that they are

that creating the shareholder -- marks the shareholder. host: that is share debt shall be in georgia. in her point was wages for hourly workers. and there's a report on it this morning were hotel workers in california are getting ready to go to strike in at attempt to earn higher wages. you can use that as a measure to view bidenomics. you can call in or text us at text us at (202) 748-8003. of you here -- a viewer from maryland. hello. caller: good morning how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: donald trump would love to have numbers like this. 6% under limit when donald trump left. 5 million people relate off. joe biden has totally reversed bat. -- that.

unemployment 3.5. he has created 13 million jobs. but when you talk about gas prices when donald trump is in there, there were 60 oil companies that went out of his news. do you remember when the price for a barrel of oil was down to a penny. ok then it had to go up because in order for the oil companies to make money oil companies had to be $60 and over. donald trump said that himself. pedro, the economy is doing better than it has ever been doing before. and donald trump cannot do a dad gone think about it because -- he is beaten about it. host: of next. republican. caller: hello. biden economics is nothing but a

trump job re-created coming back after the pandemic. that is all it is every time. and with capitalism. before capitalism, we were doing white well. -- quite well. can you tell me -- host: you can answer your own question if you wish. caller: it was through plundering and slavery. host: if that is a case then give us a measure of why you think bidenomics is not working specifically. caller: these are all the jobs that trump created after coming out of the pandemic. host: and what leads you to that conclusion? caller: what leads me to that conclusion? host: yes. caller: i mean, look at it. the jobs are coming back. they left because of the pandemic, and like you said, we

are manufacturing, democrats said how will we do it by waving a magic lawn and dam if he did not do it. host: we have george in ohio. caller: oh, no. i listen to the last few callers. i'm retired on social security. they say that inflation rate is 4.5% that cannot be. i looked up the statistics of the average price of the food basket in the united dates of 2019, through 2023. 2019 it was $157. today it is $193. so anybody who is calling saying everything is fine, inflation is worse. there's been deductions for inflation. inflation is on the money that you have after all and all the taxes. your net income. so if you hear anything about

bernie sanders by the way. i am an and. he was talking crazy when -- trump about higher wages. well those wages that did get increased didn't even matter because inflation took more than what it increase was. anybody on main street, i live in a small town, ask anybody, how the economy is doing. more problems than like last month. we had pride month. we had more problems in this nation that this and that. we have inflation problems, china problems, there is more albums, pedro, and tomorrow is independence day. host: that is george in ohio. the recent polling about the president handling of issues including the economy when it comes to the -- jobs. the president has 43 sent rating and 54 sent of disapproval of job handling -- 43% rating four

and 54% of disapproval of job handling. -- they aggregate those and come up with an aggregate. only 38% of that average is proving of the way he is disapproving. and the transportation secretary pete judge yesterday said about the old numbers of the resident handling of the economy and why they are so low. here is the response from the transportation secretary. >> we see low unemployment and the lowest job creation under any president ever. an unusually high rates of jobs. we see inflation falling, manufacturing returning to the u.s., a lot of effort and a lot of money goes into negativity to try to get people focusing on other things like some of the things that we were talking about in the cultural wars.

certain figures are bringing this to the forefront again and again because i do -- i think they do not want to talk about the economic work they are doing. and they certainly do not want to talk about why they voted no on the infrastructure package. you know, most of the house and senate republicans and legislative republicans do not want to dwell on why they said no to $35 amount caps on insulin or any of the other issues that are really affecting full area the other thing i noticed in the way that these things get digested in the public media. when something is a nebulous clean good -- it gets less attention. we are hitting the road to highlight the good work owing on. the work going on in terms of the long-term infrastructure improvements. short-term success as well like the government in pennsylvania with partnership from our department to get a highway back up running after it was taken out in a fiery tragic crash.

these are the kind of problem solving that we -- there are some folks in washington who do not want to talk about this and they would rather talk about other stuff. our job is to make sure americans see the full picture. that is why ucs not only working hard in our offices but also out on the road highlighting the actual solving and results we bring to the american people. host: the administration touting its bidenomics efforts and whether or not you think it is working. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002, text us at (202) 748-8003. we will hear from the line for democrats bronx new york. this is darrell. hello. caller: hello i cannot believe that gaia tried to steal -- that guy tried to steal bidens of

positive things that he has done for the country whereas the truth is, trump has taken credit for the economy behind his back when obama did so much to bring the economy back. namely, i.e., the oil company giving them so much money and the biden care. host: we are talking about biden economics and whether or not it is working. caller: i think it is working because biden has actually -- i see it i self from new york -- myself that people in new york are doing much better than when there was trump. and they are from new york and i am from new york and drop just

full people. host: when you say people are doing better in the bronx what do you mean? caller: creating jobs for small businesses. people -- there are more independent, nonprofit organizations that are helping eat. -- helping people eat. the seniors are living pretty good and adding to the economy growing by having their relatives work for them as an example. host: ok. caller: so the biden administration i would say the biden administration -- i would take that any day over the truck administration. truck administration was actually -- trump

administration. trump administration was actually an embarrassment. host: ok we got your point. let's go to the next caller. caller: in 23, there will be like 14 are 15 of the top restaurant chains belly up. they will not be open anymore they will have 10-12 of the top food chains belly up. you just wait until the end of 23. host: how does that relate to so-called biden makes -- bidenomics? caller: if you want to have -- raise your wages they will have to shut down because they cannot raise it anymore. people are not going to the restaurant and they are tired of going to the store and paying five dollars for a gallon of milk. they want to to pay $9.40 yesterday for two loaves of bread. give me a break. and the guy that just called he's going to have to get his

watermelon somewhere else. caller: ok i'm going to leave you there because about so watch what you're saying you call him. russell independent line. hello. caller: yes i was on the republican line but i just want to be independent more because i cannot trust any of them. and they know that some people help one another. host: how does that relate to bidenomics and what you think about whether it is working or not? caller: adding democrats raise taxes and republicans are really low and they started out with the two dollars -- then went to three dollars and them five dollars. now they are doing pretty well a good job. but that is because i have people in virginia on the team like shanna o -- and mentions. host: ok is bidenomics working?

that is what we are asking you in the course of the hour. if you want to give your thoughts on it as many of you had the numbers are on the screen. pick the number that best represents you. if you all in the last 30 days if you can hold off on doing that today we would appreciate it. and if you want to text as your thoughts it is text us at (202) 748-8003. that is how you do that. again you can call the lines and take the one that best represents you. and these are callers giving their idea of bidenomics on tweets. and one says the economy has added 13 million jobs. black and hispanic american for unemployment it is at all-time lows. they say the it is growing the middle class and it is working. we see more jobs, more production, low and nation. and 34% of americans approve of biden handling of the economy and the white house is doubling down on their economy -- their

policy focusing on this. i'm sure that those with negative wage growth want to hear this. and in louisiana one said president biden and people believe we need to have a government land economy and they do not need to lead by government democracy. and the data continues to prove that president biden and the democratic economic i'll see our revitalizing the american economy through bold initiative and investment. today we build a stronger fairer future for all. and #akeem jeffries of the house. we deserve inflation is down and it has produced 13.1 million jobs. it is not just growing the middle class but we are actually doing it. those are reactions from numbers of congress. you can add those of yours to

the mix. pennsylvania. hello. democrat line. caller: hello. i really see how people can see this is working. i am a cancer survivor and the price of prescriptions have gone up. you know, i just cannot see it. you know, and look at him and you listen to him and some of the things he says are -- i cannot believe it. i am wondering if there should be an age limit here. he just seems confused. i just don't get it. host: bart in florida. republican line. you are next up. caller: a couple quick points. democrats are and comedians -- if there were not so bad -- to the point here, the democrats like to talk about how the limit rate was 6% win trump left

office but the only thing that made it 6% is because a democratic state had not opened up yet. it would have been higher if the republican states had not open in the summer of 2020. also, the inflation rate in the country as -- the american people, every american citizen as been hit with somewhere between seven and $9,000 of inflation caused -- the 7000 and $9,000 of inflation cost a year. every american. how could anybody think this is good? incredible. thank you. host: anton in north carolina. independent line, you are next up. caller: yes, let me remind all of these other previous callers that just called in that the private sector. the private sector is what, is

what most of the yeah -- the economy is based on in the united states. the boot sector. we do we -- it is the middle -- we grow from the bottom up, not the top down. and also, -- and i do not agree with what biden said when he -- when he said biden economics is not working. matter of fact, it is not working because you can see other prices going up. for the record, i'm not going to vote for him in 2020 or. host: when you say -- 2024. host: when you say it is not working, give me an example. caller: look at the cost of the previous callers saying for milk and stuff and the grocery prices are going up, gas is going up, it is not right. it is just not right. it's not working. caller: you see price hikes they are raleigh, and me an example.

