as party polarization.in america we have true party so in europe they have lots of parties. so i had conversation with mark zuckerberg. he's reaching out a lot of people i do commend him. he reaches out for various be as i was saying, this is not causing all kinds of polarization shortly after that, a year ago i think, and he said that he is theory was well if you look at that and more polarization political polarization a party polarization is going up, mostly countries that have referred murdoch and "fox news" and so he was saying or trying to say that it's not social media not facebook. "fox news" and that sort of stuff. i did fit without study. so what will you think, is that social media and sink with other thanks for unit was the broader lens here and what is going on. chris: absolutely think kind of everybody's asking this social media driving it. i don't think right because we know the polarization is urging long before facebook and twitter came on we can point to things like the southern strategy o

will polarization trend out and will it correct itself?>> i think all of us and i know john you've written about this too will hope that covid would be this check moment. in a way it was a common enemy. it became political and initially was a threat to all of us. there was coordinate a behavior for all of us to address it and i was finishing this book when covid had so i had this moment where my whole book was going to be irrelevant and one of the interesting things i was able to do is go back and revisit the characters in the book. it was shocking to discover the social media prism was as powerful as ever. supreme -- they were talking about china and bleach and the moderates were completely invisible. even though the majorities of both parties were agreeing about social distancing closing the borders until the politicization happen happened in large part because of social media. the current trend i think is that we can't conquer covid together and social media was making that problem worse i'm a little pessimistic about the current -- but

that wasn't polarizing.and then we put our heads together and it's when facebook introduces a button and they copy each other and then suddenly it is much more engaging and much more about the engagement and emotion especially anger and that is when we get what he called the outreach machine so first to do you agree with that and that exact timing, just you know and if you do agree with that, then what can we do and how can we disassemble. we should open up for questions from the audience. it's a great question. i do think we need top-down solutions and to fundamentally rethink how the algorithms for example rank. i have a variety of ideas about how we can fix that, but i think fthat if we really want to move the needle, the area that we want to work on is bottom up. it's our souls. the data is pretty clear now even if we did make these changes we would still be a polarized place. we need to learn how to see the social media prism and understand the gap between the social media and reality. we need to both l

that is one issue when you bring polarized parties together.number two, we have this black, white, on and off perspective which is pathological. the, size more like a slushy. when you are talking about parties is external projection of internal biology, sociology is, by definition, a competition between self entries and group entries. we see our parties, are nations, they aligned along the same thing a from it dual brain psychology. the reason it's it's important, it's a new way to do exactly d what you're doing instead of saying we need to come together, we need to show the reasons the differences they are there, they are healthy. we want someone to be fast reaction to danger, not deep thinking and there's evolutionary reasons for office, you don't want to philosophize hate, i've never seen this, think quickly. we have developed a natural response to this end we have the ability to track this and engage and say you are not protecting as a broken party, you're not aligned with your natural biological protective quick reacting instincts and is a

that is one issue when you are trying to bring polarized parties together. number two, we have this black-white, on-off perspective which is pathological. the science is more like a slushy. parties are an external prediction of our internal biology. sociology is, by definition, a competition between self interest and group interest. we see our parties, our nations, they align along this same thing. it is called dual brain psychology. the reason this is important is it offers a new way to do exactly what you are doing. instead of saying we need to come together, you need to point out the reason these differences are there is because they are healthy. we want someone to be fast reacting to danger, not -- there are evolutionary reasons for this. you don't want to say -- you need to react quickly. we have developed a natural response to this and we had the ability to track this and say you are not aligned with your natural biological protective, quick reacting instincts. as a democratic party, you are or are not aligned. we can rate them, not on how they are ali

two, folks are polarized. they don't want to have anything to do with the other side of the aisle, but they might get pulled into the door by a friend or relative or neighbor who says this is something you need to do. the experience seems to be impactful for everyone involved. we don't necessarily start by going out to the edges. there is plenty of polarization that exists between the vast majority of americans who have never contemplated political violence. such that there is tremendous good to be done. even in the case of the folks who stormed the capitol and folks who may have committed violent and protests and demonstrations over the summer, recognizing the fact each of these represents a very distinct minority in the larger context of the partisan tribes we tend to lump them in with. there is a story to be told that accounts for the grievances and frustrations and social despair and desperation that many americans feel that radicalizing some americans. of course it's exploited by some cynical put a collec

