need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up, a look at the heritage foundation's presidential transition project, a vision for a potential republican presidential administration. then an advocacy group. erin heaney and steve phillips discuss efforts to attract white , working-class voters back to the democratic party with a focus on equity and race. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, september 3. newly filed financial

disclosures set new lights on justice clarence thomas is -- thomas' friendship with harlan crow. it renewed focus on the supreme court and an ongoing debate about whether justice issue should be held to the same ethics standards as members of congress and those working in the white house. our question for you today, what is your level of trust in the supreme court? what can be done to increase your trust in the high court? democrats, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also 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 and on x and instagram @cspanwj. let's start off by talking about recent polling by gallup on what members of the public think about the supreme court. the headline of the article says supreme court approval at record low. i want to bring up highlights. it says that 40% of respondents toheool approve of the court handling of its job, 62% of republicans, 17% ofemocrats and 41% of independents approve of the court's performance, so a

big partisan divide there. when asked about justice thomas, 42% express an unfavorable view of justice thomas versus 39% had a favorable opinion of him, so those are some highlights from the recent poll on the supreme court. let's look now at pro public a, a nonprofit news organization that first began reporting about justice thomas and the trips he has taken and a real estate deal. this is what they wrote this week after his financial disclosures were made public. the article says that supreme court justice clarence thomas for the first time acknowledged that he should have reported selling real estate to harlan

crow in 2014. the transaction was revealed earlier this year. writing in his annual financial disclosure form, thomas said he inadvertently failed to realize that the deal needed to be publicly disclosed. the form, which was made public thursday after he had received an extension on the filing deadline, promised -- thomas also disclosed three private jet trips last year from crow. pro public a report on two of those trips. thomas defended his previous practice of not disclosing private jet flights provided him over the years. in a statement thursday, an attorney for thomas said that, after reviewing his records, i am confident there has been no willful ethics transgression and any prior reporting errors were

inadvertent. that is pro public a reporting -- propublica reporting on those financial disclosures. this is more from those financial disclosures and how thomas and his attorney described some of these trips as expenses on his financial disclosures. this comes from the new york times. i'm going to read anxcer. it says, with advice of ministry of oice, flights were reported as advised. because of the increased security risk following the dobbs opinion leak, may flights whereby private plane for offici travel a security detail recommended ncommercial travel whenever possible. flights to and from adirondack by private plane and lodging,

food, and entertainment at the property were reportable under -- and in come according to advice from the staff of judicial conference disclosure committee. to be listed under reimbursements not gifts. this is consistent with previous filings by other filers. this is from thomas and his attorneys. the property is owned by harlan crow, so that is the connection. again, that is the latest from justice thomas, his financial disclosures, but our question for you this morning is what is your level of trust in the supreme court? we would love for you to explain why. democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are going to get to some of

those calls now. tyrone in new york on the democratic line. what are your thoughts about the supreme court? caller: i think the supreme court is indicative on how this country was put together, to maintain big money interests. because money moves this country and because it was put together to make sure that money moves this country, the supreme court is working just like the presidency, congress. money changes how this country operates. because you are able to buy these people -- they say the are not bought and paid for, but a lot of these politicians and supreme court justices are bought and paid for by big money interests. host: is there anything that you think could be done for people like you to improve your trust in the supreme court?

caller: if we actually put money into people, the people being able to have more of a say on what happens in our country, yes, we can change this. we can change the way this country is being operated. there is a lot that does to move people away from their own best interests. if i give you money to sell out somebody else, you are not doing something in the best interest of yourself. i would not be friends with him. i will not deal with him. he has no real help for my big money interest ideas. i think that will disadvantage somebody else. so what? i can pay for this judge to do what i want him to do,

regardless of whether it is in the interest of our country. this is what happens. unless we get more power to the people to make these decisions to move forward as a country instead of backwards -- host: i am going to have to stop you there, but we appreciate your call this morning. next up is patrice in south carolina, republican line. you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. i always admire people when i call in that mainstream media is the biggest threat against the american people. because of the propaganda. let me speak on the topic. you all are targeting clarence thomas, but i never hear you

talk about roberts. it is alleged that during the human trafficking concept his kids came from haiti and haiti is the number one hub for human trafficking and it is a rumor that he got his children illegally. host: where are you getting our information about john roberts? caller: from outside news sources. let me finish. you have a bad habit of doing this. you know when they come on with their conclusions about different things. then you talk about the world trade center and the money that went missing. host: we are going to stop you there because we want you to stay on topic. baron in florida on the democratic line, what are your thoughts? caller: i believe all the

republicans on the court are corrupt and all lied in confirmations because they were asked about roe v. wade. they said they would not touch it. they made us believe that. they swore. we all watched them. then what did they do? they overturned it. now we do not have roe v. wade. host: what can be done for you to increase your confidence in the supreme court? caller: i believe they should all be re-sat down again and asked those questions again because they lied. they have to answer that question. these are our supreme justices and they lied under oath to us. host: let's go to thad in rhode island on the democratic line. caller: that is correct.

thank you for taking my call. people are losing faith in the supreme court and a few years back i read three books by an attorney in germany. the way the -- they get their judges in germany, it is not -- one party nominates this one and the other party that one. no. what they do is civil service. attorneys take an exam. if you want to be a judge, you have to be at the top of the list on an actual civil service exam so there is no politics involved at all. that would straighten out our court system from top to bottom. host: is there anything else you

think should be done? you talked about straightening out the court system, but what else specifically for the supreme court? caller: they have to -- congress has to set down rules for the supreme court and enforce them. that is the right -- that is what i think. host: let's listen now -- this is rhode island democrats -- democrat sheldon whitehouse, a member of the u.s. senate. in an interview last week, he talked about his concerns about the court. he is leading an effort to pass ethics legislation that would -- the supreme court would fall under. here's a portion of his comments last week. >> we are thrilled the judiciary committee and awaiting an

opportunity for a floor vote in this congress. at the moment, republicans have not been willing to participate in this effort, but we only know the very beginning between the justices and the right-wing billionaires. as more and more evidence comes out, i think a time will come where republicans will say, we have to throw in the towel. we held out as long as we could, but let's look at a bill. even this reporting by justice thomas we have just seen is still very incomplete and full of maneuver and tricks by his lawyers. >> one of the things that may cause republicans to come to the table, there is a gallup poll that showed a record low for support in the supreme court among them the american people. it has touched close to that back in 2006. does that help your cause?

that is bad for america, that the level of trust is so low. >> what really helps our cause is how disgusted the american people are with the behavior of these justices. around the country, employees, federal employees and other federal judges all operate under codes of conduct. in rhode island, you have $325 lunches a year, which have to be reported. that is it. these guys were taking $250,000 secret vacations paid for by billionaires who are known to be involved in manipulating the court. in the picture you are showing now cut one of the chief court manipulators is sitting there looking over at harlan crow and justice thomas, so the backdrop

to this is an enormous amount of billionaire influence around the court and this is a story that will continue to develop. host: that was rhode island senator sheldon whitehouse talking about his efforts to pass new ethics legislation for the supreme court. we want to hear more from you. what is your level of trust in the supreme court? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our caller now is dan in new york on the republican line. go ahead, dan. caller: good morning to you and good morning, c-span. i would like to make four points. the united states senate are the last people who should make regulations against the supreme court on ethics.

my second point is i blame john roberts for a lot of the problems because when the affordable care act came up, obamacare, he redefined taxes. my third point is that john roberts also oversees courts and has done nothing to what they had done to donald trump. my fourth reason is they refuse to take up voter fraud. that was john roberts that was responsible for a lot of that. and i believe there is proof and it should have been investigated and put on record. host: thank you. let's go to kevin in michigan on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: my trust level is low of

the supreme court. listening to your other callers, keeping up with the issue, thomas' reports on his gifts and everything, that is a stickler for me as well. it is not just thomas. most of them on the republican side. i have listened over and over this morning to an indictment of john roberts as the culprit of this. it is very simple. we need oversight of the financial disclosures. i believe this can be avoided in the confirmation process if the financial disclosures are discussed. i think there should be term limits.

they are not above the law. they are not. it is frustrating. we are looking for them to be the impartial scholars of the law. we all know anyone who is a thing individual the court is business oriented and centered toward businesses. i would like to see them clean up their act. that is basically my frustration . host: we appreciate your call. let's go to eileen in pennsylvania might republican line. caller: i think there is a concerted effort by the democrats and their press to hurt the court and weaken it.

i think they wanted to do that because they are all -- they want to control all levels of government. it is all about democrat control. there is nothing wrong with what clarence thomas did. he has rich friends. he went on vacation with them. they paid for things. they do not talk about judge sotomayor and her publisher, who had a case before the court. are we surprised he hung out with people that were conservative? he has been consistently conservative. he has been consistently attacked. the people that do not like what happened with roe v. wade and say the justices -- the new justices lied to get on the court, they said they would consider the fact that it was considered federal law. they did and they decided that was not important. a lot of times that has

happened. that is how it should be. if there is bad law, there is bad law. they gave power back to the people. they did not take it. they gave power to the states to make the decision. people upset about that, go to your state and do what you do. it is an unusual thing, when people in power do not grab more. that is my opinion. host: i want to show you this article by the associated press about the supreme court justice. it says her staff caused colleges and libraries to buy her book as she was promoting new books, and i will scroll down a bit because one thing mentioned is that her publisher did have business before the

supreme court, and that is addressed in this associated press article. i will read a portion. it says, her publisher also has played a role in organizing her talks, in some cases pressing public institutions to commit to buying a specific number of copies or requesting that attendees purchase books to obtain tickets, emails show. the publisher has had several matters before the court in which sotomayor did not recuse herself. justice sotomayor would have recused in cases in which penguin random house was a party in light of her close and ongoing relationship with the publisher. this up in court said in a statement. an inadvertent omission failed to bring penguin's participation in several cases to her attention. those cases alternately were not selected for review by the court.

