another way of diagnosed the human drivers the polarization, we can do things like on polarization live .com created a suite of apps that users can use to do things like identify and avoid extremists. and get a sense of what other people see about their politics from your post by using the same machine learning models. bipartisanship made a board which will alert people not forgetting engagements from their own side about forgetting engagements from both sides. and that retreats people like on this board and hashtags where republicans and democrats can be talking about the same things and similar place and we can use technology in other words, instead of focusing on the small minority of actors, which is where all of our attention is now fighting misinformation and trolling and like the very best intervention seem to have minimal impact and sometimes have a counterproductive act but we have done very little enlisting instability and boosting operation and so i think if we are looking at where we can create the most capacity, i think the bottom of his most important. >> so here's what i

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

as party polarization.in america we have two parties and so in europe they have lots of parties. so i had a conversation with mark zuckerberg and is reaching out to lots of people. he really goes reaching out to get various views. and i said look this is causing all kinds of polarizations. and this was a year ago. and he said his theory was if you look at that the polarization the political party's conduct, mostly in the countries that have murdoch and "fox news" and so he is saying well, it's trump, is not social media is "fox news" and that sort of stuff ready and it did fit with that study. so is it social media or in sync with other things. this just brought in volunteer what is going on pretty. chris: absolutely think everybody's kind asking is it driving it, don't face quite pretty do weia know the polarization is surging long before facebook and twitter came on we can point to things like the southern strategy of the democratic or republican party. appointive market segmentation of news creating perv

everybody asks the question is social media driving polarization? that's not the question we know that was surging long before facebook and twitter. we can point to the southern strategy or market segmentation with perverse incentives for small markets given point to the collapse of the soviet union and the cold war and provided a common enemy. there's a lot of drivers. it isn't too protective we cannot explore an alternative reality. but i do think that is contributing to the problem. no matter the answer to that question but given we will not have social media anytime soon hardly make that less polarizing quick. >> i see tobias is in the audience. i'm a social psychologist i just had a vague sense i met tobias and he clued me into the social media platforms changed radically between 2009 and 2012. that wasn't radicalizing just presentation. >> that was and facebook copies each other and suddenly it's much more engaging and engagement with anger and that's when we get that and that timing. if you do agree with that, then what can we do? what is the

and so our parties did polarize ideologically and it did create a problem. so we did not have the era of the populous surges from the 1980s and early 1990s where the media and new media and c-span for example would exacerbate some of the divisions, but we had leaders who understood the larger obligations here. one of the things that i would say as we began to talk about and beginning to talk about race as dividing issue, we would not have had those dramatic civil rights bills in 1957, 1964, 1965 without republicans, northern republicans being decisive factors. it was evan dirkson in the senate and others from ohio in the house who were able to overcome those things, but as you see the changes to further polarize us, it was there, and exacerbate change. talk radio and cable news found that they could gain power and advancement by adding to the tribalism and business models that worked that have had us careen out of control. and without major changes in the media, and that is going to be very hard to bring about. without this sense of a jolt, and what i believ

but those deep divisions that were there, the polarization of the society, the polarization of the parties, mccarthy is right. that what we're seeing now is something far more distinct than what we've seen since any period in 100 years. >> that's fascinating. and you are teaching that the party system during the civil war period merited the polarization society. nicely reinforces john's point that it may or the violence in society. ahead, your book, the line of freedom argues powerfully at every step, those who would've divides freedom found themselves challenged and sometimes defeated as this history shows, however, black freedom advance faster and further than it champion stream possible, precisely because the opponents of freedom prove so powerful and aggressive. tell us about how it was that with each victory of the armies of the south that provoked northern support for abolition-ism. and then as norm invited, it's a really important story. if you could take us from the post civil war period through reconstruction, tell us about how the party system reliant and the country became less

norm, how did we obviate some of the polarizations the last time around? we saw similar pressures from technology and from a fraying party system. but nevertheless, we evolved to the relative stability of the post-war period. and what can the lessons of that reconstruction of the deliberative mead sonnian model tell us how to get out of our current situation? >> it is not going to be easy to get out of it. i will say, listen og joanne, which was just wonderful, there is a little book called the victorian internet, which is just a wonderful description of how the telegraph transformed the world. and many people that you it would be just wonderful. that we would be able to communicate face-to-face, and wars would end, and lots of things would change for the better. and what we see now of course is things can change for the better. but they can also change very much for the worse and you can enhance tribalism and division through that medium. i would say, you know, when we had parties that were, as it were, broader tents, which is what we have had really from

i thought polarization was a thing. i don't think that's very helpful.verything 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 dangerous.