caller: yes i am. milk has gone up, gas has gone up. everything is going up. the electricity bills are going up. your cable and satellite tv bills are going up. i mean it is ridiculous absolutely ridiculous. host: why specifically do you think that is the president doing? caller: is not the president i think it is the policies. it is not just the president but he has economic advisors who are giving bad advice. like is that before, like a said the private sector, you know, the private sector is what makes the economy go, not the government. host: that is anton in north carolina. bloomberg looks at recent inflation numbers posted on the 30th of june. saying the federal reserve measure of inflation pulled in may and consumers spending stagnated. the personal consumption expenditure price index rose 0.1% in may according to that

department. and a year ago, in more than two years, it is the lowest it's been. consumer spending prices were little changed after a downward revised .2% gain in april. and how spending essentially stalled after the first search. spending on merchandise outlays for services increase. more there if you want to take a look at bloomberg's write up on the matters of nation -- inflation. many of you look at that as a factor of if it is biden -- if bidenomics is working. democrat line. hello. caller: hello. i am connected with the economy and many ways. i am in agriculture, retail, i have an environmental company. bidenomics is not working at all. it has caused increases on the

consumer factory by an fuel has gone up high. they brought up milk, milk is high at the grocery store. if you really go to the farmer, right now milk is down to like i think 15 -- $15 which is very low in the milk industry it is very hard to make money with $50 on milk. oil is working well now because prices are up in a better place. when you say everything is -- the small restaurant are not doing well, a lot of them are having a hard struggle, but ones that seem to work things like mcdonald's right now, since the pandemic, has tripled their prices. these are just factors that are costing us one side, interest is

going up, really interest is not high end of a person cannot make since percent -- 6% you should not be in it. -- host: that is roger in kansas. others putting out their thoughts on the matter. tax and policies have run our economy and. inflation is hurting our families. and harming our farmers. bidenomics does not work. -- they have republican majority whip with red exes through things like higher gas and diesel, and affordable groceries, higher interest rates, adding baby formula shortages to the mix.

twitter is where legislators are putting out their thoughts you can put out your thoughts as well on twitter @cspanwj that is how you do that. this is dave republican line. caller: bidenomics is a joke. if i cannot go to a grocery store, and not pay more -- less than $100 it doesn't matter what is in the park. -- those at home are sitting out with their hand out from a next idiotic polled that biden has. you cannot go pay less than $20 for a hamburger and fries. 50% of the people, the reason why they are dissatisfied, look at the people, the statistics. your supporting biden and i don't know why you can't even walk because the house. host: if you're spending 150 dollars on groceries how does

that compare if you were buying the same thing a couple years ago? caller: 85 would have been a lot. but right now you cannot walk in and spend less than over $100. host: matt in plano, texas. democrat. caller: hello, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would ask those of you who are saying bidenomics is not working i would say look at your own representatives to make sure what they are talking about is the life that you care about. i am here in texas, gas prices are way down from last summer. i'm definitely paying less to fill my gas tank. when you look at any economic measure $90 billion in private sector investment because of the chips and science act, you look at the investment in infrastructure whether it is high-speed internet or the

infrastructure -- secretary pete buttigieg earlier you show the clip him going around the country highlighting rail and water projects that are helping underserved communities, i am just saying, you look at every -- host: are you saying those things are taking effect now? they probably will not take effect for a while. caller: true it will probably take a while for some of the investments but those dollars are direct investments in those communities that need it the most. so yes, it's going to take time, but by the way, summer travel is at an all-time high. i saw a story that summer travel is higher than 2019 that is pre-pandemic. so it bidenomics was not working why do people have more discretionary income to travel? that is one thing i would say to people who keep trying to doubt bidenomics go ahead and see

where we are in six months. but my personal stance and with the people i know in and around plano, texas bino -- bidenomics is working. host: ok point taken. he mentioned driving in this holiday weekend. those a aaa saying drivers that hit the road will find a get in lower gas prices across the country. in the forecast says more than 50 million people celebrate this nation's birthday by traveling with a record of 43 2 million going by car. the national average fell for since since last week. and gas prices are $1.30 cheaper than last year. they are higher than historical average. that is the people at aaa. that average high price of gas was $4.10 in 2008 while you'll -- while the low was -- $2.39 in

2009. but with the extra expense the drivers are not cutting back on travel this summer. and ron desantis on his twitter feed put out a video looking at the matter of economics and connecting it to the biden administration. here is that. >> turn things around quickly. >> americans are feeling the economic pressure of the house. >> we are told that inflation will be transitory. >> it works. >> it because each family about $7,000 extra. >> every american has training and education to bridges abated in the new economy. -- to participate in the new economy. >> we have the longest stretch in history. >> homes, real wages are down 5.1%. this is he took office.

>> the investment in technology lowers the cost of wind. >> solar and wind do not provide reliable energy. those companies are losing money on the deal. >> biden economics will turn this around. >> we are about to essentially drive half of our pizza business out of new york because of the new laws regarding ovens. it is not. -- nuts. >> inflation is leading to wage growth leaving many americans struggling to stay afloat. >> many americans know it is harder to make ends meet under joe biden as resident -- president. host: let's hear from thomas in redline, pennsylvania. independent. is bidenomics working? hello?

. caller: i can understand why our country is in tough shape, but i feel like we are headed in the right direction. i think one of the big problems is that we still have a former who is just spouting false and misleading statements about his own record. i wish republicans would care enough about our country to actually look at his record. as a perfect example, even covid , the first 35 months of his administration, if you go back 35 -- the 35 but previous for obama he outpaced him in job creation. but when you have one person making those statements, it looks like we are going downhill. host: as far as the current president how do you think about the current idea with bidenomics

and whether it is working or not. caller: again, we have made, we are not going through depression but the pandemic was certainly an economic hit. i think we are growing out of it, but it will never be fast enough for a lot of people and i am comfortable with his policies. if you look at history, i hate to say it, but the democrats have a better economic linder than republicans. that mean something to me. host: let's hear from one in ohio. republican. caller: good morning. host: you're on go ahead. caller: ok, good. pricewise somebody was going about in nation -- inflation. but it used to be -- five

dollars for coupons. it used to be free and go right down to their menu. all the gp -- cheat chains -- cheap could get a burger for five bucks and now it is almost $10. everything keeps going up, they cannot hire workers, i went to bodyshop last week, and then i walked across the street to her cooking and was going to get a burger. it was 6:00 and they were closing and the reason was because they had nobody to work. it's nuts. anyway, for whatever it is worth, i am a retired realtor and i get people calling all the time. clients and whatever guys are making $15 an hour, literally they cannot buy any kind of house.

in any neighborhood you want to live in and that is bidenomics thank you. host: we take a look at the idea of bidenomics from a different perspective. this is the washington post on july 2 talking the exhalation -- election campaign. it is likely to sound inauthentic coming from so elected to the senate firs years ago. -- biz psint has the most do. and he will go down in history as transformational. he get everything as every american connected to highs need injure--igh-speed internet. and most republicans does or should only represent -- reapin the greatest benefit andg universal broadband possible. they nowave money pouring into their state. and mr. biden promised to be a president for all americans and that is how he is governing.

he has results for red, blue, and purple states. and the washington journal taking a dntnce where they wrote in 1982, 80 four dollars which -- the average hourly earnings -- whe biden took office, it declined immediately and it did not stop falling tiit nation eat in 2020. r back $11.03 in may. three 16% decline in earnings for the average worker. these are the official labor depa statistics. mr. biden cannot deny them so someone wrote in the chicago remarks saying they page load -- pay low-wage workers as a result of over two decades. i would like to see them justify that one. the editors of the wall street journal say -- who will you believe me or your eyes?

i believe that american should believe their own eyes. host: that is one of the editorials looking at the topic. we hear from truck next. -- check next. -- chuck next. caller: i want to wish everyone a happy independence day tomorrow. and -- [indiscernible] here for the whole dam world. that is all i can say everybody have a good day. host: he hung up. let's hear from cleveland ohio. independent line. caller: hello. i wanted to say, it people should be voting for the person because i think independent voters really look at the person more so. people have to keep in mind about the pandemic which did not have to be as bad as it was. these viruses the mars, sorrows, and ebola has been here before.

the united states had to step out front and they had boots on the ground where they go to different countries and test the people at the airport. we did not do that this time so we are trying to come out from the past pandemic. it is not been like that for over 100 years. people need to do their research, get off of twitter and up believing everything that is on twitter. host: before you go further. the topic of bidenomics where you at right now? caller: that is where i am mad. with bidenomics he is trying. you need to look at the stuff he is trying to do. the republicans are trying to deny it. $15 an hour is nothing that should have been. we are looking at all of the billionaires now that do not need to be a billionaire and millionaire is enough. start dividing and sharing some of that wealth. host: you are saying he is trying but it is -- is it

working? that is what we are posing people. what do you think? caller: yeah, it is working. host: why do you think that? caller: because things are getting better. i agree that it could be better, but we need this up turning everything down. look at how hard they had to fight for the infrastructure the united states is basically old we should not have bridges falling or water with -- but does not bathe in. he we need to look at some of our rivers. we cannot -- made than them or swim in them. that is not make sense. host: in connecticut, republican line. caller: good morning. we are in a labor productivity trap. it is a single part of biden's agenda, but what is happening when wage is trying to catch up to inflation, since activity is negative, labor will never catch up to inflation. the wage rate, and what will

happen is if this keeps that we will have a reduced standard of living. it is all about increased holidays, increase benefits, but labor productivity is not part of the agenda. host: greg is next joining us from texas democrat line. caller: good morning. i want to -- just give me a little time. this economy is doing outstanding. i don't nobody running around here talking about you use your credit card will you boot gash you should be able to get a job -- you should be able to get a job and not use a credit card. the economy is doing good but i am not voting anymore because it does not matter what we are going to do they are saying were going to do were going to do and that is what is going on people come in saying they are conservative. host: hold on. using credit card is the full measure that you use to see the economy and how it is doing.

elaborate on that. caller: so other words people are broke and have no money. and if you go to a new job, you put your money in your account on your credit card so you use your credit card. the economy is doing good. they gas and fuel and everything he read you cannot go in the store in nothing, but the thing about this is the people that are running on the same old to get as god to do for the goal of color. and -- [indiscernible] host: we got a ramsey independent line. in virginia, you are. caller: you are -- i chose to be an american rate i could have been anywhere. other dear since 1981. -- we talk about the certain economics. and since then, all of this --

used to effect in the public. and i would go to tennessee and i was republican, this did not work for reagan, bush, it did not work -- and certainly did not work with trump. now every time a democrat comes and takes this economy, we give the reagan economics -- and we give it 40 years to work. and i think it did not work. now it is biden. the biden economics. and what he has done. this does not make sense. it is not going to turn it around in 24 months. host: he is making his own case that the economy is turning around because of the policies he but in a -- in place. caller: of course he is and i agree with him that it is.

inflation is going down, gas prices are going down, labor is coming to 3% which by any economist standard it is for employment -- good for employment. the people who went to work and buy american products, getting out of the pandemic, and all we hear is that trump was good. i've voted for him the first time. he was a great guy, great person. he screwed up, he could not take care of a person when the pandemic came around. i sorry but it happens when a person becomes president he gets challenges and -- host: ok you made your point. thank you for that. i want to show you the interview with gretchen when berg and from that state talking about bidenomics and how it is impacting her state. here is a portion.