i thought polarization was a thing. i don't think that's very helpful. everything i've seen human behavior in different kinds of conflict whether it is the war or political at a fundamental level is not that different so i am trying to be less sideload and how i look at the research and storytelling. i've become much more suspicious of my own righteousness when it flares up. i want to be careful because sometimes people say it sounds like i'm saying you can't be passionate or have radical ideas and i think that we need to get more nuanced and how we think about these things because you can have really radical visions and movements for social change without being in high conflict. so, some of the differences between good conflict and high conflict are telltale signs and you can see them all around you. one is there's still curiosity. there might be moments of surprise. you experience a range of emotions. in high conflict everything feels clear more than it probably is and you begin to generalize. that lack of humility and complex that he is quite dangerou

and to outputt of the fires of polarization that obviously were burning across the country. and i came to an organization is a volunteer in the ottoman of 2017 in the spring of 2018. and since then, we have built an organization that most getting 20000 of these members across country and getting close to 80 local braver angels and bipartisan chapters of local braver angels groups that are empowered to multiply these workshops and models of braver angels anything in some some cases potentially collaborate issues of local communities. and networks including braver angels podcast, which is a wider audience and we been able to create a national community if you will that is left and right and center and republican democratic independent, not to mention it libertarian and everything in between. play exist because from left to right, folks in this country understand the fact that as much as we have an earnest obligation of the things that we believe in politically, long-term success of american democracy changes not upon who we elect but on our ability to maintain relationship and

the author of the book breaking the social media presence, how to make our platforms less polarizing and later, a conversation about the book to speak your mind. >> amanda, it is a pleasure to get a chance toal talk to you about what is fascinating book exploring what ik think to call the invisible hand of our time but when i was reading it, it almost seemed more like background music of our daily lives and that is the challenge of what you label high conflict, basically as you define it, distinct from, sort of natural conflict with the type of conflict that results into a true us versus them so i want to spend time talking with you today about that, diving into some of the markers and investigative work you did to bring this book and concept forward but i thought i would start by asking you to talk a little bit about what got you interested in this particular topic. some ways, what i found fascinating about reading it was it is whatt we are living throuh an these stories in our daily life now but thought about in a way most of us never stopped to think about and process as these sto

was a thing like political polarization. i don't think that is very helpful. everything i've seen, human behavior in different kinds of conflict the behavior at a fundamental level isar and that different i'm trying to be less look at the how i research and storytelling. the other thing i would say is i have become much more suspicious of my own righteousness when it flares up. and i want to be careful here because sometimes people say it sounds like i'm saying you can't be passionate or angry or have radical ideas. you can have really radical visions and movements for social change. we need those things without being in high conflict. so, some of the differences between good conflict and high conflict are really telltale signs and you can see them all around you. one is in good conflict there's still some curiosity. there might be moments of surprise. you experience a range of motions,ns not just to. it's much more everything feels really clear like much clearer than it possibly is and you begin to generalize about many mil

that's one issue when you're trying to bring the polarized parties together that should help.number two, we have this black/white, on/off perspective which is actually pathological. the science is it's more like a slushy. what you're talking about when you're slushy. what you're talking about when you talk about parties, an external projection of our internal biology. sociology is by definition a competition between self interest and group interest. and we see parties, we see our nations, they align the same thing. it is called dual brain psychology. the reason this is so important is because it offers a new way to do exactly what you're doing. instead of saying, we need to come together. we need to point out the reason these differences are there. they're healthy. we want someone to be fast reacting to danger. not deep thinking. and there are evolutionary reasons to all this. you see a sabre tooth cat. you don't want to say, hey, i've never seen this. we've developed a natural response to this and we have the ability to actually track this and say, listen, you're not protecti

so dynamic site group polarization how people delivery when they are in a homogenous group. by the way i should mention it's not a partisan thing. if you are a little bit against minimum wage about them together in a group they come out thinking maybe minimum wage is bad and should be zero. anytime you put a group of like-minded visuals together even if not extremist they come out to be extremist in the end. so polarization is something we should worry about when it comes to journalism and the academy. i think we should all basically want an accurate picture of the world. it has the best intentions that can lead to disaster we don't have an accurate picture of the world. host: there is a question if you want heterogeneity or diversity within your institutions or whether it is sufficient to have it across institutions. do you have thoughts on that? with your point of group polarization there is a cost to the alignment but it is true the larger intellectual landscape, if you have several institutions with one shared sensibility, have others that don't, could potentially have s

