courtesy. if you want to kill me, i'm not going to treat you with courtesy. and you heard linken say, the jews have -- this is jewish land. let's go back to the time of moses. host: i got the point. one more call, caleb in colorado. last call, independent line. caller: the israel israel-palestinian conflict is blatantly unethical and i find it disgusting how many americans take propaganda from openly far right governments. i cannot support hamas. if you want them to go away you need to take away -- we have tried a solution and it results in the west bank. citizens in the west bank are red by a political group and

they are killed, treated unjustly, and currently illegally occupied by israel. i think the state of israel's response is legal in eyes of the national law. they are sieging the people of gaza doing collective punishment and occupying the west bank. host: caleb is the last call on this. we'll move on to talk about, again, matters of domestic policy. particularly in the house of representatives with the speakers fight. joining us for that conversation, michael warren, senior editor of "the dispatch." he'll come to "washington journal" when we return. >> monday, watch c-span series in partnership with the library of congress, books that shaped america. will feature the common law by oliver wendall holmes jr.,

written in 1881, two decades before he would become supreme court justice. the book is from a series of lectures he had given on criminal and civil law. and other legal issues. controversial at the time. holmes wrote that the life of the law has not been logic. it has been experience. jeffrey rosen, president and c.e.o. national constitution center l. join us to discuss the book. watch books that shaped america, featuring the common law, monday live at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. be sure to scan the q.r. code to listen to our companion podcast where you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. >> live sday, november 5, on in-depth, author and former a. a.c.l.u. president joins book tv to talk and take calls about

civil rights, free speech censorship and more. she's the autho of "defending pornography," hate" and "free speech" what everyone needs to know. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, and texts. in-depth, live sunday, november 5 at noon easteron book tv. on c-span2. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington, journal, and by scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling

podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington. any time, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: talking about events object the -- on the house of representatives. michael warren of the dispatch. he serves as their senior editor. good morning. first of all "the dispatch" what point of view does it take when it comes to editorial decisions. guest: we come from a center right, traditional conservative point of view. we are not aligned with any particular political party. we are pretty skeptical of the direction that the current republican party is going. but we are very much sort of steeped in original reporting. reported analysis. we have a number of newsletters and reporters covering things

that are happening in washington. also things happening throughout the country and the world. we take a reporter first and reporting first mentality to questions that we ask, the topics we cover what do our readers want explained to them. we try to do that through that reporting. host: what do you think the readers want to hear as far as the current events on capitol hill, particularly when it comes to who will be speaker? guest: i think they want to know what's actually going on. what's actually going to be the end result of this. and probably frustrating to them as probably frustrating to the viewers of this show and anybody paying attention, we don't know. they on capitol hill don't know what the outcome of this particular situation is going to be. i think there is -- i think what we represent and what our readers, our members represent, is a sort of group of people who are interested in public policy, interested in politics, who love

their country, and are frustrated with lack of leadership, certainly in both major parties, and in particular on the republican side of things. what's happening in the house is validation of that frustration. it really is a mess i think is the overarching view. certainly those of us at the "dispatch" feel. host: what do you think was the difficulty for republicans to coalesce around steve scalise? guest: it comes from a bunch of different factors. number one, you have to consider the fact that there is a small number of people in the republican conference, which again is a small margin, it's not an ungovernable margin, i think nancy pelosi had 222 members at one point in her conference -- caucus when they were in the majority. she was able to govern. it's not impossible. it is a narrow margin. the small number of members you can -- we have had discussions

at the "dispatch" are they the far right? they are not really. they are very conservative members of this conference who are not included in this group. these are people for whom the incentives are not say, governing, or finding consensus, or even moving the direction of where the policy of the united states is in their preferred policy direction. it seems that their incentives are attention, incentives to sort of have power. we saw this in the effort to o*us -- oust house speaker kevin mccarthy, matt gaetz, considering running for governor of florida in 2026. made it very clear what he wanted wasn't anything else but to humiliate mccarthy. got the ire of pretty much everyone else in the conference. they knew this would happen. steve scalise comes into this

speaker's race, the majority leader, he's won competitive races before. but he doesn't have the consensus. it's not just from the right. there are i think centrist members. people loyal to mccarthy maybe hope mccarthy will come back. like napoleon coming back from exile into parris for 1 -- paris for 100 days. if mccarthy comes back and speaker for 100 days, i would be surprised. it was a lack of consensus. jim jordan has that problem. he's going to continue to run for speaker. he did not win in that inner conference vote. that doesn't mean he doesn't have a chance to win the speakership. there may be enough centrists from used -- frustrated with the lack of any kind of leadership they would be willing to cave. jordan did not win a lot of friends over his several years in the house conference.

i think it's going to be more difficult as this drags on to find any consensus in the republican conference. host: michael warren is with us for this conversation. if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. michael warren, democrats are coming with open arms saying work with us to try to find some means to make this happen. what's the likelihood of that happening? guest: i have been asking people about this because on the surface it seems crazy. a party, particularly in the house of representatives, wins the majority, they are going to somehow is there going to be enough members to agree to work with the minority party to elect a speaker? it seems unfathomable. that's still where we are at this point. democrats would love to be in the driver's seat on finding a speaker. the question who that would be is a big hurdle to that.

also, look, we talk about centrist or central right in the republican conference. they are still republicans. they are still pretty conservative on policy issues. they want to see -- it's less about where they are ideologically, and more about they want to get stuff done, govern, show they can govern, and govern has republicans. i don't think those group of republicans, call them the main street group, the main street partnerships, center right republicans. the problem solvers caucus. i don't think they are there yet. i think it's probably more likely that they would come around and just give up and say, we'll go with jim jordan. he's too conservative for us but we'll have somebody in power, if not jim jordan, maybe somebody else. but i think they are getting closer. the longer this drags out, the longer it drags out with international crisis in israel going on. the longer it drags out as a presidential campaign starts to heat up, there is going to be a

lot of pressure. i do wonder if we are getting close. not there yet. it's unfathomable until the day in which all of a sudden it becomes plausible. host: calls lined up for you. peter in new york. republican line. you are on with our guest michael warren of the "dispatch" go ahead. caller: mr. warren, i hope you can answer this question. first a comment. i was always suspicious of kevin mccarthy because he was an acolyte of paul ryan. paul ryan was totally against president trump building the wall on the southern border. that being as it is, the question that i have is matt gaetz and the eight other republicans, their contention was that kevin mccarthy was dragging his feet on getting these appropriation bills passed.

he promised in january he would go back to regular order and that all these appropriation bills would have been passed. come the summertime instead of staying there and getting these bills passed, he allowed congress to go on recess. matt gaetz''s contention is kevin mccarthy because of money come interesting big donors. he was dragging his feet intentionally so that they would have to eventually go to an omnibus bill in the end and -- there is $8 billion of earmarks in this legislation that they want to pass in this budget. the thing is we understand that this budget will be dead on arrival when it gets to the senate. but the point is is that i feel the republicans need to show that this is what their agenda

is. that they want to reduce spending bigtime. and that if the american people want to reduce this national debt, they have to put more republicans in congress. host: got you. thank you. guest: look, i think this is -- this was always the devil's bargain that kevin mccarthy had to make. he had to promise a lot of things to a lot of people across the spectrum of his conference to become speaker. we remember those days, several votes for him to get there. gates -- tkpwa*euts didn't vote for him in that speakers race. it's difficult to keep. another promise, change to the rules he made was of course allowing just one member of the conference to call for a motion to vacate. that's what ended up kicking speaker mccarthy out of the speaker's seat. this is -- it's very difficult to govern. it's very difficult to govern

with a narrow majority. if you are a republican with a democratic senate and president. these are the challenges that mccarthy had. i think that there was -- it was sort of between a rock and a hard place. to get the appropriations bills through lots of regular order. this is what he promised. a lot of the members in his conference voted -- promised to vote against these appropriations bills because they spent too much. but of course in order to get it passed through a democratic senate, you have to sort of cut as much as you would like. this is a delicate balance and it reflects what i think is a divide within the american people about how much to spend and how much to tax. divided government, divided view on these questions. for people who assert like matt gaetz that this is what the american people want, to cut the spending, it's not actually clear in the results of the

elections. that's the problem that nobody in congress can solve. the american people haven't grappled with and figured out. host: sepls democrats line from georgia. jessica, hello. caller: hello. i think the republicans are playing a trick on getting a speaker so they can shut the government down. but you have to compromise. you weren't upset, republicans, when you gave a tax break. you weren't concerned about the budget then. why now are you concerned about the budget that helps middle class. thank you. guest: this is a common refrain. you hear it from very conservative, budget hawks within the republican party as well. republicans care about budgets when they are not in control of the white house. and when they are in control of the white house, they run up deficits. this is a big issue. i don't think most republicans

in congress want the government to shut down. i think that small group of rebel rousers within the republican conference are ok with that. but the vast majority of republicans, certainly democrats, do not actually want it to shut down. and so there is a lot of pressure to find a deal. goes back a couple weeks to that continuing resolution -- budget resolution. all these problems congress has particularly republican-led houses to pass budgets, pass appropriations, pass spending bills. essentially stems from the fact that they have got, again, these small majorities. they have to be working with a democratic senate. and there is a lot of pressure from back home. it's not simply democratic constituencies that lose out on a government shutdown. there is military spending is a real issue.

a lot of these programs help in red states. this is something i don't think most republicans want. again, a small group of members who are ok with it. and are willing to allow it to shut down. most republicans, i think, realize politically it's a bad look for them. it's never worked out for republicans politically when they shut the government down. guest: there is an idea -- host: there is an idea out there to extend the powers of speaker pro tempore mchenry to allow business until they figure out who will be speaker. how easy is that? guest: it's straightforward. the house basically sets the rules. and there is precedent for this. i wouldn't be surprised, actually as this drags on, scalise is now out. jordan will have a lot of problems getting support. that congress and house republicans need to look around and do what congress loves to do, which is not actually make much of a decision and let the

guy who is in the chair do the bare minimum of what he can do. there are mechanisms by which mchenry can essentially be a caretaker for the speaker's position. and let the house have some kind of order and role. that to me at this point probably more likely than a unity speaker candidate that gets democrats onboard with the bulk of the republican conference. i think it's probably more likely than jim jordan getting elected speaker. it's the path of least resistance. that's where i expect congress to go. host: you mentioned -- the viewer mentioned paul ryan. parallels to his rise of speaker schaap and what we are seeing -- speakership and what we are seeing now. guest: i'm thinking back to when john boehner was removed. kevin mccarthy was running for speaker. dropped out when he was told you

don't have the support from the house freedom caucus. that changed when he ran for speaker several years later. jim jordan was one of his big allies in his short speakership. republicans were sort of in a position where they are now. who is going to be our leader? john boehner was an institutionalist. he had risen up through the ranks of leadership. and the republican conference was sort of in a mood post tea party against the establishment, against leadership. who is it going to be? paul ryan was sort of unique. he was a conservative. he came up through the policy world and through the committees rather than through leadership. he had a lot of support from the most conservative members of the conference at the time. he had a lot of support, he had been the 2012 vice-presidential nominee. he was see whrepbgsly -- essentially, he was friendly

with the leadership and establishment. he was a consensus pick. he was unique because he was the only person who could fill that job. who could get support from across the conference. he didn't want the job. it was too much fundraising. he didn't like the idea of t he wanted to -- of it. he didn't want -- he was interested in budgets and tax policy. tax policy is where he wantses to be. as speaker that's what he ended up having. once ryan left congress, this -- when the situation seems inevitable, even with kevin mccarthy's support, it wasn't broad enough. he didn't have the trust that even paul ryan did at the time. i think without paul ryan we would have had this conversation seven years ago. that's just how fractious and ungovernable this republican conference is. host: this from georgia, james, republican line. caller: good morning. your very first caller, he dead

on the mark. we are $33 trillion in debt. it seems to me like what the speaker of the house ought to be concerned with is the budget. if he picked those guys, the 20, they should be the ones to come up with the budget and hash it out. it seems like your guest, he's sitting up there talking really, really smooth, which he's nothing but the establishment. the american people want to know where all that money is going. and the only way we are going to know is you put those 12 budgets out there so we can see who is voting on all of this stuff. and that's it. we just want to know where the money is going. and this $33 trillion in debt with your speaker, the guest sitting up there doing is

going -- it's a lot of money is dumped and nobody knows where the money goes. and next thing you know the president is spending money wherever he wants. and the american public is left out. host: james, thank you. guest: i don't disagree with the caller there. regular order sounds nice. it is nice. it's the way that congress should be doing its job. it's in the constitution, it's up to congress to appropriate federal funds to pay for the government. congress has used c.r.'s, these continuing resolutions, because it's a lot easier than going through that appropriations process. it's the kind of thing where you can push through, let's keep funding levels where they were, and try to cobble together a coalition that can pass in the house. so we'll make changes here, there. it's easier to do that than go

through, as the caller said, there are 12 committees, and appropriate in that way. i go become to -- back to what i said earlier. there is no consensus in congress. i believe there is no consensus among the american people about where those spending priorities ought to be. that's why you end up with divided government. we have had divided government now since 2019, when democrats took over the house of representatives after the 2018 midterm elections. there was a brief period in the first two years of the trump administration where there was united republican government. even in that situation they were basey only able to pass a tax bill -- basically only able to pass a tax bill. and otherwise we really haven't -- go back to the tea party era, the 2008 financial crisis, there has been no domestic policy consensus on these questions. and with both of the elections

tell us as much. that is a problem. i don't have a solution other than to tell the caller that to go through the regular appropriations process sounds fine and good. then you have to, again, deal with the democratic senate. that's going to go through its own process. and deal with a republican conference that doesn't like what the democratic senate is sending back over. not only that, will not -- will stop moving forward on any kind of consensus because those are the numbers, those are the margins they have. you can understand why people are throwing their hands up. i can understand why the caller is frustrated. i'm the messenger. don't blame me. host: is there work in the background, because we talked about the funding issue that comes number november. is there work being done in the background to come up a solution to prevent that, even on the forefront they are dealing with the house speaker mess.

guest: there is work. whether or not it's any kind of productive state, this is the way things have gone on these questions for a while. which is somebody comes up with maybe we can have some consensus, nothing matters until right before the deadline. it's back when you were in school, maybe not you, pedro, when i was in school you had the essay. you know it's due on november 1. and maybe you spend october 31 late at night working on it. that's kind of the way congress approaches these things. work is being done, but really the real work is going to happen right at the 11th hour. host: robert in texas for michael warren of the dispatch. caller: thank you for taking my call. you also want -- a federal budget. but the way to do that is

streamline it by cutting down on social services. the way to do that is establish a universal basic income for all americans at the federal poverty level. my understanding about $14,150 a year. historical you had thomas payne in his pamphlet. it becomes the property of all human beings. the only piece of land is your obligation to pay a percentage of that who cannot own land. in 1971 the 92nd congress, president nixon tried to pass his family assistance plan. it went through the house. it passed the house twice. the senate shut it down both times. currently, alaska is a fund for alaskans paid for by oil profits. it's been successful. and there are a number of

smaller communities throughout the united states like chicago and a few others that -- host: got point, caller. thank you. guest: this is an idea that as the caller pointed out has been bandied around. it was around the nixon administration. as he said alaska and some other smaller divisions of government. again, it's the kind of thing at the federal level where you have to have consensus on these things. there is not a lot of areas in domestic policy at this point where there is consensus in the country. it's also the kind of thing that would really have to go through regular order in the committees. congress has got to figure out and the house, how to govern itself before any of these kind of reforms are even bandied about. even then i think it will be a hard sell on the federal level.

although it is interesting that i think there is, as you are seeing the more populist wing of the republican party emerge, some openness to the ideas that before you might have thought a more free market oriented republican party would have no interest in. maybe we'll see this -- we'll have this conversation in 10, 15 years. and it will be more of a--more likely a reality. at this point it's just -- host: we know republicans are meeting later today. what's the likelihood they'll stay in town over the weekend to resolve this issue. guest: you are seeing reports who have already left. i think there is just a lot of frustration. do i think there will be a resolution of this today on friday? no. i could be wrong. it's friday the 13th. feeling very unlucky to me. host: go to pearl. joins us from indiana.

republican line. you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: yes. this is pearl. i think they should get mccarthy back because he's a smart began and get rid of that gaetz because he's a child molester. host: stop you there. as far as kevin mccarthy is concerned, the return of. guest: again i keep thinking of napoleon coming back from elba and marching through paris. mccarthy and scalise had bad blood, and have had bad blood over the years. there was talk and reports that when scalise first threw his hat in the ridge to be speaker, there were allies of mccarthy who were putting out feelers to support jim jordan for speaker. it seems that was happening. mccarthy said he's not running for speaker again. i would not be surprised if you start to hear some more talk just like what the caller said of bringing mccarthy back.

maybe it's led by kevin mccarthy's allies. nonetheless they'll look for a solution. i don't think that's a crazy solution. the question is whether or not he has the ability to do what he couldn't do two weeks ago, which is hold on and consolidate power within the conference. we'll see. we are talking about a lot of crazy situations here. things that are unprecedented. host: the possibility of a dark horse candidate emerge interesting the congress itself and taking the role? guest: sure. present who it is. that's the question. the question here is always who? who is it going to be? why not a dark horse? sure. i don't know who that would be. maybe it's mchenry. maybe it's somebody -- there are people, kevin hern, the chair of the republican study committee, a more egg-heady conservative caucus within the republican