for this pandemic which was extreme polarization and high conflict so that doesn't go away. when these kind of things happen and i would say blessing that i will say is one of the things that we start to see is the news media becomes relentlessly negative. on all sides of the spectrum. there's a lot of reason for that but they also think that does not help us. because even when the caseload went down, and the vaccines started look like they were going to work you didn't see a huge chinatown and emphasis of a lot of the headlights. comparing the negativity of the major u.s. news accounts during the pandemic to international accounts of the pandemic. the u.s. coverage was much more negative even more negative than the science journal pandemic. a lot of different things happening, the bottom line is when you have this level of high conflict, it's very hard exceeds those opportunities. garrett: any talk a lot about it and all sort of shorthanded here as toll the cousin problem thate are in some way sort of all in conflict scenarios beholden to the most combustible people in the

given what we know just about group polarization, things like that, group polarization is this thing from legal scholar who talks about if you take a group of people who are just a little bit let's say they're just a bit pro minimum wage, put them together, , ask them to liberat, they come out super pro minimum wage. it seems like there's something off going on. it seems like they're not tracking the truth, just kind of reinforcing each other's tendencies to go more to the extreme. so what comes out as that the liberation, at least when we think about it kind of carefully, may not be the truth, right? so dynamics like a group polarization under the things we noticed about how people deliberate when they're in a homogenous group. and by the way i should mention that that is not a partisan thing. so if you are a bit, little bit against minimum wage and you put them together in a group who were all kind of a little bit against minimum wage, they cannot thinking maybe minimum wage is bad, it should be zero or whatnot. anytime you put a group of like-minded individuals together even if th

so you were talking earlier how issues that become politically polarized are difficult to talk aboutir to say looking at the conversation that there does seem to be an issue so i'm curious to hear you answer the initial question but then also the larger question about the political context around the importance of speaking your mind. >> that free speech itself has become politicized. it's weird because the preeminent defense of free speech i urge people to read it chapter two on liberty with excellent arguments and to anticipate the objections are the concerns that people have today about free speech. with those objections what are those that are obnoxious oral opinions that are just bad or stupid? these are the objections people raise now that i bring it up now because he is part of the classical liberal tradition and in many ways was progressive in his time with a proponent of women's rights and even hired progressives. it is unfortunate that free speech has become politicized but if we look at the historical context is not an issue l but looking at the 19 sixties free speech movem

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

and i now think like i thought polarization was a thing like political polarization. and i do think that is very helpful like i think that everything that i have seenev human behavior in different kinds of conflict whether it is gang conflict or political conflict. the behavior, and a fundamental level is not that much different so i am trying to be less solid and how i look in the research and how i look at storytelling. the other thing that i would say is that 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 am saying that you cannot be passionate or you cannot be angry or can't have radical ideas. i think we really need to get more nuance and how we talk about these things because you can have really radical visions and movement for social change and we need those things. without being in high conflict. some of the differences between good conflict in high conflict are really telltale signs and you can feel them in yourself and see them all around you and one

and given what we know with group polarization, talks about if you take a group of people who are justittle bit prone minimum wage asking the two deliberate they come out super pro minimum wage so there's something going on there like they are not tracking's the truth just reinforcing the tendencies to go to the extreme so what comes out is that deliberation when we think about it so that may not be the truth so with that polarization of how people deliberate and by the way i should mention that that is not partisan. if youou are a little bit against minimum wage andns put them together and put them in a group and if you think minimum wage is bad anytime you put a group of like-minded individuals together even if not extremist they are extremist in the end. so group polarization is what we should worry about when it comes to journalism in the academy.nk i think we should all an accurate picture of the world because anything of the best intentions that lead to disaster for don't have an accurate picture of the world. host: there is. a question if you want heterogeneity or diversity with

polarized result. guess what?den's handling of the economy, basically even split, 47/49. very much, partisan doesn't budge on this one, personal rating, 43/44. overly positive democrats, overly negative republicans. even the idea of a vaccine requirement splits along very polarized lines, 48% favor, 50% oppose. congressional preference, who do you want to control congress? very polarizing. one small group of voters that make the polls move. i want to show you who they are. hard core independents, less than 15% of our sample. they're the only people that seem to be moved by events. president biden's job approval, in april, independence, 61%. now 46. in economy dropped 15 points, covid, dropped 30 points. on congressional preference you saw a swing of 15 points. the point is, these are the only voters in america that are actually moved by public events, what's happening in the administration. this group of independents, this group of independents, tha ♪♪ (vo) the rule in business used to be, "location, location, loc

polarization, you blame them, independent of facebook? >> yes, but again, independence have shown oddly enough, because most people on facebook have a range of trends who stretch from childhood friends to work colleagues, to people they played sports with. you tended to have a more mixed ideological composition of your friends on facebook then you do if you read the same part of the newspaper or watch the same cable tv news outlet. so, social media is not this narrow. this is what independent researchers have proven, but is often asserted. >> nick, some people say you are really not interested and you're ending the controversy and the very inflammatory content because it makes you money. so what's the greater interest for facebook? is it money or is it democracy? >> i flatly and vigorously reject this idea that facebook has to spoonfeed people addictive, extreme, violent, hateful content. why on earth would we want to do that? if we were to do that, people would not continue to use facebook in five years time, 10 years time, 15 years time

and i would i completely agree with the polarization argument that daniel is making. but arthur, it seems to me and it's patently obvious to me, is that the media enjoys doing this. so putting people at each other's throats. i mean, it's ok to really hate and hate hard on all these platforms here. and i don't even participate in it. i just say it's such a waste of time. why should i get my blood up about it? because if someone is so disrespectful to you, why should you have any respect in and answering because you can have an argument with people like that. and i think that's a lot of people who people and i think daniel, for genuine, i've heard very different reasons would say, you know, people are very, very tired of this. that the big kind of discourse that we have because you can't win. ok, it's a 0 sum. that's not the way it's supposed to be in the democracy. go ahead arthur. so this brings me to one of the things that i think would make a big impact in, in reuniting people. and it's something that the journalist author, diana west calls neutral fact. and it's so

i think it's very unhelpful and i think it will lead in a very bad place because it polarizes people even more. i mean, having, you know, patriarch americans being called says, insurrection is a, is an amazing upfront. okay. and i mean, they're not, they're not taking it very well. and daniel brought up january 6, we can dive into that too. but what about the rights of the minority? go ahead, arthur. well matched exactly at i'm all due respect, daniel, you're talking about a majority being blocked by minority and maybe within the political institution. that's the case. maybe within congress and senate. that's the case right now. i would be very curious to see the actual numbers of americans hold to see if they support a lot of this stuff. because the consensus from where i'm standing from the people i know, and obviously that's not a full poll of every american, but most people from all walks lights and all political standpoints are opposed to the sort of, for lack of stream isn't best captured pretty much every institution, and you can go from corporate, the corporate world to the c

his predictedded polar bear apocalypse never happened. but essentially, the carbon tax, to go back to the answer here, that was a quaint, old solution. nowadays the whole climate movement has gone completelyback i key. back d wacky. we now look at airline turbulence, how many redheaded kids we have, all kinds of wacky metrics, and solutions now are end white supremacy, defund the police, green new deal architects who want to abolish the police during the height of the george floyd/blm riots. that's how the climate has change. to answer your question directly, and i put in the book, carbon taxes increase missions, period. when you put carbon taxes on the united states, canada, western europe, developed industrial economies, all you're going to do is offshore energy development to countries that don't have the same environmental standards and political safeguards and freedom that we have here, in europe, the united states and canada. so all that's going to happen is the more we we shut down and restrict our energy production, it just means

but the polarization is beyond question. and i think that's the other incredibly important context here. i think the other reason that we speak is on the ropes in many places united states is because we've imagined our political opponents as moral enemies. and that's never friendly to free speech. because if you're opening premise is the person who disagree with disagrees with you. if somehow a monster, well, what's the talk about? should you talk with the monster will of course not, you should defeat a monster. well, i think this is actually where your book provides a very interesting intersection between the domestic and the international discourse. because you make a very interesting point. there historically, political or rather geopolitical speech have always been limited in the united states under the pretext of not aiding the enemy. and it was only around the war and you have not when open criticism or b u. s. military action was becoming publicly acceptable. i wanted to know if counsel, culture and all these other fo