so group polarization is absolutely something that we should worry about when it comes to journalism.asically want an accurate picture of the world. you have the best intentions but it lead t to disaster if we dont have an accurate picture of the world. reihan: there's also a question of whether you want intellectual diversity within institutions or whether it is sufficient to have an across institutions. any thoughts on that because one couldut argue that if you're pat of a group polarization and there is a cost to have this kind of alignment is also true in a larger intellectual landscape, if you have several institutions that have one kind of shared sensibility and having some other institutions and do not share a sensibility. it could potentially have value. hrishikesh: second work. if your scholar working particular institution in the state yale, not just talking to people there. your signing people from elsewhere university of michigan ucla and whatnot pretty kindel f engaging with across the board. in one way, never sit in front diversity could seem to 19 if you're in the yale

do you have any thoughts on that because one could argue on the group of polarization that there is a cost to have this kind of alignment and it's also true that in a larger intellectual landscape you know, if you have several institutions that have one kind of shared a sensibility having some other institutions that don't share that sensibility could potentially have some value. >> i think that could work because scholars then would be if you are a scholar working at a particular institution let's say yale, you're not just talking to people at yale, you are citing people from f elsewhere, university of michigan, ucla, whatnot so you are kind of engaging with scholars across the board so in one way the diversity could be achieved yale sociology department, harvard, one is this way, one is that way. ucla is up there somewhere. that could be a healthy situation where there's not diversity within institutions but there is a crux. you find that in my own field of philosophy and fields that i think are working well so things like the more theoretical parts of ethics. you have harvard whose

and one - - on some of these polarized issues. host: are people grateful to take a contrasting view just because it is less boring? >> maybe. i find it less boring. part of my motivation but part of i it is not to agree with everybody. so it's more exciting so it's to embrace the danger. >> but then whether to corrupt or not. >> that can be the title of your memoir. >> we have a number of questions the first is a uniquely american epidemic a contributing factor cancel culture through adolescence? >> yes. so this is the idea of unseen prosperity so everybody has their challenges and trials and someone but if you compare to the generation of 1930 or 1840, we are living a very privileged life. one of the things the highest privileges the time privilege. where we are being born now. so maybe that is where there are small problems because we have not suffered enough that that is what we emphasized. host: whether or not the trends that you describe the lack of our willingness to describe is boredom is there a lack of energy that people

how do we get down to the truth in a time like this when you have such polarization?> yeah, don, that's a really tough question because there's a huge market behind that polarization. there are people making millions and billions of dollars behind keeping people polarized, keeping people angry, keeping people clicking on social media. and until that market breaks down, that's going to continue to happen. they're going to continue to be social media misinformation that's put out just because it can get clicks. it can get people riled up. it can get engagement. even if it's not true, people will spend time sharing it with their friends and family. and by the time, you know, reporters and fact checkers can get around to dispelling some of these rumors, it may be too late. so the hard work remains to be done. it needs to be done in newsrooms. it needs to be done by journalists. it needs to be done by classrooms to teach people social media literacy and media literacy more broadly. and obviously the market behind social media disinformation needs to be dealt with because i

two, folks are polarized.y don't want to have anything to do with the other side of the aisle, but they might get pulled into the door by a friend or relative or neighbor who says this is something you need to do. the experience seems to be impactful for everyone involved. we don't necessarily start by going out to the edges. there is plenty of polarization that exists between the vast majority of americans who have never contemplated political violence. such that there is tremendous good to be done. even in the case of the folks who stormed the capitol and folks who may have committed violent and protests and demonstrations over the summer, recognizing the fact each of these represents a very distinct minority in the larger context of the partisan tribes we tend to lump them in with. there is a story to be told that accounts for the grievances and frustrations and social despair and desperation that many americans feel that radicalizing some americans. of course it's exploited by some cynical put a collectors

