for anything. > ♪ >> coming up on "washington journal", the university of maryland's joshua shifrinson and the atlantic councils daniel freed discuss the security options nato might consider to support ukraine. from the group no labels, benjamin chavers talks about the possibility of his organization building a unity ticket if there is a rematch between president biden and former president trump. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, july 9. our question for you today, how do you define the american dream?

do you think it is achievable for you and your loved ones? call us now and tell us what you think. democrats, dial (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. you can find us on facebook .com/c-span, where we are already talking about the topic. we are on twitter and instagram, @cspanwj. we will be talking about a recent poll by the arch bridge institute, a public policy think tank that has some libertarian

and free-market ideals. it recently put out the fourth edition of its polling on the american dream. here is a washington times article about that pole. the headline, most people find american dreams out of reach, poll finds. i am going to quote now and read a little from the top of the article. it says, more people say the american dream is out of reach for them then a year ago, according to a annual poll released monday, while 75% of those responding to the survey from the arch bridge institute say they have either achieved or are on the way to achieving the american dream. 24% said it is out of reach, up from 18% last year. in a summary of findings, the washington, d.c. based public policy center cited "economic challenges, social difficulties

and a divisive, presidential primary race for the change." let's dig into this poll more before we get into some of your phone calls. this is a poll by the arch bridge institute. it was conducted by the national opinion research center established at the university of chicago. the poll, 24% of those polled said the american dream is out of reach, which is up 6% since last year. last year, that was 18%. now, 20 4%. 33% say they have achieved the american dream. 42% say they are on their way to achieving it. that means most americans say they are -- they have either achieved it or are on their way. that was pretty across the

board. 32 percent of those polled say they have the same opportunities as their parents. 48% say they have more opportunities than their parents. 27% sent their children will have the same opportunities they have. 33% say they expect their children to have more opportunities than they have. i want to read one more excerpt from the pole. it says, this is from that same arch bridge institute poll. it says, most americans regard living better and fuller lives, rather than simplyecoming wealthy are essential to achieving the american dream. when asked what factors are essential to achieving the american dream, freedom of choice and how to live and having a good family life ranked at the top. respondents ranked becoming wealthy as the least essential consideration.

this has been a consistent finding since we started the survey in 2020. we are going to take it back to the phone lines. how do you define the american dream? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is going to be john from malta, new york on the republican line. john. go ahead. good morning. how do you define the american dream? caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i guess i define it in a couple of ways. my father was a democrat. it is personal for me. he came here from italy and he was seven years old and we grew up relatively poor. his purpose in life was to see his family's children do better

than he did. i believe he was successful in that. we all did well materially. we have a deep, respect for our country and its rules and laws. i think basically that the american dream would be to live in a country where you know you have hope. that is important. host: john, what country did your dad emigrate from and how do you think that informed his experience in america? caller: he came from italy when he was seven years old. he was one of five children. i am sorry, one of six children. he came over here and had it rough. he came here during the 1920's, he faced a lot of bigotry and

intolerance. anybody familiar with that debt paid -- with that decade knows there was a rise in the clan. there was a case which was primarily focused on italian to italian anarchists. he was catholic. that had a lot to do with the intolerance he had to be a victim of. he managed to whether it. he joined the army during world war ii. he gave us a lesson that this country was the greatest country on earth, to love it and to work for it to betterment. quite frankly, the american dream as we define it, meaning my family, is we were better off than my parents materially. i suppose for a lot of people, that is what they want.

in a sense, we know we are in a nation that really is -- i guess you can call it a city on a hill that provides people with hope. that is the key thing. as long as you do have that, i think you will go a long way and have a good work ethic and you will achieve. for many people, that is how we see this country. i know we have a lot of problems, we have to work it out. we just have got to have a result. thank you. host: let's go to patrick in lady lake, florida, independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: i think this is the typical, made-up catchphrase that you here on c-span and other places. the american dream. i do not know what that really means. i think it is everybody's dream to live in safety and liberty.

the false hope, or false persona. before 1940, most people lived either in or on a non-electrified farm. you know how tough that life was? i am 63 years old. my father grew up on a non-electrified dairy farm. my grandfather was hoping to retire with a little wealth in his pocket, not living the life in florida during the winter and sending his kids off to college. world war ii on most of the industrialized world, it is rubble. america had the only industrialized, untouched -- in 1954, 80% of the cars made in the world were made in america. our clothing, 80% of our clothing was made in america and

people could live on that 40 hour work week, stay-at-home mom. it was made up over war and hysteria. why don't you talk about something real? why is every central and south american country a little off, free-market, democratically elected instead of this made up garbage? thanks for taking my call. host: already. elaine is next in brian, texas. democratic line. good morning, elaine. caller: from houston, texas. host: ok. elaine in houston. tell us about how you define the american dream. caller: i am still trying to discover that, because -- in god we trust.

this country, we say we love america, stand beside her and guide her. but, the idea that we are judged by our color of our skin, people think they should have and other people should not -- my dream for america is that america stand up for what it says it is. everybody pays taxes. everybody tries to get along with each other -- try to get along with each other and stop having this, you are this nationality rather than somebody else's nationality. we make this country look bad. these other nations are thinking they are supposed to have another self. that is not a dream. that is not representing this country. we are -- not a dream.

everybody pay taxes. the idea of not having my neighbors, hispanic, white, whatever, and there are asians there. that is not a dream for us to be divided like that. host: all right, elaine. appreciate your call this morning. let's go to steve in florida, democratic line. caller: hello. the american dream, when i first graduated from college and started in the working world, that was a totally different thing. it was material. it was about working, being productive, accumulating wealth, cumulating a nice house, nice car, education for your kids.

i think the younger people now unfortunately have redefined the american dream. i think they went to school -- they saw our generation constantly working, having such a small amount of time with our families, working so hard that by the time they go to retire, they are ailing. i think 2008, the recession also -- they saw a lot of people work so hard for those nice houses and everything just collapse. i think they have redefined it. there american dream is more balanced. it is more, spending time with

their family and friends. it is work, but they do not have to have that brand-new house. they refurbish old houses. i think the american dream that my generation knew pushed itself out of his this. they have alternatives now. host: let's go to joseph now in worchester, massachusetts. independent line. go ahead. caller: yeah, i tell you what went wrong with the american dream. i come from a large family of immigrants, started back in 1965 when the congress opened non-european immigrants to come from america. my mom retired from rikers island. that was not easy to accomplish

the american dream. when ronald reagan fired the airport workers, it was a strike. i remember my young years, i worked in the eastern airline where they filed chapter 11 bankruptcy. back then, the baggage handlers wanted to strike because they wanted a two dollar raise. they were getting $11 an hour. they were paying is eight dollars an hour to take their place. 25 years ago -- no, 40 years ago, 25% of the american workforce was unionized. now, it is less than 12%. my college friend at the university of houston, go to new york and get a job within two days, a security job. last time i been there in the 1980's, to get a security job,

they were paying you eight dollars an hour. you had to either have five years of security experience, three years of military experience or 60 college credits. what happened is because of this communism -- this fear of communism, america went the other way and demonized the union workers. a caller called from houston. when i was in houston, i worked in grocery supply, the largest trucking security company. they debated whether to have a union or not. they had a vote. no matter how many times i tied -- tried to tell the drivers, go for the union, the problem with america is the power structure, the big corporations. they do a good job of dumbing down america. that is the problem. you need to bring back union, the american dream has turned

into an american nightmare. the family that came in the 1970's, they worked there but off in new york. things have changed. host: got your point, got your point. unions. we are going to move on to a nether collar. alan is in phoenix, arizona. democratic line. caller: i will make this quick as possible. my dad had a sixth grade education and he is a korean vet. he had the ability to buy a house when he got out of the military. i am a college graduate, also a decorated war veteran. i come out, i do not have that same ability. there is a disconnect as far as the american dream. every single conflict this country has ever had, my take on some of this stuff has -- is

definitely different than a lot of situations because of the military background. i am shocked. that is all i can say. i was not able to buy a house. when we talk about the american dream, see the disconnect? see what i am saying? host: what do you think has changed between your generation and your dad's generation to make it more difficult? caller: a lot of hate. hate, hate, hate. george floyd, rodney king, the whole thing. it is hate, hate, hate, hate. what can i do, man? may be moved to another country, that is an option. peace out. host: let's go to minneapolis, minnesota. gregory on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes. i will be 69 years old next

week. i grew up in chicago, basically in a jim crow system. it was urban, but it was still jim crow. the reality of the american dream does not exist for black people. we live in the reality we live in a system that basically tells people from slavery that you have an opportunity to work for us and provide for our dream. you are lucky to be here. the fact of the matter is, black people still fighting for their rights. anybody from italy have rights and privilege, ok?

you can see the deep south or somewhere in kentucky and cannot read. you still have privilege. it is based on your color. this is a very racist country, i invite anybody to deny it. that is all i have to say. host: all right, gregory. as we continue talking about the american dream, i want to bring up a little more from this arch bridge institute poll. this is their fourth time doing the pole. the first one was in 2020. this is the most recent one. one of the questions they asked was, how essential do you think each of the following statements is to your own view of the american dream?

i am going to read these in order of the ones that told most essential to least essential. 82% said freedom in choice and how to live was essential. 79% said, have a good family life. 68% said, retire comfortably. half of them, 50% said own a home. that is something we have heard from a few callers. 42% said, have a successful career. 28% said, make valuable contributions to community as essential to the american dream. only 14% said become wealthy. again, we want to hear more from you about what is the american dream, how do you define it and do you think it is achievable?

let's go back to the democratic line now. dorothy is calling from opal, virginia. caller: hello, and thank you for taking my call today. host: yes, thank you for calling. caller: what i would like to say -- i am 77 years old. i have worked from the time i was 15. i worked after school, graduated high school. i have two degrees, one in business management and one in social work. i worked in the field of social work, so i was right there on the front lines of what is really going on in this country. i went to say one thing -- one say one thing. the american dream, the one i was taught to believe in and worked for is dead. it died, i would say, 15 years ago. host: why do you say that? why do you think it is dead?