procedures have since been changed. so that is from the associated press. the bigger focus of the article is about talks she has given at libraries, colleges, universities. and how those talks -- the hosts of those talks are often encouraged to buy her books. arlene is on the democratic line. what are your thoughts about the supreme court? >> my thoughts are that every department of politics have rules. if you cannot follow the rules, you should not be on the bench. i'm disgusted with all this people, crooked politicians. they need us to put them in

positions and when they get in positions the abuse the positions. it is making me get to the point where i do not trust none of them. have a good day. host: valerie is next from florida, independent line. caller: you had a caller before this last one that nailed everything i wanted to say. the only thing i could add is that we never found the leaker for roe v. wade but i can pin it down to sotomayor. i think she is responsible. as far as the entire court, i have faith in them. they are very intelligent, trained people. they deserve all the credibility we should give them. host: why do you think that sotomayor may have been responsible for the leak?

why did you come to that conclusion or how? caller: a few of her past remarks just went by the wayside. they kept saying they were going to find the leaker but it has never been dropped. all of a sudden, we are getting other stuff about justice thomas. just to try to change the subject. i would like to know why we have never -- they have never determined who the leak was. that is my final thought. host: let's go to winsted, connecticut now. tom is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to say something for everyone to consider. do you think a man without integrity will sell us out for a boat ride and a state dinner?

that is all i have to say. thank you. host: milton is next in philadelphia, democratic line. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to make this point. i put my country had my party. this court is unethical. suppose republicans -- suppose this was justice kagan accepting trips and gifts from let's say billionaire george soros. then we find out not only that her husband worked for a conservative group that has business before the court, then when they had business before the court kagan don't recuse herself. another thing that ticks me off with clarence thomas is, as a

black man, how can you accept gifts from a billionaire who has -- tried to? get the? autograph of eight of hitler's -- adolf hitler? how can you deal with anyone who tries to get artifacts from hitler's? i do not understand him. i do not know when he looks in a mirror, what does he see? i do not think he sees himself as black. host: our next caller is on the independent line, carol in california. >> i want to say this court is crooked. not that we should abolish the supreme court. another thing is i do not like

the senate. i like equal representation. that would maybe help people get out and change the vote. i do think we should not have the supreme court. the supreme court right now is predicting future stuff. boomers are on their way out and jeanette's left to deal with this and that. now it is all millenials having to deal with the supreme court positions. the boomers are making decisions for us when it is not their time. it is our time. host: bill is next in massachusetts, republican line. caller: can you look up in your computer to see how long the democrats had control? that is what this is all about.

this is about the democrats having total control over the house, senate my presidency, and the supreme court. i think it was 60 years that democrats ran the supreme court. because of roe v. wade, they lost. they want total control. the democrats are the communist party. they do not want to have a republican party in this country. it is not going to be long until everyone who voted for donald trump has to go to jail because everything has got to go sort of like a child in a grocery store. i am going to have a candy bar or i am going to throw a tantrum. i will just go crazy and start knocking shelves over and everything because i have to have everything go my way. that is why we need to have two

separate countries. host: let's hear from kim in columbus, ohio, democratic line. >> clarence thomas, we are seeing things that he actually did and it appears they are getting upset with that. i do not understand because clarence thomas -- i am 65 years old. i'm not in college. i do not have college loans but clarence thomas paid for his son -- his adopted son to go to college, yet he said the other kids could not hear that don't make sense to me. john roberts' wife got $10 million i taking people off his court and putting them through the country. to do their work.

she gets $10 million for that. as far as are going to a college to give a speech, she goes to sell books. i do not know how she got involved with that. but i am sick of clarence thomas . he has been doing stuff, too. how come his name ain't up? it ain't just clarence thomas. i do not like any of them. and taking abortion away -- i guess you have to be a woman to understand that. i am not having no more babies, but i have grandkids. then they sit on the court looking like they are hot dogs. now. they need to go. thank you. host: kim mentioned justice john roberts' wife. i will show an article in the

hill. the headline says, ethics concerns raised over business ties of supreme court chief justice's wife. this is in the hill. i will scroll down a little and read a little from the article. it says, a former colleague of chief justice john roberts' wife raised ethics concerns last month about how the supreme court's business intersects with her recruiting work, according to documents obtained by the hill. she previously worked with jane roberts and alleged the chief justice may have violated recusal and financial disclosure rules for judges in a letter to the justice department and house and senate judiciary committee leaders on december 5, the new york times and political reported. here is more. the letter asked with growing

scrutiny coming for justices' spouses. jane roberts has worked in the recruiting business, placing a number of high-ranking officials in the public sector. she reportedly guided the move of robert bennett, who represented former president clinton during the monica lewinsky scandal. this is the hill writing about chief justice john roberts' wife. there was a letter sent back earlier this year about whether her business dealings create a conflict of interest. i want to read some of the responses we have received on facebook to this question. jodi purnell writes it has turned into a third political

branch with corruption. joyce o'connor writes, not much trust in any branch of our government right now for obvious reasons. and scott says, about as much as any other branch. as long as supreme court justices are appointed by a politician, there will always -- they will always be up local body of political bias. i voted for trump, in case someone thinks this is because of the current situation. those are some of the questions we have received on facebook in response to the question about your level of trust in the supreme court. we encourage you to call in to give us your answers to the question of the day. as a reminder, democrats got your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

with that, we will go to the independent line. manual is in reno, nevada. go ahead. caller: the question -- a german philosopher taught me within truth can sometimes exist to seat -- deceit. our nation bore witness to a supreme court that bent over backwards in near fanatical support of the second and 10th amendments. as they are required to do. but all the while they ignored the lack of protection under the entitlement of the folsom and meant relative to unreasonable search and seizure. we as americans have no entitlement any longer.

they remained silent. the silence is deafening. we have no entitlement under the protection of the fourth amendment. none of us do any longer. their silence on the supreme court is deafening. host: appreciate your call this morning. let's go to greenacres, florida. alan is calling on the democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. go ahead with your comments. caller: i have been researching for years how the supreme court is versus the other branches of government. pretty much this is what i came up with. the entirety of the judiciary needs to be reconstructed. as the executive branch has been reconstructed since the beginning -- says the constitution and as well as the legislative branch has been

reconstructed, the judiciary have never been reconstructed. this is why we have problems with the supreme court and thousands of different police and officials all over the country, four jurisdictions in one town in one area. it needs to be reconstructed. even john quincy adams stated this years and years ago as far the connection between the executive branches and judiciary. people have lost trust. the judiciary is supposed to be the balance between the two, and people have lost trust because of politicians who have brought themselves inside the court and never been pulled out. we need to figure this out and do something about it as americans.

host: next is bertha in memphis, tennessee. >> caller: i do not trust republicans and because if you -- to me, they are not for the people. people are suffering now. people have lost jobs. and our children are being battered. they need to come together, not just start looking at their own selves because a lot of times they have money and do not care about poor people, so that is why i do not trust them, because they are not putting the people in concern. we have too many people suffering and losing homes and

houses. it is awful. just disgusted with them. i do not trust them. our democrats need to get a little more strong and hold to your leafs. host: paul is next in new jersey , independent line. caller: good morning. i want to comment about the people who would like to separate the country. be careful what you ask for. as you separate this strong country, then you have russia, china, iran, all these countries would just tear the united

states apart. be careful when you want to do separations because our strength will be weekend. host: our question for you is your level of trust in the supreme court. raymond is on the line from florida, democratic line. what is your answer to the question of the day? caller: i have some relative trust for the supreme court. what i am seeing, and i have conversations with my family, is they are more progressive and think this is a conservative court. i listen to oral arguments on c-span and promote people's actually do it. the solicitor general from the united states goes up against whatever attorney general may be in whatever case and they argue and you can actually listen to

the supreme court. what is happening now is on one side you have kagan, sotomayor, and brown. on the other side cut you have thomas, alito, and barrett. in the middle, the other three are making the decisions for the most part. it is either 9-0 or 5-4. what refining is gorsuch and cavanaugh and roberts are very moderate. they are going against some of the conservative views. and vice versa. people need to watch a little. it is always going to be political because the president has to pick supreme court members but it is pretty balanced because those three in the middle are making the decisions. the others are sticking to their side. gorsuch, cavanaugh, and roberts are doing a good job. that is all i have to say. host: raymond in florida gave a

great plug for our website. you can go there and at the top corner there is a supreme court have -- supreme court tab that will bring up the supreme court page. there are confirmation hearings you can go back and watch. you can look at the oral argument schedule. you can read supreme court decisions. as mentioned, you can also listen to the oral arguments. there are not cameras in the courtroom, but we have recordings. you can see recent appearances by supreme court justices on our website. let's go back to the phone lines. christine is in oregon, republican line. >> thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that as far as i'm concerned this whole thing is about federalism, a system of

government you make an offer that you get two types of government. this whole country is based on that. and with that being said you are never going to get anything the way that you want it because it is never intended to be that way. this started in 1965, so you need to just realize this is affecting everybody. there is nothing we can do. they are coming here to take the territory, these democrats and biden. they all have this plan. they want to knock out the stock market and put everything into digital money. that is what they are going to do. everybody is being affected by it and it is our country. if america wants to do something about it, they need to do something now. that is all i have to say.

host: let's go to alabama now commit sandra on the independent line. -- now, sandra on the independent line. caller: i do not have an opinion on the supreme court but i have an opinion on we are a nation under law. all the justices on the court gave their promise to abide by the constitution. can you hear me now? host: you're breaking up a little, but keep going. caller: we are a nation under law. when they took the oath of office, they agreed to abide by the constitution. there are ethics spoken and unspoken. take off our political hats and

just look and read the law and judge them by whether they are following the law or political parties because under the constitution, it is basically plain and clear what their beliefs are and why we put them in office. host: on the democratic line, metal line is calling from michigan. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. what is your comment about the supreme court? caller: it is the most corrupt court in the world. clarence thomas and his wife think they can get away with everything. brett kavanaugh is a rapist. it is just old white men who

vote these people and republicans who think they can get away with everything because they have for years. we need to limit terms on all of this, the senate, the republicans need to go. that is what i have to say. host: janet is calling from florida on the republican line. caller: i have lost faith in the supreme court as a woman. it is our body. it is all right. it is between us and our god. i find this thomas scandal, the photo posted with the billionaire on vacation needs to be addressed. i agree completely in terms of -- on term limits. the longer they are in, the more

damage they can do. if they are there for a short time, maybe they cannot get corrupted. as a last note, i ask everybody to turn their eyes back to hawaii and what is happening because this is land grabbing and money use. i'm sorry. i rambled from the supreme court. i think they should have term limits. host: appreciate your call this morning. steve is up next from north carolina, independent line. caller: i have a high level of trust in the supreme court. i think the supreme court has made good decisions lately. i am an independent. i do not support either party, but i think the supreme court has done a good job.