>> the president's plans are working out. as you pointed out, low inflation, job growth, it is amazing what is going on in the economy right now. people's tendency to move on to the next thing and of course we have big challenges, but the president's plan is working. here in michigan we will get $2.4 billion for broadband that will apply to all communities. 90% of the houses in this issue will be connected because of what president biden has done. bidenomics is working and i think people will see it when they are driving seeing orange barrels and vasey work being done -- they see work being done. and you know when president biden is leading our lives are getting better and i think that is something that all americans get -- benefit from. host: on twitter feed there is a

tweet on behalf -- not on the behalf of the people. and one say if it is designed to make people more poor than ever then yes, it is working well. and once at absolutely we have -- wealthy americans -- through the 1950's and 60's we had -- 50 to 90% our median quadruple. and then map on twitter saying it is working and how the market remains strong overall and traveling at an all-time high. we have water and rail improvement. helping with soda -- underserved communities like eastern kentucky. you can make your thoughts known at -- on twitter feed at [video clip] [video clip]

journal@c-span.org. host: -- sonia in maryland. democrat line. caller: hello. i think the biden -- bidenomics is working. he is doing an excellent job with infrastructure because the roads were terrible out here in the maryland area. when i got on 495 it is better. and i think they are working on it now as a matter of fact. also as far as broadband, we need that. you don't understand. you need broadband. when i walk out you will be at risk, you need internet and we needed -- need it all of of the country. i am proud that biden is in office and i will vote for him again. i hope he continues to make this economy better. the best is a lot better.

-- the gas is a lot better. you have a guy about restaurants and burgers and all of that, if you download -- if he downloads an app, you can get a whole meal for five dollars. so the economy is coming back the way you're supposed to be, and biden is doing an excellent job. host: that is sonia in maryland. news outside of economics but economic related secretary janet yellen will travel to her -- i think her first trip to china to talk with the leadership they are the washington post writes she will have multiple meetings of -- with china leadership as a part of the country partnership -- with issues such as a global economy, debt relief, potential cooperation on climate change. this story also adding that she intends to at -- elaborate on

comments that she made in april about helping economic ties between the worlds two largest economies. could dominate relations according to senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. this is john, queens, new york. republican line. caller: i'm sorry i may have called the wrong line. i meant to call the democratic line. david: let's hear from murray democrats line, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. it wasn't about biden was in office it was something that came on c-span and people called and said they couldn't afford hamburger meat and eggs. my question was the four years that trump was in office and the republicans said that was the

best they had ever done i'm saying for five months after he's out of office you are going about you can't pay for hamburger meat? i'm trying to figure out if honestly did trump actually with did he do for you? i wanted to bring up something because i keep hearing people calling about the food, i think about the documentary i watched about several years ago. it was between an american soldier and vietnamese older. the american soldier asked the vietnamese soldier he said i always wondered why did you call keep writing? you never gave up, why did you keep fighting? in the vietnamese soldier told the american soldier we couldn't outlast your weapons but we knew that you couldn't outlast our poverty. so when i hear these people talking about the food and stuff, it makes me think if a war was to break out in this country how would they survive? host: that's marie there.

finishing off calls for this hour. several guests joining as for the course of the morning. brookings institution scholar to discuss campaign 2024 and pulls will be open to a voter between an independent candidate. washington times mark mccarroll on this podcast, history as it happens. in a deep dive into the declaration of independence. those segments and more coming up on "washington journal". >> its 1979, partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage from the halls of congress, the house, and senate floors to congressional hearing, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row

seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with events from the u.s. congress, white house offense, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics. i'll at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find it scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio plus a variety of different podcasts. c-span now is available on apple store and google play. watch anytime, anywhere.

>> fiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors. here wide-ranging conversations with the nonfiction authors and others for making things happen. book notes plus episodes, a weekly hour-long conversation that you choose fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and the about books podcasts takes you behind the scenes industry with industry updates and best seller lists. download the free c-span now app or where ever you get your podcasts. visit our website c-span .com/podcasts. host: our first guest serves as a study senior fellow also they frequent columnist with the best

thank you for being here. i want to read a recent column of years taking a group from the second the headline says no labels may reelect donald trump. the no labels effort and your concerns about it. to start, remind people what no labels is and what role you served in it. guest: sure. no labels was founded as i recall not long after the election and the founding purpose of the organization was to find ways of getting the two political parties to work together more effectively on legislation that would serve the common good and the common interest of the american people. proposed a number of procedural reforms in congress and most

important, no labels founded a bipartisan caucus called problem solvers. made up of equal numbers of democrats and republicans in the house of representatives. they did an anonymous amount of good work promoting and achieving bipartisan results on infrastructure and many other areas as well. i was part of it from the beginning as a kind of unpaid senior advisor. most people are volunteers and unpaid. host: as far as specific concerns about the efforts about a third party possibly in 2024 is that why you left the group? guest: i issued a statement in which i made it clear that i thought the motives of the group were admirable but that in proposing an independent bipartisan candidacy, their judgment was flawed. their assessment of the likely

results was flawed. i did not believe and still do not believe that the effort has any substantial chance of actually electing an independent bipartisan ticket for reasons deeply rooted in american history. this effort, if it were launched and it's still not clear that it will be will draw more from joe biden then donald trump and that was not an outcome that i welcomed. host: why do you think that would happen? guest: a very simple reason. the republican party is far more dominantly conservative then the democratic party is liberal. they've got twice as many people who call themselves moderate or even conservative in the democratic party that call

themselves moderate or even liberal in the conservative party. it is a centrist ticket which i'm quite sure that it will be, i think in principle that coalition of the centrist is going to draw more votes away from moderate democrats then it is from the relatively few number of moderates in the republican party. host: you may have seen this interview, the cofounder talked about this decision. that they might move forward with the justification of why they were doing it. >> there are many people, especially on the left who will come after you because they believe a third party option would pull voters away from biden but that trump would still win. there also is an accusation out there, you tell me, no labels is saying that if ron desantis is not the nominee, then you will decide to go ahead and do this. what's the clarity on that? >> let me set the record

straight. our focus is -- is there is an opening for this ticket, a unity ticket just remember what this is one republican, one democrat walking into that white house finally getting results for the american people, if it's clear that they don't want the choices and this is a winning ticket and we can win and not spoil, we are going to go do it. if it looks for any reason like this is going to spoil it please step down. we are not cowboys here. we want to give americans the choice and they'll decide. host: it sounds like they are building guardrails to get over those concerns that you express. what do you think? guest: i know no labels very well. they are honorable people. their effort is not a stalking horse to reelect donald trump. i'm quite sure of that.

but i think it's going to be more difficult than they imagined to make the judgment that they are not viable in time to ward off that result. because they are going to be, as i understand it, nominating their ticket in mid april. at that point, the polls will not be terribly revealing. i speak from experience here. one of my first ventures into national politics was as a speechwriter for the national unity campaign of 1980 which featured a bipartisan ticket of john anderson and pat lucy, former democratic governor. john anderson was sort of a moderate to liberal republican. and when i joined the campaign, the anderson campaign was within

hailing distance of jimmy carter in the polls. i felt, when the votes were cast, they ended up with under 7% of the vote. so the question is not just what people are thinking and saying when the answer posters questions. what are they thinking and saying? and what people say unable is not necessarily what they will say in september and october. i in very worried that there may be more initial enthusiasm for the idea of a bipartisan to get them there is actual support for it. six months after its announced but by then i think it will be very difficult. remember, each state has different procedures for getting on the ballot and each state has different procedures for getting off the ballot once you're on it. and getting out is a complicated

procedure in some states, not in all. so i don't doubt the sincerity of the declarations that don't intend to be spoilers. i take them at their word. the question is how are they going to carry that intention into operation? host: if you want to ask questions about campaign 2024 and other issues we will discuss them (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for dependent -- independents and if you want to texas -- text us (202) 748-8003. taking look at the group no labels. the story says those donors are pretty much not revealed but are there any -- is there any way you can shed any information?

guest: i was never interested or involved with the money side of the operation. i was in informal, unpaid advisor on issues, policies, some political analysis and i had no financial nexus for the organization. frankly, didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the financial side. the leader of the organization, nancy jacobson is one of the great fundraisers of our time. she made the organization work on the financial side and i simply cooperated in other ways. so i cannot shed any light on that part of the operation. host: let's talk about third parties overall. there was a recent poll done by nbc support for a third-party or independent candidate it was going to be a contest between former preside trump and

current president, 44% of those registered vots id they would probably would consider an other candidate, 45% of democrats, 52% would not. 34% of republicans would consider another candidate, 53% said they would not. when it comes to those third parties, what do these numbers suggest to you about where america is on that? guest: let me make two points. first of all, it's not surprising that the american people or a fair number of them are expressing their willingness to consider such a ticket. but there a big gap between being willing to consider it and actually deciding to support it. that's point number one. point number two the numbers that you just cited are very interesting because they make my point.