conference. at this point, it could be just anybody. there could be somebody else who emerges. it's a matter of are they going to have the consensus of a conference that doesn't know what it wants. you do have members in districts, there is about 19 of them, i believe, republican members in districts that joe biden won in 2020. their incentives are very, very different in terms of getting elected, showing they can govern, showing the republican conference can govern. if voters are mad at republicans in the house, come 2024, it's not a national election. they can't vote out whoever the leadership of the republican conference in the house s they are going to vote -- house is. they are going to vote out those vulnerable members. they are the ones most interested in the governing majority and leadership that can govern. you have a group of members who are not necessarily interested

in that. i have seen republican members say, it's like they want to be not -- in the minority. if you are interested in making noise and in trying to affect change from the outside rather than the inside, you would rather be in the minority. you would rather be going on tv and talk radio and making noise rather than have the responsibility of actually voting for leadership and being a part of a governing majority. sure, a dark horse, why not. host: republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. michael in massachusetts, independent line. caller: how are you. this is michael. i got a question. what's your thought on the idea that this is just a continuing plot or continuation of the insurrection by the maga extremists?

if they had the ability to disrupt congress and keep it at a stand still or place a guy like jordan at the helm, what's stopping them. the other question i have is, what happens if they just never come to a consensus or agreement? how long can this go on? guest: i'll take the first question. i think you don't have to believe that it's a plot. but i think there is a lot of -- a big part of jordan's problem within the republican conference is, a lot of his colleagues know his position on the 2020 election. they know that -- i was talking about those borderline republican members who are from biden districts. that's a hard vote for them to vote for jim jordan as speaker. that's why i think it's unlikely he'll be speaker. but in terms of -- is this a

part of destabilizing the u.s. government plot by, as the caller calls them, maga republicans. the one thing i have learned in a decade and a half of reporting in washington, is that most of the time the conspiracy can't happen. there is no organization. there is literally no organization within the republican conference or even within the freedom caucus. it's not happening. they are just sort of living day by day trying to plot out based on one event after the other. i just don't believe there is any kind of plot here. it's just chaos because if there is a theme to what i have been talking about this morning, there's been consensus, not in the republican conference, not in congress. i think it could go on for a while. maybe for the next several weeks. i think the speaker fight will continue as long as members can

withstand the pressure. then the question becomes, do they continue to empower patrick mchenry. speaker pro tempore. it was a ceremonial position at this point. could be given powers to at least let the house move forward. do the centrists, central right of the republican conference, give in and support somebody like jim jordan? or do democrats and a big bulk of republicans come together somehow and find a unity candidate? that is going to be a question of what sort of external factors. questions about, for instance, what's going on in israel right now. this congress -- does congress need to respond to it? if that becomes a reality where they need to be appropriating new funding for it, that could be just one of several external pressures that could force somebody to move. the question is, who does it, which direction? host: robert on our independent line. he's in massachusetts.

caller: hi. first time caller. i'd like to ask about the vote for the speaker. when they voted out mccarthy, if the democrats didn't vote, would he have remained office? if he didn't receive enough votes to throw him out? or would they have to have another vote? that's my question. guest: i'm going to plead some ignorance on t i'm not sure what the rules are in terms of having a quorum in the house. there was -- there would be a possibility -- if all the democratic members voted present and mccarthy won a majority of those voting, not voting president, he would have been elected speaker, i believe. this goes to the question of, did democrats contribute to the ousting of mccarthy by not voting for him in that vote? by joining with those handful of republicans who really wanted to oust their own speaker, this was

a complaint a lot of republicans were making after the fact that democrats contributed to the chaos by allowing gaetz and company to do this. i'm skeptical you're asking democratic members to vote for a republican speaker who does not have the support he needs by his own party. that's not where the parties are. maybe in another era where there was more ideological mixing among the parties. you might have seen a bunch of conservative democrats go over to support an establishment consensus speaker like kevin mccarthy. it didn't seem plausible politically. really shifted the blame away from not just matt gaetz but kevin mccarthy himself. he's the one who agreed to the rule that would allow just one member to call for that motion to vacate.

this was a fall of mccarthy's own making in a lot of ways. and so i don't really blame democrats. host: we heard about the republican interest in changing rules to keep things from happening again. where is that? guest: i think there is a lot of consensus for that. but again it all comes down to small majority, small margin, four seats. i think they would get some democratic support for those rule changes. all about the majority in the house. i think that's going to be tough. scalise was in no better position than mccarthy. in a worse position to get consensus from the republican conference on this. but i think there is a real -- i think the rule itself backfired on gaetz in the long term. i think it's going to be very difficult to pass a rules package that has something that

makes it so easy to have chaos in the house. host: charles, indiana, republican line. caller: yes. i got my question answered by the previous caller. i have heard a lot of stuff on the media. i have heard a lot of stuff from the democrats saying that this is all the republicans' fault for what's happened. at the same time you had to have the majority on the vote. and every single democrat voted to remove him. so they need to take ownership of us not having a house speaker, too. do you agree with that? guest: look, i think practically speaking the caller is correct. the democrats could have saved kevin mccarthy. but the political reality, i do think that it is one, it's a difficult vote for a democrat to vote for a republican speaker. think about it from a democratic point of view. yes, it's chaos right now. what happens if they do get that

unity speaker, the majority of the democratic caucus would like to see in the house speaker, but it would have ruined the leadership of the house of representatives in a democratic direction -- moved the leadership of the house of representatives in a democratic direction. when you talk about the house of representatives in congress, you are trying to figure out how to move leadership, how to move policy, how to move legislation in your policy direction. i think at this point, fine. blame democrats for kevin mccarthy not being speaker. i just don't think it was necessarily democrats' responsibility to make sure kevin mccarthy kept the speakership. republicans have the majority. it's a majoritarian body. it requires majority consensus from the majority party. just a bridge too far. the democrats have very different views ideologically from the republicans. you have to ask yourself if the shoe were on the other foot, the

democrats were in the position, if nancy pelosi was in this position, she had a narrow majority, she had members of her caucus who were republican rousers. the squad, the progressive caucus. if she had been in this position would there have been republicans who would save her? that's a difficult vote for them to make as well. i would not blame republicans for not saving nancy pelosi. i think it's a similar situation. host: charlotte, north carolina. democrats line, david. hello. caller: hello. good morning. as i look at this political field with the g.o.p. i see the maga republicans going in the backdoor to shut the government down because no one in the republican party really wants to be speaker except those that want to cause disruption.

i don't see the point to blame the democrats from the problem -- for the problem. it's the republican party problem. and the republicans right now are winning -- winning their way of faking to shut the government down. the time is running out. and the republicans are afraid of the maga republicans because they don't want to give any consensus to the maga republicans because they know that they would have one hand tied behind their black. guest: this is -- has been the difficulty since the republican tea party midterm election.

you are electing a majority that's now been elected to -- there's that majority, now re-elected in 2022 that put them back in power, where a large number of republicans want to reduce the size of government, or say they want to reduce the size of government, and what that sort of gets translated into is government -- not just government shutdown, but -- a lack of interest, i should say, in the actual need to govern. and i think that's a problem that's plaguing the republican conference as well. it's not the majority of the members in the conference. but enough of them come from districts that are heavily republican. there is no chance a democrat could be competitive. rural districts that are -- if you look at the index are plus 12, r plus 15, r plus 30.

a small majority, there is no incentive for those members to meet democrats halfway. you have a senate that is -- has a democratic majority. you have a number of states that are -- that want different policies. what ends up happening if you have a democratic majority, democrats are willing to take a little bit. a step in the right direction. more spending on this program or this way. the republicans are sort of an institutional inability to get onboard with anything that doesn't move the ball backward in terms of spending on certain programs. what they end up happen stringing themselves. host: the dispatch.com is the website that michael warren serves as senior editor. joining us today for this discussion. thanks for your time. on capitol hill today, just to give you a sense what's going on.

we have cameras all over waiting to see what happens as that meeting is set to take place on the next steps when it comes picking up of a house speaker. look for that and watch that on c-span 1 during the day. stay close to our website at c-span.org. follow along on the app at c-span now. that's it for our program today. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow at 7 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] >> the u.s. house is currently in recess. they discuss behd closed doors to find a speaker.

steve scalise withdrew his name from consideration last night after he failed to withdraw enough support from his caucus. live coverage on c-span. "common law." two decades until holmes becomes supreme court justice, it iso lectures he's given on criminal and civil law and controversial at the time. holmes wrote, the life of the law has not been logic but experience. jeffrey rosen, c.e.o. of the national constitution center will join us to watch the books. "books that shaped america" featuring "common law." c-span now, our free video app and c-span.org. scan the q.r. code to listen to

our companion podcast. where you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. >> c-span now is our mobile app that features a view of what is happening live. keep up with the proceedings of the u.s. congress and white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information from the networks and radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it today. your front row seat to washington, anywhere, any time. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by