i think the criticism of the supreme court is by people who do not like their decisions. the decisions are legal and well thought out. the latest person to be added to the supreme court made biden look bad because instead of picking the best person he kind of did it on a situation where he just picked the best black woman and instead of picking the best person in made her look bad because it made her look like she was only picked because she was a black woman. he should have just said he would pick the best person. that is what we need to do, pick the best person. as far as distress is concerned, i have a great deal distrust in the department of justice. i think the department of justice has gone way political and it has just been an arm of the democratic party and covering up for biden and hunter biden and everything else going on.

a lot of stuff going on in the u.s. seems to be political. they are losing the lawsuits to handle political issues. host: all right. next, democratic line. caller: do i have trust in this court? i do not. largely it is because the court, as one of the early callers said, has not been changed since the times of our country in over 100 years. the last time the court was expanded to believe was in the 1860's. nine members who were to represent a country that was probably a third of the size it is now.

i heard someone speak about this before and i agree. he said the court should be expanded to maybe 29 or 39 members, which probably is accurate for the size of our country. we are 350 million people. we have nine people to sit on the courts to talk about the laws and reading of the constitution to suit a country that has expanded tremendously. i think at the least we should in the next administration, regardless of who wins, we should select new members and the administration after that, another four members so we at eight members to the court. i think we should do it in terms in the next four years, we should add a member a year

regardless of who wins. part of the reason i think this -- that we should do it this way is because mitch mcconnell stole two seats for this last court. they held off appointing merrick garland despite the fact that there was a year left and put tony barrett on their -- coney barrett on there. the last three months of trump's administration, after the election. i think we need to bring balance to the court and add new members and biden would not have had to make a specific opportunity to put a black woman on the court because black women have been part of this country since the beginning and have never had a

voice on the court. i do not see any reason why that should not have been the case. this woman is extremely qualified. host: we appreciate your call. on expanding the court, i will bring up the official supreme court website. it talks about the court expanding. here's an excerpt the number of justices on the supreme court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. so there have been fluctuations in the number of members -- the number of justices on the supreme court. i want to read a few more comments from facebook on our question about trusting the supreme court. larry ballmer writes, 100% trust them as they rule according to the united states constitution.

the democratic party tries to discredit them because they do not agree with their rulings. here's a text message from new jersey. perhaps the supreme court has been granted too much authority. i trust them. i do not trust the wealthy, autocratic persons trying to buy favors. when we allow the supreme court to become a political upon, it should stand out as a code of ethics violation and conflict of interest. here's another from melissa in louisiana, writing, justice clarence thomas is a great american with integrity. he has done nothing wrong. harlan crow is his friend and he did not have business before the court. and another from florida. i would like to know if the irs will be investigating monetary

malfeasance of the supreme court. that will be a solution to the unreported financial gifts to justice thomas. john in texas. my level of trust is a three. they should take a lie detector test on whether they violated it. if they fail, they are out. and physical and mental health aptitude exams every four years also. i will do one more. this is from mike in illinois. we have the best supreme court money can buy along with congress and the executive branch. these are responses on facebook and twitter, but we will go back to the phone lines. jan, republican line. >> i have listened to what the republicans and democrats have talked about, criticizing the

parties. my family, we were democrats for years. when i voted several years back, i turned republican. my sister got upset because i had switched from democrat and said our family are democrats so we should vote democrat. so i tried to tell her back then democrats were for the people and republicans or for themselves. and now it has turned around where the democrats are for themselves trying to get all the money they can get and republicans are trying to help the people. we had to stop and think and pray about what is going on in the united states. it breaks my heart to see -- hear people with this people

tone and vicious words that they spread out about the people. we are america. we should love god and put god first and then our nation. host: our next caller is richard in sparta, new jersey. democratic line. caller: the guy who was worried that biden appointed a black woman -- the last three republican appointees were not on merit either. they came from the federalist society. the real problem with the supreme court is originalism. the supreme court does not care about the past anymore. they go back 250 years and try to dig out what guys said back then and come up with stuff that is divorced from the text.

they mostly ignore it. the second amendment is a case in point. this is a real problem. i listen to oral arguments. nowhere did they have in the actual text of the men meant they were talking about, so i think this is a real problem. you can make up whatever you want, and that is what they do. host: herbert, independent line. you are on. caller: i think it is a popularity contest. it is a money think because i do not think the supreme court, the justices make a lot of money. that's why they have rich people donating.

and publicity, c-span, it a popularity contest. everybody wants to be on the news. they want to make as much money as they can because there is no morals among thieves. it is about the money. it is about popularity, just like the congressman, they get on c-span, they get money to speak because there on tv. that is why you have people getting donations, it is a lot of them. it is just about the money in america, the world. the most money, the popularity. it is all it is about. they are just human beings, so take it easy on them, but they have to change the laws to make it work.

you cannot do certain things as the representative of the people. the people in charge, not them, but they are in charge. host: appreciate your call. caller: thank you. host: rosemary in missouri, republican. caller: it's actually democrat line. i must have doubted wrong but i have lost a lot of faith in the scene -- diode it wrong but i have lost a lot of faith in the supreme court. justice roberts has been a disappointment to me. i think term limits should be in place. any group with power who refuses to initiate ethics is a problem. thank you. host: we are going to take a quick break. next, former trump administration official paul dans discusses the heritage foundations 2025 presidential

transition project, policy vision for a potential republican presidential administration. later, erin heaney and steve phillips of the advocacy group, the white stripe project, discusses efforts to attract white working-class voters back to the democratic party by discussing issues of equity and race. ♪ >> tonight on q&a presidential historian richard norton smith shares his biography of president gerald ford title non-binary man. he talks about his personal life and antiestablishment politics and efforts to heal the country following the watergate scandal and controversial decision to pardon richard nixon. >> my fellow americans, our

long, national nightmare is over. >> the irony about the whole phrase, whoever wrote it, he did not want to use it. ford thought it was kicking a man when he was down. don't you think that is a little hard? hartman made the case you do not understand, mr. vice president, people need to hear this. they need to hear this from you. the final surprise is that the national nightmare it far from over. >> richard norton smith with this book tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ >> life today on in depth mary

eberstadt joins book tv to talk and take your calls on religious freedom and the sexual revolution in america. an expert on christian culture, the author of many books including is dangerous to believe, how the west really lost god, and adam and eve after the pill. about the social change brought about by the sexual revolution of the 1960's. join the conversation with your phone calls, comments, and text. mary eberstadt lives today at noon eastern on booktv, c-span 2. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store, browse our latest collection of products, apparel, books, decor, and accessories. there is something for every

c-span fan and every purchase help supports our nonprofit operations. shop now or at any time at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with paul dans, former administration official in president trump's administration. he will discuss the 2025 presidential transition project a policy vision for potential republican residential administration. paul, let's start here. you are with the heritage foundation. but tell us about the project. what is it? what is its goals and how is it being funded? guest: elizabeth about me, i am formally at -- a little bit

about me, i was formally in the chump administration. before that i served with dr. carson but i'm a washington outsider. i am an attorney and practice in new york and came to washington interested in politics but hard to break in. i came to lead this project because we are about bringing outsiders into washington. this is a plan for conservatives to be ready to hit the ground running day one january 2025 and we are inviting a new group of americans and aspiring them to come to washington and serve. this is the pathway. we have lined up what we believe in, policy book. we are recruiting people into a database, training them to how the government function and how they should function in government, and drafting transition plans, all within line to advance the

conservative agenda. host: beyond the heritage foundation, what other organizations are involved and is it true your budget is $22 million? guest: we are now 70 plus of the largest and most on full initial conservative organizations. interested can go to project 2025. orc and our coalition about us -- project2025.org and our coalition about us. this is a huge coalition and the movement has never come before to get together before like this. host: i want to give our viewers the phone numbers because we are going to open up the phone lines

for your questions or your comments about this 2025 presidential transition project. you can start calling in now. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. before we go to the phone lines, i want to bring up, the associated press had one of the first big articles about the presidential transition project i want to read an excerpt from the associated press. it talks about your project and it is says in part,he far-reaching effort is essentially a government in itg for the former

president's return. where any candidate who aligns with their ideas and can defeat president joe biden in 2024. with a nearl page handbook and anof americans, the idea is to have civic infrastructure in place on day one to commandeer, reshape, and do away with republicans deride as deep state bureaucracy, in part by firing as many as 50,000 federal workers. that is a lot in one paragraph. do you think that is a fair assessment of the gist of what you are trying to do? guest: it is probably larger than a handbook, but i would say -- we are here to have one in 100 year chance of perform the federal government. it is broken. what conservatives are doing are

preparing ahead of time. this is a very complex government. 2.2 one million workers and president typically only appoints 4000. if those 4000 people are not ready to start day one, it is downhill from there. this project -- it is not firing 50,000 workers, but making 50,000 workers accountable to the president. ultimately, our whole government is by consent. a government of the consent so when we send the president to washington, he or she, is working for the people and needs the direct policy through that most of the people. the government and its theocracies -- host: the 50,000 right now federal workers, career service workers that are harder to fire.