the difference in levels of support between the two political parties for the idea of an independent ticket. it was 45% of democrats who are willing to consider it and only 34% of republicans, something like that. host: yeah. guest: well, in a close election the fact that more democrats then republicans are willing to support such a ticket can make all the difference in the world read let me remind the viewers that we have been locked for decades now into a sequence of increasingly close presidential contest and in both 2016 and 2020 the shift of under 100,000 votes in a handful of key states billy have made the difference between victory and defeat for the candidate. that is a small fraction of 1%

of votes cast. the asymmetry of 45% versus 34%, i don't want to put too much weight on these very early numbers but they're suggestive they could easily make the difference in a handful of swing states. i think that people who believe that this withdrawal evenly from the two political parties, which some independent candidates like prospero did, but others like george wallace did not should think again about that assumption. because i don't think it is correct. i don't think it's likely to be correct if a ticket goes forward. host: then there's the issue of getting that ticket on the ballot, not only statewide but national in the process of doing that is it too difficult for a third-party to enter into this? guest: it is not too difficult.

as a matter affected to expect that if no labels perseveres it would end up on nearly all, if not all the state ballots. i say that in part because of my experience in the anderson campaign more than four decades ago, we had much less money than the labels does and not as good an organization but we ended up on all 50 state ballots. not only that, in the process of getting on all the state ballots we overturned a number of restricted laws designed to tilt the playing field against ballot access for third-party and independent candidates and many of those legal changes have persisted to this day. so no labels should have an easier time then we did getting on the ballot in all or virtually all of the states. host: talking about campaign 2024 the lines are open to you if you want to call, you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

let's start with sal in massachusetts. good morning, go ahead. caller: just want to say that hopefully the democrats would take white house and sweet the congress and everything else. only because the republican congress if it's any indication of what republicans are going to do anything future, you can say they're not going to do nothing. they want to do is investigate, conspiracies, and everything else that doesn't matter about american people involved. hopefully the democrats will prevail. thank you. guest: i think in some ways sal has understated the case. i don't quite agree with him that the only thing the

republican house wants to do is investigate. they also want to cut spending quite dramatically and as a matter of fact they may be willing to shut down the government to make their point. along with many other americans, i think we need to take a good, hard look at the fiscal condition of the country which is not sound. but, in order to do that in a way that serves the interest of the american people we are going to have to look at a lot more discretionary spending. what is appropriated every year in the 12 appropriations bills. for going to have to take a structural look at the federal budget and figure out how we can put it on a sustainable course for the long term. that's not going to be easy and it with the house republicans are trying to do will not make it any easier in my judgment. host: president biden banking

his reelection campaign of biden-omics. what do you think of that as an approach? guest: in most elections, the economy is a central issue whether it's good or bad. so i think mr. biden is on a sound course when he puts the economy front and center. i'm not sure i entirely agree with the president's analysis of the american people's concerns about the economy. my sense of the matter is that they are more concerned about inflation and high prices than his recent speech in chicago laying out his economic case would suggest. and my hunch is that over time the president and his proxy

speakers will have to address that issue more directly. i know i sure the hopes of all americans that the rate of inflation can be brought down to acceptable levels throughout -- without triggering a recession and throwing lots of people out of work. that remains to be seen. i know the federal reserve board is concerned and a little surprised that raising interest rates from zero to 5% very quickly hasn't brought inflation down faster than it has. so stay tuned. host: eric in lincoln, nebraska. independent line, your next go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i always appreciate the efforts of third-party candidates and parties to hurt the logjam between the democrat and republican parties. elections in countries often

developing countries like afghanistan was the last one i was thinking of. that have long lists of candidates on their ballots. is there any indication that that kind of system works to that countries benefit and what kind of system allows for that kind of ballot? thank you. guest: the systems in many countries are parliamentary rather than presidential. and in those systems tend to have lots and lots of political parties. some are quite small, others large and even dominant. so in those presidential elections, you will get lots of candidates. to be fair, you get lots of

candidates in the united states as well. take a look at the presidential ballot sometimes. but nobody thinks that anyone except the top two have a serious chance to win. we have an entirely different system. the founders did not plan for a party system. they emphatically did not want a party system but by the middle of the 1790's we had pretty much settled into the pattern that is dominated -- has dominated history ever since. there has never been a stable third-party in the united states of any consequence that has lasted for very long. so, i think these systems in

other countries are interesting to study but for not likely to replicate them in the united states. our parliamentary --are parliamentary systems better? that is a long-standing debate among scholars. suffice to say there are advantages and disadvantages to both. you get some advantages from stable, four-year predictable presidential terms were governments do not collapse because of coalitions not agreeing on what to do. there are disadvantages as well. host: our guest from brookings institution, tim, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. before i get to my question in regard to third-party candidates that like to make a couple of points you brought up earlier. number one, prices are being kept on -- unofficially had by

ceos of companies that report to their stockholders. they are keeping them high on purpose because that's how profits are made. that's number one. number two, biden economics is working and i'll tell you why. republicans in districts that are having services restored or amplified, you know, whether it be infrastructure or broadband or when not republicans in these districts are taking credit for something that they voted against. so that's number two. now my question, in regard to third-party candidates is this. i heard by people that are smarter than me that a third-party candidate would always benefit the republicans. why is it that it never seems to benefit democrats? could you into that for me, sir? thank you. guest: the reason, the reason is

this, take a look at two cases. if you have third-party candidacies on the left for example as we did in 2016 with jill stein by definition, that party will either draw left leaning voters who don't participate because they think the democratic party is to moderate or left-leaning voters who tend to associate with the democratic party except i may an alternative on the left that they think is more attractive as many did in 2016. which made the difference between victory and defeat for hillary clinton. so that's one case. the second case is the one we've been addressing from time to time on the show this morning. the party of the center and as i explained there are simply more center leaning voters in the democratic party then there are in the republican party.

so that also hurts democrats. the only situation where a third-party would benefit democrats would be if there is a party on the right that draws voters who otherwise would vote republican some people think that the libertarian party does that but there hasn't been break away parties of any significance to the right of the republican party that have done any damage to republican party prospects in quite some time. if such a party arises, then i would say the same thing about that party and its effects on republicans then i would say about the green party and its effect and jill stein, people like that and their impact on democrats. host: politico as a graphic this morning. all of those who have declared

interest in running for the white house the current field standing at 14. what you think about that kind of number in the early part of the process? guest: the experience the republicans had any 2016 when multiple candidates canceled each other out and engaged in a strategy of mutual annihilation leaving the lien clear for donald trump to roll to victory. a lot of people who are now in the race say they don't want that to happen. but unless they can get together and agree on one or two preferred alternatives to donald trump i think the same outcome is increasingly likely in 2024. same as 2016, namely mr. trump may not command an absolute majority of the party but if you have 1300 candidates dividing up the non-trump boat then mr. trump wins by default.

this is a real challenge for the republican party that doesn't believe for one reason or another that nominating donald trump for a third consecutive try for the presidency is necessarily the best way for the party to go. host: calling from the wall street journal despite whether the presidential candidate is you write that that person must find america's moral center. can you elaborate on that? guest: yes. america is divided, especially on social and cultural issues. and although it's divided, in many instances, there is a center of gravity that neither political party has been able to find. let's take abortion as an example. after the dobbs decision, many

democrats wanted to write a program abortion pill into law, a bill that would go harder than roe v. wade did in opening the abortion procedure up too many, many people who want to avail themselves of it. on the right, many republicans want to enact a national abortion ban. that would be very restrictive. and it surveys indicate that most, most americans are somewhere in the middle. don't want a van but they don't want an open door either. they favor it under some circumstances but not others. they are much more hospitable to abortion pretty much unrestricted in the first trimester of pregnancy, pretty much opposed to it in the third trimester of pregnancy and the

second trimester is the area where they put thumbs-up or thumbs down depending on particular conditions and circumstances. we actually could reach a much greater level of agreement on the issue then the two political parties have allowed us to see. and you can go, you can go through many other issues, emigration for example. and find a lot more common ground in the positions of the two major political parties would suggest exist. and the first major party that seizes that common ground, i think would be the dominant party in the country for a very long time to come and one of the great mysteries of american politics or it looks mysterious

until you dig deeper is why neither political party has been inclined to seize that center. each one has paid more attention to its louder and more ideological voices. i think that's a political mistake that the parties keep on making it. host: let's hear from anthony in chicago, illinois, democrat lane. caller: i would like to know if i could ask a question about the polls that you guys be showing on your program. where are these polls coming from and when has a nationwide poll been done on a presidential race in the last three or four cycles? host: the first was an nbc poll, we should all the time of this program from a variety of

sources whether it be the sources, snapshot decisions or at least estimates on where people are at on certain things. at this point, how much attention should we be paying to these principles? -- kinds of poles? guest: the polls we are getting are pretty much snapshots. if they are done while they are accurate snapshots of public opinion at a particular point in time. the predicted value, especially at this stage is very weak indeed. people who look at national polls a year or a year and a half before an actual 11 have been full time after time after time. as restricted get closer to actual elections whether primary or general elections, the printed valuable increase. having said that some polls are

a lot better than others. for your brady reasons first of all, when you're doing a national poll in many of these polls, to answer the questioners query many of these polls are national polls. you have to have a valid sample of the american people or registered voters or some other group. whatever it is your probing and getting a valid sample, getting 1000 people to stand for the nation as a whole takes real work. it takes skill, experience, the appropriate technical methods. secondly, answers are only as good as the questions. if a poll asked questions that are poorly designed or slanted in one direction or another then the results are going to reflect that poor design and readers and

consumers will be ill-advised to rely on the findings that they offer. there are services that greig polls --rig polls like the website fivethirtyeight.com is in the is this of reading polls based on their accuracy and reliability over time other organizations do so as well. as with many other things, in order to learn from polls, you have to be a prudent consumer of the polls and that isn't always very easy for people who don't spend a lot of time doing it, which i do because my job gives me the luxury of time to do things like that. host: this is damien in maryland. caller: good morning, sir. the greatest third party is ross perot but he lost it because of

his vp. his vp went on snl and made fun of him and he never recovered. it soberly to look at the presidential thing but joe biden always goes around saying he reduced the budget 1.7 trillion and that sounds like baloney to me. host: ok. that's damien there in maryland. guest:well, i'm in no position to tell damien that it doesn't so mike baloney to him and in effect there has been a robust about the number it's technically correct what it actually represents is a matter of dispute what is not in dispute is for long term we

ought on a sustainable budgetary course and were going to have to do something about it sometime. the political system doesn't seem ready to do what needs to be done right now but i do hope that as the time gets closer but will start to think more seriously about the problem which for various reasons were not doing right now. host: assuming that we come to a place where it is indeed 2024 turns into a rematch between president biden and former president trump what would you label the strengths and vulnerabilities of each candidate as they make their campaign for the white house? guest: let's start with donald trump. he has a base of fervent support. he received 46% of the vote in