this campaign has been so polarizing. it's very difficult to imagine how many as embattled institutions are going to contain conflict in the coming months and years . of course, the prime minister called the vote a in a full, it's a snap election. i mean, it's hard to predict because we don't know what the results are, but do you think that despite all the difficulties that whoever is in government will face, there will be a sort of sentiment of turning over a new page and the new beginning, especially after the painful war with us or by john, what i think so much depends on if it is to be nichol passion, yon, if he does win the election, how he behaves as you know, he came to power on the back of a velvet revolution, a very broad coalition of social and political forces supported him in replacing cherry and government that preceded him, but he's lost a loss of that support. he's be been criticized for very popular stick approach. so i think it will be crucial for him to rebuild that coalition to reinvest in the relations

man: i'm guiding to see polar bears, and i realize that the polar bears are in abundance here on there because their habitat has gone away because the world has been burning too much fosl fuel. it's--climate change is happening. man: well, this time of year, they should be out on the ice, eating seals. that ice is not there for them. i've seen them eating young caribou on the beach. they're gonna have to learn to adapt, i guess. we have to learn to adapt, too. we gotta change. we have to change. rexford: folks tend to try to tie the climate change directly to the oil and gas industry. man: they say that because a lot of people are polluting the air hundreds of miles away from us. well, ice is not there no more. but we're the ones sitting in the front row. they're in back of the ice melting away. patkota: we're seeing earlier thaws and we're seeing later freeze-ups. man: why is our land being eroded away? because there's no ice to stop the impact of the huge storms that come crashing into our land. burns: big chunks size of this building sometimes will have-- ground just break off. re

sort of interesting versus the united states in a pretty polarized place. they seem the efforts of public diplomacy have been pretty haphazard. [inaudible] there's all aspects to be pretty divisive. so it might not be perhaps the best place, the starting point for showcasing liberal democratic sportsmanship in opposition to the rising of the world. we just like to hear of the purpose for thinking of the parallels drink that. and maybe they are right now how big sporting events could be battled by democratic government going forward. strict not to go first and tells a little bit about what's in your chapter? >> i don't think if i have to answer now. [inaudible] the comparison between the cold war. i cannot begin with that. i think the difference between the two is sports were used about the cold war. war is expected. so it's the way to display the power of the u.s. at the beginning in europe and france intervenes and 23b because. [inaudible] display, i think at least during the 20s were more important in the 50s or 60s. we can see in the 30s it was different

you're going to do, regulating agencies, i deem them unfit to comply with the polar coach and a polar coat itself. the bullet proper defines men spells out the requirements for the ships that are crossing this season. so take us altogether, the stakeholder states and members of the initial nor did counsel. we can do much good together. there are plenty of things for concerns and for contradictions, but i think that there is no issue that cannot be so we can engage in earnest effort and tv right now, please. sure, good afternoon, mr. press machine. you need to do something good or bad relation between russia and ignited states have always been the guarantor against the stability in the world. what you've just said might integrate. now you are talking about the mutual respect and relative common war and something that can characterize this, this meaning, you're probably talking about red lines, but americans have read lines as well. did you manage this meeting? you do agree on how to cross the red lines by doing so to improve or at least not material relations feel. no. let me put it th

john wood junior talks about his group's efforts to bring americans together and reduce political polarization. later, mitch mcconnell talks about his career in politics at an event hosted by the mccain institute. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service. along with these other providers, giving you a front rosita democracy. -- front row seat to democracy. >> next, a house panel hears testimony on how to foster bipartisanship and civility in the legislative branch. they discussed giving more power to committees, decentralizing power from leadership, and the prospect of adding more working days on capitol hill to achieve legislative progress. this hearing as an hour and 40 minutes. >> here we go. >> the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. i never recogn

going to authority when they did not create a bond to the requirements of the polar code. and these polar code defines catch the, the quality or the demands, the requirements for sheeps and with other a basso that could go through and place round. if all the interested party is only interested countries, including the nato countries, if you work together to resolve all this matters or is there a matter is that need additional attention? i don't have any doubt that we will find all the solutions. i don't see a single problem that is not re solvable. let's go to and to the chow and the good in the middle of the machine. good residents near by here, machine years. but i, so as all the relations or at least not bad relations between russia in the us, i've always been the founding sion, all right, and stability and security. and do you think that as well was now here saying that was mutual respect and certain dipoles across france ship or perhaps tolerance is something that you have. what about red lines? were you able to agree about not crossing those red lines on some critica

