>> c-span's "washington journal ," our live forum and inviting you to get involved in the discussion. from washington and across the country, monday morning we will take what efforts to increase voter confidence in u.s. elections with david of the centre for election innovation and research and a look at the cost, scope, and transparency of federal regulation with a regulatory stories fellow. c-span's "washington journal." join the conversation 7:00 a.m. eastern live monday morning.

>> tonight on q&a.

>> she won every single time.

kamala harris was not just in [applause] the courtroom. [applause] she was in the corridors of power. she never forgot those lessons she learned fighting for the underdog. she stood up every day as a united states senator fighting for the middle class, fighting every day for our working families. kamala harris was chosen. our great chosen -- our great president, pennsylvania's own great joe biden. he chose kamala harris to not

just campaign with him. he chose kamala harris because he wanted to govern with her and because he knew she was ready. she has been battle tested. she is ready to not just be the standardbearer of our party but to be the for the seventh president of the united states of america. host: let's go to your comments on whether running mates matter. let's start with shirley on the line for democrats. good morning. can you please turn down the volume on your tv? caller: i think that running mates matter. i am hoping that if kamala would pick shapiro. host: why? caller: i think back when joe biden was running in

pennsylvania, they did a lot to help him get in that seat. i like shapiro. kamala is a democrat so i'm going to vote for her and i hope that she picks shapiro. host: john is in new york on the line for independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. normally i don't think vp candidates make a difference. they are basically there for regional support and balanced ticket. i'm going back to guys like miller. i think he ran back with goldwater. i know a few people from down

ballot races. when kennedy ran, he chose lbj. jfk did not have the bling or the ability to get things through congress and lbj did so he chose him. that is the same reason why obama chose biden. on today's race, shapiro and j.d. vance, shapiro is basically because he is jewish. i think he was chosen because democrats want to mend fences with the jewish community after just standing by and watching that assault at the college campuses. they need to shore up the vote on the jewish community. nity.

vance is a high-profile figure. he will appeal to the millennials. he is the real thing. he is young. maybe a little too young. john kennedy was 43 when he became president. vance with the credentials would be added value to the ticket. in a way the vp picks do not matter. in today's polarized society, they could make a difference. thank you. host: while visiting the southern border earlier this week, vice presidential candidate j.d. vance reacted to former president trump's comments about running mates not mattering. >> you were as yesterday if you were right to be president on day one. he dodged the question.

what will you do to prove to him that you are ready for the role? >> i think he was answering a political question. he said for years that who the vice president is does not really matter politically. americans are voting for either kamala harris or donald trump. they are not voting for the vice presidential nominee. i have been a businessman. i have been a united states marine. i can do the job but politically he is right. people are voting for donald trump primary -- primarily. >> why are you out here then. >> i think they will be voting either for kamala harris or donald trump. . host: we have james in vermont on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. i will try to focus on my

comments. i was a victim of gay bashing. i would not be able to talk about my story now. i think it does matter who is vice president. i think kamala harris is a great individual of strong moral character. people like donald trump attacked me and it does not get written in the papers. donald trump talks about guns and violence and the people, he did not support committing crimes. i just want to say those donald trump type people attacked me and it did not get reported. i have faith in kamala harris and hopefully his advice -- her vice president josh shapiro. we have to make america great again but not donald trump's way of making america great again.

i cannot say anymore but i'm happy i live in this country because people like joe biden and kamala harris and hopefully josh shapiro will prepare -- prevail. thank you. host: lori is in california on the line for independent. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes i can. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching kamala harris for a long time. i was impressed with her when she was going to bat for the housing crisis. . she was relentless. those people lost everything. she went after them and did not stop so she could help these people. she is not about money. she is about doing the right thing for everyone. i was really impressed with her. i read her book when she was

running and i was leaning toward her then. a lot of it has to do with watching her and what she did for people. she actually does it appeared i have seen it. she has proven it. the vice president does matter. it does make a difference. we don't know what could happen. god forbid but the vice president has to be ready to step in. and she is ready. she is definitely ready. the definition of the word hope is the belief that something you want to have happen will. i hope that the united states in this country can finally become the greatest country in the world, the idea, we have not

made that yet but we can and we will and i believe that will happen under her leadership. maga, i have my own definition for that acronym. make attorneys get attorneys. all of the attorneys seem to have to get them. if you are a christian, there is no way. there is nothing more powerful than the power of love. if we all work together, unions -- new host: i think we got your idea. let's hear from bill. good morning. caller: i don't think it really matters because the vice president would be on the sideline just in case something happens to the president. also, the vice president will

balance the voters. look at harris. she was there because she's black and she is a woman. host: thank you. zach is in new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that the guy who got beat up and discriminated against for being in a relationship with another man and nothing got done with that, charges or anything, that is horrible. another thing, the people with guns. host: do you think vice presidential running mates matter? caller: i'm sorry, i got off track. yes, it does matter. kamala has been in office long enough. she knows what is going on.

she knows what america needs. that's what we need to do. we need to stand together and get rid of that trump guy. whoever she picks, i have full confidence in their ability to make america great. we need to do the right thing and get rid of those trump people. host: depac is on the line for independent. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, we live in a different product -- a democratic country and we should select the primary before we select the presidency. right now we are teaching other countries how to be democratic and what are we doing? selecting, not electing the president. that is a bullshit of a democratic party. host: let's try to watch the

language. caller: this is not the right way to do it. how can we teach other countries to be a democracy when we don't have a democracy in our own country? host: patrick is in pittsburgh on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. pennsylvania is on the verge of possibly electing an authoritarian as the running mate to kamala harris. i think they are putting a prevalence in the public and they are trying to read the tea leaves what our country could not be in greater peril. you have two authoritarians. kamala harris and josh shapiro.

all kinds of information is coming out about josh shapiro about hush money for silencing individuals. you are hearing these comments that he made that are absolutely racist against the palestinian people. he volunteered for the idf which many people believe within the climate of what we are dealing with represents a very serious threat on the nature of the relationship between our two countries. host: do you think that who the money made -- running mate is matters on the outcome of the elections? caller: just look at the lineup in the democratic-rigged system. you have five potential candidates and all of them except for one is jewish.

there is this unbelievably manipulative agenda that we are allowing this to happen. there was no democracy in the democratic process and just throwing her into the vice president position as the candidate representing the democratic party, you had billionaires and you had corporate cartels threatening the president. he was literally thrown out of the white house. there is a fake video that was made -- host: we will try to get to some other folks. let's talk to ed on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe when john mccain picked sarah palin, that had something to do with that election. 90% of the time the vice

president really does not matter. just be quiet. make no mistakes. i think j.d. vance is going to hurt trump somewhat. to what degree, i really don't know yet. 90% of the time it really does not matter. if she picks a young white male, she should be ok. one quick message to the woman voters. women, you have the chance to change history. you do not earn power. power is something you actually take. you have a chance here. take it by the horns and vote for kamala harris. thank you. host: ted is in boston on the

line for independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know why it is on the women, previous caller, to do this. it is on everyone. the vice president does matter because otherwise, why would we have one? it matters to the extent we also assign it to matter. can we act like anything matters, please? case in point, the president and vice president are a mouthpiece for the rest of the country. what i have seen is we had a bully, trump, get up there and act as a mouthpiece for every other psychologically damaged bullying person to act out their rage and their personal sadness on those around them.

that is the right wing in a nutshell. i don't understand why all of these right wing people are such police, whether it is people i work with, people i call my acquaintances or maybe even friends. there is something common with right wing. it really has to do with control over people arbitrarily according to their arbitrary traditions and their own fears. e my message to all these right wingers, get a life. stop controlling other people's sexual lives and stop bullying them for just existing on this planet. get a freaking life. it is so weird. host: greg is in ohio on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: hello. how are you? host: good. do you think running mates matter in a presidential race? caller: i don't think that kamala has a chance. host: do you think running mates

matter in a presidential race? caller: yes, if it's not her. host: ok. next up is john in alabama on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. the running mate does matter. donald trump right now is somewhat regretful that he picked j.d. vance. a couple of callers mentioned john mccain with sarah palin. if she picks josh shapiro, it will be difficult for her to get things done as president because shapiro made disparaging remarks concerning palestinians and the republicans are searching and they will pull up everything they can find on josh shapiro to

disk -- discredit him as vice president. the last thing i would like to say is president obama picked joe biden for vice president as a running mate because joe biden could carry the white male vote in the country and that added to his being able to win. so it does matter. thank you. host: the associated press is reporting that vice president harris will be interviewing six potential vice presidential picks this weekend and this comes ahead of her announcement, her interview list includes governor andy beshear of kentucky, jb pritzker of illinois, josh shapiro of pennsylvania and tim walsh of minnesota, mark carrie -- mark kelly of arizona and pete buttigieg.

those people were granted anonymity to discuss private campaign deliberations. shapiro and kelly are the front runners in the process which began with the vetting of one dozen names. some have publicly withdrawn from consideration such as governor roy cooper who is close with sarah's -- close with harris but expressed concern about wrigley traveling out of the state if he were to be on the democratic ticket. christopher devine who is a professor at the university of dayton and the co-author of the book do running mates matter, joins us here on monday and shares his thoughts on the question of do running mates matter. [video clip] >> in the way that people think about it, even the discussions you are hearing, people focus on picking up a certain state. like you can buy a state through one piece of electoral strategy. we do not find evidence of that.

we don't find that you can pick off a group of voters very easily either. a key demographic group or something like that. where running mates matter mostly is in terms of how we think of the presidential candidate. what does this tell us about kamala harris? what did j.d. vance tell us about a second term? that is where it is useful. it tells you about the judgment, the priorities, and other things about the candidate. especially with someone like kamala harris who is well known, there is still a lot for people to learn about her is the potential presidential candidate. i think this pick will fill in the voters response to her. host: act to your calls. -- back to your calls. gene is on the line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i think christopher devine really put it into focus about selecting a vice president. i would just like to say there needs to be a certain way or something done. i am not understanding why all of this talk or denial is centering around president trump. i think there should be a survey of the people being informed about the accomplishment of of the selected people.

that survey should be able to identify a record of a person, identify a person's character, goals and ambitions. here we have what seems like a concerted effort to focus on trump and quite frankly, i think trump has really been a president that has been the -- that has put the people in front of the politics of america. host: next is robin in california on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. it is 5:30 in the morning here. i sat up when i heard the guy talk about jewish influence on

kamala harris. if she chose josh shapiro, these jewish and her husband is jewish. so what? i'm jewish. that should not have anything to do with it. when we vote for someone, we don't say they are too many christians on the ballot. i don't like the antisemitism that implies. it's important for a vice president, who the vice president is. it was unfortunate there was an attempt on donald trump's life. had he been killed, the vice president would have stepped in. had he been president, the vice president would have stepped in. this is a dangerous time. i hope nobody gets killed. we need to look at the vice president as a very important part able to step in to become president of the united states

and josh shapiro is a terrific politician. he is very respected. i think he would be a terrific vice presidential pick. host: next is paul in virginia on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say, i was just a youngster when lbj was picked as the vice president. my father who had been a lifelong democrat said the reason lbj got picked was because jack kennedy needed to get texas for the electoral vote. yes, it can matter. in today's room, it is becoming identity politics. it really is. they can deny harris was dei.

the thing is joe biden actually stated he would pick a woman of color. when he did his speech in 2022, he said he had to immerse diverse cabinet ever with dei starting with the vice president. another question i have is with all of this going on. three weeks ago, four weeks ago everybody thought joe biden was in. i heard people saying they would vote for him if his head was in a jar of blue gel. back in march they were saying kamala harris needed to be removed from the ticket. maybe joe should find another running mate. it was the bait and switch.

vote for joe biden in the primary. we will boot him and then we will put in as our nominee somebody wanted off the ticket five months ago. i hope people will remember this is what is going on right now. it is all about power. host: next is george in maryland on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is extremely important, the vice presidential pick. does anybody think former president obama would have been as successful as he was without the benefit of having joe biden as his vice president? you are talking about a young senator from illinois, no foreign relation experience.

he brings in a guy like joe biden who had all of the world, -- who had all of the foreign relation experience in the world. he knew had to navigate -- he knew how to navigate. it is extremely important in my opinion. host: we have a comment from facebook from albert that says absolutely, the president needs someone they can trust to lead the country in an emergency and work with well. it is a very important position. tammy is in georgia on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm good, thank you. caller: yes. i feel it is very important whoever the vp is. especially during this time where we have so much turmoil going on overseas with israel,

iran, russia, china. based on his military experience , being in the navy, fighting in wars, kelly would be the most suitable pick for me. i think that would be a blind spot for kamala harris. host: what do you mean it is a blind spot? caller: she does not have any military experience. that is a huge gap to me for her to overcome. i know we have all of the military cabinet and all of that but i would want somebody who has first-hand experience. host: ok.

anna is in connecticut on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to put something out there for all of us to think about and it bothers me that the president and the vice president would be in the same place at the same time. especially out in the public. if something should happen to both of them, we would not have a president or a vice. host: do you think that the choice of a vice presidential candidate matters in the actual election itself? caller: of course. that is what i just said. i think secretary blinken would make a very good vice president. host: why is that? caller: he seems to know everything. he works with presidents.

your lips are moving while i'm talking and i'm getting confused. host: there is a bit of a delay. caller: thank you. he seems to be right on everything. he is a very educated person. i would like others opinions on that. i'm nobody. i don't know anything. i really don't think the president and the vice president should be together at funerals or anything like that. host: george is in ohio on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, especially for donald trump, it would be important for him to have a running mate because the democrats would probably try to do something with him whether it is assassination or poisoning. they will pick right out of the russian playbook. joe biden got 80% of the primary vote or 87% of the primary vote.

putin got 88%. so many similarities yet democrat calls the party a democracy which is like the opposite. they are doing the opposite. . it is an oxymoron. i think j.d. vance will be a great president. i would be surprised if trump does not win by a landslide. i am predicting 75% to 25%. host: what do you like about j.d. vance? caller: i'm from ohio and i follow him. he came from a poor family. he struggled. he did not ask for a handout. to join the marine corps to go through college -- he joined the marine corps to go through college. my. brother did the same thing. these veterans have paid a price. every day we wake up, we take everything for granted. we don't teach history to our kids anymore. i think kamala harris's name was

changed. she says let's forget about the past. democrats want you to forget about the past. that is their whole program. take down the statues. take down everything. that is the democrat way. my dad was a democrat. it used to be a party for the working people. it is not a party for any u.s. citizen. it is a party for the illegals. host: tim is in detroit on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i grew up in chicago, a democrat. my family worked for mayor daley. i think the democrats are making a huge mistake with picking kamala without even having a primary or vote. i think they are destroying democracy. and they say the other side is. we have to wake up.

joe biden, the vice president, they don't make these decisions. it is the deep state doing this. they are just puppets. they make it feel like wearing control and we vote -- they make it feel like we are in control and we vote. but is the deep state who selects our president and the vice president and the senators and our congressmen. we have to wake up. american people have to stop fighting each other because they are just dividing us. we have to come together and turn the city upside down, shake everybody out and get new politicians because they are destroying our country. host: next is lynda in texas on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i think it's important when you start vetting these people like

shapiro for example, according to the television person on fox, stated that shapiro had to pay $300,000 for sexual deeds with one of his eight. -- his aides. i have never heard of that. have you? host: i have not. caller: that's the first time i have heard it, some woman, one of his aides. you would have to ask mark. that's all i know. host: we have a comment via text from dave in north carolina who says, "it seems the running mates matter only if their message differs from the top of the ticket."

more from professor devine of the university of dayton who wrote the book, "do running mates matter." he gave examples of the impact vice presidential picks have had on the campaign here on washington journal. [video clip] >> there are a range of candidates who may have contributed to the campaign. lbj in the 1960's. that is the one that people often say was a razor thin election. maybe that is what delivered texas and therefore delivered the presidency to john kennedy. it is something we have researched before and the evidence is counterintuitive. he was less popular in texas than the rest of the south. we doubt that he delivered that although there were snack and he seemed to be involved in and perhaps delivering some legal vault. robert caro describes this in his book. that is one thing we complained to.

in 1992, bill clinton chose al gore for vice president. i cannot say that it delivered him the election. clinton used an interim two -- interesting strategy. instead of trying to balance who he was, that is the conventional wisdom. instead he chose someone who was a lot like him, a fellow new democrat, a relatively moderate southern new democrat. what that did was double down on his campaign message about who he was, get across how he was distinctive from the democrats of the reagan era. kamala harris could choose to do the same thing this time around. as part of who she is, people say you cannot pick gretchen whitmer as a vice president a candidate because you have two

women on the ticket. i don't think that is true. if they judge that, gender is a strength for her in getting across the message of abortion, i am not saying it is the right move. may be down and not just picking gretchen whitmer but also someone who was dealt with abortion issues in michigan in a very high-profile way, maybe that strengthens their messaging and making voters think about that much more during the selection. host: check to your calls. tim is in pennsylvania on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i think a vice presidential pick can have an influence on the ticket particularly in this day and age when we never know how events can change. when it comes to josh shapiro, pennsylvania by any ranking is always around 41 out of 50 states.

if we did not have energy, we were a slowly dying state. shapiro has really not moved the needle at all. the one initiative, he wanted to do real school choice and the teachers unions got on him and he folded like a lawn chair. so you have a dud as a governor coming from what i think is a dud state and i live here. the only thing pennsylvania has going for us is we have become an energy state. i think we are the third-largest energy producing state in the country. that is all fossil fuel. the democrats on the left hate fossil fuels. i don't know how you will put this kind of running mate that represents a fossil fuels state in a party that hates fossil

fuels. all in all, he is a good bookend for kamala harris. i think they are both empty suits. host: speaking of energy, there has been reporting about harris reversing course on her stance on fracking. vice president harris has reversed her position on fracking, signaling a move to the center on the issue. the shift comes as she tries to court swing voters in states like pennsylvania. harris was met with enthusiasm when she became the present of nominating after president biden left the race. her shifted stance on fracking could dampen excitement among progressive but the party's flank is still poised to back her over former president trump. orlando is in los angeles on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

i think it is extremely important that whoever is put in the position of vice president should be able to handle the same things that the president would be able to do, not just fill in the gaps but they should be able to act in the office as commander-in-chief. what i have seen, i would say joe biden picking kamala, picking a person of color or race or ethnicity does not do it. they are toting her as african american. i don't know where that comes from. according to the dictionary, african american is a person with native american roots.

they are also european and african. but if we just say african just because she has jamaican, she is asian african. that does not make her african american. it should be based on the issues and not on race. it should just be the issues. our borders being open, there has to be somebody going in there who will put america first. i am a democrat but i always vote independent. that's why i came on here as independent and not just say i will support one or the other especially in the climate we have. it should be based on their issues. host: we have another comment via text from jeff in michigan who says, "yes, it matters who is the vp. had pence not done with the

constitution required, trump would have gotten the second term." good morning, joe. caller: hello. watching your program, people are talking about different people in the race and getting off track so i know your job is hard in getting the answer to this question. to answer the question, do running mates matter, i will attack the question for what it is. if people look at history they will find out that people who were not supposed to be the person to take care of the president's place, wherever it may be. truman took over our country. we were in bad shape after the war. he did pretty good. truman turned out to be pretty good. roosevelt was so busy that he

could not have truman beside him all the time. biden became so busy, he did not have kamala beside him all the time. she did do certain things and she knows the structure. she's from the political environment and that's important. she is not a businessman from new york. people question her credentials. 20 years as a judge in california. are you kidding me? they will have to do more than that. the vice president, in the white house long enough, they will soon find out what to do. like any other job, if you want to do the job, you can do it. how many times a person has a job and they climbed the ladder

like office boys who turned out to own companies. they are all over the united states. host: frank is in west virginia on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. what i want to ask everyone, can you name one thing we don't pay taxes on? host: can you answer our question of whether you think running mates matter? caller: not really. host: ok. next is rick in florida on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. i believe the vice president to is incredibly important. as your former caller mentioned, mike pence had the kurds -- had the courage to certify the boat after the insurrection on january 6.

when you look at joe biden, he has been a fantastic president, passing so much important legislation after spending two terms supporting barack obama as vice president. i truly believe it is an incredibly important position. host: sandy is in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: my name is cindy and i am from pennsylvania. i would like to say that yes, the vice president matters so much. i was the president for a union and i expected my vice president to be there. seeing who she should pick, i want josh shapiro to stay where he is because i think he can help her here in pennsylvania because he is a very good speaker.

mark kelly, we cannot afford to lose him from the senate. i would also like to say that pete buttigieg is a rhodes scholar. he's very intelligent. he is very well read. i have watched him at hearings in the senate and the house where sometimes there are very hostile questions and he handles himself very well. i think that he could be a really good speaking vice president for her to help her get elected. thank you. host: next is grace in north carolina on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you think running mates matter? caller: yes, very much so. after all, if something happens to the president, that person has to be ready to take the

lead. apparently mr. trump does not think it is very important since his statement he made the other day because he plans on being president the rest of his life. but we have to stay strong and get a democrat in there. any of the men who are running for vice president in the democratic party would be great. i will leave that to vice president harris to make the decision because i know she'll do the right thing. thank you. host: vice president harris also speaking at a rally in atlanta this week challenged former president trump to a debate before the upcoming election. here are those comments. [video clip] v.p. harris: the momentum in this race is shifting. there are signs that donald trump feeling it. you may have noticed.

last week you might have seen he pulled out of the debate in september he had previously agreed to. [booing] here's the thing. here's the funny thing about that. he will not debate but he and his running mate seem to have a lot to say about me. by the way, don't you find some of their stuff to be plain weird? well donald, i do hope you will reconsider to meet me on the debate stage.

[cheering] because as the saying goes, if you have something to say, say it to my face. host: since then former president trump has said he will debate harris but only if it is on fox news, but not in the abc debate he previously agreed to. former president trump said on saturday he would not debate vice president harris if she did not agree to attend a fox news debate next month. the latest in the public jockeying between the campaigns on when if ever the candidates will be on stage. i will see her on september 4 or i will not see her at all, the president wrote saturday on his social platform. trump doubled down at his rally in georgia, telling attendees, i

don't think she will show up, claiming the vice president can read a teleprompter but cannot speak off-the-cuff. on friday night the president -- former president backed out of a debate hosted by abc news after he and president joe biden agreed to move up the debate calendar and exchange barbs over being willing to debate each other anytime, anyplace. back to your calls. donald is in new york on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have something slightly off-topic. host: can we keep it on the topic as to whether running mates matter? caller: running mates do matter. if i can provide another perspective on the problems the country is going through, it is good to have a second opinion. also these hostages that we just

released from the middle east, -- host: from the middle east or from russia? caller: from russia. how the president can face the relatives and mothers and fathers of the 9/11 survivors. it seems like -- host: we need to keep it on topic. brad is in new york on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. sitting here listening, i am stunned by the conspiracy theories. the dei, the jewish connection, the racism. it would have been nice if president biden would have stepped down a long time ago and we could have had a democratic process.

he really went downhill fast i think. the debate just took him out. it was time for the democratic party to act. with as little time as we have, they acted accordingly, i think. the vice presidential debates, we have been focusing on who can help kamala. but i am looking at the harm that j.d. vance has done already to trump with one of the really most important voting blocs we have this coming election which are the independents, particularly women who have seen their right to choose between away from them by the supreme court. j.d. vance has mobilized women against donald trump in a way i

have never seen. i think that trump's vice presidential pick is going to cost him the election among independent women. thank you. host: another comment along similar lines from scott in texas who says, "yes, the vp choice matters. i won't vote for candidate whose running mate is not qualified for the job. j.d. vance has no experience as a leader so no one should vote for trump." steve is in virginia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, vice president matter. roosevelt picked truman. kennedy picked johnson. obama picked biden. i think trump picked vance for an insurance policy against impeachment. if you votean insurance policy t impeachment.

if you vote for harris and she does not do a good job, you get to vote again. if you've over trump, he is not leaving office. the problem is today, everyone has funnel vision. they are looking in the big hole instead of in the small end. host: j.d. vance's comments about women, particularly in 2020 "childless cat ladies." j.d. vance has responded to the backlash he received to those comments on a serious xm podcast. here are a couple of those comments. [video clip] mr. vance: the simple point i made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, i really think it changes your perspective in a profound way. this is something important we have recognized for hundreds of years, that human civilization

has always recognized. there is a deeper point, it's not a criticism of people who don't have children. i explicitly said in my remarks, despite the fact that the media has lied about this, that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons don't have kids, this is criticizing the democratic party for becoming anti-family and anti-child. why do we have masking of toddlers years after the pandemic ended? why do we have a harris campaign coming out this very morning and say we should not have the child tax credit? it is because they have become antifamily and anti-kids, and i'm proud to stand up for parents, and i hope the parents out there recognize that i am a guy who wants to fight for you. i want to buy for your interests, for your stake in this country, and that is what it is fundamentally about. the democrats in the past 5, 10 years have become antifamily. is built into their policy, is built into the way they talk about parents and children, and

it is time we call that out. host: that is all the time we have for this segment. up next, we will review another very busy weekend politics with nivea nyack -- end of the nyack from the center for american progress action fund, and henry olsen from ethics and public policy center. later, george mason university mercatus center's ben klutsey will be on to discuss the political divide. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, on "q&a"" stephen con shares his book "the lies of the land," which discusses how

rural america is vastly different from per trade in politics and the media. stephen: a great deal of american automobile factoring takes place and what we would call rural areas, especially the japanese companies, toyota and honda, who built these plants starting in the 70's and 80's, not inside urban areas but out in the oil fields, so rural people are not farmers, because it's specifically speaking, much at all, they are factory workers, they are truck drivers, they are doing all these things that are connected to our industrial society. >> steven conn with his book "the lies of the land," tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> i shall resign the presidency

effective at noon tomorrow. the vice president will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office. >> president richard nixon resigned from office on august 9, 1970 four, and saturday, august 10, to mark the 50th anniversary, american history tv will air 24 hours of programming, focusing the 32nd president, the watergate scandal, and the key players in the nixon administration. programs will discuss the impeachment investigation at 1240 5 p.m. eastern. then at 3:30 p.m. eastern, the july 8, 1974 supreme court oral argument in the case of the united states v. nixon, focusing on nixon's use of executive privilege. his farewell to white house staff, and at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president nixon's resignation address, and few discussions on richard nixon's legacy, historic

newsreel footage from the white house, and interviews with nixon administration staffers and those who served and worked in congress at the time. watch our special the 60th anniversary of the resignation of president richard nixon, beginning saturday, on american history tv on c-span2. >> next up and c-span's coverage of this summer's campaign coverage, we begin with the democratic national convention as the party puts forth the presidential nominee, discuss their current record, and the reason for the next four years as a fight to retain the white house. the democratic national committee jim, live monday august 19 on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

don't miss a moment to visit our website for the latest updates and to watch the full coverage of the 2024 republican national convention. you can catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by standing the code. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back for our politics roundtable this morning. we are joined by navin nayak, who is with the center for american progress action fund. welcome to the show. guest 1: thanks for having me. host: and also henry olsen, the host of the on the polls podcast and a senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center. guest 2: good morning. host: can you talk about the ethics and public policy center? guest 2: yes, it is a research center, and we follow judeo-christian ethics, ranging

from big tech to education, and i work there. host: what about the center for american progress action fund? guest 1: we think of ourselves as an action take. across a whole range of issues but also really focused on communication and advocacy strategy. we make sure those ideas actually change the country, not just the conversation. the center for american progress action fund under the tax code is a 501(c) four but basically means that we engage in lobbying, and advocacy, and also some time on our poll work. host: we would like to play some ads that have come out. we are going through a very interesting race, starting with a new trump-vance campaign at,

and at vice president harris' immigration policy. [video clip] >> this is america's border czar, and she has failed us. a quarter of a million americans are dead from vegetal, and ice is now here. >> do you have plans to visit the border? >> i have not been to the border. i don't understand the point you are making. >> kamala harris, weak, dangerously liberal. host: and here is a harris avenue defending her immigration record. [video clip] >> on the border, the choice is simple. kamala harris supports increasing the number of border patrol agent's. donald trump blocked a bill to increase the number of border patrol agent's. kamala harris blocked fentanyl from entering the country.

donald trump blocked funding to prevent fentanyl from entering the country. donald trump blocked money to stop human tropicals. kamala harris prosecutor national gang members and got them sentenced to prison. trump is trying to avoid being sent to prison. there are two choices, the one that will fix our broken immigration system, and the one who is trying to stop her. host: this set up our conversation that we have been covering all week about who vice president harris may choose for her own vice presidential running mate. there speculation that arizona senator mark kelly might be in the running. navin, what is your take on where things stand they are? guest 1: i think the presumption that it will be either senator mark kelly, governor, governor tim walz, i think those are the

three that seem like the most likely outcome at this point. add related to the ads we just watched, a few things of conventional wisdom is someone like mark kelly, who comes from a border state, who has actually, you know, criticized president biden on his handling of the border, can sort of sure that up. my inclination on this is people are rarely voting for the vice president, and she will hopefully pick someone who is both aligned with how she wants to govern and will be a partner for her and to be a campaigner more generally good but it is hard to imagine, especially in an election of this magnitude, that there will be truly voters who will ignore the top of the ticket, i don't really like or dislike the vice president, sub, you know, this is likely where it will be, but we will find out tuesday or monday. host: henry, you were nodding in

agreement. guest 2: yeah. vice presidents very rarely matter. they can get up a few tenths of a points in their home state. but that is a rounding error in the case of a national campaign. i would not be surprised along navin's line, be comfortable with a good campaigner. -- has been in the national spotlight, is probably more aligned with her issues. i would not be surprised if she would chose him. host: you said vice presidential candidates rarely matter, but can they hurt? previous caller talked about j.d. vance potentially hurting trunk's chances. guest 2: generally backed up by

statistics, even those like sarah palin ultimately don't drive people away from the presidential ticket. an example of someone who might have, but even then, john mccain's decision to shut down his campaign after the financial collapse a couple days and then go to d.c. and not solve the problem was probably more influential than sarah palin. guest 1: i think there's a lot more risk of downsides. from a below perspective, but -- a vote perspective, but the cost of j.d. vance, i don't think anyone, including trump himself, would say he has had a good rollout. he has dominated the media from a very negative perspective. we have been having a conversation about his ideas that, you know, people without children have less value in our democracy, that they should not devote as much, that there is something odd about not having

children. that is something about a earned media, social media, which just means if you have the trump campaign, you are spending all day responding to that. i think from that perspective, sarah palin is familiar. there's a lot of media coverage around her disastrous interviews with katie couric at the time, nbc, and i think that does have a real cost when it comes to election day. host: what about the rest of the race? what kind of issues do you both see coming right into the top in the minds of voters in this new dynamic? henry? guest 2: all the polls have been very consistent. independent people are concerned about immigration and the economy. you would expect donald trump, if he ever gets back to speaking about the campaign, rather than his personal pet peeves, like brian kemp in georgia the other day, talk about 10 million people across the board or committee can point to record inflation, now he can point to rising unemployment.

he's got some facts on his side, and that will be something he should, if he is competent at campaigning, hammer home over and over again. as you can see, vice president harris will have to deflect that by presenting her own plan and explaining that it is either not as bad as people think or she can make it better. host: same, navin. guest 1: i think it's no question that a lot of voters are deeply concerned about the economy in their own economic lives. i think the other two you have to put into the conversation are abortion, which, you know, given what happens two years ago, with the supreme court, i think 14 states have banned abortion, so i think that is a very personal and real conversation for a lot of americans. another is a strong concern around, writ large, democracy, right? and the sense that, you know, people's voice count less than a

use to come of that we see in erosion of power, we see the supreme court that rules quite shockingly to a lot of americans that the president is above the law, that the president has immunity, and sort of this constant concern around political violence. i think all of that is percolating. you see in the data that come of less spectrum concerns around this, but less democracy and the rule of law, i think real concerns as well. host: last week, former president trump sparked another round of controversy by questioning kamala harris' portrayal of her own ethnic background during a discussion with three journalists at the national association of black journalists conference in chicago. i want to get your response. [video clip] rachel: some of your own reporters have labeled vice president kamala harris, who is

the first black and agent woman to serve as vice president, be on a major party ticket, as a dei hire. is that acceptable language to you, and you will you tell those supporters to stop it? mr. trump: how do you define dei? rachel: diversity, equity, and inclusion? that is literally dei. mr. trump: give me a definition. rachel: i just defined it. , sir. do you think vice president kamala harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman? mr. trump: i think it is a little bit different. i know her indirectly, not directly so much, and she was only promoting indian harris. i did not know she was black insulated number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black. is she indian or is she black?

rachel: she has always been black. mr. trump: i respect either one, but she obviously doesn't, because she was indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a black person. rachel: just to be clear, sir -- mr. trump: i think someone should look into that, too, when you ask in a nasty tone. rachel: it is a valid question. do you refer to kamala harris as a dei hire? mr. trump: i don't know. could be. host: does this tell us about, what you mentioned earlier, his campaign and what messaging is likely to see? guest 2: he needs to be hammering harris' weaknesses, he needs to be hammering on her ties to the biden administration, which continues to be overwhelmingly unpopular with independents, and to go

about like this, you have an opportunity with earned media to set the agenda. setting the agenda for issues that do not advance his campaign , 24 hours that he is losing the debate with kamala harris. host: more than 24 hours. [laughter] guest 2: losing the news cycle. host: what is your take on what these comments tell us about what we are likely to hear from the rest of the campaign? guest 1: yeah. i think there are two things they want from a tactical perspective. vice president harris has come in and optimistic, positive way, dominated earned media since she got into this race as the nominee, and i think that drives former president trump bananas. he really cannot stomach the fact that he is not the center of the conversation, especially at is getting positive attention. this is true to the sort of things he will do, to get attention back on him.

but we have to remind ourselves that he is just revealing a lot of who i think we need to remember who he is. he came to prominence in politics questioning former president obama's identity. his whole rise to prominence in politics outside of business and entertainment was, you know, questioning that barack obama was not an american citizen, going on and on about pushing the notion he has to prove with his birth certificate, and, you know, this notion of uttering certain americans, often black americans, is something that i think is core to who he is, his approach to politics is to divide americans, and it has been unfortunately successful with a set of americans, but i think a consistent majority has rejected that, and it is important to be reminded come up everything going on, that is to

donald trump is at his core. host: vice president harris responded to trump's remarks at a sorority convention in houston, a historically black sorority. [video clip] vp harris: this afternoon -- donald trump spoke at the annual meeting of the national association of black journalists. and it was the same old show. the divisiveness and the disrespect, and let me just say, the american people deserve better. the american people deserve better. [applause] the american people deserve a leader who tells the truth, a leader who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts.

we deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us. they are an essential source of our strength. host: in a moment, we will be going to your calls. just a reminder, republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002. i want to talk to you both about news this week, about president biden, current president biden, about changes -- actually committed was last week, time has no meaning. [laughter] calling for sweeping changes in "usa today," saying that president biden called for major changes in the supreme court, to impose 18-year term limits and enforce a code of ethics on justices.

he also put his support behind passage of a new constitutional amendment that would limit immunity to presidents, a direct response to the supreme court's ruling this month that former not president trump is protected from criminal charges due to actions taken in an official capacity as president. the constitutional amendment which would bar immunity for former president trump, term limits for justices, and a code of conduct. henry, what are your thoughts on this? guest 2: i think it is a response to the democratic anger of the supreme court over the last few years. that is going nowhere. there is not going to be a constitutional amendment, is getting through congress, much less a debate. it is constant -- it is unconstitutional anyway, because the constitution says justices are appointed, it is interpreted as for life, which could be say

on good behavior, so that will be struck down. this is an attempt to rally democrats around a package of issues to signal that the court is important but as a package of legislation come only to binding code of ethics might even have a prayer and a chance of becoming law. host: navin? guest 1: in the short term, i don't think this congress will do anything in the next couple of months could i really applaud president biden for putting this out there and really pushing for it, and i think it will be a really important conversation moving forward for this country. as a progressive priority, you look at the things individually, you know, a binding code of ethics for the supreme court, 85%, 90% of americans support that, and they know that we need it. this is a corrupt court. i think the conservatives acknowledge that the actions of justice alito, justice thomas taking millions of dollars in contributions is beyond the

pale. when you put the question, do you think supreme court justice it should have term limits, again, 85% plus americans across the political spectrum support that idea. constitutional scholars know there is a way to do this in a way that does maintain the sort of constraints there, but i think there is this sense that, you know, these nine justices, a small majority, political majority of those have reworked american life. they have stripped away these fundamental freedoms that women in this country have enjoyed for 50 years, fundamental freedoms that, you know, on voting are being stripped away by the supreme court. so i think there is this sense that this unelected body should not have that much impunity to do anything they want without any constraints. host: all right, let's go to some callers. we will start with paul in new york city on outline for independentss. good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing?

i want to touch base with some of these, we know that facebook and google have done things, they have tried to censor, will actually provide accurate information about the trump assassination attempt. and just in general, you know, it does seem to me that it is kind of alarming that, you know, the media sees, in this case, part of the media, seems to be so oriented against him that it might cause a backlash. the other example might be the hunter biden story that was suppressed. clearly it was trump's adult child -- clearly, if it was trump's adult child, it would be seen as the which it was. whether it will be affecting someone voting for or against president.

i was wondering if you guys could address, you know, this rather, sort of bizarre media -- host: paul, i'm going to give them a chance to respond to this. the only reference i'm able to find quickly to the stories and the "new york post," saying that former president trump slammed meta and google for allegedly sanctioning sales, urging them to go after the two big tech issues, meta on facebook, banning the iconic photo after the shooting of trump raising his fist, and then search of the tragic incident in its drop-down window. they are saying they are innocent mistakes after being contacted by the "new york post." any comment?

guest 2: yeah. whatever happened is not likely to be a result of intentional suppression. you have trillions of things going on these pages. it is also clear a lot of these ai jobs make progressive or liberal bias, so the fact that something might come up that way does not prove that there is an intentional bias. most people don't use those. i just think this is a point that it is little relevance to the actual campaign. the fact is, donald trump still has access to active media. he can set his own agenda, and he needs to do it effectively. if he is running off on tangents, that is not effective. then the harris can dominate and set the terms. guest 1: i don't know about the specifics of this, but the u.s. is far behind, let's say, europe in actually setting in a sort of

constraints and regulations on a lot of technology, ai. i think there's a lot of work, i think even bipartisan interest in some of these measures, and, you know, consumer protection, consumer privacy is only going to increase moving forward. so there's a lot of work to do on that front. host: marion is in georgia on a line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about this tip ping, trump has been talking about, and it makes sense, that servers, you know, waiters and waitresses should not get tipped. but i saw an article, and it said that anybody who makes up to $20,000, even if it is tips, don't pay taxes anyway. they don't have to pay taxes. so my question is, is tipping, let's look at tipping with the millionaires and billionaires. so if they have to get paid

$50,000, and he said, well, you know, give me $1000 and take me $49,000. is there any constraint or regulation on that? because that sounds like it is a huge giveaway to the millionaires and billionaire class. and i don't know consensus about ethics. it sounds like it is a real con job, that the billionaire class is putting on the american people, saying oh, look, we are for the little guy. you don't have to pay taxes, you little waitress, but it is really about sucking money and avoiding taxes for the billionaire class. host: navin, do you want to take a crack at that? guest 1: two the caller's specific point about how policy might be -- the wealthy have more than enough ways to avoid taxes and decrease their tax burdens. that is one of the contrast between these two candidates is

donald trump's top priorities, economically, even greater tax cuts for the wealthy come of reducing the corporate tax rate, and i do think a tipped wage is, unfortunately, a total sleight-of-hand, to pretend like he actually cares about working people. we actually put out an analysis that showed that preventing tipped wages from being taxed next to nothing for exactly the reason the caller mentioned is a lot of people in these sort of minimum wage jobs are not necessarily paying taxes, generally. and the more important, obviously, thing to do if you actually cared about low-wage workers is to actually raise the minimum wage. that would be a way to increase their income and take-home pay. host: this article on this in the american progress website, that a similar piece of legislation, senator cruz's no tax on tips act does little for

moderate and low income wage workers but opens the door to tax abuse by the wealthy. henry, what are your thoughts on the suggestion by former president trump that tips should not be taxed? guest 2: single, professional class of people who are in the working class, and when you take a look at where people work, 12 million people are classified as restaurant or hospitality. the vast majority of those people receive tips, and because of the way the minimum wage works, they don't get the minimum wage in most states. they get what is called the tipping class wage. their employers only pay a much lower amount, and the tips get aggregated to that employer until they "meet" the minimum wage. i think i think it could be a significant gain for them, you remove it from tax, they get a larger income -- earned income

tax credit, so they would get a significantly greater subsidy than might otherwise be appreciated. i think it is a smart political move by trump, but you would have to craft it in a way so you could say that this deal, a bonus for multibillionaire, who are often characterized as a tip would have to become a something that only applies to tipped employees and not any sort of gratuity or bonus. host: charlie is in warren, massachusetts come on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to talk about the dei topic. i believe it was the democrats who pushed the dei. they finally got it. they were all happy about it. biden used it to select his vice president. he said he was going to pick a black woman.

if you dispute that, i would like to hear you. and my point is, why now is in a bad thing? we are watching the black thing the other day you showed the tape on, and they are saying she is a dei hire, as if it is a bad bank. i thought they wanted that. i want both of you to explain to me, is she a dei hire? is dei good or bad? thank you very much. host: navin, i will let you go first. guest 1: listen, i mean, i do think it is sensitive about the way the vice president is being characterized, essentially framed as a way to dismiss the fact that she has had an incredible career as a prosecutor, as attorney general of the largest state in the

country, so the comments about republican members of congress dismissing her as the dei vice president is designed to diminish her and suggest that she actually has no merit, that she has not deserved anything, that she is doing it without any merit. i think there's a much bigger conversation, that goes beyond politics. part of a much more important conversation is, how do we address it equity? how do we address the lack of diversity in all of our institutions, not just in politics? that is one of the places. and i think there has been a really healthy, concerted effort to make sure that we don't actually just, you know, default to sort of the practices we had and are intentional about bringing the full diversity of the country forward in all of our institutions, ensuring that we are addressing an and that we are, you know, more broadly, trying to diversify who represents us host:.

henry? guest 2: with respect to vice president harris, there are some polls recently to say the single biggest word, that a lot of these posters ask questions, what is the word that comes to mind? the single biggest word that comes to mind with vice kamala harris is "incompetent," and balancing the ticket is a traditional way of presidents, whether it is picking an ohio person when you are thinking regionally, or if it is thinking rigidly or with gender, you have a woman. , is meant to play up to that. why is she incompetent? it is plain to what people already believe, because she was not selected on merit. it is a typical political play, play up your opponent's weakness. with respect to the dei, the

republican side of the aisle, the conservative side of the aisle, yeah, we want people to be treated equally, and that dei , if implemented, it treats people based on external characteristics rather than internal merits. that is the debate we are having and the debate that is long overdue in this country. host: guy is in decatur, georgia on online for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. two quick questions. first, 34 felonies, does that matter? and the other question, when will trump throw the j.d. vance under the bus like he did mike pence, michael cohen, and steve bannon? and could kamala harris run for president with 34 felonies? thank you. host: that was three questions, not two. [laughter] but we will take them one at a time. so, the 34 felonies, henry,

will you address your response to that one? guest 2: yes, it does not matter to well over half of the american population. his poll numbers did not go down to his favorability has been going up. people view donald trump through the lens they adopted years ago, and for people who are open to liking donald trump, they do not see the felony convictions as anything other than abuse of the legal process who incriminate your political opponent for political purposes. that is not something people on the other side of the break i would agree with, but that is what the polls tell us is actually going on. with respect to kamala harris, if you had an elected republican prosecutor who got elected saying she will indict vice president harris and succeeded in doing so on charges many say

or legally questionable, i suspect the rest of us would not care she was convicted. host: navin, you think trump is going to abandon j.d. vance, and the way that caller the implied? ? guest 1: no. i think trump checked his loyalty, and if you are loyal to him, he does not throw you under the bus. he stuck with vice president mike pence until he was not willing to overturn the election. and, you know, i think if you go down the list, it is only one someone stops being loyal to donald trump that he throws them overboard, and that is, you know, again, his approach to politics is about himself. he only cares about getting elected and sort of claiming power, and anyone who will help him do that is useful to him. and if they won't come up and he will throw them under the bus. host: did you have a acts or

commas on j.d. vance? guest 2: i like jd quite a bit. i'm glad he will not be thrown under the bus could i agree with what navin said. and no presidential nominee has thrown their candidate under the bus. the only exception is when a presidential nominee left the ticket, when his treatment for electroshock therapy was revealed, that was beyond the pale then. j.d. vance is the nominee, he will remain the nominee, and if elected, he will become the vice president. host: wilma is in st. petersburg on our for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is your question? caller: my question is, the person who is running or trying to be reelected for the second time in the white house, is there ethics in that person's

integrity? do that person have ethics? are they planning on using ethics for the rest of the united states of america, that we might see who this person really is? we know who he is. he has already shown us that time and time again. we hear him every day on television continue to live it, so where's the ethics? -- to lie, so where's the ethics? host: it sounded like will manz or her own question, but henry, do you have any comments? guest 2: use on donald trump remain sharply polarized, they don't change very much. his friends see him as someone who fights for them. his foes see him as an unethical, sleazy manipulator who is bent on -- this is a

glass is half full, half empty situation, and we will not get any closer to answering that. guest 1: a lot of republicans who might be inclined to vote for him would not call them ethical. i do not think he is a moral individual, but he might be overlooked at. i think it is worth sitting back and reminding ourselves, yes, 50/50, donald trump has never come close to a majority. even when he won in 2016, he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. he lost the popular vote by more than 7 million in 2020. he's on track i think very likely to again lose the popular vote, it would seem. the question is, do americans feel like they understand the fate of this election? if that is the case, i think you will see, again, the majority of americans reject donald trump and maga and what they are offering. unfortunately, that is not how

we elect our presidents, so the electoral college is the only path that donald trump, and, candidly, others have had come over almost 40 years in this country. i think george w. bush in 2004 was the last republican, you know, until you go to his father, who actually won the presidency with the popular vote. this is a party overall that has rejected trying to appeal to a majority of americans and is trying to energize the plurality they have, and that is their approach to politics. host: in pennsylvania on our line for independents, barbara, good morning. caller: hi. i need some help here. trump is only a republican -- it is not about your character. i've heard people on c-span call in. we will stop democrats. we don't care about his character.

it is the politics, what he stands for. so my question is, how in the world do you determine what he is saying is true? because today, you played a clip, and he was talking about not cutting social security, all the things that, in 2025, so further outcome of what is true and what is not? as far as i'm concerned right now, i'm just going on what comes out of their mouths, and i'm going on character, because it is all over the place to get the truth about what is what. can you help me out? host: henry? guest 2: yeah. i think there is some consistency to what trump has been talking about. trump beliefs in lower taxes. trump does not want to cut major entitlements for recipients of social security and medicare. he wants to increase defense spending. what that means is the deficit is going to go up.

after his presidency, i would expect it to go up more if he becomes president again. those are some policy things that i think you will take to the bank. he is opposed to free-trade since the reagan administration. he has been wanting to restrict immigration since the reagan administration. i think you can take those to the bank. the question is, do you want those things? if you want those things, of over donald trump. if you think the democrats are too aggressive in pursuing their policies for change, vote for donald trump to prevent progressive change. i think those are things you can take to the bank. i think you get a cycle are you for those things or against those things can and then decide accordingly. guest 1: one thing that is really unique for voters this year is you have a candidate who has a record as president, right? that was not the case in 2016, sort of a blank slate, never really been in politics. it is worth reminding people what his record does, because he

is doubling down on it, he says he wants to continue could i agree with in re. he lower the tax rate for corporations dramatically. if he wants to give corporations another tax cut from 21% to 15%. he prioritized tariffs. he introduced a new policy where he's talking about across the board on goods not just from china but from canada, from mexico, from europe, a 10% tariff. that means the average consumer's costs would skyrocket. he's talked about taking away health care, repealing the affordable care act, ending the aca. that was a huge priority that both he and j.d. vance doubled down would be a priority. i think we see what he wants to do. he continues what he wants to do moving forward. it is important for the american people to understand. host: what about the truth of information about harris? guest 1: well, look, i do think she has more of a clean slate.

i think they have a lot of work to do and a real opportunity to define what a harris presidency would look like. there's no question that she was vice president. i think she can be judged by a lot of what her and president biden have accomplished, and i think she's going to lean into especially some of the economic accomplishments, when it comes to investment in clean energy, the investments in infrastructure, the lowering of prescription drug costs. this is something the american people have been asking for for a generation, to actually cap the cost, allowing medicare to negotiate prices. that is something that president biden and vice president harris have accomplished. at the same time, i think she would point to where she would go moving forward. guest 2: i think she is burdened by two things, one is by the biden record, which i think you made a case for the positives, but the fact is that inflation-adjusted earnings are still lower than they were when

biden took office. even though wages are going up, they have not made up for the birth of inflation we had in 22 and 2023. unemployment is moving in the wrong direction. it is higher right now that it was pre-pandemic, under donald trump, you know,. then we got the border, you know, the ad we saw it earlier, the fact estimate has been relatively focus for three years, when she had some responsibility and was involved in an administration that had complete ability over the border, those are things she is burdened by. she's a very strong positions during her campaign to appeal to the progressive wing of the party, saying she was open to abolishing private health insurance and abolishing the enforcement agencies, and she is going to have to, if trump and fans are competent, she's going to have to defend those

statements. she does not have a blank slate, she has two very large weights around her ankles, one from her own making from 2019, the other from the biden administration when they assessed, who is this person? and do i want part of the administration i don't like, she suggested a change that for most americans is too much, too fast. host: bradley is in taxes on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, i had a question about the crooked fbi,, but i want to go back to navin. navin does not know the history of united states. the only thing that keeps the united states together is the electoral system. if texas would be ruled by the california vote, the illinois vote, the new york vote, which are full of looney tunes, texas would lead and really decimate the united states. so that is navin. host: navin. caller: address the fact that

the electoral college is the most important thing in the united states. thank you. guest 1: i actually think that the american people are ready to actually answer this question. you are seeing more and more states pass what is called the national popular vote compact, which would basically be that, you know, the winner of the national popular vote should be the winner of the election. and there's a lot of reasons why i think americans in all states would really benefit from this. one is it really would be one person, one vote. two, it would force candidates to campaign and compete everywhere. right now, we accept it as normal and healthy, which it is not, for an election to shrink down to five or seven states, and that all the time and energy and resources are focused on five or seven states, where if we had a national popular vote, you know, vote in every part of the country, in alabama, in

texas, in california would actually matter, and i think that is a really empowering thing for the american people, to feel like we collectively get to decide and not, you know, certain votes in states, you know, the 40% of people who might vote for joe biden in alabama, let's say 35%, their votes don't count in the same way, and they are immediately written off. i think that is something that is not empowering for the american people. guest 2: the same is true for the millions of people who vote for donald trump in california. guest 1: exactly. guest 2: if we were to move to a national popular vote, we actually have to have a national popular vote. we have 50 sets of rules, 51, including d.c. this general agreement on eligibility but not uniform agreement. there's different rules on when to vote, how to vote. every other country that elects its president does so by some form of national popular vote, but they do so with a uniform set of rules and a national electoral agency. they have a compact which asks

for a national popular vote when no uniform rule exists i think is highly, highly destabilizing. if we are going to move this way, we should move this way through compromising and establishing real national popular vote, and that will require a constitutional limit. host: the national popular vote, that comes from the pew survey september 2023 finding that 65% of americans support a national popular vote for president, and that is on their website, nationalpopularvote.com. that's go back to calls, this is robert on our independent line in north carolina. good morning. caller: yes, i was weighing it out, joe biden, mr. trump, and this is the way i looked at it, ok. if they would have let joe

biden run again, i said to my wife, i wasn't going to let -- host: are you still there? caller: yes. if they were to let joe biden run again, i told my wife, i'm not going to vote for joe biden, i will vote for mr. trump. i'm pretty fair. now, when they let this female pit bull on the loose, that is a game changer. she's a smart woman, intelligent. joe biden committee could not figure out what was going on. i understand he was kind of slow . everyone picking on him, saying he is too slow, talking about "his mind is gone," ok, so i will go with donald trump, if that is the case. like i said, they brought kamala harris. change the game. i'm a truck driver, i know.

everybody's talking about kamala harris, she was biden's pit bull. it is not even about your policies no more. people don't care. they are talking about how strong you are. they can say what they want to say to get an office, they might do one policy and say i read on this, and then they go to something else, doing everything else people don't like. people understand politics change once you get in there anyway, but kamala harris is a strong woman, and you got to hand it to her, she is a fighter. donald trump knows that. host: let's let our guests respond to that. navin, how many people do you think are like robert, they maybe were planning to vote for trump because they did not like bided, but with harris in the race, they are willing to switch? guest 1: i think more of the early data, again, she's only been in the race for a couple of weeks, suggests the big shift has been from third parties coming back to kamala harris,

people who are not sure they were going to vote, coming back to kamala harris. i think they are flipping more people like robert, but i think the more common outcome is the race has been flipped on its head, donald trump now is the older candidate, the old canada in the race, and donald trump really represents the past, kamala harris represents the future. we are seeing this on the trail in the last few weeks, the amount of energy and organic enthusiasm that she has unleashed, and on the democratic side, there has not really been anything like this since president obama, and i think that sense of enthusiasm, i think, captured in the same way that the caller was referencing, which is people feel excited now, and they are taken by her presence. host: what about robert's other point? you agree that harris is a more

challenging candidate for trump to run against than fighting? guest 2: i think so, because with biden coming to the point of his age and his stumbles, that was like shooting fish in a barrel. you can say a lot of things about donald trump, but he is physically vigorous. not something you can say about biden. it is something you could say about harris. i do think it is a challenge and that it is also easy to blame the president for his administration. it's harder to blame the vice president for the president' administration -- nots impossible but harder. so it's challenging in that respect. harris' future is not doubling down on the past, is doubling down on the continuing financial position on the economy, it is doubling down on the de- industrialization of america, it is doubling down on the changes that are upsetting many people.

if you want more of the past, you should vote for kamala harris, because that is what the future looks like. donald trump says it is time to have a clean break. then again, you may not want a clean break. he may not want to move from a free-trade world to a tariff world. you may not want to move to a world where progressive changes have slowed down, especially through the course rather than the democratic system. that is the choice american people have, and trump represents real change, and here is represents a future that looks a lot like the last 20 years. host: sharon is on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have a question for henry, or the rest of the panel. trump has been going out, campaigning, saying "you don't have to vote for me, you don't have to vote, i don't need your votes," then i hear the report that there are 70 officials scattered around the battleground states that will not certify the votes. so is this a true thing, or is this a rumor?

i'm concerned about that kind of thing going on, where they have the power to certify votes, and then they won't do it if it is harris. guest 2: yeah. i suspect that is a rumor more than anything else. take a look at who is actually in charge of certifying votes in all of these swing states. it is a very decentralized system. it requires bipartisan signoff. there's really no state -- i'm a republican, i'm in charge of all of this, therefore not going to certify the votes. i suspect that even if you had a crazy people who would do that, which you did not in 2020. not a single republican elected official who could have stopped the election did so, even though they were under intense pressure to do so. i suspect you would have a court-enforcement certification if there is no reasonable reason to withhold a certification. so i think that is not something to genuinely be concerned about.

we are going to have a freak, fair, and open election, as we did in 2020. donald trump lost in 2020, as he did in a free, fair, and open election, and the person with the most electoral college votes as a person who will become president, and it will be a fairly determined outcome and certified outcome. host: what about the other point she made about trump's comments, reported in t "washington posth" and elsewhere, speaking to a group, and he said, christians, get out and vote, just as time. you won't have to do it anymore. you got to get out and vote. in four years, you won't have to do it again. we will have it fixed so good, you will not have to vote. guest 2: i think that is a tropical trump overpromise, over exaggeration, which is to say the reason you have to vote this time as we have to have changed him and i will implement all the

changes you want in four years. trump is not, if he is not capable, we do not have a centralized republic like you have in venezuela. trump is not going to be able to end democracy in this country. so when that is used by people, that is an exaggeration. and a lot of troubling aspects of donald trump. the ability to end democracy in this country by occupying the white house is not one of them. guest 1: i think president biden put it best in his speech, which is that he put a knife to democracy. yes, donald trump put a knife to democracy's throat. it was probably an offhand comment by donald trump. yes, democracy held in 2020, no question that it was a free and fair election, but i think this is a time for real vigilance and concern, because most people on the republican ticket do not

acknowledge that 2020 was free and fair. j.d. vance said he would have overturned make electoral college low income and that is a terrifying thing. that he would not have done the thing mike pence stand, which was basically accept the votes from the states. he would have said no, we are not accepting them, and we will send back to the states, only in states that would help donald trump overturn the election. we should be concerned. we have a political party right now that has repeatedly expressed a willingness to lie and a willingness to push the boundaries. donald trump to this -- we have a shot of the capitol behind you, he celebrates the people who attacked the capitol and beta police officers and says even this past week that he would pardon them. that is not a democratic thing. that is an openness to undemocratic actions, and there is a reason why there is a lot more concern. will he and democracy? i don't know, but will he -- but

he continues to threaten it. host: that is all the time we have for our segment. thank you so much to navin nayak and henry olsen really appreciate your time this morning. coming up, we will take more of your phone calls after the break in our open forum. you can start calling in now. and later, we will hear from ben klutsey of the george mason university mercatus center who will discuss with us efforts to bridge the political divide and his role in a new documentary. we will be right back. ♪ >> we welcome in a national crusade to make. >> taxes will go up. and anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth.

>> our beloved nation, we are in the midst of springtime of hope for america. >> because we are the party that believes in the american dream. >> read my lips, no new taxes. >> i still believe in a place called hope. >> here is the question for the american people, who do you trust in this election? >> the real choice is whether we will build a bridge to the future or a bridge to the past. >> i have unlimited confidence in the wisdom of our people and the future of our country. i stand here tonight as my own man and i want you to know me for who i truly am. >> they had their chance. they have not led. we will. >> i'm john kerry, and i'm reporting for duty. >> these four years have brought moments i could not proceed and will not forget. >> is time for us to change

america. >> i was not my own man anymore. i was my country's. >> i don't believe rolling back regulations on wall street will help the small business woman expanded or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. we have been there. have tried that, and we are not going back. we are moving forward, america. >> under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty and mr. putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone. >> he wants to make america great again. he can start by actually making things in america again. >> we will make america safe again. and we will make america great again. >> here and now, i give you my word. if you entrust me with the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, not the worst. >> this towering american spirit has prevailed over every challenge and lifted us to the

summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the conventions, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum, ready to hear your thoughts on the politics of america. we will start with anthony in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning, anthony. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call because i am originally from california. i moved to ohio months ago. she is from san francisco, where they hand out meals to people, they don't want them to catch aids, where the whole state is disconcerted but people from other states.

all the people in the hospital, every time you go to an emergency room, it is just flooded with all of these people. her policies will not make her -- if you go down and you find out exactly her policies and what she stands for, the media will hide it, but the truth will come out. i don't see how anyone can vote for her. and how can they do this? she has not had one vote for presidency. when she was in the primary, she got 3% and was knocked out so they will try to put her into the presidency. it is just not democracy as you guys always put it. someone should challenge it" because i think it is illegal. thank you very much. host: in the bronx, new york, on our line for democrats, good morning, thelma. caller: yes, good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, i can.

caller: longtime democrat. but this time i will not be voting for a democrat. it is because of the way they treat joe biden. i cannot and will not vote democrat this year. i talked to a lot of people, a lot of friends, and they are saying the same thing. they are not going to vote for kamala just because of the way they treated joe biden. i will not vote a democrat. just put kamala in the presidency and then the democrats run around. it is not right. host: are you planning to vote

for former president trump, a third-party, or not at all? caller: i am thinking. i do not want to vote for donald trump. but at the same time, i do not like what they did to joe biden, so i might not vote this year. host: ok. next up, we have pat in north dakota and our line for independents. good morning, pat. caller: good morning. i am just wanted to say that i am afraid for our country. we are not safe anymore. the democrats just seem to be spending us into bankruptcy. i just don't feel safe if kamala were in. where is our democracy? if we had democracy, we would not have open borders because most of the people don't want that. nobody listens to the people in the democrat party. they just have their own agenda.

like i say again, i am afraid for our country. host: pat, what are you specifically afraid of? caller: i am afraid of our enemies. and the democrats are making us weaker. all they do is help the cartels make money, and they help iran make money. now, biden had all kinds of incidents where he was getting money. he has all of these llc's or whatever all over the place, and now nobody is talking about that. host: ok. next up is stand in orlando, florida, on our line for republicans. morning, stan. caller: ok, first, i would like to thank you for the previous segment. you had two individuals with opposite opinions who were able to have a discussion on the questions that were raised on the issues, and i truly thank you for that. having said that, since i lived

in new york for all my life and now i relocated to florida and now i am retired, this book "how the best did it," i think it was one of the books that was on c-span or whatever. i love the chapter specifically that was done on lincoln. and i believe the people that are running trump and harris, they should actually read this book because they would learn something about how to lead. it was an absolutely fascinating book and i truly loved it. and again, i just want to thank you because again, it is amazing at c-span you can actually have people with very divergent opinions who sit down in the forum and can have a discussion and help us learn more. from the bottom of my heart, i thank you very much. host: thanks for tuning in.

next up, frederick in brunswick, georgia, on the line for republicans. good morning, frederick. caller: yes, i just wanted to try to cover a couple of topics. the gentleman earlier work -- the gentlemen earlier were talking about terrorists and it would cost more things into the u.s. but i want people to realize the tariffs going into the country are higher because they don't -- going out of the country are higher because they don't want our goods. the jobs that have left this country since the 1980's due to the cheap labor aspect to make these billionaires so much richer, they go over there, they get this cheap labor, they can make the product, package it, put it on the loading dock, ship it over here, pay all the doc people, pay the trucking people to bring them to the warehouse is, and still be cheaper than it

being made in america. they are keeping the tariffs low for those people that are bringing these goods into the country. if the tariffs are raised, and will try to make people try to bring jobs back into america. and with the low tax rates, it will incentivize these companies to try to invest in america. let's bring some jobs back to america instead of giving it to china. that has to do with our national security, our tax base. we are losing that. there are so many issues and things. host: have you worked in one of the industries affected by this? caller: no, i haven't. i was in automotive. that is not typically affected by that because everybody has to have a car. it is not affected by it, but i have researched and seen a lot where it was actually responsible for a lot of americans losing their health care when all of these people pulled out of america, and then

people were left without health care. it is just across the board. it has impacted people in huge ways. you know, using jobs, destroying -- losing jobs, destroying communities, losing your health care. it just goes on and on and on. they don't want our goods. their tariffs are higher. they don't want to buy, but they want to bring it in. we need to quit supporting china. they are a threat to the united states. people don't see it. the fentanyl, they are behind the fentanyl. they are behind the mexican syndicates bringing that into america. joe biden has allowed this to come into america. i see our borders. now we are figuring it out. another thing. biden gives iran all of this money. they support the -- they

support the houthis. they are firing missiles at the shipping lanes over there, and we have to intercept those. each time we intercept those and one of those missiles is fired from a navy ship, that is millions of dollars. let's add up how many times those have been intercepted and you get what is going on there. host: ok, let's now hear from walter in ohio on our line for democrats. walter, did i get the name of your town right? caller: yes, that is right. host: excellent. caller: very good. thank you very much. morning. host:. caller: i still have a lot questions about july 13 and the attempted assassination of former president trump. the bullet that got him, that grazed his ear, went past, wouldn't the rest of the bullet have hit somebody directly behind him in the crowd?

where did that end up? the person that was killed and the other two were three that were wounded, where they directly behind trump or were they off to the side? because what i am thinking is someone right behind trump, for example -- i don't know. when the shots were fired, donald trump ducked with the secret service, covered his own head, i would think. the secret service, i don't know if they are trained to cover the president's head when they are going down or whatever. maybe his ear was just cut by a ring or a watch or a pen or something. maybe he was not grazed by a bullet at all. host: so he was raised by either the bullet or fragments,

according to the fbi. i was trying to find one quickly, but there were several illustrations available on multiple media outlets showing the path the bullet took from the shooter to the people who were killed and injured in the crowd. next up is done in new orleans -- don in new orleans on our line for independents. good morning, don. caller: good morning. the u.s. debt is one thing, $34 trillion, $35 trillion, but the transfer over the next 20 years, two decades, it is tremendous when you talk about $85 trillion that will be transferred from the silent generation and baby boomers to these millennials and gen zers and all of the generations apathetic to voting. they are in line to receive a large amount of wealth transfer from hard-working american

voting patriots of the silent and the greatest generation, the baby boomers. the apathy. the top 1% of wealthy families controls more wealth than the bottom 9%. that is an issue. in closing, we have to look at the data. one particular is the survey of program participation and the imbalance there, the majority of those programs are dominated by the caucasian race. and so they are dominating and wealth transfers and they are dominating -- in wealth transfers and they are dominating in program participation higher than their percentage of population in the united states. host: your claim of the great

wealth transfer, i wanted to bring in this article from cnbc from may of this year that the great wealth transfer has started, but millennials and gen z may not inherent as much as they anticipate. it goes into how much they anticipate to inherent and how much their parents plan on leaving the purgative longer life expectancies, rising health care costs, growing financial insecurity, and changing views about inheritance are all partly responsible. next up, let's hear from dave in maryland on ever line for democrats. good morning, dave. caller: i just wanted to say, you know, the only choice that we have is to elect kamala harris because, first of all, donald trump is a habitual liar. he can never tell the truth. people talk about the immigration, illegal immigration, and there was a bipartisan bill that both

democrats and republicans agreed upon, but donald trump said no, do not pass this bill because it will hurt my campaign, it will make things better, so it is all about donald trump. the republicans want to downplay january 6, which i take kind of personally because, you know, all the election deniers wanted to take my vote away from me and my family, which is really important to me, my vote and my family's. you have people on the other side, election deniers, republicans in pretty prominent positions now are election deniers so it is ridiculous. they talk about crime but don't want to think about the guns on the street. they want to keep it the way it is. i mean, the former president was

shot using an ar 15, which should be banned. they are really hypocritical in main areas. donald trump is just a liar. i would not let him deliver my mail, let alone be president. host: i will get in one more caller before we finish up the open forum. robert is on our line. good morning, robert. caller: i just wanted to say i was watching former president trump's atlanta rally last night , and it really resonated with me when he was talking about how all of the big democrat run cities are full of crime. that is why i will be supporting him. i think the democratic party is too soft on crime, especially since the summer of 2020. we need to support our police and make sure violent offenders are arrested and charged and faced some kind of consequences.

i also think the democratic party has gone way to left wing on abortion, so that is myself. i will be supporting trump in november. thank you. host: thank you. as a reminder for folks who want to see the rally from former president trump, you can find that on c-span.org. coming up next, we will have a conversation with ben klutsey from george mason university's mercatus center, and we will talk about efforts to bridge the political divide in the u.s. as well as his role in the new documentary "undivide us." we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends bring new book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest

nonfiction books. coverage of the 2024 reading festival from the franklin d roosevelt presidential library museum in hyde park. authors discuss franklin and eleanor roosevelt, america during world war ii, new deal programs, and the jazz. agenew york the american -- and the jazz age in new york. talk about the power of the u.s. constitution and its ability to bring americans together. michigan governor gretchen whitmer with her book talks about her life, leadership, and her journey in politics. watch book tv every weekend, and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest event with live streams of floor

proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" as well as 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. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are debated and decided with support of america's cable companies.

c-span, 35 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are now joined by ben klutsey , who is the brand-new executive director of the mercatus center. welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: talk about you tell us what the mercatus center is and what you all do their? guest: share. mercatus center is a research-based center at the university. our ideas for a free and prosperous and civil society. we work with students to help them understand different aspects of economic ideas, and we help scholars who do a lot of research about the 21st century economy. host: can you talk about the political alignment of the mercatus center? guest: a lot of us think of ourselves as classically liberal, which means that in terms of fiscal policy, we have

a sense of constraint about fiscal policy. a lot of focus is on thinking that we should be liberal so it kind of cross the left-right political divide. host: you are relatively new to this role. can you talk about your vision for the organization moving forward? guest: sure. i think my goal is to build on the successes that have already taken place and to continue to produce research of consequence, research that is informative and helps to advance ideas. obviously, i have been involved in pluralism. i think pluralism is an ideal concept of how we can live together and coexist amidst our differences in our current state of polarization. host: let's take a basic working definition when you speak of pluralism. guest: sure. there are two ways to think about pluralism.

the first is the fact of pluralism, the idea that we are different. we are a diverse society, so pluralism means diversity in a certain concept. but that fact is not enough from the perspective of fostering pluralism. we should figure out ways in which we could engage across differences as well. i think that is the value of living in a truly pluralistic society. pluralism is really thinking about ways in which we can live together, coexist, interact, even amidst all of our different perspectives and backgrounds. the united states in particular is a large, growing, multiethnic, multi-ideological society, and so we think we should figure out ways to live together. host: what has been some of your previous work on this topic, and how did you get into it? guest: well, i got into this because at mercatus we were looking at -- we care about

advancing ideas for a free and peaceful society. as we look around and see polarization is on the rise, we are thinking about, what are some of the ways in which we can help foster pluralism? i personally have had experience growing up in ghana in africa. ghana is thankfully a peaceful democratic society, but while growing up, we experienced coup d'etats and some of the revolutions were kind of challenging. at some point, you were not allowed to speak, express your opinions, and i remember my father telling me when you walk out of these four walls, don't talk, don't challenge the government, don't talk about politics at all. otherwise, you will get into trouble. that experience was very memorable to me growing up, and now living in the united states and seeing the value of the opportunity to challenge, contest ideas, how that fosters progress, i really got behind

this idea because i think it is important. host: we got a question via text from a viewer in our previous segment but i wanted to put it to you. scott and massachusetts identifies as an independent says most americans do not like the negative campaigning. why does it continue? do you think it will stop in future campaigns? this gets exactly to what you are talking about. guest: yeah, i think that is exactly right. most americans don't like negative campaigning. there is the concept called the exhausted majority that says most americans are really exhausted by all of this negativity. but it is hard because politicians motivate people based on this, and so you have a small slice of population that is a lot more polarized, a lot more engaged that way, and that is how you bring a lot of people to the polls unfortunately. but it is the case that most americans don't want this so i

think part of the effort is to get more americans who are exhausted by this to in fact get involved so it will help bring down the temperature level. host: you recently were featured in the documentary "undivide us ," which was screened in several places across the country in the last several months. let's take a look at a bit of the trailer. [video clip] >> for the left and its minions in the media -- >> just how bad is the gop? >> you call this two americans that are divided. >> how do civil war's get started, and how close do you think is the united states? >> this are in our homes and our pockets, putting fourth the story that we are not getting along, that we are dangerous, and we might start to believe that. >> perhaps if we crated the opportunity for folks to come together, giving an opportunity to talk and explore ideas. >> did you really get regular

people from all different kinds of lives, really put them together, get them to talk about hard stuff? is that doable? >> i think we should try. ♪ >> we have just a remarkable opportunity to kind of create something special in a way never done before. >> we will take an issue. we know there are dozens of controversies. we will try to find people that are leaning one direction and we will find folks leading the other direction. >> leaning democratic. >> independent. >> a moderate republican. >> how deep does it go? does the average person feel that anger all the time, or is it the political elites who profit from anger and division? >> we will bring in some regular people and talk about tough issues and you will be there at the table with them. >> if we don't get regular citizens talking again, disagreeing, and doing it respectfully, better than washington does, there seems like there is a lot at stake if we do not figure that out. >> we will jump in together.

host: so tell us a bit more about this project and how and why you got involved. guest: yeah, as i said earlier, we have been looking at pluralism and ways in which we can foster good interactions across divides, so we thought of the program pluralism at the mercatus center that had two parts. one inviting thinkers from different backgrounds to do research on how we overcome the divides, what are the things causing these divides, and so on. but on the other hand, we are thinking about, how do we practice this, interact across differences, get students involved? we have a lab that brings students from across the country, different backgrounds, perspectives to have conversations on difficult topics. as we were doing this project, i

got connected to a film producer , the director who helped increase this film, and she said , i have been thinking about this issue as well. i think there are ways in which we can figure out what is going on. there is a good friend of ours who is a political scientist in which he challenges the perspectives on polarization. as polarized as we might think. we set out with this idea to talk to average americans about their perspectives. she really kind of nudged us to think about how we can be involved in this process. we got involved and learned a lot from it. host: to your point, there is an ap poll recently that showed that u.s. adults mostly agree on fundamental rights if you look at some things like the right of

everyone to equal protection under the law. 91%, the right to vote, 91%, the freedom of speech 90%, the right to privacy, 80%, freedom of religion, 84%, the right of people to a come 83%, and there are many more. i wonder why we have a sense of divided this country. guest: that is exactly right, the data you cited. i think when we talk about polarization, there are different kinds of polarization. on the one hand, we have political polarization that is the ideological difference between the two parties, and in many ways, americans are not -- have not ideologically changed as much over the past few decades. if anything at all, we have gotten a little bit closer on the policy issues. there is so much that americans believe together and have in common, but among politicians,

you look at the hill and congress and see the kinds of divisions there and then the way those divisions are magnified through social media, through the news, it gives the impression that we are a lot more divided and so you have political polarization and then you have the other concept that one might call affected polarization or toxic polymerization. that is how we feel about each other. it is no longer that i disagree with you, you are pro-choice or pro-life or whatever the case might be, but now i see you as a threat. i see you as having negative and damaging consequences to my existence, and that also forces me to have more negative views of you. so a lot of this is driven by false perceptions. as i said, there is a lot that goes on with different media platforms, social media, that fuel this type of perception,

and i think that we are overestimating the level of extremism on either side. that is one of the things we are trying to deal with when it comes to fostering pluralism and putting people who disagree with each other together so when they have conversations they realize , when a second, it is different from what i imagined. host: we will be going to your calls shortly. from republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents at -- and independents at (202) 748-8002. before we go to calls, as was noted in the trailer for "undivide us," your film brought together people from across the political spectrum to have these conversations about areas of disagreement. can you talk about how you approached those conversations, what you did to keep them civil, and maybe some tips for our own

callers as we try to engage in these discussions here? guest: sure. i think when we start out the conversations, we let folks know we are not trying to change anybody's mind. we really do want to have a conversation. the folks who came in were not sure they could trust that we just really wanted to have conversations because i think when they assumed his people trying to gin up conflict and foster divisions and so on. but what we are try to do with those conversations is foster what we call reflective listening. excuse me. can you articulate the other perspective? and can they articulate your perspective? so start with a really easy question, which of these has the most impact on human happiness, cap, dogs, both, neither? if you are a cat person, i would say, kimberly, why do you think

ben is a dog person? you have to put yourself in my shoes a little bit. think of what a rational well-meaning person might think about this. he likes to go outdoors. he likes the way dogs might be friendly and so forth. might ask, what did ben get right? and we do that with others as well. why wouldn't kimberly be a cap person in case you are a cat -- cat person in case you are a cat person? what did ben get right? we articulate each other's perceptions before we get into the conversations. it is interesting and eye-opening. we are sitting next to each other. give each other grace and dignity. that is really how we engage in the conversations. people came in a little concerned but afterwards, it was hard to get them to hear you.

they were enjoying heparin conversations with people different from them and it was really inspiring. host: that is an interesting point because often people do not talk to people who believe differently from them. guest: exactly. one of the things fostering polarization is we are so sorted. we live in the same geographic spaces. we are in our own social media platforms with the same groups of people and so on. so we do not encounter as many people on the other side, but when we actually do, we learn a lot from each other. host: michael on x asks mckenna guest talk about how large a role the mainstream media plays in the divisions polarization topic,? guest: it is a good question. we see a lot of research going back all the way to the emerge

nce of talk radio and a social media era. it is true that the news business is such that they would have to go for things that are controversial or things that are sort of breaking on the ground, and a lot of these items are not necessarily positive, so you do not get a positive view about the world. a lot of research indicates the people who are most involved in the news are tracking and following every single issue that is going on they actually end up not understanding as much about the other side as one might imagine. if you know a lot about what is going on, they know very little about other citizens in the country, so i think it definitely does i don't want to blame it all on the news, but i think we have to be good consumers of the news and sometimes have a bit of

restraint when we are digesting information. host: all right, let's go to your calls. john is in texas on our line from republicans. good morning, john. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks. this is great competition we should be having. i wish we could be united, but unfortunately, the politicians only care about themselves, and the way they care about themselves is divide and conquer. some of the efforts are just -- the fact that politicians attack each other -- obama started it with deplorable and the bibles and the biggest dividers is people living over flyover country and the big city thinks we only ride horses all day and shoot squirrels for dinner. we are one country. if we don't, we will fail.

the politicians want us to fail. it is them causing this. we have to fix it. thanks very much. guest: thank you for those comments. i think that there is plenty of blame to go around. one of the scholars i work with, he wrote a book called "overdoing democracy," and he says if you want to engage on the issue of polarization, we have to look to ourselves and think about ways in which we ourselves have been polarized by some of our consumption of polarized material and information, and so that can help us begin to sort through these challenges, but i do believe the solution is bottom up, neighbor to neighbor, community to community as we engage with one another and we realize we have so much more in common than what divides us. host: what about his point that

it is difficult to focus on the bottom up approach when the leadership is so polarized? guest: it is absolutely right. what we try to do in the documentary, we show that there is only one way -- there is not only one way. the issue is multifaceted and there have to be solutions related to the political process. you think about primaries, for instance, it is only 20% of americans of the voting completion at votes in primaries, so there is so much opportunity to get other people involved in the process, but that is a challenge. i think there are other groups that are involved as well, and i think we all have to sort of tackle this from different perspectives. host: carol is in florida on everyone for democrats. good morning, carol. caller: hi. this is carol. host: yes, go ahead, carol.

caller: ok, thank you for having this show. very important to hear both sides. yes, i think people look at everything subjectively and it is hard to see a missing object being that those in power make deals and keep things going , but the people are worried about -- even though i was a democrat for many years, you vote for the person and we are concerned about the protection of our democracy and the border being loosely controlled. it is a concern with crime and so forth and gangs and so forth. i am interested in the gentleman's opinion on what is happening in the democratic far

left. even though pluralism is very important and that is what the world is leaning towards, we don't want the binary problem. we want everyone to be comfortable in a democracy. but we also want control to a certain extent. with prisons, what the da's are doing is releasing criminals. host: if i understand your point, which she is saying is this idea that pluralism is a great idea, but some ideas maybe should not have space in our discourse. caller: right. in other words, doing it too extremely, too quickly when it is a gradual thing that has to be done. for instance, fuel. they are inciting people's emotions and it has to be done gradually. host: let's let ben respond to that. go ahead.

guest: i think that first of all i mentioned earlier sometimes we overestimate what other people might think. there is some real interesting research being done, asking democrats to see what they would do in this scenario. what if we could release the vaccines during the 2020 election seven weeks before the election and you knew that would help president trump by a substantial percentage. do you think republicans would go for this? you have democrats saying predominantly yes, republicans would go for this. and then you ask in real-time and is a -- it is a much lower percentage, close to nothing at all. and all the other hand, you asked republicans, are democrats opening borders, we want everyone to come in, a

free-for-all? democrats in real-time say no, we want some measures and so on. we showed these results in real time and you realize, wait a second, i have my views on what the others are perceived on immigration and open borders and it may not be as i imagine. that is one of the first things i wanted to highlight. yeah, some issues are sort of beyond the kind of thing you want that you can engage on. when we have our lab conversations, we say respect is important. to what extent we get each other equal dignity in a competition, we will share a space and have to ensure we give each other maximum respect. if you think you cannot give respect to the other view, it is a competition you probably are not ready to have, so i think there are definitely some kinds

of conversations that sometimes we are not ready to have and that is ok, but i think there is a huge chunk of conversations and topics that are definitely open for discussion that we really do need to be open to delving into them. it is true that politicians have taken a lot of these things to heightened degrees of polarization. that is why i think what will have to happen to ensure we get a new breed, a new crop of politicians involved. a lot of the issues that we have been dealing with right now. host: that is kind of with the line you have been talking about now with how each side perceives the opinions of the other or the perspectives of the other. michael says on, have you bridge the political divide -- x. how do you bridge the political divide with one side being told that hitler's is leading an army

of nazis against america and the other side saying that godless baby killing communists are doing the same thing? guest: that is the great -- a great question. i think we always have to remind ourselves that as someone -- if if someone is telling us that this is existential crisis, that the next vote is existential or the next policy with the next choice we make on whatever the topic might be is an existential crisis, you have to sort of pause and ask yourself whether that is really the case. i think that fuels this kind of thinking. it grounds everything to a halt and makes it extremely difficult for us to solve any problems going forward. that is why i think that in order to overcome this, it is not just having conversations across differences but we have to figure out new ways to engage

in the political process as well , starting at the local level, community level so we can find the politicians that are to problem solvers. host: clyde is a new york on our line for independents. good morning, clyde. caller: ok, good morning. i have a quick question, then i have a statement. i don't mean to be disrespectful. are you a fba? host: a what? caller: foundational black american. host: what do you mean by that? caller: that is not my point. was he born -- host: ben shared earlier he was born in ghana but i am not quite sure how that was relevant to the discussion. we are moving on to brian in oregon on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.

benjamin, can you help me understand what you are doing to engage the business community? because most of the american culture revolves around consumerism. and i love that. don't get me wrong. i have been harleys and many things to find fun and camaraderie and friendship and engaging with my elders and some of my activities involve elders, but what i noticed is the business community seems to chug along and their focus is so different from the focus that you are attempting to collaborate on. they just seem to have everybody tied together in the sort of investment stock market consumer concept, and it seems like a pretty big part of the problem

with this divide is that we don't get them engaged. they are a giant aspect of the society. and the money is flowing through their lives in very large ways, whether it be the nfl as an institution, a financial institution, or banking, or the internet space, all that involves, so can you help us understand a little more how you might be engaging these pretty powerful people who oftentimes are kind of quiet? they don't really say anything and don't come to the public but they wheeled giant amounts of power in our country. thank you. guest: that is a great question. i think we can only do so much. we are with the university so we work with students. our task is to engage the next generation of citizens who are

thinking about these issues in a robust manner, and they learn how to engage with each other so we do not engage businesses at all. host: cindy asked us via text from florida, how do they feel about right choice voting and gerrymandering? should gerrymandering be a voice of her fir -- of reform? guest: thank you very much. i am not a professor but i worked with a lot of professors engaged in this issue. yes, i think gerrymandering should be looked at. i think it is a meaningful option, particularly at the primary level where you get to rank first, second, third, fourth options that you prefer.

sometimes the most polarized candidates drop off in that scenario, which can be helpful. i think it is a good option to look at. host: richard is in missouri on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 70-year-old white man, and i lived a long time through history here. there is no time i ever thought there would be a black president, you know? i used to be a republican, but whatever that he party business came out and all the prejudice against the black president who happened to be one of the best presidents we ever had, i turned to the democrats, you see? we got a black lady going to be possibly president. i want you to know, just because she is a woman -- there have been some great women leaders

over my years, margaret thatcher, the lady in germany, so don't be scared of a woman being president. by the way, i am in a mixed marriage. my wife is catholic, and i am a mason. so we can get along for 61 years. thank you. guest: thanks for those comments. i do believe our divides have fallen more strongly along political lines than any other line. when you look at data that shows negative attitudes towards interparty marriages, it is much higher than interracial or faith. it gives you an idea of where we are heading now. i think that is something we really have to look at the extent that politics becomes a defining identity for a lot of americans. increasingly, it is challenging and it is no wonder we see a majority of americans identifying as independents more so than any other political party.

host: speaking of independents, dave is an independent from michigan. go ahead, dave. good morning. caller: good morning. benjamin, i want to piggyback on something that has been said. my perspective on this whole thing is the relativity of fairness on people's investment. i think you will agree i don't know anything about ghana or wherever you are from, but there is a lot of things that have great, great ideas out there. unless one of the parties decided moneywise that it is worth their investment to do so, they just shut it down. there has to be some kind of a breach of our system that we will overcome that. i hope that you professors and so forth will look on the american people and globally

because a whole situation would divide globally and here. i would like to know your perspective on just your experiences and the people that you have working, what you can actually do to bring more fairness to our investments. both sides of the party. so i will take my answer off the air. thanks. guest: good question. as i said earlier, we focus on students. because we are within a university, so we think about ways in which they can engage effectively in the processes. it is indeed the case of money in politics is a big issue that i think a lot of groups are interested in looking at. i think there should definitely be further research in that area. host: scott is in seattle on our line for republicans. good morning, scott. caller: good morning morning. hello, can you hear me?

host: yes, but can you turn down the volume on your tv, please? caller: oh, sorry. host: that is ok. caller: my question is polarization, ok? better read what polarization means. i have a brother who is -- was bipolar. i think you need to go to the bipolar community and look up what bipolarization is. host: i think that is a little different than what we are discussing with bipolar being a mental health disorder. let's hear from ruben in austin, texas, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes, i think -- i don't think, i know the political divide between the democrats and

republicans is on social issues. you got shows and can garden where you raise five-year-olds -- host: did you have a question specifically for ben, ruben? caller: no, i don't have questions. host: let's get a couple more calls. let's go to david from georgia on our line for republicans. caller: yes. i am going to bring something that runs around ergonomics. you all know how he recently when crowdstrike got everything crashed.when they first did the constitution -- hello? host: yes, we are still here. caller: ok. when they first did the constitution, before they read about it, they had to change it. part one. part two, they just changed it

and said let's cut the middle of our representation and we will just have a few numbers. now we have pockets in the country that are just like a million people but one representative. down here, we are doing good around 75,000, 80,000 per representative. so this needs to be addressed. that is where your middleground lies, and we are not being represented. you can ask the people. just go around ask them, do you feel like you are being represented by your government, the people you elected? host: we are just about out of time. i will let ben respond to that point. guest: shirt. i think it is -- sure. i think it is a really good question at a point about representation. a number of scholars, including when i just had on my podcast, wrote a book about the american constitution called "the political covenant," and he

talks about the number of representative's we have. look at how the country has grown now. it seems as though 435 may not be enough and we should think about ways to expand that representation. there are a number of other scholars who are thinking about and looking at this issue. i think he raised a good point and it is worth delving into. host: thank you so much. ben klutsey is the executive director of george mason university's mercatus center and also features in the documentary "undivide us." thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: and thanks to everyone who called into "washington journal" today and shared your thoughts. we will be back tomorrow with another edition of "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern so you can tune back in then. please everybody, have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