rotunda. the public will be allowed to start paying their respects at 7:00 p.m. tuesday. he will be transported thursday to the washington cathedral for a funeral service. later, he will take his last trip home to be buried at the carter family home in georgia. we will show these events live on the c-span networks, streaming online at c-span.org and on the free c-span now app. >> starting shortly on c-span, president biden will deliver remarks from the white house on his 235th confirmed federal judicial nomination. you can watch coverage on the c-span now app or online at c-span.org. we are joined now by frank buckley, the author of "the roots of liberalism: what faithful knights and the little match girl taught us about civil virtue."

as part of our holiday authors series. welcome to "washington journal." guest: thank you for having me. host: the title of your book, can you define liberalism? guest: i don't think i can. i am an academic, and i get really tired of theories. so, i started to look at liberalism because that is kind of the american tradition. and what i discovered first of all was that, you know, definitions, theories were not going to cut it. but what i had to do instead was look at stories in our culture, people in our culture, and that told me what i was looking for. so, it was a matter of instinctively reacting to things that we regard in our culture as noble, as uplifting as liberal, in short. host: let's talk about the

sub-title. who were the faithful knights and why the little match girl? guest: the point is, those stories take it to weird places. so, one of them was, like, knights in shining armor, ok? and i will tell you a little story. after the first gulf war colin powell was called to testify before congress and he was asked, why didn't you go to baghdad? because we didn't the first time, right? and what powell said was, well, at that point the entire iraqi army was destroyed. there was nothing left. the way to baghdad was we could have gone there. it was just a highway of death. but he said, in the circumstances doing that would have been on chivalrous and un-american. and so i thought, there is a tradition of chivalry that is

built into the u.s. military, and, you know, it is military, you know, modern militaries. and that goes all the way back. it goes back to, for example, the story i looked at was the black night, ok? this is, like, 1370, and he has led an english raid in france, and he is surrounded by the french army. he has a small force and he defeats them all and captures the french king and all of the french nobles. and at night the captains are served dinner by the black prince. the son of edward the first. and he acts like a servant and says, you know, king john of france, you know, you should not be sad. you have won more on her today than anybody else. he went out of his way to make his defeated enemy feel good about himself. that is basic to the idea of chivalry.

the idea is magnanimity. that is a proto-version of the geneva convention. host: we have an excerpt from your book. can you read this portion which gets to the idea of chivalry? guest: the first one? ok. liberalism is not an abstract theory but a tradition of customs embedded in our culture. we learned magnanimity from the code of chivalry and are taught that reduce this through the stories of hans christian anderson and the novels of charles dickens, kindness came a liberal virtue. the republican virtue of the founders can be traced back to 12 centrally -- 12th-century merchants. that was my idea. it is not a grand theory. virtues are not something you define as a theory. that which is roughly noble in our culture is found not in

theories but in all of those stories and people in our culture. your prior program was on curing the political wounds in our society. i thought, what better way would there be to do that then for all of us to recognize we are part of that tradition? that symbolizes us and teaches us how to behave to people on the others. -- other side. host: you discussed the confusion around the meaning of liberalism. what do you mean by that? guest: well, it is a term which is hijacked by partisans left and right, and i was looking for a kind of liberalism that is neither left or right, embraces both. i have a few years on me. more than you. i go back to coonskin caps and the eisenhower era. i remember the time when

everybody was a liberal and we disagreed about certain things, but they were technical things. and reasonable people work and bring it -- were permitted to differ. that, it seems to me, had been missing in recent years. when i wrote the book i wrote it against the grain. i wrote it at a time when a lot of people seemed to be giving up on the idea of liberalism right and left. that, i thought, was dangerous. i thought the way to heal our political wounds would be for us to recognize that which we have in common, which is our liberal tradition. host: you have mentioned the term has been hijacked by partisans. what would you use to distinguish liberalism from progressivism, from another term that is very popular, oak -- wokeism. guest: i don't like to get hung up on terms.