the country has suffered badly from the corona virus and damage, which has polarized both of them, the economy into crisis. doubly corresponding johan ramirez is standing by for us in the peruvian capital lima, your hand. this election a statistical draw was it expected to be this close? it was expected to be that close. actually some balls were talking about a technical type. so this result is not really a surprising, very close, less than one percent is the difference, and that gives the advantage to get go for him already upper left wing county, the federal castillo, we're talking to many people today in the streets of lima, and they were saying some federal support where they were saying that they were not going to have to concede any defeat off their candidates. they were taken for granted, taking for granted to a victory off their candidate. and actually now that this exit ball has been known, some people are gathering outside the building where we are right now, the office of the national electoral authority. they have come to protest against this exit polls. the result is and n

de-polarizing exercises?ing to do to get people to sit down and understand what motivates them and build the relationship so they can have the conversation built on policy and mutual respect. you agree on the problem, and i think the biggest challenge is that we do not agree on the problem or we talk past each other on solutions, at the very least. i will have more thoughts later and i am knowing that some of the members may have to come and go so i will turn it over to other members. i appreciate it. thank you. rep. davis: -- typical. it is working now. i thought they wanted to touch -- shut me out. the eponym he a bipartisanship. this committee i like to think is the conscious of how we get to that point of bipartisanship. how do we get people talking again, and unfortunately congress is not made up of the members of this committee. we have been just selected outside of a small group and i like to think that we were selected because we are more bipartisan and we can understand our differences in our distric

the regulating agencies deemed them unfit to comply with the polar code. the polar code itself defines, spells out the requirements for ships that are crossing the seas. take this altogether. the stakeholder states, members of the nordic towns. we can do much good together. there are plenty of things for concerns but i think there is no issue that cannot be solved if we engage in an earnest effort. >> good afternoon, mr. president. relations between russia and the united states have been the guarantor of stability in the world. biden agrees with you. now you're talking about mutual respect and relative warmth. we probably talked about redlines. americans have redlines as well. did you manage at this meeting to agree on how not to cross the red line and by doing so, to improve or not deteriorate relations? >> let me put it this way. we understand what our american partners are talking about and they understand what we are talking about when we say there is a redline. i will give it to you pointblank. you have not gone so far as to find the specifics. we hav

the selection of polarized peruvians, there are deep res, i'm class division. analysts say the longer the national electoral jury take to determine who the president is, the worst the situation will get on the streets of the country. there will be a looser, neither side, except it could be the candidate to get a protesting menu. say they are more than ready to fight. but in the center, i'll just see the lima. ah, hello adrian. here in the headlines on i was here a median. supposing a type snap election, the cold push indian resigned and triggered the vote, hoping to redo his mandates on last year's defeat in the conflict with neighboring as a by shops will re challenge reports yet ever wins this election will have to tackle a long list of problems that armenia faces, you have a traumatized nation after that. defeated in the war, you have a polarized electorate. this has been a pretty bruising election campaign. you have refugee problems, you have prisoner of war problems, you have economic problems and development problems, etc. getting around to even 10 percent of these is going to b

well, first a planet that, like our own earth, had polar ice caps. ♪ they were fascinated to see that ice caps grew and receded with each year. large areas changed color with the season. -- seasons. did that mean vegetation? straight lines were cited on the planet's surface. some called them canals. the american astronomer percival lord believed these martian canals had been created by an advanced technological civilization. first, in 1965 and then again in 1969, nasa sent base craft fly by mars and send back scientific measurements and close-up photographs. >> this is pidgin 21. a rented picture, wide-angle picture, fantastic picture. that is beautiful. that is full. >> this is a narrow angle camera view. orson: the missions were great achievements for the scientists. but the pictures of mars showed a world of total desolation. was mars less like the earth and more like the moon? there were no canals. no cities, no areas of cultivation, no signs of a people -- of a people or layering in the martian crust to suggest the planet was evolving geologically. there were no volcanoes to spew