part of this proposal is to make them at will presidential appointees, if you were to have your way. does that work -- is that correct? guest: it is to make them accountable. it has a dismissive rate under 1%. think about your company could not dismiss under 1% of its workforce, you essentially have lifetime tenure for federal employees. the only weight you can manage people with lifetime tenures is to measure their performance, but if the performance is not being mannish, they would not be responsible. what we want to do is make sure the federal bureaucracy is directed by the people through the president and his team. host: as you guys are preparing for this, what lessons did you

learn from president trump's transition that maybe are informing this new project? guest: a lot. president trump was an outsider. this is the insular city. outsiders have become into this place prepared in the with the game is. you also need to be on the same page. it is why we got together and got 400 plus conservative scholars and thinkers. the majority of which is outside of heritage foundation to get in the same room and get on the same page and write a blueprint that is going to tell anyone coming into the administration, this is what the department of labor shouldn't look like after four years of successful conservative governments. this is what an approach should look like. did important people who come in to serve the president are in the same lines and two, it is --

we do not have connections, but those are exactly the people we want to make change. we cannot have a revolving door of this washington ecosystem because everyone who depends on this place for survival is not going to move the country in the direction we need it to. there is a blob that protects itself so we need to tell people these are the rules of the road. you have to stand firmly. we have to actually identify the work and make sure we are ready -- if a pilot comes into the cockpit and flipped buttons come with do that the second the president drops their hand and says so help me god. we take exception with joe biden but the one thing i credit is being prepared so there right signing -- they were signing

things all week and we will do the same. we are in the force of dropping executive orders and identify the stuff that needs to come down. we're not going to wait. we are going to do this as a team, and entire movement years ahead. host: i want to bring -- you have the book in front of you, page 555. let's talk about policy proposals. this is an excerpt where it talks about the role of the justice department. it is says in polit contentious cases, assistant united states attorney's and other line prosecutors during nsertive ministrations seek to influence outcomes of cases not becausef any legal begefendant, but by refusinglicy to take certain positions.

this can cause the department to take positions and consistent with interests of the president and his appointees the other places throughout the miniration. while the supervision of gati is aoj possibility, department falls under the diupervision and control of the president as component of the executive branch. thus, putting aside crinal prosecutions that can warrant different treatment, litigation decisions must be made consistent with the president's agenda. that is an excerpt from the book. the handbook. can you talk about, it sounds like you guys want to erase some of the firewalls most presidents have put in place between the white house and the department of justice making the department of justice less independent and more reflective of what ever the

president wants at the time. is that accurate? guest: our plan is to re-center the government on this constitutional -- we carry a lot of us -- the actual constitution in our pocket, but this is the article to come we have three branches of government. there is, not a four branch unelected bureaucracy -- there is now a fourth branch, unelected bureaucracy. that has now become. a thing unto itself so to get back to the original architecture of the founders, the president is vested executive power and he also is charged to take care of the laws to faithfully execute. he is the chief officer of the united states.

post-watergate, it is a growth of the administrative state, and what you see -- biden doj weaponize against this political opponents. this is where it is out-of-control. americans are seeing this. host: to the phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is gar in decatur, georgia. independent line. caller: good morning. happy labor day weekend. question for mr. dans, joe biden said he is a capitalist. i imagine heritage foundation is also a capitalist. what is your group's position on k street and many speech?

-- case street and money speech? guest: case street, we are really against washington as it stands. there is 50 states out there and washington is almost a foreign country. it is a centerpiece of money and influence and power and media and case street's previous embodiment of that. as someone myself was never been a part of that financial elite, we are basically more of a grassroots organization. this is the time for americans, whether you are in decatur, georgia, or illinois, everywhere in between, to come to washington and get this government back.

i like to say the lines about this land is your land, this land is our land. this government is your government. it is only going to happen when everyday citizens come and take these jobs. what happened when woodrow wilson was a new believe in government, should be run by technocrats, people who went to very fancy schools, and of us -- no better than the rest of us, and that group now we have people running the decisions that affect everyday life with little life experience. as someone who went -- two degrees from m.i.t., i'm a product of the american dream. both of my parents refers -- the first to go to college. me and my brothers and sisters the first in our family to speak english. we went to public schools.

we have kind of live this. by the way, happy labor day. i was driving in here and c-span building, there is meba and that was my grandfather's union, marine engineers benevolent association. that is the sort of folks that are in seat for 40 years and my grandfather was a marine. these are patriots working stock. we built this country. it is time to come back to washington and make sure the government functions for us. host: the next caller is john in north carolina. democratic line. caller: my question is, my comment first, c-span when the biden was first in office did a survey of the top presidents of

the u.s. and trump who was very divisive during his tenure right 41st along with franklin pierce. they share 41st. there is no deep state. there is a deep state, it is republican vented. for example, mitch mcconnell not allowing obama's nominee for the supreme court to even be heard for one year prior to obama leaving office. yet when ruth bader ginsburg died they could not wait to get someone in there and it is still in charge. the new gerrymandering and -- in these different states is the deep state. all of this about just trying to

pattern the government. trump is the only president who had pep rallies, campaign rallies after he was elected. plus, he let their insurrection, so it is ridiculous to say something like that. you are taking away people's rights. you're not doing it for the people. guest: thank you to the caller. i would say yes, there is a deep state. it is very much unfortunately weaponize against conservatives. the federal bureaucracy, statistics show 90% political donations to democrats. what we have seen is -- i think

of conservatives as focus on god , country, and family. not government, but progressive spent 24 hours a day redesigning government. we see government is directed against god. directed against family. directed against this country. it is our charge to get back and take over the government. as far as conservatives and there a conservative deep state of my kind of joke with friends, hilary's had made the same claim, vast right wing conspiracy. we to say cool. where do i find that? conservatives are outnumbered here on the order of 10-1. my humble opinion, we are for the first time organizing, coming together, bringing conservative movement to basically put down this petty

differences and really direct its power and influence and voice of the people towards making significant reforms in government. that is were coalition of 70 plus organizations, we invite more to join, we invite listeners, if it is appealing to you go to projet2025.org. sign up. join the database. this entire book. it is free online. you can read all the chapters. i am happy to come back when you have read some the chapters, but i submit respectively to you that there is a deep state. we saw that in russia, russia. continue to see it today. as far as president trump, he is an outsider. we need an outsider to fix this place. quite the opposite is extremely

effective, but there is a big task in front of him. host: has your coalition talked about the prospect, talk with any of the other candidates, just in case resident trump -- president trump is nothing nominee, and a different republican wins? are the republicans running for president ruling to embrace -- willing to embrace your plan? guest: absolutely. it is for the conservative standard bearer, notwithstanding ap rights, it is not president trump's plan, it is a conservative plan. we welcome president trump and any other person who is a bona fide, legitimate expectation of becoming president. robert f. kennedy, jr., even joe biden is welcome to these ideas. we do not have to wait until 2025. if you want to straighten up,

he's welcome to it. we came together and threw down the marker and said this is what we believe in and we are making -- our book is called the conservative promise because we are promising to you, c-span listener, americans, this is what we promise to do, and these are plans. we're going to get people in place to make it happen. vote conservative because we are going to deliver. unfortunately, it would've setting off the liberal talking heads, is the fact that conservatives are getting their act together. host: back to the phone lines. we speak with marshall in nashville, tennessee. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to hit on three things. i want to push back a bit on the dismantling of the government. i do not think it will be

dismantling of it, i think it will be -- it kind of surprised me when you that page because when you write it, i said oh my god, i know now what merrick garland and christopher wray's is doing. they are doing with joe biden wants them to do. trump is being prosecuted by prosecutors and judges across this nation. every one of them liberal. they are doing what president biden wants them to do which i guess from what he'd writes, that is what they should be doing. i kind disagree because i feel like the rule of law are to be obeyed before dictation of president. i want to ask you because i know you are working on 2025

transition, are you doing anything to shore up or to make sure what happened in 2020, concerning the doj and fbi, willfully, knowingly, intentionally interfering with the presidential election? because right now they are talking about coded. they are talking about coded and lockdowns and i'm asking myself what does the democratic party going to pull this time.. they cannot pull the russia thing because we know that was false. the cannot pull censorship because they have already done that. we know the fbi doj is working with them. is your organization doing anything to protect the vote of the american people, all people, democrat, republican in 2020 for? thank you for your time. guest: thank you for your call.

what you are expressing is what all of us feel. we are a large coalition, so it's just not the heritage foundation. heritage, we are putting the resources forward. we mentioned 22 million. that is aspirational. we are working towards that, but the real value of this, the hundreds and thousands of people giving volunteer time for this effort. with respect to what are we doing for election integrity, i think all conservatives have to man the ramparts and not just us in washington, but everyone listening to this needs to get involved, get involved in their precincts, their town, board of elections, and monitor this. it is weaponize for the doj. there's a distinction to be made between the president executing faithfully the law and at the

same time taking his prosecutorial function of government and turning it into a persecution. that is never it happened in the history of this republic and we have kind of for lightly better angels, if you will, to refrain from that. the gloves are off as farce democrats are concerned and it is weaponize -- as far as the democrats are concerned and is weaponize. you say why did they wait for 2023 when the back should have been known as early as 2020? it is election interference. it is on an industrial scale. the good news is americans get it. this is going to backfire. this is going to be i think as obama used to say, a major teachable moment in american history where americans are going to see how this folks in washington weaponize things to

keep power to themselves and take it away from you in the 50 states. host: let's go back to the phone lines. natalie calling from loxahatchee, florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to say that i'm a proud independent. formally trained in public administration so my question is really about the structural changes that he would like to see in the government. is his plan for the plan of his foundation book for sustainability? -- built for us? if it changes hands to independence, or conservative government, are there enough built into the plan to say now the government is moving in a way -- away from conservatism

and how does his plan provide possible resolution for that situation? guest: thank you for the very thoughtful question. as far as the plan, i hope you will find it interesting as a phd in administration, check out chapter three as we talk about personal agencies, particularly opm, co-authored by dawn devine. reagan's first director of office and personal management, also my former colleague dennis kirk and myself. this is 100 year anniversary from the institution by woodrow wilson's conception has gone so far over it is purely

unaccountable to the people. it is unaccountable to any political management, democrat or republican, and the problem with that is the dismissal rate, part of hiring is also being able to fire. the president and the people acting to the president can do neither. what it needs to be done here is a recognition that there are certain jobs that for purposes of sustainability continuity of government should be superintended by nonpartisan career public servants. the reality is there an entire strata of jobs that make important decisions, these are the things we hotly debate on the campaign trail. those have to be determined by the president's folks and if not

by the president's folks, -- a public servant willing to take political direction and if they are not willing to take political direction, they have to be removed from that job. that is what morally underpins our government, we are consent of the governed. we were sent to washington by the people. if a bearcat in the way of what the people asked for, that is democracy dying. our plan looks at those policy positions. 50 thousand or so said they have to be accountable to the president. host: to indiana, steven calling on the democratic line. caller: good morning. but i'm hearing from you or conservative heritage foundation guest this morning is that conservatives want a republican,

putinist, stalinis government in this countryt and my belief is that the reason for this government as he describes it is because of the blackening and browning of america. and the restrictions of people of color to vote. there is nothing wrong with what is going on in this country as far as the law. trump attempted to control this entire government enforce the judicial system. this is asinine what i'm hearing. host: your response? guest: it is interesting, the caller is from colorado. i am the first generation in my

family not to grow up in the housing projects. dans is a hispanic name. my dad stood up the first migrant -- started the first migrant health care clinic. my dad was a worldwide recognize physician, ultimately come on the faculty of john hopkins, and i had the privilege of being dr. carson when i was hired through grasshoppers. he and dr. carson -- my dad grew up in a cold water flat and his father was at sea. with the caller is labeling trump, we are the people, we are brown people, we are black people and our coalition is vertigo this foundation. there is project -- and our coalition is the project at this foundation. this is the building ready to take back america from the police.