in part because i think it is boring. there is a lot of that going on. we don't need more of that. so, i am in favor of progress and in favor of a whole bunch of things that, you know, so on. i don't see anything particularly wrong with that. everything taken to the stream becomes evil. we don't want to do that. but with a spirit of moderation we could agree on most things. so, i'm not going to get hung up on labels, particularly, except that i realized, wait a minute, these guys are not liberal. and let's try to get back to that. host: who are these guys? guest: these guys. you are pressing me. that is your job. well, there is an intolerant

strain particularly in recent years, i thought, on the left. people who were self-satisfied, censorious, and all of that. all of these things they use recuse the right of being. and they had become that themselves. so, let's get away from that. as for people on the right who wanted to give up on liberalism, maybe they should realize that if they are acting to the censorious mess on the left, they are asserting the primacy of liberal values. they are saying, you guys are a liberal. ok, that means you like liberalism. in america there is a liberal tradition. there is not a conservative tradition, there is a liberal tradition. it goes back to the founders. it goes back to the declaration of independence. it goes back to speeches by abraham lincoln. that is what unites us. that is what makes us americans.

to the extent you don't believe that you are less an american. host: would you mind reading that next absurd -- excerpt from your book? guest: you are putting me to work. the desire of officials to promotthe public good. the antonym of civic virtue is public corruption. a subset of society where it is just to do so, for example to alleviate poverty. the voter or official who favors a part of society is corrupt and reveals himself to be illiberal. he is, in the public realm, like the faithless employee in the private realm who steals from his employer -- i guess i'm making a point about something that is special about liberalism. that is the idea of a universal ethic mariah? the alternative to that is tribalism.

that is not even a moral theory, right? to count as a moral theory it seems to me you have to say something like, everybody counsels one, nobody counts as more than one. taking a look at the common good i think we have to pay particular attention to people who were left behind, but we have to take everybody into account. host: let's place your book into the context of the presidential election. your views on president-elect trump and his promise to make america great again, and the context of this discussion around liberalism. guest: i don't think there is anything particularly liberal about the desire to make a country great. in fact, it can be the source of liberalism. -- of liberalism -- the liberalism illiberalism.

historically it has been. there is another side to our liberal tradition. historically our tradition of equality in the declaration, which is liberal, and the idea there is that if you are liberal you should be feeling a sense of brotherhood. at least, to everybody else in your society and nation. there is a kind of liberal nationalism where you look at people left behind and you say, this has got to be fixed. if you see someone who desperately needs help of one kind or another you can say it is not just that that should happen, we should try to fix that. but you will get more mileage politically and morally, i think, if you want to say, it is not just that an american should live like that.

host: let's listen to a bit of president-elect trump's election night victory speech. >> we are going to make our country better than it ever has been. many people have told me that god spared my life for reason. and that reason was to save our country and to restore america to greatness. and now we are going to fulfill that mission together. we are going to fulfill that mission. task before us will not be easy, but i will bring every ounce of energy, spirit, and fight that i have in my soul to the job you have entrusted to me. this is a great job. there is no job like this. this is the most important job in the world. just as i did in my first term, we had a great first term, my great, great first term. i will govern by a simple motto.

promises made, promises cap. -- promises cap. -- kept. i'm asking every citizen across our land to join me in this righteous endeavor. that is what it is. it is time to put the divisions of the past four years behind us. it is time to unite, and we are going to try. we are going to try. we have to try, and it's going to happen. success will bring us together. i have seen that. i have seen that. i saw that in the first term, when we became more and more successful people started coming together. success is going to bring us together and we are going to start by putting america first. have to put our country first for a period of time. we have to face it, because

together we can truly make america great again for all americans. host: now, i would like to contrast that speech for you with a portion of vice president harris' concession speech last month where she advised her supporters not to despair, especially the folks who think the nation is entering a dark time. let's listen to that and i would like to get your thoughts. vice pres. harris: you have the capacity to do extraordinary good in the world. and so, to everyone who is watching, not despair. this is not a time to throw up our hands. this is the time to roll up our sleeves. [applause] this is the time to organize, to mobilize, and stay engaged. for the sake of freedom and justice. and the future we all know we can build together.

look, many of you know i started out as a prosecutor. and throughout my career i saw people at some of the worst times in their lives. people who had suffered a great harm and great pain. and yet, found within themselves the strength and the courage and the resolve to take the stand. to take a stand. to fight for justice. to fight for themselves. to fight for others. so, let their courage be our inspiration. let their determination be our charge. and i will close with this. there is an adage a historian once called a law of history. true of every society across the

ages. the adage is, only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. i know many people feel like we are entering a dark time. but for the benefit of us all i hope that is not the case. but here is the thing. america, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, brilliant billions of stars. [applause] the light of optimism. of faith. of truth. and service. host: now, i know that traditionally, especially in the political narrative we have, people would associate trump is saying with conservatism and what harris was saying with liberalism.

