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 of book notes plus, available 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 center for political civility. he saide a deep and growing concern about the decline in civility, respectful dialogue in our political across society.a media and 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