look at joe biden, he is the one putting down vexing mandates. he is compelling federal workers, armed forces to take the vaccine. as far as authoritarian, president trump appointed me to be president, or chairman of the national capital planning commission here in washington, president biden exercise his powers to remove me three weeks into my term. that had never happened in washington. he removed hundreds of other appointees. the flats is biden. we are only now catching up to it. who can play that game? we are going to take the full powers of the president under the constitution and exercise them on the behalf of the people. host: i want to review something we received on twitter from chris in sussex, new jersey, who

writes the origins of u.s. civil service laws began with the assassination of president garfield. what you are proposing is a return to the partisan government culture which led to his murder. we need less partisan influence in government, not more. this plan is hyper partisan lunacy and before you respond, for background for which i am sure you know, but for those at home who did not come this is from the national archive website about the pendleton act of 1883 and says approved on january 16 1883, it establishes a merit-based system of selecting government officials and supervising their work following the assassination of president james garfield by disgruntled job seeker, congress passed the act in january of 1883. it says the pendleton act provided federal government jobs be awarded on the basis of merit

and government employees selected through competitive exams. you can read more about the act. archives.gov. national archives website. what is your response to chris who says getting rid of this -- decreasing the number of civil service employees is a return to partisanship, that the program was created to avoid? guest: chris is right historically, but he needs to catch up on what happened the last 100 years. we no longer have a merit system in place. there is no civil service exam. people are recruited almost relationally around washington. -- generationally around washington. it is impossible to remove a bureaucrat short of them running

around the office naked. even then they probably just go to run for a few years. the flipside of political influence is accountability to the public and that is now gone and you have people like fbi lovebirds essentially saying they are the charge of the u.s. and they are going to determine presidential election outcomes and use the power of their office. we have a lots of wayward bureaucrats and it is harming the public. these jobs in washington, the average pay is well above $100,000. they have goldplated health plans. they have pensions which are cost adjusted over time. none of this is enjoyed by folks in the public sector.

i was an attorney in new york. every morning i got up i had to -- i could be excused for the federal bureau cap coming in does not base that kind of pressure. the kind -- they kind of work together to exclude outside correction and that cannot be said of all, there are a large swath of dedicated public service. to them i also say to you, it is like we are trying to make life better for you because if you have ever been in a large organization and seeing a loafer someone not pulling their weight and they are getting advance, that is frustrating to the quality the visual. the reformer talking about needs to happen. teddy roosevelt was a big reformer and would take a lot -- this is the arena and we are going to -- back to our caller in tennessee, we are not going to dismantle the federal

government. we are going to it. the city -- were to do large-scale renovation to it. the city on the hill needs to be rebuilt in on the constitutional architecture. host: carol in new york, democratic line. caller: i have a question about your funding of who supports your group because from what i have read, you are a climate denying organization and you get billions of dollars from exxon mobil. you just do not care about the environment. your post to every clean energy thing. if we do not have a role to live in, that is the end. anyway, tell me if that is true or not. do get 413 billion dollars from exxon? guest: no, we do not.

we are supported by grassroots, callers like yourself. it is a great misconception. the energy lobby is if anything supporting a lot of the greek new deal, ultimately. they want to have monopoly on energy, whatever the case may be, and -- i think what is dangerous and respectfully, a lot of this could can be mischaracterized as hyperbole, but the energy lobby and degree new deal is to the billionaires come the guys not listening to c-span, the people who would rather awakening in martha's vineyard and various beach resorts. those of the people flying in and out of the private jets who are coming up with these plans to build more chinese windmills and solar panels and do away

with the combustion engine. who is going to feel the brunt of that? is going to be the mom and pop voter, the nurse who has to drive 50 miles to her job. this grade inflation we see every day, you go to the grocery store, it comes from the increase in the price of energy, which is the biggest determinant. i can say this as someone who studied economics at mit at the tutelage of nobel prize winners come it is a complex equation to balance and a lot of what is being thrown up now is either going to be effective and it is going to be potentially disastrous. we are talking about putting more cars on the grid at the same time taking the energy off of the grid. china and other nations are continuing to build coal fire power plants. and canada burns is for us.

-- burns its forests. it is making washington connected people wealthy. host: durham, north carolina, anthony calling on the independent line. caller: mr. dans, good morning to you. i am curious how do you feel that the january 6 insurrection perpetuated against the state capital, federal government, and people of america, how you feel like that was not an actual treasonous act? and it has been exacerbated by the democratic party but protect -- but perpetrated by the

vast republican party? guest: i do not think anyone knows what happened on january 6 and what happened there with the january 6 commission was one-sided. this narrative is going to collapse. there is interesting things that have been kinda surprised i think when you look at the media and the courts and the biden doj. what was the role of the federal government itself in january 6? i can only say in serving at the time, watching in the summer of 2020, the white house get ransacked. we were trying to do our jobs and were told we had to go home from our federal buildings routinely because of protesters. they would clear out people from the treasury department. this story is not towed. the government got shut down summer 2020. as far as who is responsible, we

do have first amendment and that applies equally to the president. the person this cody -- to the person, the custodian in the white house to speak freely, petition your government already writes and i think an examination of the events of january 6 is being told a different narrative. host: last caller, connie in, republican line. caller: yes. i am not black, but i am a happy cherokee. because of one cold-blooded hebrew grandpa, i am also halfbreed jew. this doj -- i do not know

anything about the the proud boys -- did not know anything about the proud boys, but the proud boys are comprised of whites and blacks. the black guy wednesday got the department of justice wanted to give him 33 years in prison for his participation in january 6. the man was not even at the capital on january 6. they had already warned him a couple days before that that he could not be there january 6. and he was not. this doj is letting blacks know you do not stand up for republicans. if people want to go along with

this and say that is great, that is fine, go on -- host: we are running out of time. will had to stop you there because i want to give you a few seconds, any final thoughts. guest: connie, we all want to get the truth of what happened january 6. certainly strange things that the doj has done. people taking down fences, people encouraging, talking to the capital with microphones. when the identities are known i think we will see different -- unfortunate think is, it sends a message to people that you should not criticize the government. you cannot question an election. you cannot get involved in election. these terrible most political prisoners were taken and held in solitary confinement, never given a trial date. these are things had it happen

in any other country, our state department would be denouncing. i agree. this is why i became a lawyer. i have a deep sense of justice. going on now, we have to keep the faith and stand up. you have to keep moving forward and speaking your voice. i encourage everyone here to do that on a local level and make sure these elections are the free and fair was that every americans deserve, left, right, center. host: we have been talking with paul dans of the heritage foundation about the 2025 presidential transition project. thank you. guest: thank you. host: where are going to take a quick break. later on the, erin heaney and steve phillips of the advocacy group the white stripe project

will discuss efforts to attract white voters back to the democratic party by discussing issues of equity and race. up next, it is more of your calls and comments in our open forum so go ahead and start calling. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ ♪ >> this fall, watch c-span's new series, books that shaped america. join us as we embark on a captivating journey and partnership with the library of congress which first created new books that shaped america lists to explore key works of literature from american history. the books featured have a rule of thought, won awards, led to significant changes and are still talked about today.

hear from experts who will shed light on the impact of these works and virtual journeys across the country tied to the celebrated authors and their unforgettable books. among the books, "common sense" by thomas payne, "huckleberry finn" by mark twain, "their eyes were watching god" by zora neale hurston, and "free to choose," by milton and rose friedman. watch our series, books that shaped america, starting monday september 18 at c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> join us thursday for a preview of books that shaped america with librarian of congress carla hayden and douglas brinkley live library of congress college auditorium. carla hayden the 14th librarian

of congress in office since 2016. till this brinkley teaches at rice university and edited books on several presint and many other topics. watch thereew of our new series bookshat shapedmerica , there is they come alive at 7:00 p.m. on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to open forum and your chance to weigh and on any political topic or news of the day. your numbers to call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. tammy in raleigh, north carolina on the democratic line. caller: good morning, tia.