2016 and if memory serves, 40% percent of the vote in 2020 i don't think he's going to fall under those numbers. which means that he has a solid foundation to build on whether what he's done since leaving the presidency for occupying the presidency will enable him to move from 46 or 47% to the much higher percentage he's going to need to win this time around unless there's a third party that draws off democratic support is anybody's guess. he is a vigorous campaign or and at times can be entertaining although he overestimates he's entertainment value sometimes. joe biden is the incumbent president.

which according to the political scientists i respect already is a plus. he has a substantial record of legislative accomplishments. he has run a relatively steady administration. although the withdrawal from afghanistan was not an example of steady management, unfortunately. there are real economic pluses that he can point to on the minor site he's not a terribly inspiring campaigner and most of all for the fairly or not many americans doubt that his age will permit him to serve a second term effectively or to

the end of the second term and in my view mr. biden's central challenge is to weaken the impression that he would not be up to a second term if there a vigorous campaign he can persuade the american people that he will be able to serve a second term successfully i think the odds will favor him next year. if he can't, it will be a coin flip. host: let's hear from phil in minnesota, independent line is for calling. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a question what do you think of a independent party that tries to attract educated women and immigrants that made this platform of indigenous and

tribal group decision-making thank you. guest: i've heard of lot of questions i haven't heard that one before. but my senses that if you had a political party dominantly made up of educated women, immigrants, and native americans that would be a party that would be much more appealing to the sorts of people who usually vote democratic then to the sorts of people who usually vote republican in any event it would not be a majority party, not even close. host: baba in sterling, virginia. independent line. caller: thanks a lot. there is an easy and reasonable solution to end all these arguments for walking

third-party candidates on the ballot i think a lot of americans favor third-party because they are fed up with the two-party we have running this country the solution is the use of a rug choice system. i'd be interested in hearing the guess, about rank-choice voting because that would end all this discussion and we would have a democratic system for the people could actually elect the candidate that they truly believe in. thank you. host: father in virginia. guest: rink choice voting has its advantages and disadvantages i agree with. i think we would be better off if we had such a system. it has been used in municipalities across the country. it is now the law of the state of maine and the state of

alaska. new york city used a version of it in its most recent mayoral election and i think that the caller is correct that many of the arguments of third parties as spoilers would be weakened or eliminated. if we had a voting system that permitted the reallocation of votes of small parties to the candidates who are more likely to win after the first round has been counted. obviously, if you have an independent party that does very well then a ranked choice voting system wouldn't eliminate that party it would give it a chance to survive and maybe go on to claim a majority. but at least the votes wouldn't be wasted and they wouldn't at

the end of the day have a distorted effect on the outcome of the general election. so yes, by all means i hope that more states adopt the rank-choice voting system many critics say that it's too complicated for average voters to understand and practice i believe that has been not the case and i think it's one of the more productive electoral innovations of recent decades. host: our guest writes a frequent column for wall street journal. give us a preview of what you will write about next. guest: in light of the supreme court's case as currently practiced. my column is devoted to the task

of creating genuine equality of the committee in education and higher education and what colleges and universities can do you create a genuinely level playing field including getting rid of the kinds of preferences that they now give to the children of wealthy donors, the children of alumni, to the children of their own faculty. there are all sorts of things that universities continue to open up spaces for more representative student bodies without compromising their quest for educational excellence in any way. host: the work a found at brookings.edu. senior fellow for the institution as always, thank you for your time analysis. guest: it's been my pleasure. host: coming out people talk

with washington times martin de cairo. it takes a look at the deep dive of the declaration of independence before independence day. later on in the program tv host and author alexander hefner he sits on with politicians on both sides of the aisle in an effort to form political stability. those conversations coming up on "washington journal". ♪

>> celebrate independence day during our july 4 sale going on at c-span shop.org. save up to5% on all c-span read, white, and blue products. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit organizations. scan the code and click on c-span shop.org. >> the c-span book show podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all of the podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place you can discover new authors and ideas. we make it convenient to listen to episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today.

you can find it on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcast. and on our website. >> c-span campaign 2020 for coverage gives you a front row seat to the election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with announcements, meet and greets, just, and events. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> listening to programs on c-span proves c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play

c-span radio. listen to "washington journal" daily at 7 a.m. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for fast-paced report on stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by martin de caro the hosts of the history that happens podcast. guest: great to be here. happy july 3, i guess. host: you recently took a look at independence day on your podcast. guest: i did a part of the radicalism that happens the first part that came out on thursday so people can find that. my guests were two fantastic historians. and coming up next week i have a

great lineup. trying to recover the egalitarian ideal and the e gala terry and rhetoric of the moment and focusing on why our founding was so radical at the time. the idea that there could be a fundamental human equality as a guiding principle of a new nation. it's still radical today and we're still debating it, we are so fighting over it, we are still trying to find out what the meaning of the american revolution is. the idea of freedom, liberty just look at that supreme court cases of the last week. fundamental rights contested in the highest court of the land. some people it's freedom of conscience and others it you're discriminating against me because of who i am. host: when did you first come up on this idea that the declaration was a radical document as general guest: it's been in my head for a while. i've done a bit of reading on

the origins of the country. this is nothing new. i've been giving it more thought lately because i think you probably recognize this as well there's a lot of estimates and in our country today about the ineffectiveness of politics, lack of faith in our institutions like the supreme court. some people are throwing their hands saying abolish the court, it's a legitimate. whatever your position is on one of these issues so i want to focus on, you know, not what we think should have happened or should happen today but why things happened the way they did. our history, the history of political struggle and social struggle. what you get out of the american revolution is politics. as my guests on tuesday said the most profound

antislavery political event in history to its time. you said user dynamic. our history is not just a narrative of an unbroken system of injustice and evil one after another. it's always contested. so why does one side when certain battles in one side went different battles? we see this right from the beginning during the american revolution just to stay on top of the antislavery politics. before the war was over enslaved like people are collaborating with white based on the ideals that are percolating at the time and challenged slavery. sometimes there successful and sometimes they're not. sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other side wins host: if you want to call and ask questions about his work (202) 748-8001 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us you can do that as (202) 748-8003. if we talked about the supreme court case we talked about the declaration of independence and the american revolution what other parables could you draw that can be drawn back to the declaration? guest: i mean, right now, all origin stories are highly contested. there's an idea that american revolution was or that some colonists thought for broke with the crown to defend slavery. you can draw a parallel almost anywhere just about everything in american history, it's highly contested. some arguments are based on facts, some are based on other things, politics, emotion, marketing, whatever. it's interesting as you were inviting the colors you were

talking about the american revolution. the revolution is at least in my view it a moment of unity. it was a civil war in and of itself. but a source, i think the common source or the common origin story of inspiration for all americans, regardless of your party, i think that's changing a little bit. i think the american revolution is the source of division as well. martin luther king's march on washington, the anniversary of that is coming up this year, the 60th anniversary. when the architects wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note. look at katie stanton 1858 she patted her declaration of sentiment on the declaration of independence. so again a source of information

-- inspiration for the women's suffrage movement. even men in 1945 voting -- quoted verbatim the decoration of independence. we can focus on a few -- what it didn't accomplish for surgery abolish slavery gradually. it did not make women equal. there still had to be work we didn't get women's suffrage until the 20th century. but the politics of these movements was based on those ideals. host: you talked about slavery, how does your podcaster root address things to address that? guest: there's a lot of episodes about this and i have people all the time essentially the idea that there are two things. i think to arguments specifically about the american revolution and the one up to the civil war. it was a proslavery revolution or that some colonists fought in

the revolution or broke with the ground to defend slavery. a lot of this misunderstanding stems from the dunmore proclamation from the late 1775. the last real governor of jena he used a proclamation saying any african-americans who come to our side will be emancipated and that was true that did happen. but the problem with that argument is people say that was a tipping point, people who are on the fence talking about cause. that was the final break. that was the final straw you're going to start fraying our slaves were going to break with you and we are going to fight this war. there is almost no evidence that any colonists went for independence late 7075 over the proclamation. the colony had already been lost. i will keep this one brief the mistake of 1690 project they

repeat this mistake. there was a mistake that is made there about the relationship between slavery and capitalism. it argues that we have modern capitalism because of human chattel slavery. capitalism drove the development of slavery, the other way around. host: did you talk to the actual authors and the people behind the prophet itself? guest: i had spoken to two people who consulted with it. host: what did you learn from them? guest: they were different on some of these finer points. i think what they say and i think they make a point here is we shouldn't turned on the entire project because of one or two mistakes. i read the 1619 project when it came out the entire magazine version this is good stuff in there. i think people should watch it even if they might have a bone to pick with one or two things.