what happened? caller: i say it died because every generation, the american dream was based on you doing what you can to bring your children along and help them do better than you did. that is not possible anymore, not when somebody works a 40 hour week and cannot afford to live in an apartment on the money they bring home. this is not the american dream. i was taught to believe in. until that changes and people can actually afford to pay to put a roof over their heads working 40 hours a week, then the dream has died. it is dead. we have to do something in this country to change things. you cannot even retire. host: got your point, dorothy. we are going to go to west

virginia now. james is on the republican line. caller: hello? host: yes. caller: it is not an american dream, it is an american nightmare. i was diagnosed and treated on six military bases after three years with neurological problems. we were stationed and exposed to a banned pesticide. there was no compensation whatsoever for my problems. nothing. period. that is your american dream. host: got it. ok, james. appreciate your call. matt is in boulder, colorado, independent line. caller: good morning. host: yes. caller: i grew up -- and earlier

caller was from chicago. i grew up right next to chicago, in evansville, illinois. my dad was a prize-winning investigative reporter for two different chicago newspapers. i learned early that corruption in government definitely can and does happen in both major parties and in minor parties. i say that at the beginning because, certainly in the period of the trump administration, we saw an uptick within republican party politicians, there was and continues to be rampant, rampant

misinformation and lots of lawbreaking. the real challenge for workers in government but there are so many republican and democratic and independent government workers who are goodhearted and honest, but they are often put in a position where they are ordered by their superior to do something that they believe or know to be illegal. so, what i and a group called sworn to refuse have been working since 2017 is the enactment passage in what we call refuse protection legislation, which would protect from firing and all other retributive punishments government workers who refuse their bosses unlawful orders or orders to pay everything to believe would be unlawful. if workers had that kind of protection and did not have to worry they would be forced,

essentially, to violate the law or lose their careers, that will not be the kind of problem it is now. that is something i think people on all sides of the aisle would find worth working for. it is a group called sworn to refuse. host: next up is robert in vernon rockville, connecticut. independent line. go ahead, robert. caller: hello, good morning. i do not know where i would start with this. i listened to the calls. i guess i would ask you and your polling, did you have a space for not being lazy and working hard? did you ask that question? i got the tv on mute, so i do not know if i am on delay. first, answer that question on

your polling. from a very young age, such as if you have a bed, lazy and working hard. can you tell me that, please, on your pole, did you ask that question? host: i want to hear from you. it sounds like you think hard work is a big part of the american dream? caller: yes. i think that is essential and it starts at a very young age. i could go through my whole story. i have been listening to everyone else, if you want me to tell you my story i can go through it. in my opinion, people -- everybody does not have a home, i suppose. there are homeless people. in my particular story, i think you have got to not be lazy and got to work hard, no matter what you do. it starts from a very young age and you have got to make your bed if you have a home or cut the grass. i worked on a tobacco farm. i was a janitor.

i went into the military. i went into education. that is about all i would say. i wanted to let you know that. host: alrighty. our next caller is in waldorf camera -- waldorf, virginia, maryland, independent line. caller: i think the american dream is helping children, a home over your head where one parent can stay home and take care of the family. the family unity in america has dissolved. everybody is going there different directions. social media. there is no real interaction in the family bond. i would like to see that come back. you go to philadelphia, all you are going to see is a tremendous amount of trash and drugs. our country is being killed with those infiltrating in from other

countries and our own country, our own government. that is my american dream. host: alrighty. let's take a quick pause and listen to a little bit of president joe biden's recent speech from south carolina, where he discussed the american dream in the context of his economic agenda. [video clip] >> i am not here to declare victory on the economy. i am here to say we have a plan that is turning things went quickly. we have a lot more work to do. when i came to office, we had a fund and -- a fundamental decision. would we continue down a trickle-down economy? saw jobs shipped overseas, towns hollowed out. when i ran, i promised we would not continue down the trickle-down path. here is the simple truth about trickle-down economics.

it represented a moment where we walked away from how this country was built. bidenomics is another way of saying, restoring the american dream. 40 years of trickle down limited the dreams at the top. i believe american -- every american who works hard should be able to get a job, no matter where they live in every part of the country. two raise their kids on a good paycheck, keep their roots where they grew up, that is the american dream. my dad used to have a -- it is more than the pay check. it is about respect. it is about looking your kid in the eyes and saying, it is going to be ok. that is bidenonmics. investing in america. when you invest in our people, when you strengthen the middle class, we see stronger, economic

growth that benefits everybody. my mom said, it has never been a good bet to bet against america. it has never been, i have never been more optimistic about america's future. host: that was president joe biden speaking on the american dream from his recent speech in south carolina. our question for you today, how do you define the american dream? do you think the opportunities are better or worse compared to your parents generation, do you think your kids may have better or worse opportunities then you had? we want to hear from you. democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are going to go to kingston, new york now. bruce is on the democratic line.

bruce? caller: yes. good morning. it is a great scene this morning, after the fourth of july. it is slightly slanted with a politicized version of the question, that paints it towards the negative. i do not have many people calling in and expressing any kind of utopian or optimistic or even positive idea of what they think the american dream is. most of it is economic in what you are sharing. in a country built on the pursuit of happiness, it is kind of a segmented and regional question these days. i think the american dream as it

originated was opportunity for everybody, is certainly a very divided question. to begin with, it runs its gamut from disneyland to poverty. from fantasy to reality. i think the material side of the globe itself, climate change, everything, leaves everybody to a more pessimistic understanding of whether it is passive or active in their attitude. i do not think you can blame the american dream on that. the question is, is the american dream alive and are you participating in it? i think that is a tough question for many people in this country. host: how would you answer it, bruce? is the american dream alive and are you participating in it? caller: i feel we will be squeezed even by the easy pasts

of turnkey people, invisible ownership where we are getting more and more away from a connected community and we are being told all the time that social media is tying us together. i feel more isolated, away from things. i am 72 years old, i am seeing things from a historic perspective. i feel things are being stretched very thin in terms of how we participate in our own community. although, the illusion of connection seems to be there. i think there is good reason to wake up every morning and put your hand in your pocket every day, it is hard to think idealistically about what the american dream really is. if you put it in global perspective, the american dream is to maintain, sustain freedom in this world and protect democracy with all our heart and soul. i do not think people are

thinking about it that way. they are personally thinking about their own material situation. host: all right, bruce. appreciate that call. let's go to norcross, virginia. harry is on the independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. first off, before i speak, i wanted to see if anybody had seen american requiem -- had seen requiem for a dream. in the 1960's, republicans figured out the reason -- and the corporate donors -- figured out that the reason the democrats were succeeding so well was because they had all these foundations. the rockefeller foundation, the ford foundation, these were people who were working to donate to the democratic party.

the coke brothers, all the families set up the federalist society. they started setting up all their own foundations. their idea was that we were suffering from an excess of democracy in the 1960's. all of a sudden, the supreme court seem to be handing out rights that the corporate elite wished were not going to the people. what happened was, they managed to get more republicans on the court. ronald reagan came around and started this war against unions. if you look what happened -- globalization sending all the jobs to china, getting what we call trade agreements that are really corporate friendly agreements for trade, sore

corporations -- so corporations can go to other countries and get deals there. host: all right. caller: i was going to say, i went to college in the 1970's. it was $200 for a semester. now, it is $10,000 a semester. the government, state and federal governments no longer support the -- colleges. everything has happened to work against the common person. again, would recommend to google "requiem for the american dream." it is a good movie and explains exactly what has happened over the last 40 years. host: our next caller is tony in north, virginia. -- nor folk, virginia.

republican line. caller: good morning. i thought i was excited to say everything, but at first caller that pointed out to the listeners that the term, the american dream -- ok, you put that before me today. i think i want to ask you to explain to me what is the american dream. i feel like that is what causing us all to be frantic. to me, i think as long as you can keep your family together, help them as long as you can, love them as long as you can and get their ideas off material things. like the man said, younger generation think -- that is the american dream. host: all right, tony. let's go to the independent line

now. clarence is calling from maryland. caller: hello? host: yes, good morning. how do you define the american dream? caller: i hope what i am going to say fits in with this. to start with, i am 86 years old. i have seen an awful lot in these years. but, my dream right now is to see this administration running this country out. they are, in my eyes, are going to ruin this country. host: tell me what you have seen that makes you think the current administration might be a detriment to the american dream. caller: i think they are absolutely stupid. biden come in, the first thing he wanted to do was cut the fuel. he caused -- that is what caused the diesel fuel, everything that man has done in my eyes is

ruining this country. host: alrighty. next caller, john in east hampton, massachusetts, independent line. caller: first, please stop calling it the democratic line when you call it for the democrats. the american dream is a chance for everyone, an equal chance to succeed, not a leg up with affirmative action. if you want to see a movie, see the sound of freedom. i am curious why there is six whistleblowers on the biden crime family -- host: john, stay on topic. american dream. caller: the american dream is everyone having the equal chance, so if someone comes forward as a whistleblower, it

doesn't matter if they are republican or democrat, or a woman that says they got raped by the president -- the statute of limitations on, tara reid has to move to russia. believe all women, thank you. host: just for clarity, democrat is a noun. democratic is an adjective. that is why i say, people are calling on the democratic line. because they have identified themselves as democrats. tom, fort myers, florida. democratic line. go ahead. caller: i am a proud democrat, thank you. i think the president is doing -- president biden has it right, the american dream is a job initially. you get a job, you earn a salary, you get -- which allows you to have a family. the ability to send this family,

your children off to a decent school to get a good education so they can move ahead. they can do better than you. i have to say, to me, the concept of the american dream comes from our immigrant -- we are a country of immigrants. to me, the american dream is defined by new immigrants coming into the united states. your very first caller, that fellow from new york, whose italian father came over from italy and raised his family. his family and a lot of americans, that was another era. the american dream, swaying americana is still alive today. they are coming from different places with the same thing. they want to work.

they want to get into the economic system of work, start a family, send their kids to good schools and move ahead. it is rather simple. the unfortunate part is, we are seeing a lot of negativity in these calls this morning. people should recognize that. they have seen it in their own lives. it is still alive today and they deny it. the democrat, that does not mean i am for open borders as they like to say and allow everybody to come in. no. i am for people coming in here orderly. keeping that alive, that is the pipeline for america. that is the american dream. new people coming in. now, i can not stop without saying, for african-americans

that came over initially, that was not the same dream, unfortunately. that was our original sin. we have had to deal with it for 400 years. the fact of the matter is, we did deal with it. african-americans toughed it out. they found their own way for a american dream, fighting through it all. moving ahead, advancing. it is a different immigrant story for them. nonetheless, they are here and they have thrived. that is the good news. host: all right, tom. we are going to move on now to charles in neptune, new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: doing well. how do you define the american dream, charles? caller: the american dream is still alive, just barely, because of this administration.