so that really gives us an idea of the polarization and the polarized reaction to this. some believe that he was a victim of one to flaming him because he was a trump report to the other thinking that he is a trump terrorist. so american still very much split down the middle. all these months softer, of course donald trump has vacated the white house. well, let's bring a now that's a moderate stop in american john. the law guy translator, we spoke to you earlier. of course, it seems to have settled down. i know you were in the thick of it. now we never return to them. so fed, i just want to get your opinion. what do you think? what do you pod, the drove him to make this quite dramatic threat. so i was here when the capital police chief announced that he was taken in without a struggle without incident they said that he had a criminal record in north carolina, but to capital police chiefs were nothing that serious and that he had his mother had recently passed way is the only other thing he mentioned. there was no mention of politics. they said they would be clearing the

that's where you see a more polarizing situation of the red states versus the blue states and how thisis handled. but the biden administration is doing more to create fear and uncertainty and chaos as the cdc has continuously pushed a very mixed message and not build the confidence in the american people to say let's just get the studying get vaccinated and really build the trust again. >>laura: fox news has obtained exclusive audio of a private meeting between homeland security want to secretary mayorkas and border patrol agents in texas were covid is spreading. >> >>laura: it was unsustainable back in february where the surge began now he says that? >> i'm so glad that kamala harris is on top off this. i have no worries. [laughter] we have to stop importing covid if they are worried about utah then stop importing it on the border what they are doing with an open border i do agree with the governor from arizona called for the firing of secretary mayorkas he doesn't have operational control and had we had when he took office shame on him who voted for his approval and confirmation the

therefore he remains a polarizing figure as the polls this morning suggests. that may or may not give i will say the next pole of historians ranking. >> for viewers on social media who are asking about survey participants, that information available on a website cspan2.org/president survey 2021 is where you can go. we can look up the participants in deep dive and look at the very scores all available at c-span.org. for entering her second hour of the fourth survey. our historian survey and we are joined this morning by our panel of historian advisors. again it's doug brinkley from texas, michigan richard norton smith, via zuma amity shlaes author historian and here in washington dc professor ed net green medford of howard university with this for another hour to take your phone calls. the first color in this hour comes in the land of lincoln, lincoln placed first in all four of the surveys, judah is in illinois a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i like the first state i don't meet any box but i am a republican, my family has been republican s

people who were halfway on the vaccine are getting polarized now, whether to have it or not.rankly, i think as we're just beginning to discover that there is a -- there has been a deleterious economic effect by people declining -- so many people declining to get vaccinated. i think as that increases, we're going to see some more minds change just as we've seen minds change recently, as people see their friends and loved ones get the virus. howie: there's been an uptick, which is good, meanwhile the cdc's mask guidance has real impact. the d.c. mayor imposed a mask mandate which is why i have to wear one of these in the washington bureau despite relatively low numbers here. the cdc chief tells bret baier on friday that the biden administration is looking into the idea of a national vaccine mandate, covering the whole country. an hour later she walks it back on twitter, no, no, no mages nal mandate. i was talking about individual companies. have you ever seen such botchedded communications. >> it was a disaster by the cdc, whether about mask guidance or about what's happening w

>> a polar 12 lifted off in the driving rain. >> pete comrade reports the program is in.ar. >> [inaudible] a role program, and this baby is really going. >> 36 seconds later, lightning struck the spacecraft. >> i don't know what happened here. we had [inaudible] dropped out. hit by lightning. feels those disconnecting. overload one and two [inaudible] . >> okay, we're also eyes to get you. >> we had a couple of cardiac arrests down here too, pete. >> well i'll tell you one thing, it's a first class ride. we've got to go orbit, you are looking good. >> in space and on earth, they checked out the systems to be sure that the lightning had caused no damage that would endanger the mission. the time for commitment neared. the burn two-cent apollo 12 to the moon. trans learner injection, tli. >> apollo 12 houston, there were days you are good for tli. >> okay, to, we are ready. we didn't expect anything else. >> we didn't train for anything else, pete. >> you'd better believe it. >> okay, we have data, and thrust is go. burnt looks good. >> with engine cut off, apollo 12 was on