they should expose themselves to all these ideas and do some reading for themselves. host: let's hear from earl, texas, independent line. most of the history athens project good morning go ahead. caller: a lot of historians are accusing the guests of this they skipped a lorch swath of history and this is after slavery. what i mean is that public colleges and universities were free for one people up to the mid-1960's. 1961, 1962 public colleges were free for white people. government-funded colleges. a lot of the civil war a lot of white people received free land grabs and received subsidize housing, all their stuff from government assistance. somehow black people are being accused of getting government assistance, handouts and that's been the discussion since i've been a child.

i'm 49. guest: i think earl is absolutely right. host: go ahead. caller: you were talking about martin luther king, and they forget one thing, jay baker hoover and annette this because of the he was having fbi looking at dr. king and assisting white supremacist groups. people don't realize our history is not just cloaked in history. host: you made a point. guest: first i want to say i am not a historian. i'm a journalist and audio producer. my podcasts serve as a conduit between historians and the public. he is absolutely right history with regard to the civil rights movement is despicable and what was going on there. it was reprehensible.

some of these other pieces of assistance, government assistance to whites and people after world war ii the g.i. bill african-americans were largely excluded. mortgages, college education, that was the biggest piece of affirmative action, the g.i. bill. there is more to american history than slavery. we have jim crow after that, after that in my initial point we are still debating the meaning of the american revolution, freedom for whom? or as i like to say and i'm borrowing this from a historian who gets a seat at the table at the great american barbecue? caller: hello. i am wondering how that works. it seems like politicians, they

are one side in the other end nobody talks to each other. they ignore, no common ground. let us try to have common ground to help everybody out. guest: we have a lot of problems with that these days. i think our past is another example of that. this is nothing new, of course. history of wars go back a long way and every decade or so, there is another dustup over curriculum and what should go in curriculum. i get the sense that the fights are more bitter today than they have been, but i could be wrong about that. host: do you get the sense from historians that there has always been a divide, especially when it comes to political issues? guest: it has always been this way. look at the aftermath of earl's

point of the civil war. the south won the battle over the textbooks. propaganda by professional historians in the dunning school , he was not some nut. he was a history professor in the early 20th century. future generations of historians overturned the school and now pretty much no sane person would deny the civil war was fought over slavery and reconstruction did not fail, it was destroyed by white supremacist. host: the podcast is history as it happens, tell us about why you named it such. guest: trying to understand the origins of current events, not to be conflated with causes. also reevaluate the past, that is happening a lot right now. last weekend, we saw something

of almost world historical importance in russia, there was a moment where it looked like he would bring his tanks all the way to moscow. the crisis was dealt with a deal. we were witnessing history unfold. host: why the podcast format? guest: like you do here, you can allow the conversation to breathe. i can ask a question, sit back and allow my guest to explain himself or herself. i think it works well, i try to keep it around 45 minutes. i want people to listen to them. people might be more apt to read a 300 page book. half hour to 45 minutes is the typical length to make it accessible to people. host: if you are asked a follow-up when it comes to the 6019 project.

what is the big mistake of the project in your estimation? guest: the idea it was a proslavery revolution, it is not true. host: elaborate on that. guest: the dunmore proclamation in 1775, it has been misconstrued as a tipping point -- virginia had already been in revolt in 1774, the colony was lost to royal authority. george washington is already at the head of the continental army. i mentioned joseph ellis before. i spoke to him about this as well, he has read the washington papers. george washington was angry about the proclamation come as were many slaveholders. thomas payne mentions this as well. he is anti-slavery. ellis has read the washington papers, there is no evidence in george washington's papers he

fought the revolution because he was trying to defend slavery. the british empire was the largest slaveholding empire in human history. the royal africa company and stewart monarchy, that is how slaves get to the new world, referencing 6019. the british crown was not turned to end slavery, it is the american revolution that gave life to antislavery politics. we see this during the revolution. earl had a great call about how some much of our history gets forgotten about. for this holiday when we think about thomas jefferson -- i am wearing thomas jefferson socks. george washington, the usual heroes. think of people like felix holbrook, and enslaved men who started petitioning with other enslaved blacks in 1773, 1774.

prince hall a few years later builds on the petitions, and these are mostly happening in the northern states where slavery was weaker. you had a lesser chance of winning these battles in south carolina or georgia. another name, bristol lamb be in connecticut. we should be talking about these people, they were brave enslaved people who successfully sued for their freedom. one change her name to elizabeth freeman after winning her suit, they collaborated with white antislavery activists. these are the original abolitionists during the war, the same year that yorktown falls to the continental army. theodore sedgwick, a white abolitionist. they successfully sued the 1780 massachusetts constitution, saying the new constitution effectively abolished slavery, and they won.

host: when it comes to history, how do you choose the topics you will cover in the podcast in the people you will talk to about it? guest: the information i am sharing, i have to cite my sources, this comes from a guest on thursday's episode. he has been generous of my program, he is a brilliant historian. how do i choose topics? sometimes it is what interests me, sometimes it is like this, an anniversary or holiday. it is often what pops up in the news. after the near coup d'etat in russia, the rebellion by the mercenary force, i didn't episode with three different specialists on russian history about the origins and weather prudent-ism might be cracking. i haven't episode coming up about witchcraft, because the connecticut legislature just exonerated women who had been

hanged on crazy allegations of being witches back in the 17th century. most of the time, i am picking topics, current events seeking origins of current events because i want to be relevant to people. my podcast is not a boring history lesson. it is more talking about the relevance of all these things. host: do you think people view history as figures and dates and not people and events? guest: people find history dull or heroic narrative -- i am wearing thomas jefferson socks. they want more nuance and complexity, they want to understand the relevance. henry kissinger just celebrated his 100th birthday, so i talked to some historians about his legacy. especially in light of the folly of american foreign policy over the last 20 years in the war on terrorism.

henry kissinger's legacy is controversial, some people think he is a diplomate and others think he is a war criminal. history matters to people. we are debating it all the time, we have an emotional attachment to certain narratives. i am trying to flush that out on my show. host: tony in chicago. caller: good morning. i have a quick question for you, back to the revolution. hearing about henry kissinger, his legacy is millions of bodies in cambodia. what other legacy is there? host: there is no word -- more to his record, but cambodia was a disgrace. caller: i wanted to ask you quickly, the concept of whether or not this is something

specifically revolution for slavery or proslavery. it is getting in the weeds a little too much. what was the motivation of the revolution? it was the first was the revolution against the crown to liberate themselves where they did not have to give up taxes and repatriate goods from england they were producing at home. what was the prevailing economic engine at the time? who were the prevailing owners of land and capital at the time? white slave owners, white farm owners who owned slaves. the biggest part of the economy at that time. they liberate themselves from the ground was definitely a proslavery revolution, because they wanted to expand the model and expand their trade. host: thank you. guest: i would disagree with that.

there was no threat to slavery from imperial britain. it was the largest slaveholding empire in human history. as far as western settlement, the crown and proclamation line of 1763 wanted to prevent conflict with native americans west of the appellations, maybe that is what the caller was referring to. the northern states all moved to abolish the chattel principal, they gradually emancipate -- in some places, it happens faster than others. new jersey takes longer. slaveholders fought it at every step. you start to see the origins of a sectional conflict where in northern states -- the abolition of the chattel principal happens immediately, but slaves are gradually emancipated after they reach a certain age. the northern laws do not free

anyone who was enslaved at that moment. they free the offspring of slaves after they reach a certain age. in the south, there were debates over the future of slavery. in the south, it is different. i think the caller makes legitimate points, but goes a little too far. it was not a proslavery revolution. host: independent line. caller: i want to ask your guest , has he ever debated an open public forum? has he ever debated this subject with a true historian? he said earlier he is not a historian. guest: i have had many people on my show. wherever you find -- s4 is in a public setting, no. but i have had many conversations on my podcast about this issue.

wherever you find your podcasts, you can search. if you use the search term slavery or constitution, anything like that, you will find all of my episodes right have dealt with this. host: we do think about trends where historical events become historical dramas on streaming services, and how do you translate that as far as how it teaches history? host: i think it is great -- guest: i think it is great, i enjoy watching the shows even if they are not accurate. to an extent does a filmmaker have responsibility to stick to the facts? it depends. there is a new show on hbo. ken hu has listened to more nixon tapes than anyone else. i think the shows are good because they get people interested in the subject and

maybe they will then go and pursue it on their own. it also makes history come alive. you see people in the flesh. that is a black comedies, so it is different than a drama. i interviewed greg barker, a filmmaker who did a program on showtime called ghosts of beirut , where he had to fictionalize certain things because you only have so much time in a tv series , and you only know so much of what actually happened. early 1980's, we are living in this world -- we talk about post 9/11, we see the origins of that in the post-1979 world with the soviet invasion of afghanistan in the civil war in beirut, which struck a blow against the peaceful settlement of the israeli-palestinian conflict. you start to see suicide

bomber's for the first time. the u.s. is humiliated in beirut with the killing of 241 marines, which took place after the cia station was destroyed by a suicide bomber. the person who perpetrated the acts, no one knew who they were for decades outside of his immediate circle. even they are, people did not know who he was. we talk about him and his legacy, which is not a good one. host: what degree are you concerned that people watch the dramas and fix those things as historical events versus what happened? guest: that brings up the comedy or the show hamilton on broadway, which no one is going to think that is how it went -- it is a brilliant show. there is a concern that people might think something is accurate. that is everything. it is impossible to ensure people will have the right and accurate information.