you see what we are paying or gas -- for gas and fuel. everything is based on fuel, getting produce to market. what you pay to heat your house, what you pay in premiums. it is still alive, but this administration wants to hand out stuff for free, which you do not get nothing for free. the only thing you get free is you breathe the air you breathe in. somebody is going to pay for this eventually. my children, my grandchildren. you want to come into this country, come in to it legally. pay state taxes, federal taxes, unemployment taxes. if you do not pay into the system, you are never going to get that dream because you are struggling more and more, whether you are black, white, pink, green or gray. you are going to pay more. that means you have less disposable income to pay for

things. that is what it comes down to. when you have less disposable income, you cannot buy that dream house that you have been working for. it took me 10 years to save $10,000 to buy my first home. i am 64 now, i have had it since 2008, me and my wife. this is what you do. you work for what you get. you cannot afford it? get a part-time job. do not put your hand out and think people are going to pay your way the rest of your life to sit home, like cory booker said -- we will pay you $1000 to sit at home and do nothing. you receive $12,000 a year to do nothing. everybody has to pay into the system. host: all right, charles. before we get to some more of your calls, i want to introduce one more data point. this is a different poll by go daddy, this is a yahoo! article

about that poll. the headline, american dream defined by comfort, happiness and freedom by small business owners in go daddy study. i want to go to the data points in this poll. this is a poll of u.s. small business owners and their perception of the american dream. it says that almost three quarters, 74 percent of u.s. small business owners say their perception of the american dream has changed. small business owners today defined their achievement of the american dream as living a comfortable lifestyle. 56% feeling happy with their life, 54% in having the freedom to pursue their passion and interests. 49%, some of the other top responses, owning your own home. 45%, being your own boss. 39%, having money/assets to

leave to your child. early 4%. this is a slightly different bowling, small business owners by go daddy. our question is for you. how do you define the american dream? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8002. we are on that democratic line right now. carl in manhattan, new york. caller: good morning, dear. i would like to say these things. i am a black american, not an african-american. i am a retired, union carpenter. i worked from 1971 with my apprenticeship and raised my kids, retired in 2012. now, as far as the american

dream for me, this country -- when the white immigrants came from overseas in 1869, lincoln gave away 270 acres to these people west of the mississippi. check out what i am saying. i am saying that to say this. lack people could not vote -- black people could not vote, could not buy houses. you had to realize what was actually going on. the supreme court, the process of taking away the comfort of the american dream. the american dream is a white thing, like ppp. they gave away millions to people, nobody had to pay it back. host: let me ask you a question.

i hear what you are saying. do you think under those circumstances, do you think you have more opportunities then your parents? do you think that your children will have better opportunities then you? caller: i am not complaining about my lifestyle. i am complaining that you try to make it look equal and it is not equal. it is not intended to be equal. do you know, in 1859, the united states government entitled every white person to oversee black people? that is why they feel like they do now. it is going on right this day. would you know they had a thing in 1869 called the casual chilling at, which said if --

casual killing act, if a white person was to kill me, they would not be charged with a felony? i am not trying to be a racist, i am trying to tell people what is actually going on. host: appreciate your call. we are going to go to the democratic line. cynthia is calling from chickamauga, georgia. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? host: doing well. how do you define the american dream, cynthia? caller: i would defined the american dream -- to me, to mean that all people, no matter what race or color are treated the same and fairly by the judiciary system. when we as parents chastise -- reasonably chastise our children, that we do not go to

jail for it. you are giving children power over parents. my american dream would be, redo.all right, cynthia. host: -- host: all right, cynthia. i want to read responses from social media. this is rob on facebook, who answers the question by writing, providing a better life for your family then you had. moses writes, having a go at one's dream without hindrances based on an individual's ethnicity and skin color, political officiate should -- political affiliation and religious beliefs, something the republican party hate to hear. deborah writes, at this point, it is just to survive and hope you do not get seriously ill and

go into crippling medical debt. let's face it, it is not a dream anymore. it is a waking nightmare. lee writes, being able to live a happy and productive life, may be having a house in a white picket fence is a part of it but somehow, my generation has had less mobility in terms of getting there. we can thank the democrats and republicans that sold america to wall street. sonny, government stays out of my life, period. this administration is in my personal space like none before in my 63 years. again, this is some of what we received on facebook regarding the american dream. we to hear more from you. here is greg in huntsville, alabama, republican line. what are your thoughts? caller: first of all, good morning. this is awesome. i love hearing everybody's opinion on this. it is a little gloom and doom.

i am going to give you a quick scenario. at 11 years old, i started cutting grass. i snuck into a swimming pool and a fellow ran me out of the apartment complex. i was a mature looking 11-year-old. not a lot of lawn companies. i told him, his grass was high. how about i cut your grass and swim in your pool? it start there. i never quit with that extra income. i was in a family without a lot of money as a kid. i always cut to get that extra money and always worked another job. i lettered in three sports, got out of school and there used to be great programs. the government had a great program. a friend of mine when does -- was selling their house, $350,000 in 2021.

there is your opportunity for homeownership. that is a good government program with little risk to the lender because it was -- you could easily put it up for sale and someone takes it over. i rented the other two rooms in that house and i never made a payment on it myself. my two buddies split what their rent was and paid for my house. i ended up saving my money, buying another house. i continue to try to live the american dream, not because i am white, black, purple, pink, indian. it does not matter. i kept my feet moving. the american dream is still there. it may be more difficult. we cannot achieve the american dream. life has been good. my wife, we ended up with a small room. she was 31 years in the dance business. we know everybody in the town. she worked hard, so hard. i ended up building a company, we still work outside. we irrigate and drainage.

it has become a terrific business. i was able to fulfill my american dream of having a family and sending them to college. it was a struggle at times, but the struggle keeps you appreciating when you do achieve things. sometimes, i think people lucite -- lose sight. i went to school in a black school. my middle school was predominantly black, made a lot of friends. it was different to their plight in life. a lot of single-parent households. number one developer of wealth in this country is marriage. a lot of single-parent households, stressful relationships. a lot of those achieved, and a lot of them did not. if you live in a project, not a lot of lawns next door to cut. but, there is other things to be done. if you can live within your means, you can build your american dream. it is not impossible.

my insurance went from $700 to $2100 a month. even at my age, i have had to work more because things cost more. you cannot complain about your politicians. you have to vote. host: got your point. appreciate your call. let's go to caldwell in baltimore, maryland. independent line. caldwell? are you there, caldwell? all right, we are going to see if we can get caldwell back on the line. let's try joan in st. clair, michigan. independent line. caller: good morning. nice to watch the show. i think we can establish a correlation in the diminishment of the american dream with the diminishment of the nuclear family. 40 years ago, 60 years ago, 80

years ago, people worked together as a family. you had a father in the house, you had a mother. everybody worked hard. when it snowed outside, the kids grab the snow shovels, wind down the streets and shoveled to make a few that is the way the american dream was established with all of these immigrants coming over. my grandparents cannot even laugh in english let alone speak it. they made it through hard work. my grandfather dug ditches. the elimination of the family and people not pulling together as it team working together. today between drugs, booze, gambling, teen pregnancy it is destroyed the american dream because our morals and our family has been destroyed.

host: brandon from columbus ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. i do not think the american dream has been destroyed. the american dream is similar to the previous gentleman although there is a lot more effort as far if you were black versus white. not to make it about race. my wife is german and jewish. for me, their american dream is always we say the pledge of allegiance at a school. you would have your mother, your

father two parent household. divorce was frowned upon. you would have two kids. he will go to college. i played three sports, football, basketball, and track and lettered in all three metoo state in two and then you go to college -- and lettered in state at two and the little college, buy your house and so forth. you see the difference in the fact that today the republican party which i have been republican my whole life. my father was a republican.

my mom was a democrat. my wife is a democrat. we counsel each other out. the fact we live together and not have issues and that is a difference between back then and now. host: rig going to have to wrap up but we appreciate your call and all the responses we have received this morning. we'll take a quick break. up next, university of maryland joshua shifrinson and atlantic cancel daniel fried discuss the russia ukraine war and previewed next week nato summit. later no labels national co-chair bridge much a visit discusses his group potential role -- benjamin chavis says his group neutral role.

♪ >> from 1966 to 1970 six, china experience a cultural revolution. millions of chinese were killed and tens of millions persecuted by the chinese government be enemies of the state. tonight on q&a, guardian newspaper editorial writer and former china correspondent shares or book written memory that profiles people targeted. >> i have begun to move against

people -- mao had begun to move against people he wanted out of the way and he issued a notification that told people in the top ranks, i believe we have been corrupted. we got revisionists within the ranks. we have to root them out and this is a problem that goes right to our society, through culture. it has to be a fundamental change. the red guard group which had begun to spring up tentatively with -- given the mark of so it really lights the fuse on the revolution. it makes it a beijing wide and soon universal matter. >> read memory tonight 8 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a and the felicity q&a and our podcast on our c-span now app.

>> on the c-span network the house and senate are both in and the house with debate and vote on the annual defense programs and policy bill in the senate considers president by the executive and judicial nominations. tuesday homeland security government affairs subcommittee on permanent investigations where testimony from top pga officials on the merger between pga tour and ;iv t -- liv tour. wednesday christopher wray testifies before the house judiciary committee is the buddhas as asian -- the laws asian -- but a causation. head over to c-span better work for said elaboration or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span your footer view of government.

>> c-span's campaign 2020 four coverage a front row seat the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span your own view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are joined this morning by university of maryland associate professor joshua shifrinson and atlantic cancel daniel fried. we discussed president joe biden upcoming trip to the annual nato summit held in lithuania.

the security options nato might consider to support ukraine and a terror feature russian aggression. good morning to you both. josh, tell us a bit about this nato summit, what are the items on the agenda? guest: this is a nato summit that is occurring in the wake of a second ear the russia ukraine war and russian aggression against ukraine. the key question has to do with the feature russian aggression. how do you support ukraine in the face of russian aggression and given nato has been on the hard defense task and it let linger a bit after the cold war, how do you rebuild an effective nato defense? host: thank you. why the biggest topics -- i see here you are a former ambassador to poland, and nato country,

what are the biggest topics to guarantee long term security for ukraine? can you lay out the view in washington, what is the position in america on ukraine joining nato? is it different from other european allies. guest: back in 2008, nato decided someday ukraine would become member of the alliance and that is the short and right answer for how to guarantee security in europe bring ukraine into nato. the button and administration has been slow -- biden administration has been slow to advance this but they are moving.