how are you? host: doing well. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i want to speak on the person you had on, mr. dan. i think what he just laid out for everybody to hear -- i hope everybody heard it because i feel like this 2025 project being spoke of some of the book laying out how this is going to be a lockstep and file rank to the presidency, he will rule everything. 50,000 he speaks of getting rid of or how he wants to make it sound easier, those are going to be the people that are not locked in step with the president. this is getting into that ruler, he rules everything can has everything to say and you do what he says. i think very scary to hear that. as far as him saying he is part

of the grassroots, no, he is coming from the heritage foundation and we know they are a cornerstone in the middle of the big political arena. host: rebecca in sport smith, arkansas, republican line. caller: hi. i want to say i agree with just about everything she said. i hope 2024 trump selected. i will vote for him if all this garbage about his indictment, the voting -- they are trying to change the votes, they do not want trump to be elected. if he's not on the ballot, i will write him in. i just think all this about the insurrection as a joke. it is crazy. no one did anything about the values, democrats caught that peaceful protest thing -- about

the riots, the democrats called that peaceful protest think. i hope trump gets elected. i'm going to vote for him. i believe the democrats are trying to destroy christianity and the country. all these abortions are legalized, it is murder. the invasion, he's not doing anything about the border. joe biden is a joke. i think he is a criminal. host: edward in keyport, new jersey on the independent line. caller: thank you "washington journal" staff for working every day and every holiday for that matter. i'm calling in regards to labor day and the american history of the struggle to win workers rights. let the world's first made a

parade in chicago may 1, 1886. the only real culture war in america is the class struggle of the rich versus the poor and labor rights. racial and gay rights are divergent from the class struggle. without workers, there is no military, politicians, or country. happy labor day in the fight continues. thank you america socialist that contributed to labor rights and american history. have a good day. host: paul in sanford, florida, democratic line. caller: intending to call on the independent line. host: it is all right. caller: ok. very good. the gentleman from the heritage foundation i think he is in a cultlike i feel black lives

matter and other farm lifts are other colts. we need politicians that will come together with moderate, practical problem-solving policies to address issues at our border, immigration, climate , and with regard to the coup attempt. i would ask the gentleman from the heritage foundation if it is going to be all right if kamala harris and jill biden if they lose the election -- jod biden lose the election and conjure up fake collectors which is illegal, and then not certify the electoral college votes in the senate as president trump has proposed his vice president do. they are ok with that, then i

guess that is an option for these guys if they lose this time. thank you very much. host: mary is next in lakeland, florida. republican line. caller: hi. i agree 100% with a woman from arkansas. this country is going downhill extremely fast. as far as the border, as far as what they have done to this country, the democrats are very bad. as far as lying, doing things that are very bad for the people , very bad. as far as donald trump is concerned, as that woman said, i agree. i will vote for him again. jack smith, alvin bragg, and the woman in that other state is

doing to him, is very, very bad for this country. host: all right, mary. we have charles in virginia, independent line. caller: [indiscernible] you are doing a heck of a job. i am baffled. i am calling -- i called a long time ago. i have one question for america and to the woman from arkansas and the woman that just called. this man in the beginning said text somebody private parts and bragged about it. i would like to ask them, anybody black, white, hispanic, whoever is that man touched your

woman, your mother's private parts, your sisters private parts, your wife's, and then bragged about it, would you still vote for him? then she said he was a christian man. how does a christian man do or say that? how does a christian man do the things -- how does a christian man lie andi am tryint is wrong with this country. everything that is right is not wrong. everything that is up is now down. i am concerned about the direction of this country and how people think and feel that one man can be above the law. if i as a black man were to do any of those things, i could not get any of the privileges that this man has. if that man touches your private

parts got your daughter's, would you still vote for him? host: let's go to atlanta, democratic line. jake, you are on. caller: thank you for having me. the first thing i would like to say is all these republicans who keep talking about january 6 and the insurrection, there was no insurrection on january 6. that is not the problem. those were just a bunch of cult followers following their leader . i do not blame them for attacking the capital. the thing that happened to try to overthrow the country is the fake electro scheme that was going on. these republicans talking about january 6 have to stop talking about that and talking about the president of the united states trying to overthrow the government. the other thing is the fact that you have this guy, paul dans, on, i cannot believe he is with the heritage foundation. the heritage foundation was a respectable -- is a respectable

right wing place, but this guy is just pushing the trump lies and it is very scary. i used to work for the treasury. i asked one of our colleagues one time, we could get access to every tax return in the country. i asked one of my fellow service colleagues, what if the president came down and demanded a tax return from one of the opposition people? my colleague said, i would tell him to get lost because i am civil service. you cannot tell me to break the law. so this civil service rules are very good. certainly there are things that need to be done to get people fired if they do not do their job, but it is dangerous for people who work for donald trump and people like that who are spreading lies and getting republicans to believe all these things -- it would be great if someone tried to reform the civil service, but not somebody

in his lackeys who are -- tried to overthrow the country. if trump gets back in, i guarantee he will try for a third, fourth, and fifth term. he will try to do something to change the rules. he knows people have this thirst for power. they love power, like lindsey graham. these people following donald trump, he knows he can -- you try to install one of his lackeys on the federal reserve here and he tries to install lackeys everywhere and the last thing i will say is that i think the attorney general of the united states, it would be great for our country if the attorney general could be installed by the supreme court instead of by the president, which would make the attorney general not responsive to the president, and this is what donald trump knows, that he can stick these people to our government and they will do anything he says for power. thank you very much.

host: next is donald in rally -- raleigh, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a veteran. 22 years in the united states navy. i have been around the world. america was one of the best nations that everybody around the world loved. something has gone wrong. i just want to say that america, you better love this democracy and you better protected because it is real. thank you very much. host: let's go to baltimore, maryland. independent line. caller: the previous guest, this

is terrifying to me as an independent. this is terrifying. it sounds, from the chapter you read, the excerpt, that they want to remove the constitutional divisions of power that protect the people. to bring the department of justice under the umbrella of the presidency's power. i see where they are doing that, because then whoever is a republican like donald trump gets back in, there will be no recourse, no recourse when he breaks the law, if he breaks the law. we know he has broken the law numerous times. so this is horrifying. this is terrifying because if these people should succeed, our

democracy is gone. our democracy is -- our republic is gone. to remove the checks and balances is ridiculous. they were put there by the founding fathers for a good purpose. host: let's go to johnny in georgia, democratic line. go ahead. caller: they believe their mouths better than their eyes. if they look at what happened -- what is happening they would believe. you have to believe your eyes if you are an american. in america, people ain't nothing but talk and they do more

talking in america than anywhere in the world. i believe this country has the most stupid -- the most -- people living in the world. host: charles is up next in new york, republican line. are you with us? caller: you want to ask these immigrants what they are coming in. i have talked to a few of them. everyone of them you ask, if they had a right to vote in this country who they would vote for now. everyone of them i talked to, and my friends have done the same, they said they would vote for biden because he let them in illegally. if this is not a plan, i do not know what is, but i am pretty sure it is a plan for the democrat party to do this. that is why the borders are open like they are.

there is a lot of crime going on that should not be happening. host: kevin, baltimore, independent line. you are on. caller: i wanted to respond to that heritage foundation guy. i think it is insane for him to call his organization a grassroots organization when they are one of the leading republican organizations. at one point, he brought up how we are turning the government away from god and family while he was clutching his pocket constitution. i would like ripped a where in that word -- where in that document the words god or family can be found. i do not think we should be giving people like that from that organization as much space as we are giving them. i think it is a one-way ticket to fascism. thank you. host: on the line from

knoxville, tennessee, tom is calling. caller: i'm delighted to get through. i want to the 37.5 percent of tennessee voters who voted for biden and harris. and i hope our state will eventually turn purple. knoxville city just elected a female democrat mayor, but the county is very republican. you did a great job with mr. dans. you are very fair to him. i liked that you referenced page 555. i think that got a lot of people animated and i like that you pulled up the thing about president garfield being assassinated because it was pretty much a direct contradiction of what he was saying. for an attorney, i do not understand mr. dans when he said

the should not be weaponized against political enemies when he was insinuating that president biden was doing that and it just flummoxed as me because trump told hillary clinton in the debate that she would be in jail. he has just recently said he would lock up political enemies. and he just went after jeff sessions, who was a republican. i'm not a big fan of sessions, but i think sessions was a better attorney than mr. dans because essence knew he needed -- sessions knew he needed to recuse himself. it is a sad thing in america, trumpism. i think he is an existential threat to our democratic republic. host: on the republican line, brian is calling from new york city. >> good morning. thank you for having me on.

it is hysterical listening to her democrat and independent citizens complaining about project 2025, to whom i have just made a donation. unfortunately, they are trying to lock up trump all over the country and people should support donald trump. host: brian. let's go to ryan in phoenix, arizona, independent line. >> good morning. people have short memories. i am not a huge fan of the democrats or republicans anymore, a lot of corruption on both sides.

biden definitely weaponized the doj and fbi, 50 different agencies that said the laptop was fake, the cia. where is the accountability and all of this? it is more the cover of it -- cover up of it. but i just think there is a lot of nonsense in the nation. host: our next caller is rita in south dakota, democratic line. caller: i'm calling in regards to your guest from the heritage center. when i was younger, i remember when i was's younger and my husband's onto, a republican --

and i am not. but she told me -- she worked for state government. she told me how every friday when it was payday back then the republican person would come and take their dues. they would have to pay dues to the party from their job. in state government in south dakota just over the river. i thought, he wants us to go back to that. that is stupid. i worked for the government for 39 years. i never had to pay to anybody if i did not want to. i was independent with and eye

registered as a democrat. but i do not think it is necessary for our civil servants to go back to that time of society. thank you for letting me speak my mind. host: bill is up next from cranberry township, pennsylvania , republican line. caller: i am calling to get on some current things. happy labor day. i was talking to my mail carrier yesterday. i do not know if anybody knows about this thing with the post office, but there were over 40,000 people not paid friday, the mail carriers.

all this democrat stuff about the government and who is right, who is wrong -- how come joe is not on this? host: appreciate your call. we are going to take a quick break. when we come back, erin heaney and steve phillips of the advocacy group the white stripe project will discuss efforts to attract white voters back to the democratic party by discussing issues of equity and race. >> tonight on q&a, presidential historian richard norton smith shares his biography of president gerald ford. he talks about ford's personal life, anti-establish in politics, and his effort to heal

the cofolling the watergate scandal and his controversial decision to pardon richard nixon. >> our long national nightmare is over. >> the irony about the whole phrase, whoever wrote it, is for did not want to use it. ford thought it was kicking a man when he was down. and he made the case, people need to hear this. they need to hear it from you. the final surprise is that our long national nightmare was far from over. >> richard norton smith tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcasts on our free c-span now app.