some things are open to debate. there may be not one accurate narrative that can be produced. do not take what you see on tv as gospel. do a little investigating on your own. host: bob in virginia, republican line. caller: thank you. i am wondering about historical accuracies and inaccuracies that arise in relation to the military history of the u.s.. world war ii, korea, vietnam. and the kennedy assassination, thank you. guest: i am not an expert on the kennedy assassination, i do not tend to believe conspiracy theories. the caller wasn't all that specific about inaccuracies in military history, so it is hard to address something specific. i would encourage him to listen

to one of my recent episodes about d-day, came about a month ago about how we need to start thinking differently about war. my guest was a terrific historian who just wrote a book called mercy, humanity and war. an idealized vision of certain conflicts, especially world war ii. it is considered the good war. the nazis needed to be defeated, but that is one thing. this is a difficult subject to broach, because the men who fought and died, they did sacrifice quite a bit. the landings at normandy were horrifying. the way we look at war is we need to stop glorifying violence and understand just how utterly miserable the entire experience was for your typical g.i. who frequently suffered from nervous collapse because they were so poorly trained, thrown onto the

front line in the middle of the night, brought in as replacements so they could be chewed up like devious replacements. the campaign in france and europe in the winter of 1944 was brutal and miserable. you do not often see that side of in popular culture. we have more of a saving private ryan hero vision of world war ii . host: romanticized. guest: like a small unit combat idea of war, that these massive conflicts can somehow be decided by the heroism of individual soldiers and that is not the case in modern warfare. host: what drew you to the way of thinking about war initially? guest: on the subject of d-day, i have always been fascinated. a relative of mine bought me a book about world war ii by john keegan. i guess it is a personal story,

when i was a kid in the 1980's i liked rambo and stuff like that, then my father made me watch platoon and said, enough of this stuff where one man is running around taking on the entire enemy in some type of phony depiction, start thinking more seriously. our country needs a reckoning with our foreign policy. post-world war ii, we have been involved in a lot of wars. we have not one many of them and the consequences have been disastrous. host: susan is in boston, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask, we know what the british did to the irish. would you comment on irish slavery in the united states? guest: there was no irish slavery in the united states. this is a myth that is floating

around, african-americans were enslaved in the united states, not irish people. there may have been a system of injustice and place where the british treated the irish, but it is not human chattel slavery. host: rachel in florida, independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions, please. is it true that george washington was offered $5,000 if he would leave the revolutionary war -- before he was chosen, and that he turned that down? and if you could speak about -- they lost the revolutionary war, he would have been up for treason. the other question, could you talk about john hancock and his transatlantic company to earn money from england? i will hang up to listen, thank you.

guest: i do not know anything about the $5,000 story, i will have to pass on that. have the revolution failed, what would happen to the revolutionaries? king george the third has been wrongly treated as a brute. by historians and in the public imagination. part of this is the way the colonists in the declaration of independence itself, the 27 grievances are almost entirely about king george the third, some are not accurate. jefferson took liberties with those grievances. you can take the final field, which are pretty much justifications for a revolution that is already underway. the final grievances uses terminology we would not use today, merciless indian savages, basically blames king george for trying to incite slave revolts and indian warfare on the frontier. to pin that on king george the

third is not all that fair. of course, the revolution was already underway. how would the king have treated the revolutionaries? it is hard to know, depends on how long the revolution took place, how vicious it would have gotten. whether or not revolutionaries would have been ok going back to the status quo. i am only guessing. they would have been punished, that is usually what happens. the leaders certainly would have been punished severely. host: do you deal with presidential politics? guest: that is a niche these days. presidential policies come up a lot, i tough you jeffrey engel -- talked to jeffrey engel. we tend to look back on the past in terms of presidential errors.

i am trying to do a show that is relatable and entertaining and fun. people can relate to presidents and they are usually more knowledgeable. host: taking a look at trump. guest: the end of trumpism revisited, this brought up some history as well. the caller mentioned something about john hancock, i am not all that good on that subject. i will have to get back to her about that. the end of trumpism, there is a certain mindset in the country that just one more thing, one more outrage, that will be it. that is not going to happen. he has been indicted twice, he could be indicted a couple more times. he's done better in the polls as a result. he is the most popular republican party politician in the country. i will borrow a line from bill marr, the comedian.

one of be like trump without personal baggage, right-wing populism in the campaigns. why would you vote for the tribute band when you can have the real thing? historically, what he has done is something george wallace could not do. that is run as a third party or major party candidate and expand your appeal broad enough to become a nominee or take over the party. if you listen to the speech where he announces he is running for president in late 1991, a few months ahead of the new hampshire primary, he challenges the incumbent republican president. his speech is very much like trumpism. he talks about japan in those days, today it would be china.

net of the cold war is over, we have to start taking care of ourselves here. we do not need the overseas alliances, we are spending all this money to have troops overseas. he was also opposed to free-trade deals. we have 30 years of experience to say that some of what was warned did happen. trump was able to capitalize on some of that. also the cruel edge that trump has, you see some of that as well. host: john in arizona, independent. caller: this is an honor to speak with you, i listen to your podcast religiously, along with the way i heard it. guest: that is very nice of you to say. caller: [laughter] anyways, i have cataracts, so it is hard for me to read. i'm going to eventually get them taken care of.

my question is, it plain what were the ramifications of an individual freeing their entire sleeve group in a community of sorts? a lot of people do not realize the laws and what would happen if you for your slaves, and you can continue from there. i will listen. guest: i am not quite sure what the question is? caller: if an individual decides to free their slaves in virginia, what with the laws and ramifications of that particular individual that freed the slaves? guest: it depends on what period of time you are referring to. laws changed over time, often

what would happen to the former enslaved people as they would have to leave the state. if somebody chooses a slaveholder or in slaver, there probably would have been no compensation if it was done voluntarily. i do not know if i answered your question exactly, was not quite clear what you are getting at. but depends on the time period you were referring to and i can recommend a book that deals with different types of slavery and slave societies in the british colonies, all the way up to the civil war. many thousands gone by ira berlin, it shows how slavery developed in different ways in different parts of the country. host: one more call from robert in ohio.

caller: hello. two questions. what, if any, is your relationship to lewis and where do you place john brown in abolitionist history? guest: i am going to harpers ferry next week, actually. i read a bunch of biographies about john brown. i do not know any lewis, apologies if he is listening. john brown was in abolitionist, he hated slavery. he was a murderer, deranged and a terrorist. i do not think he was effective as an abolitionist. his idea to attack the federal army discredited the antislavery cause at a time and antislavery politics -- we were about to elect the first antislavery

president of the united states, abraham lincoln. lincoln was not an abolitionist, though as the civil war develops, you get the emancipation proclamation and 13th amendment that abolishes slavery. so lincoln grows in that regard. i saw a young guy walking around washington with a t-shirt that said john brown did nothing wrong, but what did he do right? he tried to convince frederick douglass to go along with him. thankfully, frederick douglass said no. later, he eulogized as brown. he is part of why southerners are so infuriated by brown. it was not just the attack on the armory and the idea of starting a slave revolt that would have been crushed by the u.s. army. this is not going to happen. part of the reason why slaveholders were angry as the reaction to brown on the part of northerners who have roast sized him. that continues today.

host: the podcast is history as that happens, how often do you put them out? guest: tuesdays and thursdays, anywhere you can find your podcasts. host: thank you for your time. guest: it was great being here. host: the house comes in at 10:00, until then we will talk with alexander heffner. he has a new series taking a look at civilian politics where he sits down with politicians on both sides of the aisle in an effort to forge consensus. that conversation when journal continues. ♪ >> former president theodore roosevelt died january 6, 1919. he was 60 years old.

one author chose to focus mostly on the last two years of his life. it is titled the last charge of the rough writer, theodore roosevelt's final days. he takes us through his feud with president woodrow wilson. he wanted to form another roughriders soldier regiment and fight in europe. wilson turned him down, in spite of the fact both the u.s. senate house had approved roosevelt's request. >> on this episode obo notes plus, availa on the c-span now free mobile app or whatever you get your podcasts. >> watch a video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try the points of interest feature that uses markers to guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of key coverage. use it anytime online at c-span.org.

>> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with tv's podcast about books, with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists and industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, the free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. this is what democracy looks like. she's bound, powered by cable. -- c-span, powered by cable.

>> washington journal continues. host: our guest is the host on pbs and also the host of breaking bread and the co-author of a history of the united states. freaking bread implies eating, you do a lot of this on the show. what was the genesis of it? guest: it is on bloomberg originals, premiering tomorrow. the genesis was, can we get back to functioning and be motivated by bread breaking, empathetic exchange with each other by an effective political system? can we amuse our democracy back to life? i think the intent was to humanize our political life. i had not seen anything on television or any streaming platform that merged the goals of comedians in cars and face

the nation or here on washington journal, most beloved morning program. i missed you all these years since i have last been on. the food was diverse, cross-section of america from west virginia to the coast of maine to the badlands of south and north dakota to the southwest and salt lake city thai food, which is the best i've ever had with governor cox in salt lake city. this is the element i think is missing in our politics, the desire to break bread with each other, to learn from each other and govern together. i hope we can begin that process and new through the series. host: i like the word amuse, talk about that. guest: i think we have dumbed down the discourse to such a degree as a result of people news, hyper partisanship that the vs in the discourse have

come to dominate what most animates political life, as opposed to -- you often talk about reconciliation, that is the process by which we adopt legislation, that we move the needle forward. ultimately, it takes exchange, it takes deliberation. if you talk to senators or governors across the country, often the art of barbecue or the art of the cheeseburger is what is the first genesis, the impetus of driving an exchange of dialogue that then becomes legislation, becomes a driving force in how we think of public policy and how we can make our lives better for each other, how we can think about our lives in the context of our neighbors lives, in the context of

bettering or perfecting the union. that is not the way public policy typically operates. so it was this idea of when we sit down for a meal together and break bread, we want to provide the sustenance that can nurture our lives. that is not the way we think of democrats and republicans engaging on issues today. host: consensus and politics is our topic. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 firma bookends -- four republicans and independents (202) 748-8002. we will show the audience some of your conversation with cory booker, get a little bit of the back story of the conversation.