putin's work in ukraine means ukraine should not be love in gray zone of insecurity. needs to be brought in the alliance as poland was and lithuania. host: i want to get your take on this but before i do i want to promote our phone lines because we want you to call in with your questions for ambassador fried or professor joshua shifrinson or your comments about national security international affairs. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. republicans, 202-748-8001. josh, what is your view on the matters? do you think nato needs to be taken steps now to admit ukraine? guest: the ambassador and i disagree -- understand 2008 promised submission into nato

but the future -- possibility of taking ukraine to the alliance presents dangerous possibilities for the u.s. the biden administration has signal to the current conflict it is not willing to fight for ukraine today. by extending ukraine to -- nato in the future says i am willing to fight for you in the future. those are scary possible to so much more reluctant and concerned about the possibility of ukraine to nato. guest: as josh said, we have a different take on that. i think the united states -- u.s. interest will be advanced if ukraine is in the alliance because countries in the alliance tends to not be intact -- attacked by russia. outside of the alliance, ukraine has been attacked twice. you carrying -- bring ukraine in

will help to prevent a war. leaving ukraine out that he tries again. you can defend ukraine. u.s. has pledged to defend poland, lithuania, estonia and defendant ukraine is easier than defending estonia . we can do it and it is in our interest. host: you are among 46 foreign policy experts who sent an open op ed publish in "politico" magazine about the roadmap to ukraine. asserting the washington post this morning and on the front page the headline, ukraine at the center of nato divide. it says in the second paragraph, two increasingly divisive issues are expected to dominate the summit in lithuania were biden would travel between stops in

london and hill in. --helinski, ukraine desire to join the alliance in installed to do the same -- and swedens talle dto do the same. why is the stall controversial? guest: the problem is ukraine -- can you cite turkey and hungary have been outliers in the alliance have been holding up sweden's membership aspirations because they want to extract diplomatic and economic political concessions. there is a hold on swedish membership right now. if you are blocking the process -- a few countries are blocking the process. host: do you think it will be solved, ukraine or sweden, will be solved in the summit coming

up? guest: sweden possibly. ukraine will certainly not receive an actual invitation. there's a good argument not to give ukraine an invitation while the hot phase of the wars going on. the question is will data be clear about ukraine ultimate destination. are they part of the european entrance onto a family or are they stuck on the outside waiting for putin to try again? guest: there are two different issues. ukraine occupies real estate and russia has made it clear willing to fight and die for the sake of keeping ukraine out of the nato orbit. it is not whether ukraine can defend but u.s. and others are willing to pay for the privilege of stopping russian aggression. right now the answer is little because taking ukraine tomato risking a conflict russia is world war iii.

while it is helpful to say that the terms will hold and will not need to defend ukraine, it is a gamble. forgot how hard it was during the cold war. guest: this another way to look at this. if ukraine is on the outside of nato is worth putting a sign around her neck -- we are playing a sign around the neck saying come and get me when you're ready, russia. ukraine and nato is less likely to get attacked by russia. ukraine is easier to defend them estonia and latvia because it is bigger. ukrainians have defended themselves on their own. we can do this. host: you guys the division here as far as ukraine and nato but i know we got calls. want to see what questions or comments are "washington journal" viewers have for you all. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

independents, 202-748-8002. robert on the republican line from washington. what is your question or comment? caller: i just cannot see anything happening from the democratic party. biden is too old, everyone sees that. why do they ignore things like that? he's a rug where american but i can see that he is too old -- a regular american but i can see he is too old and he takes no questions from anyone and that is really bad. he could be a russian spy,

european spy, or china spy. host: we got your point. i will let you answer this, daniel. guest: president biden is 80 years old. he is shrewd. he's has experience and knows what he's doing the fact that he came of age in the administration of jfk is a plus. he is handling the whole issue of nato summit and ukraine membership in nato is get their methodical fashion. yeah, demonstration has been slow, but they have not been stupid. debbie methodical about this and they're moving in the right direction. he is certainly no russian agent. he has given putin a hard time in ukraine. host: southwick, massachusetts,

gregg on the independent line. caller: good morning. all of this -- you seem to start the history of ukraine with russia invading. was in the agreement between the two beforehand and ukraine violated the agreement? that is all i have to ask. guest: it is hard to say it would agreement you are referring to. we were talking post-cold war of guarantees giving to ukraine to push ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons which narrated did not control but inherited following the break of the soviet union. in that sense, no, ukraine did not violate the agreement. russia violated the agreement. u.s. follow-through on the agreement and took the issue before the u.n. russia has a veto there. guest: the professor is right.

ukraine give up its nuclear weapons based on the guarantees including from russia to respect its territorial integrity back in 1994. i was there in budapest when it was signed with president clinton and russia violated it. host: bradley in marietta, georgia on the democratic line. caller: yes, i will start with saying the democratic party is the one holding this alliance together with nato with zero help from the republicans. if you're talking russian spies are assets, apparently russia grew beachfront for a long time. g --rooming trump for a long time. i'm tired of putin. they are gangsters. they're not a country and now is a time to stand up to them.

do whatever it takes to support ukraine and if russia wants -- whatever russia wants to do, will do it with them because i'm tired of them pulling everybody, killing people with chemical weapons. this is a criminal network and they have been corrupted by the public and party and it is a disgrace. -- the republican party and it is it a -- a disgrace. guest: i do have much good to say about former president trump to russia or putin -- i did not have much good to say about former president trump to russia or putin. there are a lot of republicans who are staunch in their defense of freedom and ukraine in the face of russian aggression. steve begin, pumpkin, former deputy secretary of state, wrote a strong op-ed supporting

ukraine membership to nato. the debate about ukraine and nato is not a republican democratic debate. it is a debate within both parties and a split within the republican party between video -- neo greagon group and the trump group. guest: i'm nothing good to say about former president trump handling of nato except on one very narrow issue which is before we say anti-nato it is point to remember under his demonstration were two other countries in the alliance and continue the efforts to bolster deterrence and supporting ukraine's budgetary reform. it was under his demonstration. host: he did not stand in the way because u.s. could've have veto powers? guest: correct.

those are u.s. program so he could have stopped it. host: ray calling for michigan on the republican line. caller: ukraine had a chance to join nato but they do not want to anger putin. they decided not to join. why is the united states spending trillions of dollars to defend the nation that not want to defend themselves? they say they fight for it but they would not join nato. it is time for the u.s. to start taking care the people in their own -- in their own country because they are not capable of running their own government. they just keep the nose out of that. that is what is wrong with the

country now because maybe the biden's has to much on ukraine, they do not want ukraine to be talking to republican congress. host: all right, ray, will that our panelists respond. guest: u.s. is not spending trillions. is allocating several billions of dollars of aid to ukraine and has done so for the last 10 years now. it is important to clarify ukraine has often wanted and saw to joining the alliance. ukraine has clearly signal it wants to join the alliance. the question becomes as ukraine showed ability to defend itself, there does pose a question of what is the value of adding

tomato, --to nato? host: we have heard from a couple of callers, we know that in congress which determines the pressure rings of federal spending, suppose you with republicans there is more of a divide these days about continuing aid to ukraine. what is your position? do you think u.s. should start turning off this ukraine or do you think needs to sustain assistance to the country as it defend yourself? -- it itself? guest: the great advantage to send a to ukraine as the country defends itself. this is a terrific investment. it helps the united states and sends a lesson to the chinese about american determination to support beleaguered democracies.

it is a terrific investment in security. host: josh, do you agree with the investment and if so, how would you explain it to the listeners or the viewers who are starting to become skeptical like many conservatives about sustained spending? guest: i agree investing in ukraine's future, helping ukraine rebuild its defense industry is a low cost and effective solution. it is important to clarify that russia is not as much as with threat to european area as people would claim. the shot itself unable to defeat his weaker neighbor -- it is showed itself unable to defeat its weaker neighbor. i support continue aid to ukraine. joe the line at taking ukraine into nato. -- i draw the line at taking ukraine into nato. host: i want to ask about other

foreign policy things that may come up. this is this morning's new york times talking about the collapse of the government in the netherlands. i want to read a bit from the article. the headline, dutch crisis shows power of migration politics. the collapse of the dutch coalition government over a proposed refugee policy has once again underscored the pond to see of immigration as an arbiter of europe's politics and how stopping far right parties from capitalizing on it is a growing problem for mainstream politicians. the current crisis in the netherlands precipitated by its conservative prime minister mark rutte who at after his partners refused to back his tough new policy on refugees. this is very breaking. which one of you want to help

people, the netherlands is a nato country, even though -- when a country nato country seizes government collapse, how does that affect the discussion when all these nations come together? guest: it will not affect the nato summit but immigration is a divisive issue in europe as it is in u.s. these are tough issues. europeans are wrestling with the fact that they cannot be ethnically homogeneous nationstates if they ever were. america has with the same question. -- wrestles with the same question. our view universal nation as abraham lincoln taught us? are

-- or our we a white man republic? europeans are having their own debate about it. it is a tough debate. i think the ark of american history shows despite regression, the kind of native this, anti-immigrant reaction in u.s., similar in europe we do move ahead towards our american ideal of universalism. we become -- lincoln taught us to become americans when we embrace declaration of independence possible that all are created equal. he taught us that. guest: i am agreeing with the ark of the american history and the overall narrative. netherland and europe that it reflects i think we're seeing a problem for european system

because of their very generous social spending problems. as an aggressor arrive, governments involved are required to -- as immigrants arrived, governments are required to help or forced to turn them back which i just a notion of the u.s. this generous multiethnic friendly way of the international business. i think we see more these divisions going for and over time it is possible we seek gun versus butter truth. host: china was not a nato country but we know there is concern about a china among the nato alliance. i want to note that treasury secretary janet yellen is in china. this is from the new york times writing about her urging beijing to aid developing countries'

climate battle. we know there's a lot of security concern about china and china's role in russia ukraine conflict. josh, what do you think -- how would china be a factor in this upcoming summit? guest: nato has given more attention to china as adversary, as a competitor the last eight years. part of the russia ukraine war, china as the premier adversary. do the momentum has stopped and it is clear russia is the main focus of nato. but many other european countries are worried over chinese investment in your pink economies. we're going to see conversations of how china is aiding or not aiding the confusion of the war or possible supplement. china will be a major actor on the sideline, a topical conversation but not the focal point. guest: i think that is right.

putin was the will of the international system. at the china wants to exploit it and rewrite it. american policy for russian china has to be different. the biden administration is wisely trying to stabilize that relationship without giving china license for aggression anywhere. host: if you have any questions for our panelists or comments about international policy or the upcoming nato summit, give us a call. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. marine in new jersey on the independent line. caller: good morning. i cannot believe i got in on the

first ring, but i was wondering about ukraine being brought into nato during the summit by george bush during the dinner that her two hours long discussion. it is been a hard line of russian security concerns but -- with ukraine and georgia joining nato. i was wondering your thoughts about that given that warmonger henry kissinger like no, absolutely no leader will ever go for that and yet we continue to do so. they say we do not renege on the deal even though it is in the national archives in the nose. -- the notes. guest: united states never made a promise to global trough not

to enlarge nato. he himself said so. the issue with ukraine emerge up in nato is whether ukraine will be subject to russian domination. if ukraine is under russian thumb that ms. concentrate camps, murder putting away, repressing all the ukrainian teachers and writers and we know this because it is what russia has been doing in ukraine that it occupies. if you do that if you leave ukraine outside and signaled to putin that he has a greenlight, your giving put in a greenlight and that has nasty consequences. meka has an interest in not letting dictators -- that is

what is at stake. there are ways other than nato to help ukraine but they are all in -- inferior to actually stopping the issue and bringing ukraine into the alliance. i was at the summit with president bush. he tried any failed. the french and german a posted but the french are now singling forward movement and to proceed not was an invitation for ukraine to join nato but strategic clarity and i think that is what is needed. guest: a few points. i was the one that thought the documents. while he said nothing formal was offered, medics mentioned later on violated the spirit of the issue. i think there was a promise that was made. to the issue of

ukraine, it is a to print countries from falling into dictatorships. to prevent concentration camps and prevent humor right abuses. where she has signaled it is willing to fight for ukraine. we need to grapple with as americans at will cost or willing to stop this problem. i'm not willing to do so at the risk of world war iii. america has an interest in not letting dictators rampage around europe. europe is safe and secure. guest: if russia is weak like josh says, that means defendant ukraine is easier. host: spirited debate. to boston, doug on the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the caller stole my thunder. i was going to ask your panelists about the promise made

by james baker to gorbachev in return for the reunification of germany, nato promises not to go one inch eastward. it seems like that promise should not been taken -- it have been taken lightly. the antigens of nato -- intentions of nato it is to russian related to yugoslavia to break it into its component parts. have a nice day. thank you. host: anything you want to add? guest: do not blame nato for russia's aggression. putin started this war for no good reason and by the way, while we're on the subject, before the war, german chancellor goes to moscow and he says to putin, we will block

ukraine entry into nato forever if you do not launch the war. putin wants to war anyway. --launched the war anyway. it is about ukraine's existence as an independent country. the best way to stop because aggression is to draw the line and say we are done with ambiguity. guest: these two issues, the question of the promise and german offer for the war broke out are intimately related. 1990 gorbachev took assurances did not get it in writing. now right before the war there is an offer to verbally promises the russians that they do not want to take offered. for me one, shame on me. for me twice, shame on you dynamic. guest: i do not think that history is accurate.

you read memoirs about the discussions come it is not actually a promise. let's be clear about the consequences. if we had not brought the baltic countries into nato, they'll be occupied by russia today. it would brought pollen into nato, nato would've attacked it -- if we had not brought poland into nato, russia would've attacked it. -- country live in security into that they have gained prosperity. this is an american policy success. we utter memo that as we debate ukraine -- ought to remember that as we debate ukraine. guest: policies working to they do not. think where -- i think we are reaching the limits. host: i hear you have fundamental differences in whether there were promises made to russia. he said he found promises in the archives.

you say in the writing and others that there was no clear promise. that is clearly a sticking point here. denver, colorado, kyle calling on the public in line. caller: hello. host: the of a question or comment, kyle? -- do you have a question or a common, kyle? ok. lorraine in at the cut -- at the new york. caller: i'm concerned about the positive assessment i see on the news. when i look at the map it looks like a lot of territories conceded already but when you hear the news reports and here government reports, it seems so

positive and ukraine can win and is winning. it seems to me it has the opposite effect of helping the public feel more in support aid because we can win, they will win, it is sort of like the old movies during world war one and two were we got movies in movie theaters that helped us stay positive about winning the war and i wonder where you think that i look at the maps on the news, it looks like the territory is gone but the assessment and discussion is always about how we are about to win. what do you think of that? thank you. guest: your paint your finger on an important problem. the battlefield's card for attackers to deal with and now russia is entrenched stuff in it

in ukraine and ukrainians for all their efforts are facing a hard to find. it is the reason why ukraine is able to defend his territory and the initial onslaught. i am with you. we are facing limits to what ukrainian military can do to reclaim his territory and any gains that come are costly. guest: i do not know how the war will end but i know how it will not in. it will not end with the russian victory and conquest of all of ukraine. how much of its territory will ukraine when back? what do we do? in the end, germany, west germany tornado 19 through five when one third of the country -- west germany 1995 when whether the country was under territory. these are the challenges nato u.s. government are going to face. guest: yes west germany into the

alliance and able to be defendant but we forget how scary the cold war was. how hard it was to figure out the liquid military solutions to defend west germany. it required thousands of troops and nuclear weapons the play west germany to defend, deter soviet aggression. best reply we do that with ukraine, it to gain? -- what is the gain? guest: the gain is security and in europe. ukraine has proven itself able to defend itself handily without massive numbers of u.s. troops. i do not think it is necessary. these are fair questions but the biggest strategic question remains, is ukraine a part of our family or relieve it outside to be swallowed up by putin when he thinks he can? guest: iva big family by do not

invite all my aunts and uncles to live with me. host: let's go back to the phone lines. christine in kentucky, independent line. caller: i have two questions. isn't there anything we can do with israel and the iron dome defense or is that a lost cause for ukraine? we have seen the wagner revolt, as etta voss flight operation from putin -- is there a possibility of that being a false flag operation from putin? host: who was her take the israel question? -- want to take the israel question? article with you, daniel. guest: the question is what kind of military hardware is best

suited for ukraine defense. are the countries that have that heart were willing to give it? i cannot go into the details. can i go into details of whether iron dome is best but if you general, ukraine needs among many other things antiaircraft systems. u.s. has done a good job supplying ukraine and ukrainians have been a excellent job defending their territory from russia attacks on civilians. this is a fair question. but it is a general one and it is something the biden the administration has been working with on his own and with allies. guest: i'm not qualified to comment on whether it is a false flag operation but i will say putin seemed concerned. seem to suggest there taken the problem serious. host: asserting this morning -- i was reading this morning russian media has lately been

maligning, putting a negative spin on wagoner leader. they seem to be all in on viewing that revolt negatively in russia's state media. let's hear from john in tennessee on the democratic line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. what is your question or comment? caller: my father fought in world war ii. i've fought in vietnam. my son fought as geithner in a stand. and iraq. i'm tired having of seeing politicians with their big mouths get us into all sorts of

battles over the world. the military gets involved because we are the powerful arm the united states. our lives are sacrificed for what? for a war we cannot win since world war ii? the united states is not -- has not won any type of war since world war ii. that is because there will not let the military do is job and finish the war. that is my comment. host: josh, in response? guest: just to say thank you and your family for your service and i agree military intervention is a real risk and i think before we commit lives, the to be clear about the interest are and how far we are willing to go. guest: i would add one thing, it makes a big difference whether a

country we are trying to help or want to help fight for itself. ukrainians are proven they will. it was not as clear in afghanistan or vietnam. the ukrainian example shows they are willing to fight themselves. that ought to figure into the calculations. host: back to the phone lines. tennessee going to nashville, richard on the independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, gentlemen. i'm a vietnam veteran and i agree with the gentleman before and thank god for your family service for us. the problem i have and it is political but what bothers me is i believe we do need to be in ukraine. i do not believe we need to have u.s. troops on the ground. i do not believe we need to have any equipment whether it is a missile or tank or heavy

equipment with u.s. name on it because there always is the nuclear think with russia or china but the problem i have if you remember, hitler's turned on salant and -- stalin. european nations would not be the free countries they are today. i believe going to our neighbors and helping them, we did before and we can do it again but the problem i have is when you look at the european nations, eastern europe, western europe, all of them, the smaller countries, why have they not since world war ii prepared their people for another invasion that you see now with russia and ukraine. when reagan was over there and they sit -- they tear down the wall, they did.

they were free for once. you go back into now and all those countries of russia, blonde to russia, they fell off and became independent. we as a cold war -- we as a world need to come together were there be a socialist, communist. i wonder why have they not built -- look at polish. they were hit hard by hitler's. we cannot allow that to happen. we'll be in world war iii but i want european nations to understand you are free because of one thing, those people in england and everyone else that were willing to fight for your freedom. here we are again decades later. we have to be there. it is the freedom of the world. host: daniel, what are your thoughts? guest: the caller makes a number

of valid points which with i agree. u.s. did save europe during world war ii and in the cold war. a lot of the european countries have forgotten that their security fence on the u.s. that depend on the u.s. some of them, poland and bought a countries, are realistic about the third from putin. the polish have increased defense spending to 4% of the gdp and they are right to do so. but a countries are doing the same. -- baltic countries are doing the same. implied in the question is germans need to increase the defense spending, i think putin invasion of ukraine has been shocked, they are wrestling with that now. the caller is right. europeans need to step up.

guest: the caller made an important comment that he does not support u.s. troops on the ground but supports taking ukraine to nato. nato article five requires members of the alliance to render all assistance deemed necessary. might want to say no u.s. trips on the ground but there's other problems u.s. could face. why have europeans not prepare themselves? because after the cold war u.s. encouraged dependency on u.s. this war has been a wake up call for the europeans. we are seeing greater conversation of strategic autonomy. host: the independent line, jan

calling from chicago. caller: i do not understand why no one mentions crimea was an independent country and ukraine invaded that independent country. crimea had succeeded from ukraine. the never longer belong to ukraine. now ukraine is invading russian territory. people seem to ignore that. these government officials of ukraine took over there elected government at gunpoint. host: i'm going to stop you because i want to let our panelists respond. daniel, you say she does not have a drive? guest: no, she does not.

crimea was not an independent country. it was invaded by the russians early 2014. they forced at gunpoint a fake referendum but it is ukrainian territory and ukraine is fighting to get back its own territory. that is just not true. guest: totally agree. crimea was put in kind under the 1960's and 2014 putin invaded in ukraine's most recent domestic evolution. host: david in kentucky on the republican line. caller: i have a couple points. one is on china and one is on ukraine. china, u.s. will never take any

action against china because to do so would you be economic suicide. bankruptcy would be in play for walmart, target, everything that is china. u.s. will never take any action against china because economic suicide. ukraine, gentlemen with a deeper voice, he says ukraine is doing a great job defending himself, they're not, the american taxpayer is defending ukraine, not ukraine defending themselves. as far as i'm concerned about where the money all goes, all over the world, they should ask of the taxpayer if it is ok to send the money to the countries before they take our money and do what they want to do with it. host: josh, i think he was referring to you. guest: i guess i have a deep voice all of a sudden. i agree with you is making finding that is keeping ukraine -- american funding keeping ukraine in the fight.

i will note chicago council poll found almost evenly split between those who want americans to give ukraine aid versus those who want to push ukraine to the bargaining table even if that meant territory concessions by ukraine. there's a growing consensus on this matter and i would like to see it go forward. host: daniel in virginia on the democratic line. what is your question or comment? caller: this is a very captivating conversation here and intrigued by it. you are a great job. i want to speak upon how the involvement of the ukraine war and russian war. my question to everybody here is sometimes when i order a number nine how come it is not bring duck sauce? host: i'm sorry, we lost him.

charlie in texas on aerobic online. caller: good morning. thank you gentlemen for giving your comments. my comment is let's say -- are we doing enough did we learn from world war ii about aggression? stepping up to dictators? also, are we doing enough to broadcast into russia the results of the ukraine war to try to affect the russian people? thank you for your comments. host: daniel, i will start with you. guest: that is a terrific point at the end. the u.s. has -- during the cold war u.s. ended up being

effective getting true and real news into the soviet union and we are trying to figure out how to do that in an era of internet censorship and it is actually there are things you can do. i think this is an excellent investment radio for europe and liberty and private organizations like national endowment for democracy. they are working at this and it is a good solid investment. guest: did we learn the right lessons from world war ii? i would argue we learned them too well. at everything is a fight against dictators -- not everything is a fight against dictators. i think it is a great idea but i would note that the ambassador to moscow and rci director said ukraine is the brightest of all redlines for all the russians.

is not clear having a different russian government would generate a different outcome. host: pasadena, california, jackie on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i had a question about -- ukrainian president is going all around the world, shaking hands, bowing his head, and his troops are in need of things. why doesn't he cash the diamonds and buy some shoes, socks, and ammunition for his people? host: i think what jackie is referring to is president zelenskyy has come to america and has traveled and people want extra nation, by does he travel so much when there is a war back

at home -- people want next nation, why does he travel so much when there is a war back at home? president zelenskyy has been a significant wartime leader traveling to keep up international support for ukraine. he also travels to the front lines. he took a chinese vote -- tiny vote over the black sea at risk for himself. ukrainians i know who do not support him before the war say there differences with them notwithstanding come has been a great wartime leader. it is not true he goes around the world and us towards. he's fighting for his country. just look at him. he is aged 20 years the past two years of war. he is not taking this lightly. guest: just to say, wartime

travel is common by presidents. churchill came to the u.s. of the arbiter the soviet union many times -- and fdr came to the soviet union many times. the article questioning what is the gain and benefit and should it spend elsewhere. as an important conversation to have. host: were almost at the end so i want to ask a quick question about the u.s. decision to send cluster munitions to ukraine. i have a cnn article about that and it says u.s. will send cluster munitions ukraine as part of a new military aid package, national security advisor jake sullivan confirmed friday. must a debate within the administration about whether to provide key with the weapons bound by over wonder countries including key u.s. allies.

was it the right decision? guest: yes. host: was it the right decision? guest: no. ukraine needs the cluster munitions. the russians are already using them. it was a tough call. host: why know? guest: u.s. is also claim the moral high ground. or using weapons that could be deadly to civilians. we maintain the moral high ground there ought to be things that are off the host: i appreciate you both for such a great conversation. joshua shifrinson and daniel fried. thank you for being here today. we are going to come back to our original question, which is, how

do you define the american dream? you can start calling in now. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ ♪ >> weekends review book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. fox news host judge jeanine puro shares her book, crimes against america, where she contends is

inviting and democrats are destroying the country. on after words, business journalist david daniel delray looks at walmart and its impact on the world economies. he is interviewed by eugene kim. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two to find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. ♪ ♪ >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling, nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the after words podcast. on q and a, hear conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book note plus episodes are weekly, our long conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing

industry with insider interest to -- insider interviews and bestseller lists. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at book tv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased award

forward -- unbiased, word for word. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with "washington journal" and we are on the question of the american dream. our question for you this morning is, how do you define the american dream, and do you think it is easier to achieve now then your parents had it? do you think your children will have an easier time accomplishing the american dream? as a reminder, democrats, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is leslie from anniston, alabama, republican

line. what are your thoughts, leslie? caller: the question is excellent. the biggest problem i see today is the debt of the corruption, deep-seated corruption throughout the entire federal government. i retired both from the military and the civilian department of defense. spent the last five years or so in washington, d.c. what is astonishing to me is the overarching corruption that exists in every facet of washington, not just in the government, the lobbyists, the defense industry, but within the government, within the private sector itself. i use the analogy of the aspen tree in colorado.

corruption spreads by the root, not by the seed pod. what you have in washington is a staggering depth of corruption. host: leslie, i want to stop you. make the connection. why do you think corruption in government affects the ability of individuals to achieve the american dream? caller: because, it dictates where the resources of the nation go. with $32 trillion debt, we are unable to tackle the major problems of the country. education, more and more investments in our andy, health care -- r & d, health care, these competitive needs in the country cannot be met when you are spending all this money on wars and private sector interests that are promoted by lobbyists.

host: understood. caller: competition host: host: forces. gotcha. thank you for your call this morning. ray is calling from napa, california. democratic line. go ahead, ray. caller: i was taught by my grandparents who lived in the great depression that you are supposed to leave the next generation a better life than your parents left you, meaning you vote the right way to help future generations and not vote for your own self-interest. we seem to have a lot of self interest going on lately. we are not doing the last -- the right thing. the last three generations are struggling. it is not going the way i think america planned on going. number two, a suggestion. i have been watching this show for over 20 years. it seems like sometimes you let the conservatives ramble on and on and on. like the guy just on, he was off point. you do not cut them off. you get somebody on their

talking about something important and nicking a point, and we lost them or he is gone. it seems like it is happening more and more. that is my opinion. i love c-span and "washington journal." thank you. host: appreciate your call. let's go to mary in west virginia on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i am so grateful for this conversation, to people of the same specific subject have varying -- have differing views. thank you for presenting this. i am responding to an earlier caller on the american dream, requesting some optimistic perspectives of what that could look like in the future.

the world dream, we have to understand there is no territory for aggression of any kind. within the arena of kindness. there is the other specific that everyone in the world won't speak -- it is in the pursuit of happiness that is in our constitution. we are not even talking about that, because that is what the american dream is based on, the pursuit of personal happiness. family happiness. business happiness. intergenerational happiness. there is a lot of subjects we are not discussing in the conversation. so, you know, i have a new boundary and it is called happiness ever now. that is to my lifetime pursuit of personal happiness. let me tell you, that has been such a journey. i hope to be a lot more positive about, so i can write about it. host: how are you going about that, mary? caller: well, i developed this

personal boundary this month. happiness ever now is actually a science and a skill that keeps me in kindness, because i just want to feel happy. i just want to be happy. i want people around me -- my lifetime, i have always given people and uplifting moment. that has always been my philosophy of life, to uplift the people around me. in the arena of kindness, there is no aggression. when the aggression is brought into a personal environment, happiness is gone. host: all right, mary. appreciate your call this morning. let's go to lexington, massachusetts. dorothy is calling on the independent line. caller: hello. my name is dorothy. i want to talk about how i can find the american dream. i believe that people can find

the american dream by figuring out what their strong points are and working in that direction and trying to make a career out of that direction. i found my strong point when i was in high school, way back in the early 1950's. i realized i was good at math. i ended up in high school, in a math class with being the only girl in the class. the rest of the room was full of boys. i ended up going to college and majoring in math in college. i got out, i had opportunities given to me in summer jobs to get into the pewter industry way back in the late 1950's. -- the computer industry way back in the late 1950's.

i worked in the computer field mostly eyehole career. i loved it. i think people need to find out what they are good at and go for it. and enjoy it. that is my opinion. host: all right, dorothy. let's hear now from david in denton, north carolina, democratic line. caller: yes, i am wondering how come the government -- overseas from russia and them, and people in our country is hungry, starving to death, sleeping on the streets? i get $1000 social security check a month. i have got to live off that. how come our government is taking people and not us in the united states? we are going to pause now to read a few more of the responses

received on social media. host: sonny rights, government stays out of my life, period. this administration is in my personal space like none before in my 63 years. joshua writes, seeing all leftist move to a different country. eugene, sandra duncan, seeing rightful politicians incarcerated. still waiting. john writes, the american dream is where you can make it on your own. your free -- you are free to make choices and mistakes. you are free from the burdens of dictatorship. one more, anna, freedom of speech in religion and to live without government interference. we want to hear from you. how do you define the american dream? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

we are back at the independent line right now. craig is calling from kirkland, washington. go ahead, craig. caller: good morning, thank you c-span for the excellent panel you just had. i just wanted to bring up the fact that, the term of the american dream, it is a nice way to keep the populace in check. i think everybody needs to wake up and understand that it is a phrase that people in power used to keep you dreaming and not keep you based in reality. the reality of everything is, nothing is going to be given to you. you have to work hard, that is part of the american dream. but, you cannot just wish upon a star and say -- i am thankful to be born in america. had i been born in japan, russia, germany, some other

country, i am proud to be an american. the american dream is what our forefathers set upon, a great experiment. we are systematically dealing -- delaying the six permit by not putting our best virtues forward for the people we vote for, the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis. while they may seem innocuous, are not the things you would want to do in order to achieve the american dream. as the utopian society that will never be achieved and its pierced form, but the sooner we get our heads out of our proverbial back ends, we will achieve it faster. thank you. host: let's go to cynthia in clearwater, florida on the independent line. caller: good morning, appreciate everyone's comments. i love your dress. [laughter] i am going to say, i feel like

there has been a restructuring of our economy that a lot of people are not really aware of. 40 years ago, corporations in america kept three things in balance. their shareholders, their customers and employees. overtimes, congress allowed corporations to -- people of for-profits move their manufacturing to facilities overseas for cheaper labor. what they did was leave americans with the choice of low-wage service jobs or trying to get an education at great, financial debt. so, kids with college educations over time almost end up having what low-wage workers met for an income. at least they do have a possibility of career growth.

so, if things have changed so much for americans to try to achieve the dream and we are the only country in the world that even has this dream -- if you other -- if you go to other western democracies, france, there is not a france dream. germany, there is not a german dream or australia. only in america, this dream exists. that was because of religious freedom, free speech and freedom from unnecessary government interference, which is what someone else distinctly said in one of your written comments. i also feel right now, our congress, whether democratic or republican, they have totally let the american people down because they are not having corporations have to be good citizens. we have health care that is or profit, education that is unaffordable now, and they are not raining in any of the social media companies because

corporations want americans to be distracted so they are not paying attention to how the deck is stacked against us now economically. i feel concern for younger generations trying to come up, because it is going to be harder and harder for them to advance towards their dreams. thank you. host: archie is next calling from fort oak, north carolina, republican mine. caller: yes. can i speak now? host: go ahead. caller: the last caller made some good comments about what the american dream should be about. pursuit of happiness and they write to make a living -- the right to make a living. nowadays, it is so much selfishness in every sector of the country. the government, private sector businesses. so many people are not looking for others. others behavior is affecting the

way people behave and do things. problem is, we need to get back to religious values based on christian values, where you do not think about self as much when you try to endeavor. the makeup of what our country is lacks moral values, which is guiding from the christian faith. host: let's go to sal, calling on the democratic line from lake city, south carolina. caller: yes. i think that american dream of this country is a great country. i worked hard and have done a lot of great things. america has helped me. but, most people are phased because of their misfortune in

life. a lot of them do not want to work. you should work for it and earn it like those people that want the government to pay their student loan. if you borrow that money and promised you were going to pay it back, you should pay the government back. you should not look for the government to give you money. you should pay it. he promised to pay it, you should pay the money back. get a job. there is jobs out here. work hard. i am going to say this and it is going to be it. there is a lot of whites, especially -- they are poor, but they do not know it, especially those people that vote republican. they are poor, but they do not even know they are poor. biden is trying to help the people, you hear what i am saying?

biden is trying to help the poor people, which is a good thing. the country is on the right track. host: all right. we are going to leave it there and take a quick break. up next, no labels co-chair benjamin chavis will be discussing his group's potential role in campaign 2024. ♪ ♪ >> from 1966 to 1976, china experienced a cultural revolution. during that time, millions of chinese were killed and tens of millions were persecuted by the chinese government for being enemies of the state. tonight on q and a, guardian newspaper editorial writer and former china correspondent kenya branigan shares her book, read memory, which profiled several people who were targeted during this period and discusses the lasting impact of the old troll

revolution in china today. >> had begun to move people against the party that he wanted out of the way. he had also issued a notification that told people within the top ranks of the party, look, i believe we have been corrected. we have got revisionists within the ranks. we have to root them out. this is a problem that goes right through our society, right through culture. this has got to be a fundamental change. the red guard groups, which had begun to string up tentatively, were given the mark of lao's approval. it lights the fuse on the cultural revolution. it makes it not just a party matter, but a beijing wide and soon, a universal matter. >> jamie ratigan with her book, red memory. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and

our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in. the house will debate and vote on the annual defense program and policy bill. the senate considers president biden's executive and judicial nominations are tuesday, the senate homeland security and government subcommittee on permanent investigations will hear from top pga officials on the merger between the pga tour and the saudi back to live tour. lawmakers have expressed concern about the merger. wednesday, fbi director christopher wray testifies before the house judiciary committee as they examine the politicization of the agency. watch this week live on the c-span networks. or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of

government. "washington journal" continues. host: good morning. we are back with no labels national co-chair benjamin chavis, who is here to discuss the groups 2024 unity ticket "insurance option" for president and vice president if there is a rematch between president joe biden and former president donald trump. good morning, dr. chavis. guest: good morning. host: let's start by telling us a little bit about no labels, which you are a co-founder. we have in hearing a lot about it recently. can you remind our viewers, what is no labels? what is its mission? guest: thank you. no labels is 13 years old. it is a group of democrats, republicans and independents who are working together to promote

bipartisan, commonsense solutions to our nation's problems. i am very proud of the no labels helping to establish the problem solvers caucus in the congress of the united states, which is a bipartisan group of both republican and democrats who work together. that is how we got the infrastructure bill passed. that is how we got the chips bill, the debt ceiling agreement that was made was done bipartisan. we believe no labels mission is to promote bipartisan comments and solutions on the nation's problems. when it comes to 2024, we did some polling last year and earlier this year saying that most americans did not want to see just a repeat of what happened in 2020. as an insurance policy, we are getting access and altered the state of -- district of columbia. if after super tuesday next

march we find a pathway where there could be a unity ticket between a democrat and a republican or a republican and a democrat, but that pathway would have to show a clear pathway to win the majority of electoral college votes. if we do not see a clear pathway, then no labels will not put out a candidate. i know some people thought, it has been reported in some media, we are supporting donald trump. that is not true. no labels will not be supporter, in favor of president trump. host: something you just said, you said if there is a clear pathway, you will field a candidate. if you do not see a clear pathway, you will not. guest: correct. host: but, no 30 -- no third-party candidate has ever earned an electoral vote. what is the pathway? what do you consider a pathway? guest: no third-party candidate

has been successful in a long time. keep in mind, historically, the republican party started out as a third party. you are right, ross perot got votes when he ran but there was not enough. this time, there was an unprecedented shift towards most americans saying there -- as an independent, they are not in the democrat or republican party, they are independent. most americans according to recent polling one better choices, more choices to choose and not just be resigned with the two choices they had in 2020. i am a democrat. i am working with republicans and independents and no labels. right now, the response we have

gotten in those states we are getting ballot access -- i think there are five thus far, we had a tremendous response from people in those states who would sign petitions to get no labels to have ballot access. that is what we are doing now. we are not ready to declare a candidate. we first have to get ballot access. after super tuesday, we will see what are the pathways -- we are not running a protest campaign. if we decide to run somebody for president or vice president, there would have to be a clear pathway they would win the majority of electoral college, or else, you do become a protest. we do not want it to become a protest candidate. host: i want to let our viewers know about the phone lines, because we want to get to their questions and comments in a moment. again, if you have thoughts

about this no labels initiative for campaign 2024 in general, give us a call. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message, (202) 748-8003. we will get to those calls in a moment. dr. chavis, back to you. can you tell us about the political viewpoint -- i know no labels has described itself as a centrist. do you agree with that, or can you tell us a little more about what point of view the organization comes from? guest: we are centrists -- i am going to say this way. i we do not believe extremism on the right or extremism on the left is healthy or helpful or

helps our foundation move forward. we think that deposits in political divide in our nation is not healthy. my background is civil-rights. if you go back -- this is 2023. 60 years ago when dr. king made his famous i have a dream speech in washington, the next year, we passed the civil rights bill of 1964, which was bipartisan. republicans and democrats supported the civil rights bill. same thing with the voting rights bill in 1965. same thing in 1968 with the fair housing act. what is happening to our nation? no labels believes in a centrist few, yes, in the center, not at the margins and extremes. we want to see a return to civility. democrats and republicans, even though they may politically disagree on things, there are

some things we can agree on. even if we disagree, we should do it in a civil way, not with instability. that is what we need to return to him a supporting and promoting bipartisanship. i think there are serious issues facing our nation, in education, health care, environment, energy -- a whole list of things. immigration. we cannot get a solution, because the partisan divide. what no labels is trying to promote not only for 2024, but history over the last 12 years, promote bipartisanship. in those cases where democrats and republicans work together, our nation has made progress. we want to see more progress like that. host: before we get to calls, because we have some now coming -- you mentioned the centrist thinking. we know that no labels is ready to activate, particularly of

both joe biden and donald trump become their party's nominees. i wanted to ask you following up on -- guest: to the point you have the candidates who could win majority of the electoral vote. that is a clear, threshold question for us. we are not going to just nominate somebody for the purpose of nominating. they would have to have the kind of caliber and support of the american people, the vision to bring our country together to move forward. they would have to show that they can possibly win, at least in enough states to get the electoral college vote. that is national politics. we are weighing all elements before making a final decision. host: alrighty. let's get to some calls. armand is calling from new milford, connecticut on the independent line. guest: great. caller: good morning and thank

you for c-span. guest: good morning. caller: good morning, thank you so much for the topic. no label would be a fantastic idea. i hope it comes to pass in the future. however, we have this problem that money is in charge of everything. as long as that is the case, money will decide whether republican or democrat. also, i am surprised that we do not set up a resume and requirement to run as a candidate. right now, we have a president who has a great background to be a president and we have a candidate on the others who has

absolutely no qualifications other than being dishonest and lying and taking from the government. it is a troubling thing for me that we can have a candidate like that. thank you very much. guest: thank you for your comment. let me just say that, you represent a growing number of americans who identify themselves as an independent. certainly, no labels, we are reaching out to independents, republicans and democrats who want more choices and want to move our country better. no labels believes we put the nation before party. that is why we call ourselves, no labels. we are not trying to label ourselves as ultraconservatives, ultraliberal, or even progressive. we are not trying to use those labels. what we are trying to say, let's do what is in the best interest of all americans.

my background is civil-rights. martin luther king jr. believes in a beloved country, a nation where we love one another, we try to lift one another up and not engage in seeing the other as the enemy, but rather as a colleague that may have a different view, but how to work together to solve our problems domestically, as well as international. host: let's take another caller now. richard is in verona, missouri, democratic line. caller: yeah, i am on the democratic line. i have been republican most of my life until the tea party come into the republican party and i had to change. the third party -- there used to be a socialist party back in the early 1900s, i think. but, you know, our two parties we got now -- i can't get, i mean, biden done good.

he is getting to the point where he is not going to be here a lot longer, just like me. 60 years ago, i married the american dream. could not have anything near in my life. but, anyhow, congressmen, they kicked out of congress from california, he would be my candidate for the democratic party. the guy from arkansas, asa hutchinson, he is a good guy and he would be my other candidate. i will get off here and let somebody else talk. guest: well, thank you. i want you to know in missouri, that part of the country where you are from, those of us in no labels are getting strong support from independents, republicans and democrats from missouri and other parts of the midwest. i want you to know that the american dream is still a dream we all should work to fulfill and move toward a more perfect union. i am concerned that we need more

unity in our community. every time we have a national, presidential race, it should not divide our country. that is what no labels is working toward. host: the last caller mentioned some of the candidates he would be interested in supporting. there is an article that politico wrote about no labels. it says, while no labels has not named a ticket it wanted to see run, it has made it evident it has one in mind. senator joe manchin, democrat of west virginia, is named as a potential candidate and has joined at least one regular conference call held by the group in late april. the state official granted anonymity to speak freely said, jacobson and clancy, who are both with no labels, both mentioned mansion and senator kyrsten sinema, independent of arizona, as potential candidates during the 2022 phone call about fundraising. can you confirm whether joe

manchin is someone the group has in mind as a potential no labels candidate, and if so, why? guest: what i can confirm on the record today with you, we have no candidate as of today. many people, including some people that were just now mentioned -- i think the politico article is inaccurate. we have not chosen a candidate. have we talked to senator manchin, absolutely. have we talk to others, yes. as i have said, we are not anywhere near the place we are going to make a decision on potential candidates until after super, until after march of 2024. we want to get a lot of these primaries over with. so, there will be a clear, who the two major candidates will be. one democrat, one republican, and whether or not there is a

pathway for a viable third candidate to get the majority of electoral college. that will weigh the character and leadership of these potential candidates, these will be a factor in our decision-making. it would have to be somebody who could win before they could get in no labels -- they could get no labels grossman. host: mike in new york, republican line. caller: hi, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am interested in the group. i have always been a democrat. i voted for trump in 2016 and 2020. i will tell you why, because i look at myself over time as a no label guy. i feel that donald trump, he say what he has to say and is doing was right, no matter where the party is pushing him.

i see him as a no label. he is technically on the republican ticket, but he is acting as a no label. he is doing what is good for the country with fair and utmost strength. trump, i feel he is the no label candidate. guest: thank you, first of all. you are entitled to your opinion. i want to clarify for the record that donald trump is not a no labels candidate. no labels, we are on the record saying in the 2024 campaign, no labels will not be a spoiler in favor of donald trump. that is one of our peak conditions to go forward. host: how will you determine that? what will be the gauge for that? guest: first of all, what the views and the responses of the american people are. in a few weeks from now, we are releasing a document called the

common sense document on the issues. it is going to be a look at a wide range of issues that we believe our commonsense solutions to our nations problems. we are publishing a document, so as the platform of no labels and how potential candidates will respond to the common sense document, how the american public responds -- a lot will happen over the next 12 months. that is why we do not want to say anything premature in 2023. what we are working on diligently is to first get ballot access in all 50 states in the district of columbia. i am pleased to report this morning we are making progress. host: let's go to napa, california. tracy, independent line. caller: yes, hi, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i want to say good morning, dr. chavis.

some when i have admired over the years. i appreciate the work you have put in on that front, particularly the civil rights front. with that being said, obviously, political scene has evolved in the united states. we are in a position right now where we are currently -- we probably have the worst administration in history. that is not just -- you can go back and look at, maybe not history, but in recent history. look at the performance, the metrics, the economy, the condition of america as a whole, the infrastructure, the schools. you know. with that being said and as it relates to your evolvement with your no labels potential candidacy, i would say that ross perot was the last real

third-party candidate we have had. if you look at the last internally -- you say you want a protest vote, but what we really need is a protest vote. a no vote. in my opinion, we should not vote this cycle. particularly as an african-american, because you look at -- 86% participation rate that votes democrat. it is sickening, because there is no tangible results that come of that other than a mass, illegal immigration. a lot of my friends are sleeping under bridges now. host: we are going to have to -- i want to stop you there. let's have dr. chavis respond. guest: i want to thank him for

expressing his views. listen, we believe we live in a democracy. if a democracy is at its strongest point when it is participatory with all of its people. i would not agree with not voting. look, man. we paid the price to get the right to vote. some of us went to jail, some died, some shared blood to get the right to vote. to me, not voting is not an option. the question is, not only should we vote, but what are we voting for? not just what we are voting against, who we are voting for and not what we are voting against. we need this discussion. that is why i am looking forward with the publication of the no labels common sense document, because it is going to stimulate a discussion on immigration, on all the other issues, education. i think there are solutions to all of our project -- all of our problems, your brother. but, we have to be part of the

solution and not just describe the difficulties and inconsistencies. in light of your challenges, what do we do about it? i have seen great change in our nation in the last 50 years. i am probably an internal optimist. i am optimistic our nation will make the right decision in 2024. right now, no labels is going to participate in helping to bring more people in to voting. that is why we are getting ballot access. although, in some states we are experiencing some voter suppression, some denial of fair treatment to no labels. we are going to keep wishing forward. i think our democracy is at stake. what you are calling for is more people to vote, not less people to vote. host: let's go to katy, texas. allison, democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to make it quick.

i like what you are saying about supporting regular people and voting rights and all of that. but, it has been reported a lot that no labels has a lot of big money donors within the irs forms, it is in secret and blacked out. major gop donors, some of them are right wing extremists. my problem is with the label of centrist or moderate is, really leaning right and pretty much pro-corporate. venture capitalist backers and real estate investors, equity. there is a phone call with joe manchin that was leaked, something with the lady in charge that founded no labels that coordinating with him a

couple of years ago when he was trying to pass the voting rights act, build back better, which i am not a fan of joe biden because he is pro-corporate two. the point is, they are coordinating with joe manchin in ways to block the filibuster and get floyd brunt on their side to join and dangle opportunities. basically, sinema, manchin, it is the biggest takers of the big money. it does not jive with supporting the filibuster and blocking the things that i like. guest: let me help you and first of all, thank you for asking questions. you ask questions, you deserve an answer. the answer is, no labels, we get small contributions as well as big contributions. i am saying this on record, we do not accept corporate

contributions in no labels. a lot have -- of what has been reported in the media has been erroneous. there have been major contributions from democrats, republicans and independents. that is why we call them no labels. we are centrists. we are trying to do what we think is best for america. how do you determine what is best for america? you listen to the american people. you let them weigh in. that is why we are going to stimulate this national discussion with this common sense document released in the next few days. you will hear more about that. i want to let the caller know that we are not swayed by any conservative -- you say that we are conservative leaning, left-leaning, no. we are in the middle, we are not leaning toward either side of the partisan divide. we want to bring all-americans

together, whether democrat, republican or independent. let's work together to make our nation better. host: dr. chavis, on the subject of funding, because no labels is registered as a nonprofit, it does not have to disclose individual donors. guest: a 501(c) four. yes. host: given this previous callers questions, there has been a lot of criticism or speculation -- why has no labels chosen not to publicly disclose who is funding the organization? guest: because we do not accept corporate contributions. i want to make that clear on the record. the reason why we do not give out whether it is a large donor or small donor is this partisan divide attack syndrome people have now in the media -- we do not want to expose our donors to attacks by people who disagree with what we are trying to do.

you would be surprised. to bring social change in america requires taking this risk. you would be surprised -- i wish i could show you some of the emails i get now that i am one of the national cochairs of no labels. let me say on the record -- i am a volunteer. i am not paid to do what i do with no labels. i believe in the cause. many people in the country believe in the cause. we do not give out our donor lists. other nonprofits do not give out there donor lists. for privacy reasons. host: our next caller is matthew in north carolina, independent line. matthew? caller: yes, ma'am? host: go ahead. caller: mr. chavis said no labels is not supporting any

individuals yet. what i wanted to know was, does he think that more -- i am a young, african-american male -- does he think most of us should be independent? voting against party lines sometimes in these small elections -- i live in henderson, north carolina. mr. chavis is from this area. our families came up together. what can we do to further our cause as a people -- i mean the american people -- because what our politicians do not represent their constituents, there is a problem. when they legislate for profit like that. i want to get his opinion on that. guest: very good. thank you for calling in. i was born in north carolina. i am a native north carolina. first, we must get involved not only in national politics, but

local politics and regional politics. even our home state of north carolina, getting ready to elect a new governor, getting ready to bash the legislature is republican, the governorship is democrat. north carolina needs to find ways to get everybody to work together. those who are independent, republicans and democrats. at the end of the day, it is not the party label, it is what you stand for. what we do to help all americans across racial lines, across socioeconomic lines. i think our democracy needs to be further strengthened. i want to encourage you to get involved in not just the partisan politics, but get involved in mobilizing and organizing. you are from a part of north carolina that i think has great potential to the extent to which

you get involved politically, economically, businesswise -- we need to improve the overall quality and life in the communities in which we live. i think north carolina has made progress, but still has a long ways to go. host: let's hear from julie in springfield, illinois on the republican line. caller: thank you. i think that this is a great idea. we have gotten ourselves into such a divisive politics era that it is all about just, who can attack who the best to win? guest: yeah. caller: i vote for a candidate. i no longer vote for a party. i know there are many moderate voters that do the same thing. it is just getting the right candidates to a primary and having them up into the general,

unless they run as an independent on another party line -- or an independent ballot. i'm not sure how we can get there. quite frankly, there is some senior, older members of congress that do the job to work together all the time. however, with the congress level, they are going to have to learn to work together. guest: exactly. again, the great state of illinois, your perspective you articulated is a growing opinion among all americans. most americans want to see a return to civility. they want to see a moderation, not at the extremes. they want to see our nation move forward. there is nothing where all the

challenges we face -- all these challenges can be overcome, but we need to work together. we need more unity in our country and more civility. you are right, you vote for a candidate, not just for the label of the candidate or the posture. i think the 2024 election is a great opportunity for all americans to weigh in and secure the future of our nation toward a more perfect union, where we work together as democrats, republicans and independents. that is why i am working with no labels. host: all right. next up in washington, d.c., eric is calling on the democratic line. caller: good morning, how you doing? guest: how are you, brother eric? caller: i love you, because you went through the struggle with the civil rights issue.

i understand that we need to work together and there was a gentleman a couple calls ago saying how this is the worst economy. i do not know where he is at and i live in d.c. you live in d.c. you see all this stuff working, the infrastructure is going. i do not understand where he got that. i do not understand him blaming the people coming into the country. our government allows people to come into this country. i got people -- friends who work with me in the construction industry, they are fully walking through. this is all administrations. even with the trump administration, it never slowed up. i want people to be real and honest. we have to stop. a lot of stuff is a fear mongering tactic. it has always been this way in this country. looking back at history -- if you put fear in people, they

will go, you will take what i got type of mentality. no one can tell you when this country that nothing has been tooken from them. guest: you make an excellent point. the benefit of the "washington journal", people call and express their views. one of the things we talk about in the common sense document that no labels is publishing his the immigration issue. you are right, it should not be talked about from a position of fear. the truth of the matter is, our nation needs more workers. we need more people who will help build our economy. i think that diversity in america is a strength, not a weakness. inclusion is a strength, not a weakness. i think that in washington, d.c. where we both live, you can see some of the progress that has been made.

the bipartisan infrastructure bill, i know people who have gotten new jobs from the actions that had just been taken. the economy seems to be improving. we are not -- we just went through a major pandemic. i think people sometimes lose sight of what our nation has been through. we have been able to rebound and we are still rebounding. i think the economy will and to new to improve to the extent to which we can all work together. i think sometimes, we hold ourselves back by engaging in fear mongering and by engaging in stereotyping, by engaging in trying to find the enemy across the street or next door. we need to see each other as fellow americans. we all have gifts and talents , and how to work together. we are still not where we are. dr. kings i have a dream speech was not just for lack people, it

was for all people would when african-americans made progress in america, it was progress to all americans. we have to be careful and do not let anybody hold us hostage because of race or socioeconomic circumstances and not because of fear. host: before we leave, i want to do one quick question off-topic. you are the former executive director and ceo of the naacp. what was your reaction to the recent supreme court decision to end affirmative action? guest: very good question. we believe the supreme court was wrong to rule against affirmative action. if you notice, the supreme court earlier this year overturned roe v. wade. the supreme court is moving in a very far right, conservative

position in their judicial decisions. i think that it's going to further divide our nation. i think our young people, particularly going to colleges and universities --clarence thomas himself was a beneficiary of affirmative action and still voted against affirmative action. the supreme court in my view represents what needs to be fixed in america. we need to stop making decisions that tend to sway and one political direction at the expense of the majority of americans who want to improve their quality of life and education, as well as in economics, energy sector, so many different ash you can go down a litany of things. that is why we want people to join no labels. host: thank you so much for joining us, dr. chavis.

that is going to do it for "washington journal" today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. guest: thank you so much. ♪