if we apply your framework, where did those speeches fit? guest: i did not see either of them being representative of one thing or another. these are simply partisan politicians, period. you know, when i went through my rambling tour of our history, one thing that struck out was something called the investiture crisis it was 800 years ago. the idea was, that was the single moment when there was a separation of church and state. right? and i'm on the side of that separation, in the sense that i want to say it is important to have something other than politics to guide your life. one of our problems, it seems to me, has been the relative disappearance of religion as a way of going through life and reflecting upon your place in the world, and your conduct.

apart from politics. so, that is what you just put on the screen does not define me one way or another. let me say one thing on the subject of -- this is trump now, and prosperity. liberalism is on the side of prosperity, i think. liberalism has meant free markets and the like. it has meant the abolition of slavery. it has meant the abolition of things that prevent people from bargaining with one another and getting ahead. and there are two aspects to prosperity that are important. the first is that when people are prosperous they are making people -- they are making each other better off. and that is a good thing. the second thing about a prosperous society is, a welfare system is the kind of luxury good for a prosperous society. if you want to have a decent welfare state want to have a rich society, right? so, you have to be on the side

of prosperity yourself. that, therefore, should be something that unites us. host: we are ready to take your questions for mr. buckley on his book and the topic of liberalism more generally. our number for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we are going to start with lou in highland park, illinois on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, mr. buckley. i'm wondering if you could be totally and 100% specific when you discuss liberalism, as far as money, taxes, education, health care. i think a lot of people in our country think in terms of how much we have to give one side and take from the other. i would like you to maybe

expound on some of that. guest: well, one thing you are not going to get for me -- i'm sorry -- is 100% precision. you realize that is impossible. i think that what one tries to do is have a society which both is prosperous and which can afford the kind of social programs you are describing. so, there is a balancing that goes on here. veer too much on one side, for example there was a thought four years back we could spend as much money as we wanted and we would not have such a thing as inflation with the benefit of history that has been disproven. so, we work our way merc away through all of clearer guidance as to where we are going, but with a vague goal at the end of it all. and we don't get better than that, i don't think. host: our caller mentioned the

role of money in politics a bit. i want to direct your attention to an article in the atlantic by franklin ford about what is referred to as the unique danger of a trumpist oligarchy. a cabal would entangle themselves with in the admistration, and form a double barrel threat. the trump oligarchyhat is taking shape is r different from the post-soet strain. whatakes it distinct is that trump is entering into a partnership with the most powerful technologists in the world. but the core problem of oligarchy is the same. the symbiotic relationip between a corrupt leader and business elite aays entails the trading of favors. the regime does the bidding of the billionaires, and in turn the billionaires do the bidding of the regime. power grows ever more concentrated as the owners and corrupt leaders conspire to

protect their mutual hold on it. in short order this arrangement has the potential to deliver a double blow to the american system. it could undermine capitalism and the road democracy, all at once. guest: that is what happened immediately, isn't it? the day after the inauguration it is all over. i think the thing about pundits you have to realize is, number one, they tend to be partisan, and number two, the end of the world is happening. buzzwords meant to inflame his constituents, i suppose. right? you have to mention russia somehow, you know? and you have to talk about dark money. and you have to talk about the threat to democracy. and you put it all together and you have a kind of word salad which roughly represents pretty much everything everybody on the left has said in the last eight years or so.

forgive me, but, you know, i'm going to wait and see what happens. i'm skeptical of the doomsayers. i am sympathetic to the people that talk about money in politics, although i think we should recognize before we start talking about the evils of dark money, for example, you know, the democrats vastly outspent the republicans in the last election in terms of dark money. it is not the case that anybody has moral standing here to complain. the pretension of moral standing, you know, this near on the lips of people that tell you they are pure and you are not, i have kind of had enough of that. so, yeah, i would like to see -- i am not a fan of american campaign finance laws. what has happened, i mean, this

is a legal question we are not going to get into, but there is kind of a trade-off here between corruption and liberty. we have taken the stand in favor of liberty, and we are going to accept a certain amount of corruption. so, i wish it were otherwise, but then that is just the way it is. host: let's hear from henry in michigan on our line for democrats. good morning, henry. caller: good morning. mr. buckley, i think, is kind of a little bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing. if you look at his last name, it is buckley. guest: that will do it. caller: that tells us a little about him. host: no, it doesn't. what is your question, henry? caller: i digress. i would like to do a simple exercise. and tried to distill this a little more, mr. buckley. i'm going to mention some phrases, little words or phrases from the constitution of the united states.

i want you to tell me if that word or phrase comports mostly with a democratic side or republican side. we don't have to have any kind of discussion during just tell me if this comports more with the democratic side or the republican side. guest: you want a yes or no? caller: i want democratic or republican. guest: does that define your world? caller: we the people, in order to form a more perfect union. host: henry, can you maybe give us the direct point you are trying to make, or a specific question? i understand the exercise you want him to go through, but what are you trying to share, what is your perspective here? guest: henry, if i could answer your, the more perfect union was a reference to the articles of confederation of 1781. caller: can i speak?

i only get 30 days to call and most of the time i cannot even get in. you have a guy from the u.k. that gets in every other day. i'm just trying to show the difference between liberals and "conservatives," or confederates. i consider myself a liberal. i was raised to respect all people. to love as many people as i can, possibly, through religious beliefs that i have. you made me digress from what i was trying to do. all men are created equal. does that comport more with democrats or republicans? guest: i would like to thank both, actually, but i don't disagree with the sentiment. caller: you say both. all right. host: we are not going to go

line by line, henry. i want you to make your larger point if you have another and then we are going to go to some other callers. caller: let me make this last point. mr. buckley mentioned campaign-finance rules, and you read that beautiful passage from the article about oligarchs and the evils of money in politics. our judicial system is broken. executive branch is broken. and our legislative branch is broken. because of money in politics, because of this coming oligarchy, because of -- because the united states has elected a criminal who is a rich man, who has rich people behind him, and this is not liberalism. this is not conservatism. this is pure evil. host: i think we have got your

idea. did you have any response? guest: maybe i am thick here, but maybe it means you don't like trump. i'm not going to get into the raw politics of it all. but it seems to me that besides democrats and republicans there is something else going on here. and that is the american voter. i think generally the american voter gets it right. if i go through elections in the last century mostly it turned out ok, right? when people, you know, veer off too much, there is a correction administered by the voters. so, i see the voters as the repository of liberal virtues in all of this. they are third-party.

i will put my faith in them. host: brian is in orange, massachusetts on our line for independence. -- independents. caller: i think your book is very interesting, but does your book differentiate between modern liberalism, like the recent election, and liberalism as thought in the 1930's? what i have noticed is a huge change in the democratic party. i am a former democrat turned independent. i voted for trump in the last election. the democratic party should go back to the values of fdr and not the values of woke, transgender, and etc. i would like to know your thoughts on that. host: before you give your thoughts would you mind reading at last excerpt from your book? guest: if there is any content to the word they decry prejudice

but perpetuate stereotypes about white males and evangelical christians. they telus that you have to become a racist to oppose racism. they imagine themselves standing up to joseph mccarthy, but practice mccarthyism when they call millions of republicans fascist and demand that they be silenced. they tell us they value free speech but deny it to conservative speakers on college campuses. mario savo would have been outraged by all of that. ryan, i agree with you totally. i hanker for an earlier time. i thought fdr was great. i like harry truman. i liked jfk. i liked dwight eisenhower. i guess i am old enough to hanker back to an age where there were differences, but they were not differences that made people hate each other. so, you know, i think what happened in the last election

was, the american voters delivered a bit of a corrective to the democratic party. and my hope is that they learn and adjust accordingly. because if they don't we may be looking at a long, long period of a republican-dominant government. and that is not healthy. host: let's go to benjamin in huntsville, alabama on our line for independents. good morning, benjamin. caller: good morning. i just want to make a statement during inherent in the very definition of liberalism are seeds of conflict. the ideas of progressivism, individualism, free-market economics, and christian theology are all used in the definition of liberalism, and they do not harmonize with each other. this definition limits the

possibility for the conceptualization of a clearer and more expansive and comprehensive view of what liberalism is and how it should be manifest. the execution of the ideas expressed in the definition of liberalism cannot peacefully coexist can you comment on this idea? guest: well, they can coexist peacefully. i don't think liberalism -- you know, the opposite of liberalism , it seems to me, is a state which mandates a particular kind of policy from which you cannot dissent. what is basic to liberalism is continuing discussion about how we get to where we want to go. liberals might have a broad agreement about goals, but as to the means to get there there is plenty of room for disagreement. so, i think here it is important

to recognize one of the things liberalism requires is tolerance for the other side and a willingness to learn. and a measure of uncertainty and self-doubt about your own righteousness and your own knowledge and your own ideas. there was this great moment in the framers convention, right at the end. benjamin franklin is there, and franklin wants a constitution. and this is the last day. and there are some people who are not going to sign the document. what franklin says is, essentially,, you know, have some self-doubt about your own righteousness. about your own clarity, your own moral clarity, right? admit that you might possibly be wrong, and other people might be right. and if you do that you will sign the document.

i'd like that. that was an element of liberalism. host: let's hear from david in memphis, tennessee on our line for democrats. good morning, david. caller: hi. good morning. esther buckley, i think you are muddying the waters, and that disturbs me. i would have to read your book to confirm it, but my understanding is that any word that ends in ism, means it has an over-emphasis. communism is an over-emphasis on the collective. capitalism is an over-emphasis on the expectation of capital. you have some theory that i also liked. well, truman and kennedy were nationalists and militarism characterized their budget plans. what they were not isolationists, to my knowledge,

to the way i have read my history. and so, you have those terms i do believe can be attributed to trump and the magas -- isolationism and militarism -- and to harris and the democrats i think you have progressivism and liberalism. but i think you have muddied the waters by not determining that anything that ends in ism is an over-emphasis. you are trying to deemphasize that which is being over-emphasize. what do you think? guest: david, i loved your beginning, but then the word "but be a code hate it went -- but." i hate it when people do that. you are largely right, but how about the word moralism? do you have a problem with that? i don't think so. so, it is not the ism, but

things that go before it. your point is, i think, however, valid. the point is, you take anything and you push it too far and it goes off the rails. i know think that is true. one of the complaints people on the right have made about liberalism is, they identify it with the idea that anything anybody does is ok, right? which is destructive of morals completely. that would be an example of taking liberalism too far. i think if one wants to step back and admit that implicit in liberalism is the ability to question liberalism itself. host: while we are talking about isms, you have discussed in your book the idea of populism, right? and earlier this month outgoing democratic senator sharad brown from ohio, who is well-known for his liberal views, delivered his

farewell address to the senate. he served 14 years in the house, followed by 18 in the senate. was defeated in november. here he discusses the idea of populism and what it means to him. then i would like to get your response. >> i have always looked at things a little differently. to me politics is not left or right were liberal and conservative, it is really about whose side you are on. in whom you are willing -- it is about whom you are willing to fight for. whom you are willing to step -- to stand up to. too populism lifts up all people. true populism does not play to raise and division. true population is about the dignity of work. putting workers at the center of all we should be doing. we need -- whether you swipe a badge or punch a clock, or the you are going to school or raising kids, matter who you are, no matter where you live, matter what kind of work you do

your work has dignity. it ought to pay off for you and your family. we have that in common. with all of the differences we have, we have work in common. for too many people in ohio and around the country hard work has not paid off. today far too many workers do not see a path to the middle class to matter how hard they work. we know this. we should be challenging this. for half a century the stock market soared, executive compensation has exploded, corporate profits have risen dramatically. her productivity has increased, workers' wages have been comparatively flat and costs keep going up. until we solve the fundamental problem, until hard work is valued, our work in this body, my work as a private citizen come january, that work is unfinished. if you want to know why so many workers think the system is rigged against them, just look at what happened in east texas.

to little fanfare as single judge appointed by president trump at the behest of the texas chamber of commerce struck down a labor department rule which guaranteed overtime for workers making $35,000 or $40,000 a year. that ought to be a principal. if you put in extra hours you ought to get extra pay. one judge, one decision, 4 million workers lost their overtime. one judge, one decision, 4 million workers lost their overtime. that is why we make this fight. guest: i agree with everything senator brown said, with the exception of that last bit about that judge in texas, because i didn't follow that, frankly. i don't know what the issues are. i only have one minor quibble about the work populism. i don't like it because of its historical associations in this country with a lot of nasty people. you know, 120 years ago. host: can you elaborate for

folks who do not -- who do not know? guest: yeah. jim crow laws were associated with the populist movement back then. yeah, i have problems with that. host: with the modern interpretation? guest: oh, gosh. i don't know what the word means apart from that. there are plenty of terms in american politics which almost seemed to be devoid of content. when you look carefully at them. that may be them. host: gina is in alexandria, virginia on our line for democrats. good morning, gina. caller: good morning, kimberly and mr. buckley. i'm trying to learn about your book to see if i want to purchase it or not, but however i would just like to know, america has some kind of problem with the muslim culture, which it surprises me that people are not more curious because the

ottoman empire lasted over 600 years. i don't believe america's culture is going to get to that. because they were inclusive. they pulled in christians, they pulled in jews, and it seemed like they were just as liberal as they were conservative. and i don't see americo working hard enough or being curious enough to last that long. even the chinese culture has led thousands and thousands of years, and it seems like the rest of the world has been watching america, but once they saw us doing it to ourselves we are just a joke now. you know, it is all about money. once citizens united got in there. we are a couple. host: you point out other

historical traditions around chivalry and rules. is that what you are asking him about? caller: i'm asking him, does he think america is going to last as long as some of the other inclusive cultures that bring people in, rather than separating people? guest: i don't make those kinds of predictions, actually, gina. but on the subject of immigration, i am an immigrant, ok? i came here from canada. i became a citizen 10 years ago. so, i am necessarily on the side of immigration. although the thing about immigrants is, once we get in we want to pull up the ladder. that's it, no more. there was a speech abraham lincoln gave in 1858 which i really like. was part of the lincoln-douglas debates. it was a july 4 speech, given

around july 4. and he said, all honor to the founders of the country and he said, there are some people in this hall who are descendants, flesh of the flesh of the people in the revolution, you know? but then they said, there are other people here in this room who were not, right? and they have names like helmut or jean-pierre, you know? their ancestors were not here in 1776. it doesn't matter, because what makes you an american is a kind of electric cord that binds you to the principles of the founders. to the words of the declaration. as long as you subscribe to that you are an american. that is what i believe. host: what about gina's question related to some of the other historical system that had kind of systems similar to the chivalry you talk about from medieval europe?

going back to the ottoman empire, which overlapped with some of those systems and even she mentioned ancient china, which also had its own rules around warfare and things like that? did you compare that at all as you were doing the research for this book? guest: no, this was hard enough. you want me to do more work? no way. i looked at stories i thought would be familiar to readers. fairytales, some of them. whatever. episodes from history that are familiar to us because they are part of our tradition. and i wanted to say liberalism arose from that tradition. host: we did not actually get to your story of the little match girl and why that was relevant. guest: let me tell that story. it is a story by hans christian andersen and it is written at a time when europe is becoming, in this case denmark, really wealthy. but at the same time you are seeing pockets of great poverty. the contrast between the great

wealth and poverty produces something novel. which is an instinct of kindness. as told by hans christian otterson in this story about a girl, penniless, who survives by selling matches. she is outside of westerhout. she sees everybody eating. it is christmas time, they are having these great meals and she is starving and out in the cold, and she likes a match to look inside. and to warm herself. and then she lights all of her matches. she freezes to death. right? impossible, i think, to read that story or have that story read without being moved and recognizing a duty to take care of people not doing so well in your society. that is part of liberalism too. host: michael is in gainesville,

florida on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, hello. two quick questions and two statements of fact. what is your opinion on prosperity and trickle-down? and, what is your idea on -- position on scientific racism two things i think you might be missing that influences your answers to those two is, first, either competition or evolution optimize. that is a scientific fact. and also, lawyers, which you teach in a law school, truth is what you can convince a jury of. i think you are teaching how many of your students have become politicians. because those lawyers then pursue that as truth is whatever you can con the public into. that is the source of our issues and difficulties, many of them right now. host: before we get mr. buckley

to respond i want to make sure we understand what you in by scientific racism. caller: yes, it is being taught in florida. there is less sure -- there is lectures going around. when mr. buckley spoke of his concerns about -- and he use the word censorship and referred to wokeness. what he is talking about is this gentleman being able to speak freely and those students at schools who pay money do not want people speaking untruths. for example, if you want to talk about how evolution shows that white people are superior, that is not even how evolution works, and it is factually untrue. we don't teach evolution correctly in our textbooks because we put it in the back, the parts that talk about competition. host: right, ok. so, go ahead. guest: i think scientific racism is an up -- is an oxymoron.

like military music. the things do not go together. i also coming you know, am a believer in what one can get out of evolutionary theories. i think that is important and i don't disagree with that in any way. as to my teaching politicians, no, i teach people how to take security interests in personal property. host: all right. robert is in brooklyn, new york on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. the way you use your words, i think the problem is the english language. obamacare was done with the concept of doing good. we may have liars and dark money in politics.

hundreds of millions of people whose job because they decide to go private with insurance. that is one. the second part is foreign money. the israeli government could payoff politicians and their suits and jackets, and they are anti-semitic. i'm trying to figure out, what do you think about people using the english language to justify the concept of what they're doing? guest: no, as somebody who wrote good stuff on that was george orwell, on the way in which the english language is used in such a way not to promote more clarity but to do just the opposite, to muddy things up. we talked about that in the last hour. we have talked about how terms get thrown out and they have a lot of baggage attached to them. and sometimes a word is tossed out and they try to slip in a

lot of baggage that does not belong. i agree with you. i don't want to respond about the particular political points you have made, ok? host: donna is in texas on our line for independence. good morning, donna. caller: yes, i'm here to talk about liberalism. we talk about advocating the freedom of the individual and want to talk about how as an individual, like myself, america needs to see about people with disabilities. people with mental health issues. how can we really exercise liberalism, freedoms of the people, if we are not reaching out to all of the people? black people? all races? all mental health? all disabilities?

and i also think about how trump and elon musk want to cut out disability and ssdi for 2025. and i'm saying, that is cutting out liberalism. that is cutting out freedom of the people. host: this gets at the point you are making more about the role of, sort of, an inclusive society and the concept of liberalism. guest: yeah. i agree with don out that in a liberal state you don't want to have people left hind. you are looking for the common good. think of it in terms of a family, right? you know, if you are the father or mother of the family you want all of your kids to do well and maybe you pay particular attention to a child who needs some extra help, right? you don't do that ignoring all of the other children. you try and -- you try in some

murky way to make it all add up in a way that promotes the common good. there is no definition of that, right? and people are permitted to disagree. but i think, you know, you start with believing in a universal moral code where everybody counts. host: john is in charleston, south carolina on our line for independents. good morning, john. caller: yes sir. i do know the name buckley, from way back. i am a 70-year-old guy and everything. i'm not sure if you are family or not, but i do know that you are a professor at this khalil school. now, that is a really interesting guy to me. host: just to help folks understand what he means, mr. buckley is a professor at this khalil law school at george mason university. ahead, john. what is your question?

caller: my question with scalia, was a person that really believed that, myself being american, black, he thought we would do better if, you know, we were in the schools we were traditionally in years and years ago. and everything. and he might have been right on something with that, because we give up a lot when we integrated schools. host: john, we are just about out of time for this segment. i understand you are talking about justice scalia's position on integration in public schools, but did you have a question specifically for mr. buckley today? caller: yes. i would like his opinion on that. host: ok. guest: on segregated schools?

i'm against it. host: let's go to roland in maryland on our line for democrats. good morning, roland. caller: thanks for taking my call. he said the conservative for the republicans associates, you know, [indiscernible] i got mine, you get yours, you know? it is all about, you know, elections, campaigns was all about gas prices, grocery prices. and i'm pretty sure there is not much -- you know, trump is going to do about it. and i'm trying to understand, sometimes it is all about exclusion and racism with being conservative. because if you look at it, what exactly -- west virginia voted

almost 80%, 90% for trump. host: roland because we are just about out of time i want to make sure i understand your point clearly. you asking mr. buckley about the association of conservatism with some of these things you are talking about? caller: yes. but i feel like some of these people, you know, they just say they are conservative, but if you dig down, if you dig deep down, it is always about, you know, exclusion. host: i think we have your idea. i'm going to let mr. buckley respond. guest: oh, you know something? like i mentioned before, i go back a ways, so rather than fixate on current politics i tend to see myself as an old-fashioned eisenhower republican. you know, or maybe a jfk democrat. i don't know. i think the point of my book was

not to talk so much about where we are today, but where we came from. and to try to cure those things which divide us by reference to those things we hold in common in our culture. host: frank buckley is the author of "the roots of liberalism: what faithful knights and the little match girl taught us about civil virtue." >> expected shortly on c-span, will take you live to the white house where president biden will talk about appointing -- appointing his 235th judge. you can watch on the c-span now app or online on c-span.org. with the swearing in of the congress tomorrow, a number of members will be leaving office including democrat senator ben cardin who was chair of the foreign relations committee. he is retiring after more than 35 years serving both chambers in congress.