[video clip] >> a retiring senator from oklahoma, i went to his office for bible study. i do not expect to see him in an affectionate embrace with a little girl. i was like chairman, whose that? he said, that is my granddaughter, family member. his family adopted this girl, very difficult circumstance. i was moved by that. months later, a big bill. it was going to be a clean bill. i said, mr. chairman, i have an amendment for the bill. i made my pitch summoning the spirit of that child, so i walked back, set in my seat and looked up and he is merging towards me, kind of grunts at me, i am in. then we get chuck grassley, some of the republicans, now it is the law of the land. host: that sounds like textbook

of what you were trying to achieve. guest: it is. i often use the example of senator booker visiting oklahoma and center and half visiting new jersey as an example of seeing how another constituency lives. that is a metaphor for how we can do this better. we think of congressional delegations visiting foreign countries, but over breaks a person who represents a majority republican district or democrat will return to those counties, that district. just the perimeter as opposed to visiting another state. they are bringing life to this concept every day, often folks on the hill will point to micro-examples of bipartisanship , how they forge empathetic learning and understanding and deliberation. there can be more high-profile

instances, i often fantasized in conceiving this idea of the late senator mccain and retired senator lacey, waking up with them every morning, seeing their dog, cat or other animal, watching you or colleagues. seeing day in and day out, month in month out the process of achieving something grand. the great compromise, the grand compromise. our media does not incentivize that kind of experience. my thought process in breaking bread is the first step of this is, what if you took an issue and said we want an amazing race to legislative success on the issue? we want to comprehensively attack this particular public policy concern? if you adopt that way of thinking, the reality tv show

injected into our bloodstream every day but with actual public policy objective, you can make real progress over time. host: it premieres tomorrow, let us hear from the independent line. caller: i really do not see the democrats and republicans as presenting both sides of things, as your podcast does. i see them as each one half of the one big money party, kind of like major league baseball. you have the american league and national league, technically two separate things, but under the control of major league baseball. democrats and republicans technically two separate parties, but under control of big money interests. if you want to present both sides, you should present somebody that will represent

ordinary citizens and not just the one big money party. guest: i think of them as running for office, aspiring to fulfill the promise of life, liberty and happiness for their constituents. taking democracy seriously enough in the first place to run for office, that is sobering. while you correctly point out a duopoly, often a duopoly that is perceived as dysfunctional, that is what we have to work with. i think we can be constructive in how we motivate the discourse. i think most folks who would call in here would describe the discourse as degraded, deflated, not sincerely or earnestly approaching the issues with intellectual honesty. that was the most fundamental

take away of this program. if you humanize the discourse, you can inch closer towards a new conception of not a sarcastic twitter theater that is predominant in the most high-profile voice of politics today. reach a place where you can understand each other and some of the nuances of public policy, some of the flaws in the system, including money interests that want to prolong the handicapping and dysfunction of politics, but also identify a message that we can make things better. that is what we try to do on the program, take what is viewed as not a forthcoming and honest discussion of issues and find a place for over meals and beautiful landscapes, from teddy

roosevelt national park in north dakota to the newest national park in west virginia, the new river valley gorge. there is something about the geography of this country, not just the food, homemade food that brings a feeling of sustenance, too. that animates a spiritual overcoming of the pettiness of politics. i think honesty and intellectual honesty has to be the golden rule in politics, that can be the start of addressing the duopoly that may have failed us in past generations. host: randy in michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning. politics has gotten to be a problem for a lot of people. how do you sit down and eat dinner or supper with somebody or try to have a conversation with someone when they call you a groomer or say mexicans are

drug addicts, murderous tan rapist, make muslim bans? how do you sit down and have a conversation when someone says you are trying to make somebody clear -- queer? guest: the dehumanization and politics degenerates the discourse that i understand the premise of your question, how do you entertain that dialogue to begin with? it can be tough. for the past many years, i have traveled around the country covering millennials in politics. but my philosophy has always been that you have to have a tough skin. that does not mean you such object yourself to cruelty any point in dialogue or deliberation, but we know that people form opinions, perspectives based on human experience. in their zip code, their

neighborhood. in the senator booker episode, there is a connection between how we form our views and experiences over time and whether the aspirations or ideals win out at the end of the day, or resentment bubbling over. finding the source or causal relationship between how we came to that view and what we experienced as a citizen, that is most important. if you can disarm a toxic debate or conversation -- instead of the starting point being i am going to use an ad hominem attack on my political opponent, tell me about your life. tell me about how you came to form this opinion or perspective on an issue, and i think we can start to source how we got to

this point and how we might be able to form a better union. anyone who attempts to convince me we do not possess resentments and aspirations as a mythologists. they are selling us a bill of goods that is not real. we all possess both of those things and i think they contribute to politics. who wins out or whether the aspirations went over resentments determines the outlook in how we begin conversations about political choice in our country. host: there was the announcement from fred ryan leaving his position at the washington post to work at the center for political civility. he said i have a deep and growing concern about the decline in civility, respectful dialogue in our political process in social media and across soc political leaders on opposite sides of the aisle could find common ground for the good of

the country. today, the decline has become toxic and threatens social interactions and weakens the underpinnings of democracy. how much do you share of those concerns? guest: i share those concerns and i want to share with you today that in breaking bread, you can find prescriptive solutions not just around how we talk to each other, but mechanisms to boost our morale. i am passionate about an episode with governor grisham of new mexico. she is a former health secretary at the state level, now the governor of the state. every year, we pay our taxes. it is the most universal active citizenship on a daily basis, more so than voting, which happens every two or four years. when we do that, it is a pact, but it is part of the underpinnings of civil society that we are going to contribute

to schools, even if we may not have children. or we will contribute to pipelines that may not feed clean water into our homes, but our neighbors home down the road. in general, there is a perception that government is not looking out for us. who is looking out for us? maybe our congressperson, who has favorability in the district, but not the senator or neighboring congresspeople. i asked the governor why there was not an app, is easily accessible as c-span or bloomberg, where you could see expenditures at the municipal, state and federal level and understand where they are going towards, whether it is ensuring public safety is sound with fire fighters and police officers or public defenders, or for environmental resources to

protect air quality, to ensure defense against wildfires? nothing like that exists right now, where you can instantly learn about taxpayer revenues and what they are going towards, then basically solicit a town hall meeting as an extension of a concern. you can indicate you approve or disapprove of an expenditure then engage fellow countrymen and women in a discussion on a platform, then have a town hall meeting on the issue. we can access amazon or uber easily and we know how to ring for a car or buy a cup of coffee. but when it comes to the business of people, the operating fabric of our government, we either do not care or we are refusing to be

more imaginative. the overflowing collars that you still get every morning all joining an applicant this, governor grisham agreed with the basic plot, then we might have a more functional system. at the end of the day, we might not resent how government conducts itself because we try to influence in the right direction and have an understanding of how it works. host: let us hear from charles in colorado, independent line. caller: good morning. i will try to articulate this the best i can. i do not think the problem -- the problem here is the system itself. the people that was put down in last congress hr one sr one would be a great step. i think the big problem here is for instance when we have voting

districts where it is heavily republican or gerrymandered heavily democrat, if you are republican and reach out to a democrat and say that is a good idea, you will get lambasted. we need to have completely balanced voting districts, we need to take money out of politics. we need to open up voting and have politicians not elected from super pac's, but public money. that way, we take a lot of the corruption stuff out. until the politicians can start saying like mccain did, wait a minute, obama is not a nazi, governor christie hugged obama and said thank you for coming to sandy. until we get to that point, the people are not going to read apps or anything. they are just going to watch tv and be segregated.

guest: understood, and i appreciate that. there is an institutionalization of this dysfunction, the partisan fervor, the fact that partisanship is more important than the truth today. so i am absolutely with you in that regard and understanding that there are constitutional amendments that would modernize our system to make it more wholesome, functional and ultimately more democratic. there are facets that are antirepublican and antidemocratic, whether you wake of the u.s. as a republic or democracy. i am right there with we have at our disposal to make things even just a little better.

i do not think the earlier error that you are referring to of christie and obama, mccain and that 2008 election, i do not think that is so far distant from us today that we are unable to access it. a lot of it can be correlated with leadership in the modes of discourse of elected, how they comport themselves, whether they are inviting people from other ideologies or parties to the backyard barbecues of this era. this barbecues are probably not happening under a lot of circumstances or when folks gather, they are in their respective silos as loyal democrats or republicans. to your point, how we can move forward will rely upon the discourse, how we talk to each other, but also upon ultimately

legal, constitutional and other changes in our culture. they pointed out gerrymandering. i think about roscoe from south dakota who called, he was keen on forging bipartisan consensus and how we can work together on challenges. we came together as a country and we have come together at pivotal moments, whether it is in the aftermath of 9/11, looking at the existential threat of the autocratic powers of world war ii in response to pearl harbor and genocide overseas. can we reunify in a way without a war of depression? it is a question my grandfather often asked on the open mind,

the broadcast on pbs each week. do we have the spirit within ourselves to do that, or are we complacent and only motivated by the most extreme