live today on in-depth, author joins book tv to talk and take her calls on religious freedom and the sexual revolution in america. she is an expert on christian culte and the author of many books, including it is dangerous to believe, how the west really lost god, and adam and eve after the pill, an update to her 2012 book about social change brought about by the sexual revolution. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, andexts, live today at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, and listen to

washington journal daily. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, bestseller lists, industry news, and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work with citizens

truly informed. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are to get the opinion -- because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. host: we are back with erin heaney and steve phillips, representing the white stripe project, and effort to attract more white voters back to the democratic party. good morning. thank you for joining us. let's start with you. tell us about your background and how you came to join the project. >> i am a director at showing up

for racial justice. we work to undermine the power of the right and bring more white people into the fight for racial and economic justice. we understand race has been used since the beginning of this country to keep white people silent and separated from movements for justice that are fighting for a better world for all of us. our organizing is to do work in white communities and bring more white folks off the sidelines and into the multiracial coalitions we need to win on a range of issues. i have gotten to know steve through this work and i'm excited to be part of the white stripe project. host: steve, your political background? ? caller: -- guest: i did not know we have enough time to my full applicable background but i am a child of the civil rights movement. they would not sell the house to my parents when we moved and because they were black. they got a white lawyer to buy it and deeded over to us.

i grew up reading about martin luther king, worked on jesse jackson's presidential campaign that brought together the civil rights movement and electoral politics. i think engaging in this public debate around politics and race and social and economic justice and i have written two books in that vein. that is what brought me to this project, trying to apply what i have been able to glean and learn about race in america, about the role of white identity in national politics and the shortcomings in the progressive anti--- democratic ecosystem in terms of taking a data driven approach to understanding what is going on and how we attract support and what is a realistic expectation as well. host: tell us more about the

white stripe project and how the group is involved. what is your common thread that brings you together for this initiative? guest: it is an effort aligning with showing up for racial justice. my organization, which has been active in progressive national politics particularly in terms of working with progressive donors across the country and with the working families party, one of the largest, most progressive organizations in the country, and it really is about summoning the progressive movement and democratic party to up its game heading into 2024, given how profound the stakes are of what we are going to be facing and to really take a data driven approach to looking clearly and objectively at the question of what really -- we really know about white voters, how we attract them, what is a realistic expectation, at what

point do we decide we have hit that limit, and what is that based upon. i wrote a book called brown is the new white cannot really focusing on making sure we pay attention to the political significance of voters of caller. we have been talking past each other. we also have white voters and it is true. the white stripe of the rainbow coalition is critical, so this is an opportunity to summon the progressive movement, the key stakeholders, to a candidate and data driven conversation. what works and attracting what support? what are the limits of that and the implications of that in terms of spending and strategy as we head into 2024, where we will spend $2 billion trying to hold the line against those who want to take the country back and make america white again.

host: i want to go ahead and let our viewers know that the lines to call for your questions or comments or your thoughts about their efforts to attract more white voters to the democratic party. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message, (202) 748-8003. how is this white stripe project being funded? >> this is a collaborate -- collaboration between the three organizations. we have come together and use existing resources to advance the conversation.

we see this as a time contained project because the stakes are so high in this moment. i think the reason we are so committed to this is the other through line is all three of organizations are unapologetic champions of racial justice but we also believe we need to bring more white folks and because the stakes are higher, so we decided to partner at this important moment because of the way the country is headed. host: we heard steve talk about being data driven, and that is something the organization has made clear. can you be more specific about what you plan to discuss and where the data exists now or how you plan to obtain data that will help you execute your plan? >> absolutely appear last month, we brought together a group of practitioners from across the country who are doing work in

multiracial communities or majority white communities to ask folks to share data with us, so we are in the process now of compiling good data. there is good existing data that has not made its way into the hands of the people who need to make decisions based on that data, so that is one component. we are doing research now, doing electoral work this year in kentucky on the governor's race. we are working in rural parts of the state to secure votes for governor andy beshear. we have partnered with the sandler phillips center to take a close look at what is working. that will be part of what we find and disseminate up to the field.

guest: there is a significant amount of data. their exit polls going back to 1976 and after many state elections as well, broken out by race to see how people vote along racial identity lines in terms of elections where there has been progress and has not been, so that is a data set. there are national polls done by political scientists after every election and polls done by different groups and organizations, so a big part of the effort is to gather in all of the data and look at it and to see what it actually shows. a big part of the problem is it is not clear. i have questions and doubts of how much progressive and democratic spending is driven by data as much as by instinct. if you look at the 2020 election where democrats are trying to take back the senate, the

democratic side spent close to 200 million dollars. as of august 2020, they have spent $7 million in iowa and zero in georgia. what state flip for the democrats? it was georgia, so what was the dataset? if you look at prior election years, georgia was closer than iowa had been, so we need to have a clear conversation. everybody bring your spreadsheets. let's talk about what we really know around what works for white voters and what is a realistic expectation and how that should inform our strategy and spending. host: brian in salt lake city, utah, what is your question or comment? caller: the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, and the constitution, those documents separate us from every

other country. if we live by those, everything is good. i think this white stripe project is a racist -- progressive hate america. progressives want to change it. we are all americans together. when you do this racist crap, it just don't work. i am sorry, but you are pushing racism. barack obama is a white to premises. -- supremacist? why is he black? he is 50-50. then you see him with robert byrd. the democratic party is a racist. the only thing that changed was lyndon b. johnson, big racist. there he is and all of a sudden, because he finally gives rights to the blacks, he did not do it. it was the democrats -- the

republicans. what is his name? host: i think we got your point. let's let our guests respond. i will let you respond to brian's point. guest: one of the things we see across the country is race is an explicit part of how we understand the world. race was created in this country to ensure that working people were not able to successfully push back against people in power, so one of the things we are trying to insist on in this project is this explicitness that often we do not talk about. we do not talk exquisitely about whiteness and the way it is expressed in our politics. the republican party may do that, but democrats are much less expose it about it, so we are seeing people make decisions

based on instinct as opposed to talking openly and honestly about what the data shows. i will pause there. >> i think the last caller illustrates the problem and fear that democrats have in talking about race. if you name race, you get that type of reaction, so the response of many democrats is let's not talk about it, but if we are going to have a conversation about the role of race in this country, that we have a civil war over whether white people could enslave black people and the equivalent of 7 million people were killed in that battle, the civil war never actually ended. recent general and whiteness in particular remains fundamental to u.s. politics and i would

argue the 2024 election will be an existential struggle of whether this will be a white or multiracial country. that is the battle that has been going on for centuries and democrats need to explicitly engage that conversation. host: to build on that, you say it is about a multiracial society, but some people would stereotypically or flexible he saying that is not a message that resonates with some white voters. do you disagree with that or do you think you have to massage that message so it does not scare off white voters? host: -- guest: you put your finger on one of the central questions people are looking at. we are going to look at the data. what does it actually say? and really determine that question. a significant data point is that

one of the best examples of attracting white support and extent -- expanding the white stripe of the rainbow as large as it has been since jimmy carter in 1976 was will be asked this country in 2008, didn't want to have a black as its president? large numbers of white people responded and larger numbers respondent that have in almost any other election. host: josephine in west virginia, democratic line. caller: i want to say that you are the only one on c-span that i really like because i do not know whether you are a republican or democrat. the others i know. you are fair about everything. you go from whatever the top number is and you do that way.

the other student different ways. you are doing great. i love you. i am a democrat. i am 84 years old. i have been a democrat all my life. i have been thinking about changing and getting closer and closer. first, nancy pelosi. she helped me make my decision to think about changing when she tore up the paper. the other one was maxine waters when she said go out and do all this stuff to the republicans and all that. that turned me against the democrats. then joe biden comes on. we did like joe biden until he lies just like when the woman -- person was brought back from the war. he said his son was covered in a

flag. he lied and said his house almost burned down. my thing is i am really thinking about changing because the democrats do not do anything anymore except lie and pitch hate. they are not above the law. they think they are. they think biden can get away with everything and he is getting away with everything. i am not going to say anymore but you are the best one on the show. you are true. thank you very much. host: can you respond to her comments? >> i am the daughter of an investigative journalist who felt like it was important to hold people in power accountable regardless of political party. that being said, i think we are in a unique and dangerous moment back this country where i think

the decisions between the two parties are quite stark in this moment. one party has decided -- the republican party and the maggot faction has captured the republican party and they are unafraid to secure white voters through an explicit race-based strategy that embraces political violence and white nationalism. i want to live in a world -- i want to live in a united states that is a multiracial democracy where all of us can thrive and we can all live together. i really do think that this election is going to be critical for making a decision about which way this country goes. are we going to be a multiracial democracy wore a white only nation? i know what side i am on. i think the choices in this moment are really important and stark. host: let's hear now from ishmael in indianapolis, indiana

a independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. happy labor day weekend. my comment pretty much is we lost a lot of white voters to the democratic party because of a hijack by donald trump. he divided this country since 2016 and we are seeing the outcome of that. i think to get white voters to the democratic party is just to listen to them. they have lost a lot of blue callers because we turned our back to them and that is what

the problem was. it is just like a cult. there is no way can go out there and bring members back. they are already brainwashed. for us to let -- to have these white voters, which is the majority of voters in this country, we need to listen to them. the democratic party has done a terrible job. i remember criticism of ronald reagan because he said this gentleman is going to divide the country and take the middle class out of the equation. getting the white voter is important and i want to hear more from your two guests, with the dynamic of their project, what the number one priority is to get the blue collar back to the party and have this country

in the right direction. thank you. host: the caller wants to know your big priorities. guest: we talk about being data driven. their underlying assumptions about the electorate and what is possible and voters being with democrats and white voters fleeing the democrats. it is important to ground the conversation in reality and data. when the voting rights act was passed in 1965, lyndon johnson turned to one of his assistants and said, we may have just lost the south for the next 20 years. and that was the point at which a lot of democrats flood -- a lot of white people fled the democratic party. it was not about a lack of attention to kitchen table

issues. it was about too much attention to racial equality and justice. no democrat running for president has ever won the majority of the white vote since lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act, so that is a critical question in terms of understanding what is possible, so the history politics in this country has been a contest among white people. you had liberal white people, conservative white people, whites in the middle. there were not enough people of color to really effect election outcomes. since the 1960's, it has now become 40% of the u.s. population and a new electoral calculus as possible. this is what obama demonstrated, that a majority of people of color, the meaningful minority of whites, is now the majority

of people in this country, so the question we are grappling with is how do we expand that white stripe? with the clear and open eyes that that will not get the 50% of white voters. no dataset shows that is possible, but you do not have to have 50% to win. is it 38 percent? 43%? that is the range, so we are try to push it back up but the fundamental point is that this meaningful majority, which is what we are focused on organizing, does believe in and is inspired by the concepts i believe in vision that this should be a multiracial country. host: this is video president biden last week speaking on his administration's new medicare prescription drug pricing plan.

[video clip] >> two weeks ago, we celebrated the first anniversary of the inflation reduction act. we did lower inflation but there were many other things in that. the most significant laws ever enacted my especially when it comes to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. we pay more for prescription drugs than any other major economy in the world. you can walk across the country you are paying two times to three times more for the exact same prescription manufactured by the same company than it would cost you in canada or france or anywhere else around the world. think about that. a drug company that makes a drug in america sold in chicago, you can buy the same drug in toronto or paris cheaper than you can in chicago. unlike other parts of the health care system, big pharma got a

special carve out for negotiating the price of drugs through medicare. for years, advocates like many of you in this room have worked tirelessly to change that and give medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, just like the department of veterans affairs does now. it matters. host: that is president joe biden speaking about his new medicare prescription drug pricing plan. i also want to bring up an excerpt from an essay written by american enterprise institute about white working-class voters and he asserts they are not swayed by president biden's emphasis on his accomplishments in manufacturing and infrastructure and other things. i will read an excerpt. it says the biminiration hopes that by touting his legislative compliments and

pointing to manufacturing and infrastructure projects that are starting to get off the ground and could turn things arou with these white working-class voters. it is a steep hill to climb and e approach does not seem to be workin a shockin of the white working-class believed that biden has accomplished not very much or little or nothing in his time in office. i want to come back to you. do you agree with the assertions ? do you think part of what your group -- what your group will have to do is education about what biden has or has not accomplished? guest: of course we need a

democratic party that delivers. he should go out and talk about things he has done that will impact lives but i want to dig deeper because i think we would not be in the political situation we are in today if we just focused -- if this is really just about economics. we see something else going on. i think it is deeper. i think part of what we need in the conversation and part of what the conversation of the project is try to get at is to be more precise. in the u.s., there are 236 million white people, yet our conversation about white voters tends to be focused on one segment of whites, working-class voters, the older white guys, but we are interested in

thinking about, in that swath of voters, who are the white voters and the different segments of white working-class voters who might come with us without us having to sacrifice a progressive agenda. i am curious about how we re-motivate anti-maga voters. how do we turn people out who are in rural communities were with us on issues and want to see economic and racial justice advance? but maybe they are not getting their door knocked on. or truly conflicted voters. there are lots of parents of young queer and trans kids who are coming to understand that the republican party does not under -- does not stand with them. we are curious who will come with us without us having to sacrifice our core values or a

multiracial democracy. host: let's go back to the phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. next up is philip in ohio, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. happy labor day. my comment is this project is just another communist front outfit. it is very racist. as far as lyndon johnson on equal rights, it was a republican congressman who pushed it through. if you do your fact checking, you would know it was not all democrats and democrats have been racist since day one. they have always been racist. they fought against the freedom of the slaves. they did not help get free.

now you have seen the chaos coming out of it. they riot in cities and bring them down. nobody is held accountable. like trump says, if you fly over the country you are invited. as far as this lady whose mother was a journalist, all journalists are communists. ask them. 99% of them. host: steve, i saw you chuckle, so i will let you go. guest: i will let you defend your communist/non-communist identity or self. there is a factually correct point because it has large or significant applications. it is true that the democrats -- the confederates were democrats. so the republicans were created largely as the antislavery party

and the party that had more of a commitment to this country being a multiracial democracy. most of the most progressive legislation in the history of this country during reconstruction in the post-civil war years was driven by republicans, the radical republicans of that time period. this is not fundamentally a question of democrats versus republicans. over the course of the century, as i tried to articulate in my book, i try to describe it -- as the democrats move closer toward people of color and embracing their struggle for justice and equality, white voters fled to the republican party, so it is not fundamentally about the partisan us -- partisan-ness of all of this. it is about a vision for the country. it is a struggle that has gone on since thomas jefferson tried to put a condemnation of slavery

into the declaration of independence and that was rejected by slaveholding states. that remains the battle within this country. we are try to figure out what data shows about the implications for the right spending strategies and messages in the context of that being the battle we are engaged in in this nation now. host: next is john in buffalo, new york, democratic line. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: thanks to steve and erin . i am from buffalo. thank you to c-span. you guys are awesome. i wanted to make a few comments and get the opinion of the panel. i consider myself to be a patriotic democrat in the style of fdr and john f. kennedy. today we live in a country where we have white people and black people who are homeless or living in poverty. the average price of a home has

gone from $200,000 to 400 thousand dollars. inflation is high. robert f. kennedy, jr. has brought this up. i see many democrats today who are dividing us by race. they are discounting the fact that there are so many homeless and poor white people in this country who have the same struggle as a homeless or poor black person. i see the division of democrats supporting the destruction or removal of statues of christopher columbus and andrew jackson but not supporting the destruction or removal of statues of native americans or black folks who owned slaves as well. people like one of the most well-known emperors of african country that he owned thousands of slaves. he has statues all over the world. people are not destroying the statues and rightfully so. slavery was an unfortunate part of history that all races engaged in. so i hope you folks can support

bringing back statues of andrew jackson and chris for columbus, which instill pride in people all over the country. though statues have nothing to do with supporting bigotry. we should understand the history of these types of people. i wanted to say we see how inner cities across the united states have been hurt deeply by the loss of millions of steel and auto jobs which have yet to be replaced. you can travel across inner cities across america. they are filled with black people and white people who are struggling. what can we do to bring back pride in america? i think it is important to bring back statues of historical people who built this country. we have lost so many middle-class jobs. what can you two do to respect and understand history, understanding that slavery was a worldwide issue? host: we are going to let our panelists respond. go ahead.

guest: i am from buffalo. i grew up not too many years after the the steel plants closed here. i am irish-italian. one of the things that was very much in the water here even though i grew up in a union household, i heard stories from a young age, that was people of color to blame, not corporations or people in power, for the closure of the plants, which harmed so many people, including white people. so part of the reason i am in this work is because i want all of us to be doing better that i think for those of us who are white, we get the things we need in our lives through solidarity with people of color, coming together across lines of difference to struggle for things that make all of our lives better. in that work, we have to learn and unlearn some things about race for those of us who are white. we have to learn the true

history of what has happened in order to create those bonds and be able to build a movement that is big enough for us to win. there is a long history of multiracial struggle in this country that included white people. think about the poor people's campaign that brought together white and black people to struggle for a new world the jesse jackson campaign was bringing together poor people of all backgrounds. there is a long lineage and history of multiracial struggles that this project is hoping to extend and grow. that is what i will say on that front. host: let's go to silver spring, maryland on the independent line. can you hear us? caller: yes. i agree with the previous

caller. i'm talking about 80%, 90% of what he said. c-span is truly america's champion. i would like to address this to the people you have there. why is it that blacks are starting to gravitate toward the republican party? and the ones you speak to in a mature manner get the emotions out of the current data and the issues we are dealing with? they bring it to analysis that shows democrats are really the ones destroying this country. and it is mainly being done through illegals -- illegal immigration, cartels coming in here. we are not going to have that. we are not going to have it. host: steve, go ahead.

guest: there is a point she touches on that i wanted to raise earlier in terms of the clip that you played and the article, that what biden was talking about in terms of medicare reflects what the obama-biden administration did in terms of trying to provide health care for this country, so it is an illustration of the question around his public policy going to be for the entire country in all of its multiracial splendor or is it going to be limited to primarily white people, so obama's pollster concluded that much of the opposition to health care reform is because people saw it as a giveaway to black people here and there is a powerful book called diane of whiteness

that reflects on a person in tennessee who needed a kidney transplant and could have gotten health care if he had gone to a state that had obamacare and said i do not want anything that is a giveaway to people of color or two lazy people on welfare. i would rather die. he died. so the reflection is the democrats were fighting for a public policy agenda which will speak to the entire population and address many of the inequalities that play out by race, but the challenge they have to be able to communicate that to the population in a way in which challenges everybody to say, yes, everybody should have things like health care, access to affordable prescription drugs. host: let's go to the democratic

line. john is calling from new york. caller: the first time i voted, i voted for a congresswoman from buffalo. i voted for obama twice. i dated black women. i just want to preface that so you do not think i'm prejudiced when i say that. to me, the democratic party is coming -- becoming too much influenced by black racism. i have had it with america being a racist country. i have had it with it. you constantly run behind this race card and then you say that immigration, which if there is one issue that is really terrible for me it is immigration. then you saying it is because of

some kind of white supremacy garbage. you are losing me. i'm a democrat my whole life and you are losing me. do you understand that? host: let's start with steve on this, losing white democrats. go ahead. guest: heat keeps coming back to a question around summoning people to understand the nature of the country they actually want. that is -- even the question of immigration. the first immigration law in this country, you had to be a u.s. citizen. you had to be a free, white person. he was talking about being sick of racism. i am, too. it has been here, embedded in our founding documents. i think the things he is talking about and even his anger, are the types of things --

host: go ahead. guest: is an example of why we are really trying to push a more explicit conversation within the democratic party about how we tackle these issues, because we know that race is in the air and the republican party is explicit about these questions, so this is why one of our hypotheses is that a race neutral approach with the democratic party is not going to work. it is just talking about -- if just talking about what united us worked, we would not be in the situation we're in today. i think the right has a race forward strategy. we probably need to have one as well, so we are interested in looking at the data to see what it is going to take to combat some of these beliefs that folks have that i think are harmful to

communities of caller but also get in the way of white people getting the things they need as well. host: we just have a few seconds left, but i want to let you have the last word. what will be the indicator of success for you guys? guest: ultimately, we are looking at the 20 for democratic and progressive political spending and strategies and priorities and even what policies they champion. and are those driven by data. we need to expand support levels , but are we doing that in a way that is evidence-based and allocates money properly between what is effective in attracting whites and also what is necessary in terms of maximizing votes of people of color. host: we will have to leave it there. this is erin heaney and steve phillips, both representatives

of an advocacy group, the white stripe project. thank you for joining us this morning. that will do it for washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m.. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]