i also like the idea of, i guess what you call the polarizing exercises -- what do you call that? d polarizing exercises x anything we can do to sit down and understand what motivates them and build that relationship so they can have a conversation based off of mutual respect based on policy. you agree on the problem i think the biggest challenges, we don't often agree on the problem. we talked past each other on the solution. i'm going to have more facts leader but i know some of the members may have to come and caps on going to stop there and turn over other members but i appreciate it. >> mr. davis. >> difficult -- oh, it's working now. i thought derek wanted to shut me off. [laughter] the epidemic of bipartisanship. this committee, i like to think it's like the conscience of how we get to bipartisanship, how do we get people talking again? congress and members of the committee, we just happen select outside a small group and i like to think we were probably selected because we are more bipartisan because we can understand our differences in our district and understand how you

you have highly polarized country, which is facing sort of a new geopolitical environment and its usingas a tool of engagement. germany in the 20s and then as a sort of place of intensifying competition particularly with the regime in italy. at the world cup in france and interestingly enough as competition intensified. [inaudible] i was intrigued to sort of think through the parallels and differences between the cold we are-- cold war era and the present day especially now as every confrontation-- conversation with china you have beijing winter olympics next year and how should it be approached, should we boycott it , should we-- clearly sports will be one of the front lines. i think it's one difference from the past and the present is that soccer is not necessarily i centric to american popular culture, but more urban central to-- >> china is pretty bad. >> actually, china has invested heavily into soccer. international players with a professionally. had pretty bad reputations for corruption and the international teams-- [inaudible] they were some pretty embarrassing incidents, syria

polar ice is melting and receding faster than ever before.rctic ice is melting faster than ever before. this is according to evidence provided from the largest polar expedition in history. the data was gathered by a team of scientists who bordered a massive research ship back in 2019, heading from norway to the north pole. experts purposely lodged the vessel called the polar stern into the sea ice and then spent most of 2020 letting the ice carry the ship across the ocean. throughout that stretch of time, while the rest of the world faced the onset of coronavirus, hundreds of crew members faced critical climate change, as expedition leader marcus rex says they watched the ice block around them disappear. yes. and for your transition, fancy place in the spring of 2020 receded more quickly than ever before on record. the expansion of the ice was only about half as large in the summer than decades ago and only about half as thick rex says the ice lost his team recorded is so bad that hope for the arctic's full recovery is slim. my wallet and pre

programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span2, tonight i look at political polarization in america we started 8:30 p.m. eastern with the book high conflict why we get trapped in how we get out then the author of the book raking the social media prism how to make our platforms less polarizing. later conversation about the book white it is okay to speak your mind. book tv on c-span2, tonight started at 8:30 p.m. eastern. >> a senate hearing on security travel and trade along the us-mexico border among the witnesses as kevin mcaleenan who served as homelands acuity secretary in the trauma administration. >> i welcome ranking member langford and members of the subcommittee and witnesses to today's discussion on southwest border lamport of entry, hope today's hearing can help us refocus our southwest border security discussion back towards unfortunatelytry, those on the floor will impact her hearing today, i'm going to submit my full opening statement for the record in the interest of saving time for questions for a panel. with that i would like to turn the time over the sena

finally, there is a recognition that polarization in congress is often reflected in american society. today we are joined by experts who will help us understand factors and trends that have contributed to the high level of polarizations we see in both society and commerce today. they've also get us thinking about how members see their roles, strategies we might consider. i am looking forward to their testimony and conversation. >> want to thank witnesses. we really do appreciate it at the forward to this conversation. i think this is the most important work this committee will do. we are doing a lot of important work, but making congress more collaborative is probably the most important thing, because there is no collaboration, there is no stability. it's remarkable this is where we are. but it's a symptom of where we are as a country. we have to work on the country, but we have to lead in congress. i spent a lot of time in the 116th congress on the schedule, because i think spending more time together, i call it pinball and? building relationships is the beginning of the conversation

eight years later -- those are the beginnings come the first stories of the increased polarization. prior to that time, civil rights legislation which lyndon johnson proposed, it was passed by republican senators. not democratic senators. states rights -- they were against more discrimination and for barriers. not just from the south either. from other states around the country. it was the democratic party, unfortunately. they finally came around to the republican position and the republican position has pretty much been the same as it has been since the days of abraham lincoln when the party was first founded in 1856. the republican is for the individual. the campaign slogan in 1956 was freemen, free soil, free money. that is pretty much the sentiment today is that all men and women, the individuals, they are free. it is the only way to move forward and for the party to survive. host: a bacon biographer and longtime friend joining us from virginia. >> washington journal continues. host: