host: welcome back. we're joined now by charlie dent, a senior advisor to the group called our republican legacy and also a former u.s. representative and republican from pennsylvania. welcome to the program. guest: great to be with you. host: you are an advisor to the group called our republican legacy. what is the mission and how are you funded? guest: we are a 501-c4 organization, not a lobbying group, you're not even really advocating for or against anyone in particular. we are a group in the spirit of republicans who want a better direction for the republican party. we want to create an alternative narrative to maga. those of us in the party who want a different direction have been far too quiet, so what we've done is we've laid out five core principles that we think have guided the republican

party and should guide it going forward. the constitution, the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power. we think january 6 was an abomination. we believe in unions. abraham lincoln was our founder. his objective was to keep this great country together, and unfortunately donald trump and his movement want to divided further. -- divide it further. we also believe in peace as strength in foreign policy, rejecting autocrats like vladimir putin and kim jong-un. we are in a very different place than the maga movement. we are also for free markets. we are not talking about the 1850's of the 1920's, that the same time we think across the tariffs would really wreak havoc on the country and our economy

and not in keeping with the traditions with where we as republicans should be. host: we will talk about tariffs and fiscal discipline. when with the organization created? guest: i believe back in april or march. former senators jack danforth, alan simpson and bill:. -- bill cohen. we thought it was time to really create a strong voice as an alternative to maga. the republican is divided. not evenly divided, but it is divided. host: what is the ultimate goal, are you going to try to run another candidate for president in the next cycle? host: guest: we haven't even gone there. we are trying to create a groundswell of support. we are looking beyond the

selection. about how do we get this republican party a better place? the principles i just laid out, they sustained the party for a seven years. maga, they've been around for 10 years. we understand we are not going to go back to roby were, but we need to get to a better place. we want to help shape the conversation going forward. that those principles will still be respected, and frankly thriving which should be the republican party. this isolationism and protectionism, ♪. host: what caused that? given the deep roots of the republican party, what caused it to go in the maga direction? guest: a lot of anger in the country. there always have been some dark elements within our nation and sadly i think donald trump helps bring that out with his

incendiary rhetoric, how he talks to people in ways that he frankly will bring out the worst in some people. there's no restraint. we've always have these isolationist and protectionist candidates in this country, this is nothing new. but he's the first republican president who has actually embraced others. and i think that is part of the reason why the party has shifted, because the leader of the party has taken these positions and frankly what we need is an alternative voice. we need republican voters to hear something different than what they are hearing today. host: you've announced that you have voted early in pennsylvania and you have voted for vice president harris. elaborate a little bit on that. was that a vote against trump or do you believe more firmly in her policies than his? guest: it was more a rejection of donald trump. i did not vote for donald trump

in 2016 and in 2020, i voted joe biden because at this point it was a return to normalcy. i didn't expect to agree with joe biden on many of his policies but at least he was going to bring back some sense of normalcy and stability the white house. and in the case of kamala harris, she is trying to pivot to the center. i hope she does embrace that going forward. i will certainly have policy differences but she is a decent and honorable person and i think she will put the interests of the country ahead of her own. host: the vice president is making a speech at the national mall tomorrow. what would you like her to address, what is it that she needs to say that would get republicans like yourself that are not comfortable with donald trump? guest: what she needs to say is this pivot toward the center is real, and it is sincere. a lot of republicans say she is

from san francisco, she's taken position that many of us have disagreed with. in pennsylvania she was opposed to fracking and has obviously changed her position. there are other issues where she maybe has gone too far to the left or made statements in the 2019 campaign. i think she has continued to demonstrate that he will try to govern from the center, and resist the urges of many of the extreme elements within her own party. i think she needs to do that. some will say that might quiet her base, but her base is motivated to be donald trump more than anything else. i think she has a tremendous opportunity not having gone through a primary to be able to govern from the center which is what many americans want right now. they are tired of these rather shrill, extreme voices and there are a lot of republicans out there who don't like donald trump but are just nervous that the vice president will be pulled further to the left by those more extreme elements in the party. so she's got to assure those

voters she is going to govern from the center. host: you wrote an opinion piece with the headline donald trump's tariffs plan could bring us back to the 1930's. explain that. guest: in 1930 a law was passed that imposed rod tariffs across the board. it was passed at a time not long after the stock market crash of 1929 and actually the market was beginning to recover. global trade just dropped, crashed from $3 trillion to $1 trillion every economist of every stripe will tell you that smoot-hawley exacerbated the great depression. it made it much worse. i would argue something similar could happen now, that if we had across-the-board tariffs as donald trump was talking about,

he's using across-the-board. the prices everything goes up. one, it is inflationary. it is going to harm american manufacturers and american growers. go to hershey. i represented that community. 70 million hershey kisses a day, that's a lot of chocolate. how do you make chocolate? you have to get that cocoa. last i checked, we don't grow it in the united states, we have to import it from west africa. that is just one example. people like coffee. we have to import that. your couple coffee just went up in price. you like a banana, same thing. a lot of those big machines are made by a dutch company.

to make these chips cost a few hundred million dollars a pop. a lot of what we import is used for making things. ultimately, consumers will pay more. we are going to lose jobs over this, and this going to have a devastating effect on manufacturers. when trump talks about punishing john deere and slapping they tariffs on mexico, they are going to retaliate against american corn and other agricultural products. and that is what we saw with the chinese. when trump did all the chinese tariffs back in the first initiation, we ended up paying more out in subsidies to farmers then we collected. i get it, there are times you should use tariffs and countervailing duties. if they are a slave laboring

place, if they are dumping illegal subsidies, i get it. but across-the-board, devastating. we ran trade surpluses, we had unemployment rates over 20%. host: if you'd like to join the conversation with our guest charlie dent, you can do so. republicans are on (202) 748-8001. democrats are (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. a lot has been made of people who have worked in the trump administration not endorsing him. john kelly, his former chief of staff saying that he praised hitler and is a textbook fascist. the flipside of that is people saying well, he was fired and he's got an axe to grind. jd vance has said it is because

they couldn't control him and they share the same worldview. what is your response to that? guest: first, john kelly is an extraordinary american. four-star marine general. for him to come out and say the things he said wasn't easy. because these are military guys, they try to avoid getting in the political fray. i think john kelly was doing his duty as a chief of staff and homeland secretary doing his best, and he witnessed up close in person with many of us have seen in our interactions with a foreign president, that he is unfit and he is at times unstable. we've all seen the narcissism, the add, the impulse control issues, the temper. and lack of interest in policy. these are the kinds of things that john kelly has talked about. he saw it probably more than anybody else. we should believe him.

not just him, believe rex tillerson. john bolton, mcmaster, all these people worked around him had for quite public. and it's obvious why they are concerned. he's embraced vladimir putin. he's embraced kim jong-il, kim jong-un. host: but explain the word embraced. guest: he seems to be much more comfortable talking to these autocrats that he is with allies. in other words, he didn't distinguish between friend and foe. he was more critical of angela merkel and justin trudeau and he was of vladimir putin and kim jong-un. we have allies and friends and shared interests and values. you'd think we would embrace them more than people who try to undermine american foreign-policy interest all around the globe. that is what i thought was so

stunning. i thought that is probably but those individuals them stunning. host: let's talk to callers and start with bob, atlanta. caller: thank you for your program. sarah, i served in the military and i'm 78 years old and i just got one question for you. you a communist? guest: absolutely not. are you, sir? caller: kamala harris is so far to the left you can even see her. host: we will get a response. guest: i get it, i have policy disagreements with kamala harris just as you do, sir. but sometimes elections are not about right or left, enters a policy. maybe it is sometimes about right or wrong. one candidate here has demonstrated his unfitness. repeatedly.

the other, whatever you think of her policy positions, she strikes me as normal and honorable and i hate to say that that is where we are right now, but i'm going to choose honorable over dishonorable. host: austin, texas, democrat. caller: good morning. i just like to ask, i'm a convicted felon. i can't vote, but donald trump can and he is also a convicted felon. guest: that's a good question, actually. that's a great question. he's been convicted, but he has not yet been sentenced. i don't know when that sentence takes effect. he is a resident of the state of florida and i think there's rules on felons voting that are really determined at the state level as election law is governed at the state level. i'm not sure what florida's law is on that, i think it might be a bit more permissive than texas.

it's a matter of a function of state law. host: derek in minnesota, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning america and c-span. i have a couple points here. i want to walked on memory lane. we had a governor named tim walz who is the vice presidential candidate, he said that he was going to make one minnesota and bring everybody together just like joe biden said. save the soul of the nation. let's see what happen. minneapolis burned. we surrendered the police station. they took total control of the legislature, and we now have a brand-new flag that nobody likes. joe biden, who you said you voted for for those reasons, he has bragged he is the most progressive presidential president ever.

that didn't really work out. now you are doubling down and saying that harris is the one that is going to come to the center? let me give you some news on that, buddy. they said they made -- want to make washington, d.c. a state with two more senators. they want to make puerto rico a state with two more senators. they want it jampacked to add supreme court justices pass the court. they want to end the filibuster. is that going to the center? you are a useful idiot. guest: good morning to you, too. let me just take a few of these issues. i'm for divided government for a good reason, for the check on both parties, frankly. that would be the best thing that we could have happened in this country. a number of policy positions, i agree with you on some, others i disagree with. but the point i've made is that this country, that my party, the

republican party, the republican party needs to move away from this type of maga movement. it is alienating much of the country and a lot of republican voters. that is why we need to get something that is grounded in principles, things that abraham lincoln and many of the others to lead this party over the years aligned with. we should be looking forward. and i don't agree with the democrats on a lot of these policies, some of which you mentioned. but at the same time, we've got to get to a better place is a party and i don't think trump is the right guy. host: we don't take personal attacks on our desks, we don't allow those. james and buffalo, kentucky, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call, i really enjoy your show. after this fella here, he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to the economy. he is a rino and a disgrace. host: stick with the policies,

what policies are you talking about? caller: i grew up in san francisco, and harris when she was there, she made a mess out of things. her and nancy pelosi. her district was falling apart and the whole time she is more worried about going to a luncheon and getting her hair done. this guy here has no clue what he's talking about. it's amazing. he got himself in office, created a suit and kai -- suit and tie. host: a lot of vitriol from republican callers. guest: just a couple things. what i find right now is if a person doesn't agree with you on a particular policy, he didn't argue with me about the tariffs, just calls you a rino. ok, great, we are all rinos now. if you don't agree with all

trump, you are a rino. some of these folks out there simply don't have the capacity to make an argument so they just embrace whatever trump says, whatever it is. if he changes his opinion tomorrow, they will change theirs as well. but i know them, their friends. they are uncomfortable, many of them, but they want to hear something different. they want something better for the party. host: republicans in this cycle have been vocal critics of the former president, and then ended up endorsing him anyway. new hampshire governor chris sununu, ohio governor mike dewine. they have endorsed former president trump. guest: they are doing their duties as functionaries of the party, they are both sitting governors. i get that they feel that they have to do that. i suspect they want a different direction for the party.

governor dewine has been very powerful in his condemnations of what trump and others have been saying about people eating cats and dogs in springfield, ohio which is not true. and governor sununu was a strong supporter of nikki haley. he wants a different direction for the party. but i think some of them are trying to protect their options going forward if they want to run for something. but, trump world if you are not 100% there, they are never going to be with you. i would say don't try to split the difference, take a strong stand. it's pretty hard to walk back from what some folks have said. host: if nikki haley with the republican candidate would you be voting for? guest: absolutely. voted for her in the primary. and frankly, she'd be winning this election right now. host: joyce, democrat. caller: good morning. question for mr. dent.

how long do you think it would take to rebuild the republican party moving forward? i mean, if trump gets back in, how much damage do you think you will do to the rinos? guest: rebuilding a party is never easy. we've gone through a bit of a political realignment, as you can see. but rebuilding a party is going to take work, it's going to take time and effort to again get back to something, guiding principles and values. we have to have those conversations once again. part of the challenge, some of the think tanks out there, and i will pick on one of them, heritage is always known as one of the strong conservative think tanks and now many of them have kind of gone all in, they've changed their values, they've adjusted their values to suit donald trump.

and i think we have to get back to more principled conversations. that's the only thing i can think of that will help us, but that's going to take time, it's going to take it of a movement and truthfully, how much losing can my party take? i will say one thing about donald trump, he has made losing great again. and i mean since 2016. the republican party lost the house in 2018, the senate in 2020 as well as the presidency. in 2022 significantly underperformed and donald trump has been leading this party and now he is the nominee. if we had any other nominee, anybody, like nikki haley for example, republicans would be walking away with the selection. parties exist for a reason, to win. why do they want to win? so they can govern. if the party continues to lose, maybe that will force the types of changes i'm talking about. host: kent, ohio, democrat.

good morning. caller: good morning charlie. when i listen to mr. dent, i can't help but think about all the things in the past that both republicans and the democrats have done. nafta, they hollowed out on middle class and hollowed out our nations smaller towns. millions and millions of people streaming across the border at taxpayers expense. impacting our great cities and small towns. troops in over 168 countries, military people all over the world. millions in offshore wars while our people were scraping under and over taxes. my plan would be, i know you don't like this time that i can tell you right now there's a group of us in america that have simply had enough of our towns and our people being fleeced.

i think you represent that party. i don't have any animosity towards you. host:host: let's get a response. guest: i don't think there really is a unit party, with all due respect to the caller. there really isn't. i'm concerned about the border, too. i was one of the original cosponsors of the secure fence act that actually authorized the 700 miles of pedestrian and vehicular barriers all along the southern border. i believe in border security and i certainly think the biden administration was very slow in getting to that issue. but the bottom line is our communities have struggled for a variety of reasons, and we can have this great debate about what should the role of the united states be in this world?

we could walk off the stage of the caller suggests, but we willcede -- we will cede it all to china and then they will set the rules. if you want the chinese to lead this global order along with their friends, the russians and the iranian, ok. you think we are going to have a better world? you think it might be better if the united states and our friends and allies in europe and asia and japan, australia, south korea and elsewhere, i think that order is much better for americans than the one that i think you are leading us toward. host: rick in colorado, republican. caller: you act like the maga party is a few people. you seen trump rallies, how many people show up to his rallies? i'd say the republican party has left you and most of the people

are republicans now are the maga party. it's the future. you either want our country to be taken over by other people, or you don't. you say that china is going to take us over if trump gets elected, but i think you are very wrong on that. guest: i was responding to a question. that gentleman seemed to suggest our engagement throughout the world is what is causing it. you can bring them home but then you create a vacuum. who is going to fill a vacuum? are we naïve enough to think it will not be the chinese, the russians, or some other country hostile to our interests? do we think this will be a better world? whatever the fault of the international order established after the second world war, there has not been a big power conflict. we did not go to war with the soviet union. we somehow kept the peace.

there have been wars but there is not great power conflict. my parents'generation were part of world war ii. i do not know that we want to the back to great power conflict like that again. if your view is that if we just put up the walls, that was the america first agenda in the 1930's, stay out of it, he declared war on us, not the other way around. think about it carefully. do we let these autocrats in countries hostile to us determine the international order? do we think we will be as prosperous as we were? i have news for you. it is not going to happen.

host: there is an article from reuters in august, it says he has purged his republican party of lawmakers and officials deemed as disloyal. you are a republican. do you feel the threat of intimidation, revenge, anything like that? guest: not really, although he certainly talks about it. he talked about going after his enemies. i personally do not feel it. but i think disloyalty, what does that mean? disloyal to what, to whom, to him? disloyal to him? i think it is a sad state of affairs in this country when we cannot even have debates about policy anymore. it is hard to have debates about policies. it is about whether or not you are loyal to him.

if you disagree with me, i will use the justice department to go after you? this is america. we do not do that here. host: keith in nevada, independent. caller: good morning. actually, congressman, the constitution says either foreign or domestic, there are enemies within. that is what donald trump is talking about, the domestic enemies of america. they hate the constitution. they are un-american in that regard. that is what he is talking about. guest: who are we talking about? who are the enemies? caller: all the neocons. maybe you are part of it. newt gingrich said live on television many years ago, he said the reason the left and the people of the deep state hate trump is because he has never been initiated into the dark

arts. that is why god's hand is protecting him. guest: what dark arts? caller: i'm talking about the secret societies that control much of the world we are dealing with now, think tanks, the rockefeller institution, the billionaires that rule the world with the rothschilds and stuff. on your dollar bill, there is the pyramid, the all seeing eye. is all masonic. it is literally satanic. guest: thank you. that is all wild conspiracy theory stuff. he talks about billionaires. donald trump has billionaire support. he is a billionaire himself. this guy is talking about billionaires in the conspiracy. which ones? [laughter] host: connie in new hampshire,

democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i was looking at the differences. biden has a 3.4% unemployment rate at the end of his term. trump had 6.4% unemployment rate. i was like, i do not understand why people do not know that when they are saying everything was better under trump. almost one million people died from covid. he put his son-in-law in charge of -- he put his son-in-law in charge of covid response and nothing happened for months and months. was watching the interview from fox -- i was watching the interview from fox. when they did not show trump saying that about the enemies within, i thought, well, no

wonder they do not know because not only is there misinformation delivered, there is also an omission of information. i do not know how to overcome the differences. anyhow, you know, everybody cares about employment, that is how we built our nation. host: all right, connie. guest: there's a lot of economic discomfort in this country, mostly because prices have gone up significantly and dramatically a couple of years ago, especially on food. food prices went up at a record rate. housing prices are also very high, with interest rates high, not enough supply of housing, there are a lot of people feeling the pain. even though you are right, unemployment levels are low and other economic indicators are strong, but people feel their

money is not getting them as far as it did. that is why there is the economic angst. that is a real issue. the question is, what are you going to do about it? let's have a policy conversation. each candidate has put forward policies that could be construed as inflationary but done more than trump's own tariffs. that would add to inflationary pressure significantly. i wish i had an easy answer for you on the economy, but there is real economic angst in the country and that is driving a lot of the motivations of many voters who might be uncomfortable with both candidates frankly. host: on friday, we had the american history professor talking about the rural/urban divide in pennsylvania and the rust belt states and how it is impacting the republican party. [video clip] >> we have a real urban divide.

we have an urban america dominated by the knowledge worker elite. the economy is working really well for us. what many people in my demographic, when we hear the different left or right populists, we think, what is the problem, our lives are good. out in rural america where the economy is not working for the same number of people, they are more open to populists of the left and right. bernie sanders did better than hillary clinton in rust belt areas. he won michigan in the 2012 primaries for instance. pennsylvania points to the near-term future of an american politics defined by a rural/urban divide between the college and noncollege. i would argue noncollege americans, and i can fully understand this, they are saying

they want the american dream to work for them as well. this is not every trump voter. there are lots of social conservatives. their economic consent, that is different -- their economic concerns, that is different. they have a different reason for voting for trump. small towns and small cities are not enjoying the fruits of prosperity the same way pittsburgh and philadelphia are. we see this across the nation. to get out of the hyper-partisan spiral, i think we need to have a more shared prosperity. your kids should not have to move to a big city in order to get ahead. we need small cities and small town america to enjoy the fruits of prosperity the same way big cities do. knowledge worker elites have to look in the mirror and say maybe

the economy works well for me but it also should work well for people without a four-year college degree. host: what do you think, charlie dent? guest: i think the speaker was correct. the dividing line in american politics right now is maybe less about race and gender and more about educational attainment levels. those with college degrees and those without. he is right. there are a lot of people who feel left out in this economy. they want something better. that is why i think we need to do more to with noncollege degrees have access to more jobs. we basically tell people you cannot apply for a job until you have a college degree. many jobs you do not need a college degree. we need to continue to invest in smaller middle markets. i do not like seeing kids leave their homes. i graduated college in 1982. the unemployment rate in

pennsylvania was over 12% in my area. the steel industry was collapsing at that moment. we have seen it before. this has been going on for a while. the point is, we have got to stick around, we have got to invest. with the chips act, a significant amount of investment is not going into the knowledge areas and big cities, it is being spread around the country which i think is encouraging. host: suzanne is in pennsylvania, republican. are you there? caller: i am here. i just want to say that mr. dent used to be my congressman when he was in congress. even at that time, charlie, i guess the difference for me between republican and conservative, you have never been a conservative to represent my views as a conservative republican. i will be honest with you.

i never voted for you because of that, because you were not a conservative republican. my question is, even if you do not like trump, and i understand that, his personality, i get it, however, why would you vote for the opposition who is so anti-republican and in my book anti-conservative? just do not vote for president. that is what i did when you are up for election. i did not vote for the democrat against you because i did not share their values either. however, i just do not understand why he would vote for the opposition. host: give us an example of what you mean by him not being a conservative. caller: his stance on abortion. i am extremely pro-life and he is not. that happens to be the one issue i vote. i am a one-issue voter. i am one of these white suburban

masters educated women who is staunchly pro-life, and that is very important to me. host: we got it. guest: i appreciate her call. her definition clearly of a conservative is somebody who is right to life. i supported a woman's right to an abortion. i did. i was one of the few. that position is not looking so radical. i never won an election in my district by less than 10 points. somehow, i survived. i was a more center-right type member of congress. that is how i presented myself. obviously, some people on the far right did not like that. the far left thought i was a right wingnut. the far-right thought i was a total rino and left-winger.

most of my constituents thought i was center-center right. and i somehow prevailed. she brought up the abortion issue. i think this is the challenge for the republican party. it is a liability. the party no longer knows how to speak about the issue. we have been told it is a communications problem. i would argue it is not a communications or messaging problem great it is a policy problem. we have to figure out the policy. what some of the states have done, texas and others where they have gone to these bans with no exceptions but for the life of the mother, that enjoys support of maybe 5% of the american people. if donald trump loses this election, that will probably be a significant part of the reason why. host: liam, a democrat, hi,

liam. caller: good morning. i called watching this segment because it was getting a lot of incoming, i wanted to lift you up and let you know i have observed you from time to time when you come on television and you are right in my wheelhouse. we do not govern from the far edges of the left or right. we have to come together in the center. i love the way you have gone through the pragmatic process of trying to solve problems. what the problem is, what is our solutions, and try to bring everybody to the table because we all cannot get what we all want, but we can get something for everybody for the bigger good of our country.

that is how i see you. guest: you are very kind. thank you for those nice remarks. i think you are right. we need to get back to pragmatic governance. people want us to solve problems. they do not want us to ignore them. i witnessed this during my time in congress. it seemed like so much of the time my last few years we spent just trying to get the basics done. can we fund the government for three months at the current level? can we make sure the government does -- country does not default on its obligation on the debt ceiling? we spent months and months of dealing with fundamental government that prevented us from doing things people wanted us to address. we have a lot of people in congress really good at telling you all the things they can never do. we have a problem. at some point, people have to get to yes, at least enough of them to

advance the interests of the nation, whatever they may be. host: charlie dent, former republican from pennsylvania, senior advisor for the group our republican