Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
15 p.m. Eastern, author Stephen Puglio, with his book, The Great Abolitionist, discusses the career and life of abolitionist and politician Charles Sumner, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874.
Then, at 4:45 p.m. Eastern, author Elizabeth Reese, with her book, Marquis de Lafayette Returns, recounted the 1824-1825 trip Lafayette took through the young United States when he returned after the Revolutionary War.
And at 7 p.m. Eastern, lead up to Inauguration Day, American History TV looks back at famous inaugural speeches.
This weekend, speeches by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Harry Truman's 1949 address, and Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 address.
Exploring the American story.
Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Good morning.
It's Sunday, December 28th, 2024.
We're days away from the end of the year and just a few weeks away from the start of a new era of Republican-run Washington.
But despite the unified control of all three branches of federal government, the country itself is anything but.
So this morning, we want to hear your thoughts on America's political divide.
What's behind it?
How serious is it?
Can it be fixed?
Our phone lines for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
If you'd like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003.
Please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
And on social media, we're at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
Now, there are some who think that America's political divide might not be that much of a problem.
Among them, Andy Kessler, who has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that ran on December the 22nd, which says in part, this country is strong precisely because we don't all think the same way.
New ideas come from new ways of thinking.
When you vote, you get some of what you want, but not everything.
Life is about compromises.
The extremes of the left and right make the most noise, but we're still governed from the center.
Our political divisions today might seem like the Grand Canyon, but pre-1989 Berlin was about real and quite literal divides.
Ours are wafer-thin in comparison.
For those who don't like Donald Trump, get over it.
Stop threatening to leave.
Many didn't like the Obama years.
I cringed with every utterance of the socialist concept of equity during the Biden years.
People dealt and moved on.
It isn't in any politician's interest to heal divides.
So we get the vast right-wing conspiracy and own the libs.
Division is here to stay.
The rest of us need to learn how to deal with it.
Now, on the other hand, there are many who believe that America's political divisions are a problem and should be reconciled.
Among them include Senators Warnack and Lankford, as pointed out in this Axios article.
Senators Warnack and Lankford call for unity in a polarized America.
Senators Raphael Warnack, a Democrat of Georgia, and James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, compared U.S. political polarization and fatigue to family dynamics in an interview with NBC's Meet the Press.
The comments from the only two ordained ministers in the Senate come as the nation grapples with a divisive post-election ideological divide.
Now, let's look at some clips from that conversation on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday.
Do you all have conversations about how you can restore bipartisanship?
Are those conversations happening?
Absolutely.
And I can tell you that for me, and I'm sure Senator Lankford would agree, bipartisan work is as basic as the American covenant, e pluribus unum, out of many one.
And so, you know, we have differences of opinion, but the issue is our humanity and trying to build and strengthen the American family.
That's the spirit with which I come to this work.
It's informed by my years as a pastor.
I still lead my church.
And I'm deeply honored to work with Senator Lankford and this week and in recent days we've been trying to think about ways we can do more work together.
Senator Lankford, tell me about some of those conversations.
How do you start the conversation of how you can do more work together?
So what's interesting is I really don't think of this as bipartisan work.
This is just American work.
Most people don't think of themselves first as Republican, Democrat, Independent.
They think of them first as just human beings and neighbors and people that work in families.
And so really what we're talking about is how do people who disagree sit down and figure it out?
That's where we are.
Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. is a mirror to the country that the country doesn't really like.
Everybody looks at Washington, D.C. and says those people yell at each other and everything else.
And I typically will smile at folks when they say those crazy people yell at each other.
It's like, what was Thanksgiving like when your whole family got together last year?
What happens is family members get together, they aren't together all the time, they see their differences and they have arguments.
I was like, well, that's D.C. That's what's happening.
People that disagree.
But the difference is we're not supposed to just come here and just figure out how to be bipartisan.
We're supposed to figure out how to solve problems.
And two people that disagree or 100 people that disagree or 435 in the House that disagree have got to be able to sit down, be grown-ups, and say, let's talk this out.
Let's figure it out.
Do you feel like you're in a minority of people who care about figuring it out right now in Washington?
Because certainly across the country, as we're saying, relationships, conversations are fractured.
Yeah, conversations are fractured.
I don't think I'm in a minority that want to figure it out.
I think I'm in a minority that has hope we will figure it out.
I think a lot of people have just lost hope this gets better.
And I think that's the emotion of the country is they want it to be fixed, but they can't figure out how it's going to actually happen.
The latest poll I saw was over 70% of the people in the country don't like the direction of the country.
That's not a political statement.
It's an emotional statement.
Like, what's happening to us as Americans?
And my basic statement is, well, Americans are all made up of individual Americans.
When each person decides they're going to do it different, America decides they're going to do it different.
Senator Lankford there on Meet the Press, along with Senator Raphael Warnack, mentioning some polling about how America see political, Americans see political polarization in this country.
There's additional research from the Annenberg School of Communication with a new study showing that political polarization between Americans stays consistent before and after elections.
Finding that during that a new study from the Annenberg School of Communication, researchers Neil Fashing and Yaakta Leix found that this is not the case, that there's political polarization, that it would spike after and before the election.
Political polarization remains consistently high before, during, and after elections, even during contentious times.
Scholars have widely accepted that as elections draw near and campaigning reaches a fever pitch, effective polarization increases, only to recede in the days and weeks following the election.
But in the current moment, even a contentious election season doesn't seem to ramp political animosity up or down.
They found that support for democratic norm violations, such as reducing the number of polling stations in areas dominated by the other party, support for political violence, like hurting a protester from the other party, and effective polarization, an overall measure of how negatively or positively Democrats and Republicans feel towards the other party, hardly changed from the pre-election period to the post-election period.
Now, again, you can call and share your thoughts on political polarization in this country.
Our number for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Independents at 202-748-8002.
Let's start with Danny in Yuma, Arizona, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Danny.
Good morning.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you guys at C-SPAN and all around the country.
As I see it, this is only my opinion, which I think is pretty good.
I used to be an independent prior to the 2016 election until I saw with my two eyes what these Democrats are all about.
These are not the Democrats of JFK.
These are not the Democrats of your grandparents' generation.
And what they are doing to these cities with the lawlessness that's going on, which was so recently done was that a legal alien burned that poor lady to death on the subway in New York City.
Now, that's just one case.
I mean, these illegal aliens shouldn't even be allowed in the country, and they're doing all of this bad stuff to us.
And the Democrats are allowing them free reign to do whatever the hell they want.
So, Danny, what do you think might help deal with political polarization in the country?
Or do you think it's an issue?
Well, right now, I think it's an issue because nobody listens to each other.
Like I said, these Democrats right now of the AOCs and all these other ones, they're all these words I'm looking for.
I can't think of it.
But anyways, they've got their own agenda going on, and they want to change this country.
They don't like America.
They want to change it into Venezuela and this and that.
And I think that people, politicians have to sit down and not talk at each other, but listen to each other.
Okay.
Paul is calling from England in the United Kingdom on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Paul.
Morning, morning.
I think regarding politics, it's a lot of stress country, I think, in Britain.
They don't listen to each other, you see politicians.
I suppose that's the way politics is.
The dogma's all kind of are both sides, aren't they?
I think.
If they work together, like the previous caller said, the Maravi in particular, if they were.
Looks like we lost Paul.
Let's go with Tom in Mauritius, New York, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Tom.
Good morning.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to just say that the lawbreaking in this country is just beyond belief.
And it was all created by the Democrats.
Donald Trump had the border secured, and they just went and just completely crushed it.
They're selling our border wall for five cents on the dollar.
It's a joke.
My company was put out of business by the illegal immigration and the people that don't pay taxes.
How does this country function without everybody playing by the rules?
I don't understand.
It's just not right.
It's not fair.
And the Democrats created it.
And I think they should be, I think they should just be disqualified from being in politics.
The Democrats are just, they're real dirty.
What they did to Donald Trump for the last nine years, lying, Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
And then you find out Joe Biden and his kid had just been robbing this country left and right.
And the Democrats all stick up for him and they conceal his corruptness and his so Tom, what you're describing sounds a lot like some of the feelings around political polarization in this country.
Do you see any solutions to sort of bridging that divide or do you think the divide should be bridged?
I think we need to have the rule of law back in this country.
Everybody needs to abide by the rule of law.
If we can't agree on that, we'll not agree on anything because people just can't keep breaking the law and getting away with it while we pay the taxes and we pay their bills.
We're paying for people to come into our country, break the law.
They're murdering people and no one seems to care.
And I do.
I'm tired of it.
I'm very tired of it.
I'm glad Donald Trump won, and I hope he takes care of the illegal immigration problem.
That will go a long way to solving the problems in America.
Thank you very much.
James is in Sebring, Florida, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, James.
Happy New Year.
Thank you.
I was talking about everybody finger pointing at everybody.
The people that come across the South border ask political asylum and they go through the court system.
They're not here unlegal.
Now, there is unlegal aliens that are in this country are not legal because they didn't go through the channel of asking for political asylum.
That's about one in New York and all that.
So James, several previous callers have brought up illegal immigration as one of the issues leading to political polarization in this country.
Do you think that's one of the major causes as well?
Yeah, that's part of the cause.
But most of these people, the 10 million people that went across the South border, asked for political asylum, and there's a due process by the Constitution of the United States.
Every person had the right to apply.
And I don't understand why independent Republican says that they were the Democrats.
The Democrat follows the rules of the law.
So what do you think is the solution to political polarization in the country?
Finger pointing and, well, I could say that, you know, Trump one time said that we're going to have a civil war.
I go, why would we have a civil war?
I don't get that.
It's due process by the law of the land and with the Constitution and each state.
And the Republicans said it's my way or the highway.
It doesn't work that.
They have to work out together.
Sitting down and work out our problems.
Okay.
Brian is in Waco, Texas on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Brian.
Yes, the three previous callers you had in this caller here just explains everything right there.
It's like the two sides are on a different planet.
I mean, this guy just said that 10 million people are eligible for asylum.
The only reason they're saying they want asylum is because they know that's the way they can get in.
I mean, this country is more divided and probably always will be since the Civil War.
You take abortion.
There's no middle road on that.
You take national defense.
There's no middle road on that.
And I'm a Republican, and I have friends in other parts of the country.
I mean, I can't even communicate with them.
Not on politics anyway, but even on other subjects.
People are just divided, and it's something that this country will be for the rest of its being.
Thank you.
Brian mentioned that this is some kind of consistent state of America.
There's an essay in Bloomberg called How Political Polarization Ends and finds that history shows, if left untreated, extreme political and social divisions are a mortal threat to democracy.
This is by Jennifer McCoy, and it finds that as Americans digest the result of this was back closer to the election, this week's presidential election and wonder about the future of their country and its politics, they must reckon with the fact that political polarization seldom simply abates with a change in leadership.
In fact, history indicates that Democratic backsliding is a frequent outcome and sustained depolarization has usually occurred after a major shock to the political system.
Those shocks are often violent.
The good news is that depolarization is possible and is often spurred by democratic reforms.
The bad news, according to my research, is that it's also rare.
Polarization is a mortal threat to democracy.
And if the U.S. hopes to avoid violence and authoritarianism, it needs to contemplate significant reforms to its political institutions and reinvigorate a commitment to common purpose.
Gilbert is in Ohio on our line for independence.
Good morning, Gilbert.
Hi.
The frequent outcome of the Commission.
So you just need to turn down the volume on your TV and then go ahead, Gilbert.
So if I'm shaky, please excuse me.
We're going to try to come back to you when you get your line together.
Let's hear from Helen in California on our line for Democrats.
Hi.
I think something that people should be aware of is the truth.
Nobody wants to believe the truth even when it's the truth.
I'm a Democrat and the Republicans, every time I want to talk to them about the truth or show them the proof of the truth, they don't believe it.
They won't accept the truth because it doesn't fall into their MO, how they view the truth to be.
And part of that problem is the politicians aren't telling us the truth.
I would say more the Republican than the Democrats, but they want to, they tell us what they want us to believe, not what is the actual truth.
But truth is so easily looked up and found out.
I can't imagine, especially now, that people don't want to take the time to look up things because it's so easy.
If they're afraid to find out the truth, then they're afraid to live.
I mean, that's what we're doing, right?
I mean, we've made a decision.
We have President Trump that's going to be coming into office, and he's going to be the president, and we're going to honor and respect him.
But what if things happen?
And maybe, you know, things are going to change, and that's scary.
I just hope, you know, and pray for the best for everyone.
And just, you know, be honest with each other, even yourselves.
All right.
Thank you.
On X, D. Harry McGee says, what would unity even look like?
It's not something that ever existed.
Can anyone point to a period in which there were not opposite poles of opinion?
Going back to that Bloomberg piece, looking at other periods of polarization around the world, the chart here finds that only 27 of the 105 cases that the authors looked at involved at least short-term depolarization without regime change, conflict, or independence.
And only seven occurred within a democracy.
The vast majority, 78% of these 105 depolarizing experiences, that is the political polarization eased, were sustained or managed for a subsequent decade.
When looking at the long term, up to 2020, however, nearly half of those instances of depolarization were later reversed.
This illustrates just how hard it is to overcome pernicious polarization.
Even many countries that succeeded ultimately endue a cycle, ultimately endure a cycle of polarization, depolarization, and repolarization.
Steve is in Webster, Massachusetts, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Steve.
Good morning, Kimberly, and I'm wishing you a happy new year.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I think the nature of democracy is a divide.
It's human nature in a democracy to debate, okay?
And you look at history, for example, you look at our revolution versus the French Revolution.
There's so many cases of this, okay?
And we know that the War of 1812, the Federalists did not want to go to war.
They almost seceded from the Union.
Adams was the last Federalist president.
John Locke, I think, is the basis of, well, he spoke of life, liberty, and property, which is the basis of our country of sovereignty.
You compare this to the French Revolution.
They found the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who thought of discourse on inequality, he wrote.
And it was basically saying that property is the root of all evil.
They were more based on social justice.
And we see this today.
We see the difference between the rurals and the city people.
And this can date back to the 17th century of country party, the Whigs versus the courts of the Tories, okay?
And this goes on today, this philosophy.
We just have difference of opinions.
And I think the last thing, one of the problems is people say we shouldn't talk politics.
Okay, if you don't want to talk politics, then talk philosophy, okay?
What do you want?
Do you want freedom and sovereignty?
Or do you, you know, in a democracy, or do we want, say, a country like Communist China, one-party rule?
That's the debate that we need.
And we see today that China is becoming not, I wouldn't say the root of all evil, I mean Trump.
And I'll, you know, Trump sees China as a threat.
You know, they do more trade with Latin America than the United States.
On the other hand, Trump values cheap labor, okay?
So we need to talk about the issues, okay?
And we also need to realize the difference between the political divide and political polarization, okay?
And even polarization, people tend to really.
Steve, can you say more about that?
What do you mean about the distinction between the political divide and political polarization?
Well, polarization is merely extremes, okay?
You're going to have extremists on both sides, and you need to listen to them.
Somewhere in the federal papers, I forget which one it is, they spoke about democracy is the rule of the majority.
However, it is also the permission of the minority, okay?
And the minorities tend to be overlooked in this country in all issues, okay?
It's majority rule.
Oppression by the majority is what democracy can be called.
But we still have debate in this country, and that's a good thing, and it's healthy.
I was just quickly looking.
I believe you're referring to Federalist Paper Number 10.
Thank you for your call, Steve.
Steve was giving quite a bit of historical context to some of the political divisions in America.
C-SPAN spoke with retiring members of Congress from both parties about what they think it would take to make Washington work better, and here are some of their answers.
I think part of the problem with the place is that it's a reflection of what's happening in our society.
If somehow we could deal with this issue of the splintering of information, the fact that people get a narrative that reinforces whatever their bias might be, and so very often we find ourselves at odds because we have a different set of facts that are the foundation of the conversation.
That has to change somehow.
And this place ought to be one of the places where we can at least agree on a common set of facts.
We're supposed to be smart people that aren't moved by the sort of siloing of the information that comes before us.
A downhill, there's a descent into money, money, money, money in politics.
I have authored, co-sponsored every last form of campaign finance reform.
The Supreme Court certainly didn't help with Citizens United and cases before that.
But Citizens United has allowed all of this dark money.
I mean, it's a system that we would associate with banana republics.
We need to spend more time really communicating and listening to one another, and a lot of that is lost in the busyness of the day.
I always try to lead by example and set a good example of people for my colleagues and people back in Delaware who watch what I do.
I think the other thing is actually to have leaders who understand what leaders are all about.
I have a mature speech I give about leadership that would fill up the rest of this interview.
But We need leaders who bring all the right qualities to the job and demonstrate that.
Leaders are humble, not haughty.
They have the heart of a servant.
They understand their job is to serve, not be served.
Leaders surround themselves with the best people they can find.
And when their team does well, the leader gives the credit to the team.
Those were some retiring members of Congress sharing their ideas for what could help ease some of the partisan acrimony in Congress.
Let's go to some of your comments from social media.
Facebook, on Facebook, Ralph Hess, says that one solution to political polarization in this country could be to create laws that will prevent lobbyist donors from throwing money at elected officials.
These politicians are all bought up except Trump.
Christian Clark says, no, not as long as Trump and the MAGA movement remains entrenched in American society.
This is in response to the question, can it be fixed?
They just caused too much hate and division in our country.
Once their movement has been disavowed and discredited, only then can we all start to work together again as one nation.
And Michael Thornton says on X, the political divide is irrelevant.
It's the economic divide that needs to be addressed.
Again, you can send us your comments on social media at facebook.com slash C-SPAN or on X at C-SPANWJ.
Let's get back to your calls.
Robert is in Amarillo, Texas on our line for independence.
Good morning, Robert.
Hello.
Hello.
What do you think of political polarization in this country?
Well, first I'd like to make a note that not having James Ricard's on Washington Journal book review is a real disservice to the public.
I mean, the man is extremely brilliant.
I'd love to see his book featured.
But on the topic, today, even the great Barbara Jordan could not convince people to vote their particular way in today's society.
And coincidentally, you just showed Anna Eshu.
I believe she's from California, who just made my point for me, which I was about to say, is that political divide begins with hate.
Eliminate hate and call it out.
And Anna Eshu mentioned the Supreme Court, which is going to be my point.
When you go out in society, who do you respect?
I mean, for me, I respect large families, especially women with large families walking around in the grocery store as an example.
It is rare, expensive, and demanding.
So when you have an individual like Amy Coney Barrett with seven children who becomes a nominee for the Supreme Court, she's a mother of seven, but she's also brilliant.
She was first in her class at Notre Dame.
And immediately thereafter, Chuck Schumer comes out and makes all kinds of disparaging remarks about her having nothing to do with her values and her repertoire of skills.
So the left in general always challenged her values throughout her hearings.
There is no reason that she should not have been voted 100 to zero in her confirmation.
So thank you very much for the topic.
Okay.
Noah is in Tuscumbia, Alabama on our line for independence, excuse me, for Democrats.
Good morning, Noah.
Good morning.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, I can hear you just fine.
Okay, thank you.
Well, you know, most of the division, you know, like Congress, Democrats, Republicans, all, they get this money.
It's not just from lobbyists and stuff.
I mean, it's like the Visa lady, they call her now, Nancy Pelosi, dumped her stock, you know, right before an investigation was launched.
They get heads up on everything.
They play by different rules.
And I'm not just talking about Democrats.
Republicans do it too.
Like they got that $17 million payoff for stuff like that.
Gates down in Florida, the Republican with the sexual stuff, you know, comes out.
And Democrats do it too if they released all the settlements they got.
See, they get these things that we don't have.
And as far as illegal aliens are coming across the border, I mean, we should have a plan like the Martha's Vineyard Deportation Act where they only stayed on Martha's Vineyard for 24 to 48 hours.
And boy, they was out of there.
So, Noah, given those things that are kind of contributing to the political polarization, what do you think should be done about it, if anything?
Make them play by the same rules everybody else does.
They live in these like gated communities, only they got extra gates and extra tile.
I mean, Martha's Vineyard proved that, if nothing else.
Nancy Pelosi, when I heard about her husband being attacked, you know, a month before that, an illegal alien hit him in the head with a hammer.
I thought it was because that month before he got drunk and hit that illegal alien, and they wouldn't even release the body cam.
On me or you, they released that body cam the next day.
I mean, they get different.
All right, let's hear from Jerry in Richmond, Indiana on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jerry.
Good morning.
Yeah, I think a lot of it has to do.
You had the lady from California that said the truth, that Republicans can't recognize the truth.
Well, if Democrats would tell the truth now and then, you know, it might help things a little bit more.
You know, we've been lied to for the last four years.
Oh, no problem at the border.
Crime is done.
Joe Biden is sharp as attack.
You try one guy for supposedly having classified documents.
The other guy, you say too senile, so you're not going to try.
He's too senile, but you're going to run him again for president until the debate.
And you already know that he's too senile to be president.
So, you know, every now and then we tell the truth, it might help.
And, you know, all they want to holler about is Trump lies, Trump lies, Trump lies.
Well, I think we've seen more lies the last four years from Democrats than we've ever seen before.
Okay.
E.J. is in Miamisburg, Ohio, on our line for independence.
Good morning, E.J. Hey, good morning.
I enjoy a spirited philosophical debate, but to answer the question directly, and I want everybody to just sort of dwell on this, the fix would come with term limits because every politician, the day after he's elected, what is he doing?
Okay, he's trying to get re-elected.
And this just goes on and on.
And if you want to end corruption, and it all comes down to the money end of it, you know.
But if you want to end the corruption, you would just set reasonable term limits.
And, you know, I've been around for a really, really long time.
And since Kennedy.
And I've seen the ups, and I've seen the downs, and I've heard the lies on both sides and recognize that I am an independent.
Fact of the matter is, if we had significant term limits, it would end a lot of the infighting.
And understand, these guys are right now trying to give themselves a raise.
So with all that said, I would just like everybody to dwell on the most important thing is to get term limits on a general election ballot.
And we've got to move these people out and bring in fresh blood.
And I'm an old white man, but I'm so sick and tired of old white men on both sides saying everything that they are.
Term limits.
Think about it.
Thank you.
Pete is in Duxbury, Massachusetts on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Pete.
Hi there.
Yeah, hey, we've always had political divide, but obviously it's at a fever pitch right now.
And we just aren't that shiny city on a hill anymore, are we?
So I think both parties are relatively evil.
I think the Democrats are just a little less.
But I would like my MAGA, what's left of the Republican Party, to ponder, what do you think Musk is all about?
He is an evil, self-serving person.
Do you think he cares one iota about you?
Do you think RFK does?
I mean, we already know Trump laughs at his own supporters.
I mean, he's just in it to stay out of jail and for the fixation of power.
And so I don't know what the solution is.
You know, we're too far gone.
And I think a lady mentioned the Citizens United, the money, the lobbyist.
It's a system run amok and, you know, special interests.
But I'd like people to focus on these individuals that he is trying to bring in.
Musk was not even in the political spectrum six months ago.
His behavior is beyond reprehensible.
He may be smart, but he's a very evil guy.
And I would like people to focus on that.
Jim is in Hudson, Florida on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jim.
Good morning.
I think one way to kind of cut down on the fear of fraud is to, on Election Day, have all the polling closes open for 24 hours.
And if you're a local resident and you can't get there in 24 hours, then you shouldn't vote.
Now, my wife and I, we've been a residence of Florida for over 12 years.
We've always gotten a ballot, mailed it back for the presidency.
And we're voting for people in Louisville that are mayors and that.
We shouldn't be voting for them.
But then we should be able to go to a local polling place here in Florida, show our residents that we live in Kentucky, and they give us a ballot, and we can only vote for the president of the United States.
And I think that would help tremendously.
I feel if you can't go to the polls in 24 hours, if you're a local resident, then you shouldn't be able to vote.
That would cut down on all this fraud of getting collective ballots and this and that.
I think everyone should have to go to the polls personally, get a ballot, vote, put it in the machine, and that's it.
And if you can, as you live outside, you should be able to vote for the presidency.
You go to a poll here in Florida, show them your Kentucky license.
They give you a ballot, and it only has for the presidency on it.
Have locally because you shouldn't vote for locally people down here.
You're not part of the residence down here.
And I think that would help tremendously.
And I appreciate you taking my call.
Thank you.
Barbara is in Oklahoma on our line for independence.
Good morning, Barbara.
Hi.
I just don't understand why people don't see what's going on now.
I mean, he put the swamp in charge.
Who did they think that Musk is?
He's the swamp.
There's nobody more swampy than him.
And all billionaires are the swamp.
And that's who's running this country right now.
Who is the he you're referring to?
President-elect Donald Trump?
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
And all he teaches is hate, fear, vengeance, and just violence.
That's all he's about.
And this crap that he didn't take us.
Given that perspective, Barbara, how do you think we can bridge political polarization in this country if there are a lot of people out there who might think like you do?
Up.
He should have been locked up 50 years ago.
This man breaks every law and just laughs at us.
And they're acting like, oh, he didn't take a salary.
He took his salary.
He said, they made me take it, but I gave it to charity.
He's never.
So, Barbara, do you think there's anything to be done about political polarization in the United States?
Yes, get rid of people like that.
Don't suck it up to someone who's destroying your country.
He's destroying everything we have here, every decent thing.
And every day you let three hours of lies be told today.
Oh, Biden did this at the border.
All Biden did was try to fix the border.
Okay, so there have been quite a few spirited debates over political polarization and differences of political opinion here on C-SPAN over the years.
Perhaps one of the most famous when two brothers came on and had a phone call that resonated with many people.
It's written about here in the Carolina Journal.
Oh, God, it's Mom, the phone call heard around the world 10 years later.
And this was 10 years ago this week.
Joyce Woodhouse made a phone call that was heard around the world.
And this was when two brothers, Dallas Brad and Dallas Woodhouse, were on political strategists on opposite sides of the political spectrum, were on C-SPAN, but they also joined us this past week, this week, to, excuse me, last week in order to discuss efforts to bridge the divide and to talk about that very famous phone call from a decade ago.
Here's a clip.
A minute ago, you mentioned your mother.
It was about this exact time when you were appearing on this program, the last hour of the Washington Journal, 10 years ago, that your mother called into this program.
Joyce Woodhouse is her name.
And this is that moment from 10 years ago.
You're right.
I'm from down south.
Oh, God, and I'm your mother.
And I disagree that all families are like ours.
I don't know many families that are fighting at Thanksgiving.
Is this your mother?
I was very glad that this Thanksgiving was a year that you two were supposed to go to your in-laws.
And I was hoping, and I'm hoping you'll have some of this out of your system when you come here for Christmas.
Yeah, we were not together this Thanksgiving.
We are mostly.
I would really like a peaceful Christmas.
And I love you both.
December 16th, 2014, Dallas Woodhouse.
You mentioned your mom.
How's she doing?
I mean, she's still sharp as a tack.
She doesn't quite get along as good as she did, but neither do Brad and I.
And I'll notice that on that clip, you know, she said she loves us both.
She didn't say she loves us both equally.
Yeah, just for the record.
We know that.
Glorious Brad town.
You've never seen anything like it.
One thing I want to say about that clip that's interesting is I always remember it: it did not sound to me at the time like it does when you play the clip.
In other words, Steve Scully says, We've got a call from Raleigh, North Carolina, and that's all I heard.
And then he says the name Joy.
Well, Joy is my sister.
My mom is Joyce.
But my sister wasn't living there at the time, but I never heard the name.
So all I heard was Raleigh.
And I go, well, somebody from down south interrupted like.
And then that's what surprised me so much.
And that's why, you know, I mean, the clip is, you know, a big part of this, me going, oh, God, it's mom.
I mean, I was just so, so, so shocked.
So, Dallas Woodhouse, who was just speaking there, wrote about this for the Carolina Journal.
And among the things he said, Brad and I used our fleeting fame to encourage people to discuss politics in a measured and respectful way with their families.
We believed and continue to believe you can have sharp disagreements without believing the other side is evil.
Yes, you can disagree without being disagreeable.
Brad and I have strived for that.
We have succeeded more than we have failed.
Back to your calls.
John is in Oneida, New York, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, John.
Hi, this is John.
You know, sometimes it feels, how can I say, weird, because that Republicans always think that Democrats are stupid.
Democrats think that Republicans are stupid because of their beliefs.
Like, take like book bet, like the books, like in Florida.
People in Florida want to get rid of books just out of spike, just to get back at the Democrats.
The Democrats get back at Republicans on certain things.
But Republicans, how can I say everything started when Donald Trump went down that escalator and opened up his mouth?
It's a shame that every time he talks, he lies.
He lies every 10 seconds.
And Republicans, if you give them a dictionary for everything Donald Trump says, they will not believe it.
You can show them a picture.
They will not believe it.
You can show them anything you want.
They will not believe it.
Just like when they had the Tea Party.
Then it was this party.
Then it was that party.
I don't know why.
How can I say people do not believe what they see?
And it's a shame.
And it's sad.
Most of the people out there do not do any stuff that Republicans think they do.
So what do you think should be done about political polarization, John?
Sometimes sometimes it has, I don't know, I don't know.
When Bush was in office, you never had that.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, one reason.
When Bush was in office, you never had that kind of problem.
You didn't have no, none of this fighting, none of this family against family fighting.
You didn't even have that in when John McCain was running for presidency.
They only had one person that said, Obama is a communist.
Obama is this.
Obama is that.
It has to start with Republicans.
I'm sorry to say this.
Republicans got to stop doing what they do because they're only hurting everybody else.
If they just stop some people from lying, especially Donald Trump.
If they just tell people that Donald Trump is lying.
Okay.
So let's hear now from Rebecca on our line for Republicans from Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Good morning, Rebecca.
Hello.
The guy from New York, good Lord, have mercy.
You're delusional.
The thing is, there's 75%, well, no, let's say three times more Republicans than there are Democrats.
That election proved that.
And Joe Biden is going to go down as the biggest lying president in modern history.
That's already been talked about.
He's lied about everything for four years.
And the Democrats have listened to this garbage.
And everything's the Republicans' fault.
That is such garbage.
Y'all have a good day.
Sean is in Florida on our line for independence.
Good morning, Sean.
Good morning.
I think this morning's discussion proved the point I'm about to make.
There is no solomic interpreter between the Democrats on Earth one and the Republicans on Earth two.
I don't see any way out of this other than for it to evolve into some sort of conflict, physical conflict, because the two sides simply cannot talk.
They're so far apart.
I think the only time we've actually been like this would be in 1850s, 1860s during the Civil War.
I don't see any way.
I'm open to discussions, but to be quite frank, I have friends of mine here and loved ones who are on the opposite end politically.
And we don't discuss these points because as much as we love each other, as much as we respect each other, we don't think that love and respect would last through the discussion.
Anyway, thank you for taking my call and have a thugs.
Good morning.
Independent Senator Kristen Sinema in her farewell address last week spoke about political division and cautioned against the risks it poses to our country.
You know, we've worked together and cleared the way for historic settlements, land transfer deals, water deals, economic certainty, all by listening to one another.
Not to debate or to rebut, but to understand.
It's this very marketplace of the diversity of ideas that makes our country great.
The knowledge that with dialogue and competition, we are driven to be more thoughtful and more creative.
And that is why, despite the challenges facing our country, I remain hopeful.
America is still the freest, most creative, and innovative place in the world.
We are the birthplace of emerging technologies in medicine, artificial intelligence, energy, robotics, all revolutionizing our global economy.
And the opportunities created by American ingenuity are limitless.
And we must not let our politics hold us back.
For America is still the shining city on the hill.
And it is up to each of us to protect it and to strengthen it.
We cannot afford to let political differences stand in the way of what tomorrow may bring.
We must hold firm to those guardrails, our shared commitment to the principles that our forefathers built this great country upon, and the ability and the willingness to see the decency in each other, our fellow citizens.
We must choose the better angels of our nature.
Back to your calls on the political divide in this country and whether it can be fixed.
Ted is in Ocean View, Hawaii on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Ted.
Good evening.
I'm sorry, it's still leaving.
Yes, good evening.
Apologies.
Middle of the Pacific and all.
You know, I've been listening to a lot of these people, and I think the most important thing is that people vote.
If there's so many millions of people that just don't vote, and I've talked to a lot of them myself, and I go, my goodness, we need to make our voices heard and vote.
There's going to be divide, and I don't think we can really get away from that.
You could talk about it for 50 years, but if you vote, and the votes are counted and tallied, and the winner wins.
And being a Democrat, I'm not feeling all that great right now because I know a lot of people didn't vote, and if those people would have voted, we would not have the president we have to, well, next month.
And I think that's really important that people need to activate their emotions and get out there and really vote.
It's going to make the difference.
Trying to change the divide.
I've watched it, and I've watched it tear apart families.
And I think people need to vote.
I've never missed a vote since 1972 when I was in the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon was up for president.
And that was my first chance to vote.
And I've always voted, and I think everybody needs to do that to keep our country going.
And it's most important: make your voice heard.
Vote.
Don't argue, vote.
Okay?
Angela is in California on our line for independence.
Good morning, Angela.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
I want to say that I feel the question political divide in the United States.
This country started as Republican when you talk about your forefathers and then it split into Democrat.
What is the political divide?
This is one country, 51 state.
If we don't address what the divide is, and like the young man said, we're going to end up in Civil War.
Civil War was to free the slaves.
What is this next Civil War going to be about?
What country politically fighted on?
Congress needs to sit down and hold a closed-door meeting and get it together.
You have all these races coming in, and racist, when y'all say racist, I go, what?
It's only one race.
There's a human race.
It's ethnicity is the issue in this country.
You keep going about the immigrants, but you haven't dealt with the black slave.
I'm an immigrant of a black slave born in Louisiana on a plantation.
You haven't dealt with that yet.
And to me, that's what your political divide is about.
You hear the Asian refreations, they bomb Pearl Harbor.
You let the Chinese in here, and they talking about bombers too.
Lee is in Alexandria, Virginia, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Lee.
Good morning.
I think that everyone has blind spots, and when you interact with people who are different from you, often you can learn something and remember that peace begins with you.
I think we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and often the loudest voices in the room are not necessarily the smartest or the ones with the best ideas.
I happen to be kind of a shy person.
And, you know, if someone is bullying me, I'm just going to walk away.
I am reminded of the song City on the Hill by Casting Crowns in 2011.
If you look at the lyrics of that, it really talks about how people can learn from other people who are different from them.
And it starts off, did you hear the City on the Hill? said one old man to the other.
It once shined bright and it would be shining still, but they all started turning on each other.
I think that's where we are.
And, you know, this was in 2011.
So this is an old story.
And we need to be patient, listen to other people, and learn from each other.
All right.
Kirvin is in Nagar Doches, Texas on our line for independence.
Good morning, Kirvin.
Good morning.
I always start off, I love everybody.
I love my Lord Jesus Christ.
And I believe the problem is there's not enough people that say they love Christ, love Christ.
Our Constitution is really the Bible, even though Just Man wrote it.
Because it addressed everybody equal.
That's what my Lord died for is all us to be equal.
There's no Democrat, Republican, or independence in heaven.
It's only Christ-like.
And my Lord said, if enough people will repent, turn away from their good ways, then he'll restore this land.
And the problem from that is man don't want to seek God.
They want to have a man to be their king or their savior or whatnot.
And the Bible speaks bad about that.
Man puts faith in man.
So I don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, whatnot, because if you do something wrong on one end, it's amazing how if you're a Republican or a Democrat and you do the exact same thing, it's evil, only it's another party.
And then people will vote against their own interest just to save their party.
It's amazing.
My Lord say, always keep your be aware of all things.
Keep your eyes open, be awake.
What they teach you today, being a woke, being woke is bad.
And then.
Well, Kervin, we're going to be discussing the concept of wokeness, actually, in our next segment.
So stay tuned for that.
Let's hear from John in Santa Paula, California on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, John.
Good morning, Kimberly.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'd like to say that one way of the political divides is to solve the problems.
We've had four years where the border has been a festering problem not being solved and everybody's fighting over it.
If somebody can just step in and just completely solve that problem, so you have a decisive person like Trump, and I think the more problems he solves, the more we put him behind us, the closer we're all going to get.
Like he says, success will solve a lot of things.
So one more thing I wanted to say: that I'm really excited about cabinet as being one of the solutions.
A lot of his cabinet members are Gen Xers.
The young people are going to start getting more involved.
I think that's a very good solution.
So I think all in all that Trump is up to solve problems, and I think that will help fix the political divides because there won't be any issues to argue.
They'll be done.
And I think we can move into the future with some new ideas.
And I think that if it's like Bob Dylan says, the times are changing.
You don't criticize what you don't understand.
So all in all, I'm pretty optimistic that once Trump gets in there and he's decisive and makes good, strong moves, that a lot of these political divides will be reconciled.
I think solve the issues of crime, the border.
So a lot of things.
So I'm hopeful.
Jean is in Detroit on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Jean.
Good morning.
I wanted to say that for me, one of the ways to begin to solve things, because I feel like so many problems are caused by the love and pursuit of money and power.
You know, I grew up when all businesses were closed on Sunday.
So we had a lot of family values.
And I think that we need, especially professing to be a Christian nation, which honors Sunday as the Sabbath day, that we need to restore the Sabbath so all of us can be off the same day and have family connections.
And if we so desire to go to church, but if we don't, we still have the same day of rest and can interact with one another.
And just one thing, too, for me, a lot of this rancor and dissension began with, in my lifetime anyway, with Newt Gingrich out of Georgia.
Prior to that, the representatives and senators, when they were elected, they would move their families to Washington.
So they all interacted.
Jean, I'm going to have to stop you there because we're about out of time for this segment.
Thank you to everyone who called in to share your perspectives on the political divide in the U.S. Coming next.
We're going to continue with this week's Holiday Authors series on Washington Journal.
We are in the midst of eight days of conversations with America's top writers from across the political spectrum on a variety of public policy and political topics.
And so after the break, we'll be joined by author Frank Buckley to discuss his book, The Roots of Liberalism.
We'll be right back.
American History TV,
exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, author Stephen Puglio, with his book, The Great Abolitionist, discusses the career and life of abolitionist and politician Charles Sumner, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874.
Then, author Elizabeth Rees, with her book, Marquis de Lafayette Returns, recounted the 1824-1825 trip Lafayette took through the young United States when he returned after the Revolutionary War.
And lead up to Inauguration Day, American History TV looks back at famous inaugural speeches.
This weekend, speeches by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Harry Truman's 1949 address, and Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 address.
Exploring the American story.
Watch American History TV every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Next week, C-SPAN digs into its archives to present President-elect Donald Trump's nominees in their own words, discussing policy, politics, and their relationship with the president-elect.
Our marathon continues on Monday with Tulsi Gabbard.
And then on Tuesday, we'll hear from Dr. Mehmet Oz and Mr. Trump's nominee for FBI Director Kash Patel.
Watch Trump nominees in their own words next week at 8 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
For more than 45 years, C-SPAN has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of Congress, open forum call-in programs, and unfiltered access to the decision makers that shape our nation.
And we've done it all without a cent of government funding.
C-SPAN exists for you, viewers who value transparent, no-spin political coverage.
And your support helps keep our mission alive.
As we close out the year, we're asking you to stand with us.
Your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% toward supporting C-SPAN's vital work, helping ensure that long-form, in-depth, and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era when it's needed more than ever.
Visit c-span.org slash donate or scan the code on your screen to make your tax-deductible contribution today.
Together, we can ensure that C-SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and future generations.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We're joined now by Frank Buckley, who is the author of The Roots of Liberalism, What Faithful Knights and The Little Match Girl Taught Us About Civic Virtue as part of our holiday author series.
Welcome to Washington Journal.
Thank you for having me.
So the main title of your book, The Roots of Liberalism, can you define liberalism in your book's coverage?
Oh, that's the whole point.
I don't think I can.
I mean, look, I'm an academic and I get really tired of theories.
So I started to look at liberalism because that's kind of the American tradition.
And what I discovered first of all was that, you know, definitions, theories weren't 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.
So then let's talk about the subtitle.
Who were the faithful knights and why the little match girl?
Well, yeah, yeah, the point is, you know, those stories take you to weird places.
So one of them was like Knights in Shining Armor, okay?
And I'll tell you a little story.
After the First Gulf War, Colin Powell was called to testify before Congress.
And he was told, 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 open.
We could have gone there.
I mean, it was just a highway of death.
But he said, in the circumstances, doing that would have been unchivalrous and un-American.
And so I thought, there's a tradition of chivalry that's built into the U.S. military and, you know, British 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 Knight.
Okay, so this is like 1370.
And he's led an English raid in France.
And he's surrounded by the French army.
He's got a small force, and he defeats them all.
And he captures the French king and all the French nobles.
And at night, the captives are served dinner by the black prince, the son of Edward I.
And he acts like a servant, and he says, you know, King John of France, you know, you shouldn't be sad.
You've won more honor today than anybody else.
So he went out of his way to make his defeated enemy feel good about himself.
That's basic to the idea of chivalry.
The idea is magnanimity.
And that's a proto-version of the Geneva Convention.
We have an excerpt here from your book.
Can you just read this little portion about it, which gets to this idea of chivalry?
On the title, the first one.
Okay, liberalism is not an abstract theory, but a tradition of virtues and customs embedded in our culture.
We learned magnanimity from the code of chivalry and were taught that brutishness is liberal from the code of the gentleman.
Through the stories of Hans Christian Anderson and the novels of Charles Dickens, kindness became a liberal virtue.
The Republican virtue of the founders can be traced back to 12th century CNA merchants.
Liberalism was born of the virtues and does not threaten them.
So that was my idea.
It's not a grand theory.
I mean, virtues are not something you define as a theory.
But liberalism, that which is roughly noble in our culture, is found not in theories, but in all those stories and people in our culture.
And, you know, your prior program was on kind of curing the political wounds in our society.
And I thought, what better way would there be to do that than for all of us to recognize that we're all part of that tradition?
And that civilizes us and teaches us how to behave to people on the other side.
You describe in your book the confusion surrounding the real meaning of liberalism.
What do you mean by that?
Well, it's a term which is hijacked by partisans left and right.
And I was looking for a kind of liberalism that's neither left nor right, but that embraces both.
I'm going, you know, look, so I've got a few years on me, more than you.
I go back to Kuhnskin caps and hula hoops in the Eisenhower era, and I'm remembering a time when everybody was a liberal, and we disagreed about certain things, but they were technical things, and reasonable people were permitted to differ.
But on basic questions, right, there was no disagreement.
And that, it seemed to me, had been missing in recent years.
So when I wrote the book, I wrote it kind of against the grain, and I wrote it at a time when a lot of people seemed to be giving up on the idea of liberalism, both right and left.
And that, I thought, was dangerous.
And I thought the way to cure, to heal our political wounds would be for us to recognize that which we have in common, which is our liberal tradition.
Now, sometimes you hear, and you mentioned that the term has been a bit hijacked by partisans.
What would you use to distinguish liberalism from progressivism from another term that's very popular, wokeism?
Well, you know, I don't like to get hung up on terms in part because I think it's kind of boring to start dumping on people.
Boy, there's a lot of that going on.
You know, we don't need more of that, right?
So, yeah, I'm in favor of progress, and I'm in favor of a whole bunch of things that, you know, diversity and so on.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.
Everything taken to the extreme becomes positively evil.
So we don't want to do that.
But with a spirit of moderation, we could probably all agree on most things.
so i'm not going to get hung up on labels particularly except that when i got started this i realized wait a minute these guys are not liberal and let's try to get back to who is these guys These guys.
You're pressing me.
Sorry.
That's your job.
Well, there is an intolerance strain, particularly in recent years, I thought, on the left.
And people who were self-satisfied, smug, censorious, and all of that.
All of these things they used to accuse 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, you know, maybe they should realize that if they're objecting to the censoriousness on the left, they're asserting the primacy of liberal values.
They're saying, you guys are illiberal.
Well, okay, that means you like liberalism.
In fact, in America, there's just a liberal tradition.
There's not a conservative tradition.
There's 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's what unites us.
Indeed, that's what makes us Americans.
To the extent you don't believe in that, you're less than American.
Would you mind reading that next excerpt from your book?
Okay, you're putting me to work.
I am.
Liberalism rests on a foundation of civic virtue and the desire of citizens or public officials to promote the common good.
The antonym of civic virtue is public corruption.
It's not corrupt a favor of subsets of society where it's just to do so, for example, to alleviate poverty or to correct an historical wrong.
But that apart, the voter or official who unjustly favors a part only of society is corrupt and reveals himself to be a liberal.
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's special about liberalism, and that's the idea of a universal ethic, right?
So the alternative of that is tribalism.
The alternative is only my tribe counts, or only my gender counts, whatever.
And that's not even a moral theory, right?
To count as a moral theory, it seems to me you have to say something like, everybody counts as one, nobody counts as more than one.
So, you know, in taking a look at the common good, I think we have to pay particular attention to people who are left behind, but we have to take everybody into account.
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.
I don't think there's anything particularly liberal about the desire to make a country great.
In fact, that can be the source of illiberalism.
Historically, it has been, right?
It's a sort of thing which propels a Napoleon to, you know, invade all of Europe and all of that.
But there's another side to liberalism and our liberal tradition.
Historically, our tradition of equality in the Declaration, which is liberal.
And the idea there is that if you're liberal, you should be feeling a sense of brotherhood, at least to everybody else in your society and your nation.
So there's a kind of liberal nationalism where you look at people who are left behind and you say, now this has got to be fixed.
So, you know, if you see someone who desperately needs help of one kind or another, you could say it's not just that that should happen.
We should try to fix that.
But you'll get more mileage, both politically and morally, I think, if you want to say it's not just that an American should live like that.
Let's listen to a bit of President-elect Trump's election night victory speech.
We're going to make our country better than it ever has been.
And I said that many people have told me that God spared my life for a 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're going to fulfill that mission.
The 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 that you've entrusted to me.
This is a great job.
There's 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, a great, great first term.
I will govern by a simple motto, promises made, promises kept.
We're going to keep our promises.
Nothing will stop me from keeping my word to you, the people.
We will make America safe, strong, prosperous, powerful, and free again.
And I'm asking every citizen all across our land to join me in this noble and righteous endeavor.
That's what it is.
It's time to put the divisions of the past four years behind us.
It's time to unite.
And we're going to try.
We're going to try.
We have to try.
And it's going to happen.
Success will bring us together.
I've seen that.
I've 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 all putting America first.
We have to put our country first for at least a period of time.
We have to fix it.
Because together we can truly make America great again for all Americans.
Now, I'd like to contrast that speech for you with a portion of Vice President Harris's concession speech last month, where she advised her supporters not to despair, especially the folks who think that the nation is entering a dark time.
Let's listen to that and then I'd like to get your thoughts.
You have the capacity to do extraordinary good in the world.
And so, to everyone who is watching, do not despair.
This is not a time to throw up our hands.
This is a time to roll up our sleeves.
This is a time to organize, to mobilize, and to stay engaged for the sake of freedom and justice and the future that 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 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'll close with this.
There's an adage an 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's the thing: America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, brilliant billion of stars.
The light, the light of optimism, of faith, of truth, and service.
Now, I know that traditionally, especially in the political narrative that we have, people would associate what Trump was saying with conservatism and what Harris was saying with liberalism.
If we apply your framework, where do those two speeches fit?
Well, I didn't see either of them as being representative of one thing or another.
These were simply partisan politicians, period.
You know, when I went through my little rambling tour of our history, one thing that struck out was something called the investiture crisis, which is 800 years ago.
And the idea was that was a signal 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 that it's important to have something other than politics to guide your life.
So 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 what you just put on the screen doesn't define me one way or another.
Let me say one other thing on the subject of, this is Trump now, and prosperity.
Liberalism is on the side of prosperity, I think.
There is that connection historically.
I mean, liberalism has meant free markets and the like.
It's meant the abolition of slavery.
It's 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're making each other better off, and that's a good thing.
And the second thing about a prosperous society is a welfare system is the kind of a luxury good for a rich society.
If you want to have a decent welfare state, you want to have a rich society, right?
And so you have to be on the side of prosperity yourself.
That therefore should be something that unites us.
We are ready to take your questions for Mr. Buckley on his book and on the topic of liberalism more generally.
Our number for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
We're going to start with Lou in Highland Park, Illinois on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Lou.
Good morning, Mr. Buckley.
Hi, Lou.
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'd like you to maybe expound on some of that.
Well, one thing you're not going to get from me, I'm sorry, is 100% precision.
I mean, you know, you realize that's 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're describing.
So there's 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 that we wouldn't have such a thing as inflation.
And right, with the benefit of history, that's been disproven.
So we work our way kind of murkily through all of these things without any kind of clearer guidance as to where we're going, but with a vague goal at the end of it all.
And we don't get better than that, I don't think.
You know, our caller mentioned sort of the role of money in politics a bit.
And I want to direct your attention to an article in The Atlantic by Franklin Fuller about what is referred to here as the unique danger of a Trumpist oligarchy.
A corrupt cabal of billionaires would entangle themselves with the Trump administration and form a double-barreled threat to the American system.
I'll read a bit of that.
The Trumpist oligarchy that is taking shape is far different from the post-Soviet strain.
What makes 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 relationship between a corrupt leader and a business elite always 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 the 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 erode democracy all at once.
This was back in the that's going to happen immediately, isn't it?
I mean, like the day after the inauguration, it's all over.
I think the thing about pundits is what you have to realize is: number one, they tend to be totally partisan, and number two, they tend to be completely chiliastic, right?
The end of the world is happening.
So I noticed that what Ford mentioned were, you know, buzzwords meant to inflame his constituents, I suppose I could call them, right?
I mean, you have to mention Russia somehow in all of this, 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 a word salad which roughly represents pretty much everything everybody on the left has said in the last eight years or so.
And forgive me, but you know, I'm going to just wait and see what happens.
And I'm skeptical about doomsayers.
I am sympathetic to people who talk about money and politics, although I think we should recognize when, 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.
So it's not the case that anybody has moral standing here to complain.
The pretension of moral standing, you know, the sneer on the lips of people who tell you that they're pure and you're not.
I've kind of had enough of that.
So yeah, I'd like to see, I'm not a fan of American campaign finance laws, but that's simply the road we've gone down.
And what has happened, I mean, this is a legal question which we're not going to get into, but there's kind of a trade-off here between corruption and liberty.
And we've taken the stand in favor of liberty, and we're going to accept a certain amount of corruption.
I wish it were otherwise, but then that's just the way it is.
All right, let's hear from Henry in Fort Grashett, Michigan, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Henry.
Good morning.
Mr. Buckley, I think, is kind of like a little bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If you look at his last name, it's Buckley, so that might tell us a little bit about him.
No, it doesn't actually tell us anything about him.
What's your question, Henry?
Okay, I digress.
I'd like to do a little simple exercise and try to distill this a little bit more, Mr. Buckley.
I'm going to mention some phrases, little words or phrases from the Constitution of the United States.
And I want you to tell me if that word or phrase comports mostly with a Democratic side or a Republican side.
It's simple.
No, we don't have to have any kind of discussion.
Just tell me if this comports more with the Democratic side or the Republican side.
You ought yes or no, huh?
I just want Democrat, Republican.
So does that sort of define your world?
Okay, we the people, in order to form a more perfect union.
So, Henry, can you maybe give us the direct point that you're 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's your perspective here?
Well, Henry, if I can answer you, the more perfect union was a reference to the Articles of Confederation of 1781.
Can I speak?
Can I speak?
I only get 30 days to call, and most of the time I can't even get in.
You got a guy from the UK that gets in every other day.
So I'm just trying to show the difference between liberals and quote-unquote conservatives or Confederates.
Now, 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.
But you have made me digress away from what I was trying to do.
All men are created equal.
Is that Democrat?
Does it comport more with Democrats or Republicans?
I'd like to think both, actually, but I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment.
You say both.
Okay, all right.
So we're not going to go line by line through the whole thing, Henry.
I want you to make your larger point if you have another, and then we're going to go to some other callers.
Okay, let me make this last point.
Mr. Buckley mentioned campaign finance rules, and you read that beautiful, beautiful passage from the article about oligarchs and the evils of money in politics.
Our judicial system is broken.
Our executive branch is broken.
And our legislative branch is broken because of money in politics, because of this coming oligarchy, 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.
I think we've got your idea.
Did you have any response?
No, maybe I'm a little thick here, but it seems to me you don't like Trump.
Is that the case?
I don't know.
Look, I'm not going to get into the raw politics of it all, but it seems to me that besides Democrats and Republicans, there's something else going on here, and that's the American voter.
And I think generally the American voter gets it right.
I mean, yeah, they've gotten it wrong on occasion, sure.
But if I go through, you know, elections in the last century, mostly it turned out okay, right?
When people, you know, veer off too much in one side, there's a correction administered by the voters.
So I see the voters as the repository of liberal virtues in all of this.
They're a third party.
I'll put my faith in them.
All right.
Ryan is in Orange, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
Good morning, Ryan.
Hi.
I think your books are very interesting.
But does your book differentiate between modern liberalism, like near the recent election, and Liberalism has thought in like the 1930s, because what I've noticed is a huge change in the Democratic Party.
Now, I'm a former Democrat turned independent.
I voted for Trump in the last election.
And personally, I think that the Democratic Party should go back to the values of FDR and not the values of woke, transgender, and etc.
I'd like to know your thoughts on that.
Before you give your thoughts, would you mind reading that last excerpt from your book, which I think kind of gets, yes, directly to it.
Okay.
Forget labels.
Sorry, I've been directed to read this.
The WooCorati call themselves liberals, but are anything but that, if there's any content of the word.
They decry prejudice but perpetuate stereotypes about white males and evangelical Christians.
They tell us that you have to become a racist to oppose racism.
They imagine themselves standing up to Joe McCarthy, but practice McCarthyism when they call millions of Republicans fascists and demand that they be silenced.
They tell us that they value free speech, but deny it to conservative speakers on college campuses.
And I cut off Mario Savio would have been outraged by all of us.
Yeah, Ryan, I agree with you totally.
I hanker for an earlier time.
I thought FDR was great.
I liked Harry Truman.
I liked JFK.
I liked Dwight Eisenhower.
I guess I'm old enough to hanker back to an age where there were differences, but they weren't 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's not healthy.
All right, let's go to Benjamin in Huntsville, Alabama, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Benjamin.
Good morning.
I just want to make a statement.
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 come in on this idea?
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 can't dissent.
You know, what is, I think, basic to liberalism is a continuing discussion about how we get to where we want to go.
Liberals may 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's important to recognize one of the things that 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 Founders or the Framers' Convention in 1787.
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 going to opt out.
There are some people who are not going to sign the document.
And what Franklin says is essentially, you know, have some self-doubt about your own righteousness, about your own clarity, your own moral clarity, right?
You know, admit that you might possibly be wrong and other people might be right.
And if you do that, you'll sign the document.
I like that.
That was an element of liberalism.
All right, let's hear from David in Memphis, Tennessee, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, David.
Oh, hi, good morning.
And, Mr. Buckley, I wanted to say I think you're muddying the waters, and that disturbs me.
I'd have to read your book to confirm it.
But my understanding is that any word that ends with ISM means it has an overemphasis.
For example, communism is an overemphasis on the collective.
Capitalism, it's an overemphasis on the exploitation of capital.
And you have some presidents in your history that I also like.
I think, well, Truman and Kennedy were nationalists, and militarism characterized their budget plans, but they were not isolationists, to my knowledge, to the way I've read my history.
And so you have those terms that I do believe can be attributed to Trump and the MAGAs, isolationism, nationalism, and militarism.
And to Harris and the Democrats, I think you have progressivism and liberalism, but I think you've muddied the waters by not determining that anything that ends with ISM is an overemphasis.
And so you're trying to de-emphasize that which by its nature is being overemphasized.
What do you say?
Well, David, I loved everything.
I loved your beginning, but then the word but, you know, emerged.
I hate it when people do that, okay?
But you know something?
On the subject of isms, I think, you know, you're largely right, but how about the word moralism?
I mean, you got a problem with that?
I don't think so.
So it's 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.
And I think that's true.
So one of the complaints that people on the right have made about liberalism is they identify it with the idea that, you know, anything anybody does is okay, right?
Which is destructive of morals completely.
So that would have been an example of taking liberalism too far, for example.
So I think one wants to step back and admit that implicit in liberalism is the ability to question liberalism itself.
While we're talking about isms, you've also discussed in your book, or kind of get at it, the idea of populism, right?
And earlier this month, outgoing Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, who's well known for his liberal views, delivered his farewell address to the Senate.
He served 14 years in the U.S. House, followed by 18 in the Senate, was defeated in November.
And here he discusses the idea of populism and what it means to him.
And then I'd like to get your response.
I've always looked at things a little differently, perhaps, than some.
To me, politics is not really left or right or liberally conservative.
It's really about whose side you're on and whom you're willing to see.
It's about whom you're willing to fight for, whom you're willing to stand up to.
That's what true populism is all about.
True populism lifts all people.
True populism doesn't tear others down.
True populism doesn't play to race and division.
True populism is essentially about the dignity of work, putting workers at the center of all we should be doing.
And when I talk about workers, I mean all workers, whether you swipe a badge or punch a clock, whether you work for tips or whether you work on salary, whether you're going to school or raising kids or caring for an aging parent.
No matter who you are, no matter where you live, no 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 the differences we have as a country.
We have work in common.
Work is really what binds us.
For too many people in Ohio and around the country, hard work hasn't paid off.
Today, far too many workers don't see a path in the middle class, no matter how hard they work.
For almost half a century, we know this.
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.
Worker productivity has increased, but workers' wages have been comparatively flat and costs keep going up.
Until we solve the fundamental problem in this country, until hard work is valued, until everyone has a path to the middle class, and the stability and security of a good-paying job, 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's rigged against them, just look what happened three weeks ago in East Texas.
It's a little fanfare.
A 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 fundamental principle.
If you put in extra hours, you ought to earn extra pay.
You did the work, you earned it.
One judge, one decision, four million workers lost their overtime.
One judge, one decision, four million workers lost their overtime.
That's why we make this fight.
Well, I agree with everything that 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.
But apart from that, I agreed with absolutely everything.
I only have one minor quibble about the word 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.
Can you elaborate just for folks who don't know?
Oh, yeah.
So the Jim Crow laws were something associated with the populist movement back then.
So, yeah, I have problems with that.
But the modern interpretation?
Oh, gosh.
Well, I don't know what the word means apart from that.
There are plenty of terms in our American politics which almost seem to be devoid of content when you look carefully at them.
That may be one of them.
Gina is in Alexandria, Virginia, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Gina.
Good morning, Kimberly and Mr. Buckley.
I was 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 aren't 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 America working together hard enough or being curious enough to last that long.
Even the Chinese culture has lasted thousands and thousands of years.
And it seemed like the rest of the world has been watching America waiting to pimp us out, but once they saw us doing it to ourselves, we're just a joke now.
You know, it's like, and it's all about money.
Once Citizens United got in there, it's cabal.
Gina, your point about sort of other historical traditions around chivalry and sort of rules, is that what you're asking him about?
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?
I don't make those kinds of predictions, actually, Gina.
But, you know, on the subject of immigration, I'm an immigrant, okay, so I came here from Canada.
I became a citizen 10 years ago.
So I'm necessarily on the side of immigration.
Although, you know, the thing about immigrants is once we get in, we want to pull up the ladder.
That's it, no more, okay?
There was a speech Abraham Lincoln gave in 1858, which I really like.
It was part of a Lincoln-Douglas debates.
It was a July 4th speech, given around July 4th.
And he said, you know, all honor to the founders of the country.
And he said, you know, there are some people here in this hall who are descendants, you know, flesh of the flesh of the people who fought in the revolution, you know.
But then he said, you know, there are other people here in this room who weren't, right?
And, you know, they have names like Helmut or Jean-Pierre.
And, you know, their ancestors weren't here in 1776.
But it doesn't matter, he said.
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 a declaration.
And as long as you subscribe to that, you're an American.
That's what I believe.
What about Gina's question related to some other historical systems that had kind of systems similar to the chivalry that you talk about from medieval Europe, you know, going back to the Ottoman Empire, which overlapped a lot 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?
No, heck, this was hard enough.
You want me to do more work?
No way, man.
No, I wanted to look at stories that I thought would be familiar to readers.
Fairy tales, some of them, whatever.
You know, episodes from history that are familiar to us because they're part of our tradition.
And I wanted to say liberalism arose from within that tradition.
We didn't actually get earlier to your story of the little match girl and why that was relevant.
Yeah, let me tell that story.
It's a story by Hans Christian Anderson.
And it's written at a time when Europe is becoming, in his case, Denmark, really wealthy.
But at the same time, you're seeing pockets of great, great poverty.
And the contrast between the great wealth and the great poverty produces something novel, which is an instinct of kindness.
It's like the invention of kindness.
And it's told by Hans Christian Anderson in this little story about a girl, penniless, who survives by selling matches.
And she's outside a restaurant, and she looks inside the window, and she sees everybody eating, right?
It's Christmas time.
They're having these great meals, and she's starving, and she's out in the cold, and she lights a match to look inside and to warm herself.
And then she lights all her matches.
She freezes to death.
Right?
So, impossible, I think, to read that story or have that story read without being moved and recognizing a duty to take care of people who aren't doing so well in your society.
That's a part of liberalism, too.
Michael is in Gainesville, Florida, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Michael.
Yes, hello.
I have two quick questions and two quick statements of fact.
What is your opinion on prosperity and trickle-down?
And what is your opinion on scientific racism?
And my two quick statements of fact that I think you may be missing that influences your answers to those two is: first, neither competition nor evolution optimize.
That's a scientific fact.
And also, lawyers teach, which you're in a law school, that truth is what you can convince a jury of.
I wonder, I think you're teaching how many of your students have become politicians, because when they become politicians, those lawyers then pursue that as truth is whatever you can con the public into.
And that is the source of our issues and difficulties, many of them right now.
So, Michael, before we get Mr. Buckley to respond, I just want to make sure that we understand what you mean by scientific racism.
Yes, it's being taught.
I'm in Florida.
There's lectures going around to our universities.
And when Mr. Buckley spoke of his concerns about, and he used the word censorship, and he referred to wokeness, what he's talking about is this gentleman coming and being able to speak freely and the students at those schools who pay money to attend those schools, and they don't want people speaking untruths.
For example, if you want to talk about how evolution shows that white people are superior, that isn't even how evolution works, and it's factually untrue.
We don't teach evolution correctly in our textbooks because we put it in the back the parts that talk about competition.
Okay, so right.
Okay, so go ahead.
Well, I think scientific racism is an oxymoron, right?
It's like, you know, military music.
The two things don't go together.
So I agree with you today.
I think Dan's upset with you for that one.
Oh, well, okay.
I also, you know, am a believer in what one can get out of evolutionary theories.
I think that's 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.
All right.
Robert is in Brooklyn, New York, on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Robert.
Good morning.
I could understand the context of what you're saying, and I really love the way you use the word.
I think the problem is the manipulation of the English language.
Take for instance, Obamacare, if done with a personal concept of doing good.
When you have lawyers and dark money in politics, millions of people lose their job because they decide to go private with insurance.
That's one concept I like for you to answer family.
Concept is, take for instance, foreign money.
The Israel government could kill off millions of Palestinians, and then they come over here, put on their heels and their suits and their jackets, and then they're anti-Semitic again.
So I'm trying to figure out what do you think about people manipulating the English language to justify the concept of what they do.
You know, 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 moral clarity but to do just the opposite, to muddy things up.
So we've talked about that in the last hour.
We've talked about how terms get thrown out and they have a lot of baggage attached to them.
And sometimes the word is tossed out and they really try to slip in a lot of baggage that doesn't belong.
So yeah, I agree with you.
Look, I don't want to respond about the particular political points you made.
Okay.
All right.
Donna is in Texas on our line for independence.
Good morning, Donna.
Yes.
I'm here to talk about liberalism.
And as in liberalism, we talk about that.
You talk about advocating the freedom of the individual.
And I 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, the freedoms of the people, if we're 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 Imam Musk want to cut off disability and SSI and SSDI for 2025.
And I'm saying that's cutting off liberalism.
That's coming out freedom of the people.
So this gets at the point you were making more about the role of sort of an inclusive society in the concept of liberalism.
Yeah, I agree with Donna that in a liberal state, you don't want to have people left behind.
You're looking for the common good.
Think of it in terms of a family, right?
You know, if you're the father or the mother of a family, you want all 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 the other children.
You try in some murky way to make it all light up in a way that promotes the common good.
There's no definition of that, right?
And people are permitted to disagree.
But I think you start with believing in a universal moral code where everybody counts.
John is in Charleston, South Carolina on our line for independence.
Good morning, John.
Yes, sir.
I do know the name Buckley from way, way, way back, an almost 70-year-old guy and everything.
I'm not sure if you're in the same family or not, but I do note that you are a professor at the Scalia School.
Now, that's a really interesting guy to me.
I'm not sure if he was.
So just to help folks understand what you mean, Mr. Buckley is a professor at the Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
So go ahead, John.
What's your question?
Well, one question was Scalia.
We were quick of Scalia, was a person that really believed that myself being American black, that we would traditionally end years and years and years.
So, John, we're just about out of time for this segment.
I understand that you're talking about Justice Scalia's perspective on segregation in public schools.
But did you have a question specifically for Mr. Buckley today?
Yes, I would like to know his opinion on that.
Okay.
On segregated schools, I'm going to get it.
All right.
Let's go to Roland in Glen Burney, Maryland, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Roland.
Thanks for taking my call.
I like, you know, a fact that the professor, you know, said something a little bit, because he said, the conservative or the Republicans always associate, you know, it's not this big surprise or this philosophy.
I got mine, you get yours.
You know, it's all about, you know, the whole during the elections, you know, during the campaign, it was all about those gas prizes, grocery prizes.
And I'm pretty sure there's nothing much, you know, Trump is going to do about it.
And I'm trying to understand, you know, it seems they always confuse, sometimes it's all about exclusion and racism with being conservative.
Because if you look at it, what exactly has, what do you call it, West Virginia put into almost 80%, 90% for Trump.
Roland, just because we're just about out of time, I want to make sure I understand your point clearly.
Are you asking Mr. Buckley about the association of conservatism with some of these things that you're talking about?
Yes, because I feel like some of these people, they, you know, they just say they're conservative, but if you dip down, if you dig deep down, you know, it seems, it's always about, you know, exclusive, you know, you know, just.
Okay, I think we have your idea, and I'll let Mr. Buckley respond.
Well, 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.
All right.
Well, Frank Buckley is the author of The Roots of Liberalism, What Faithful Knights and a Little Match Girl Taught Us About Civil Virtue.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for having me.
Great.
And we're going to be right back after this with some open forums.
So our phone lines are going to be on your screen, and you can call in.
We'll be ready to hear your thoughts and opinions on the political news of the day.
We'll be right back.
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, author Stephen Puglio, with his book, The Great Abolitionist, discusses the career and life of abolitionist and politician Charles Sumner, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874.
Then, author Elizabeth Rees, with her book, Marquis de Lafayette Returns, recounted the 1824-1825 trip Lafayette took through the young United States when he returned after the Revolutionary War.
And lead up to Inauguration Day, American History TV looks back at famous inaugural speeches.
This weekend, speeches by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Harry Truman's 1949 address, and Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 address.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Witness democracy in action with C-SPAN.
Experience history as it unfolds with C-SPAN's live coverage this January as Republicans take control of both chambers of Congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th President of the United States.
On Friday, January 3rd, don't miss the opening day of the 119th Congress.
Watch the election of the House Speaker, the swearing in of new members of Congress and the Senate, and the first day of leadership for South Dakota's John Thune as the new Senate Majority Leader.
On Monday, January 6th, live from the House chamber, witness Vice President Kamala Harris preside over the certification of the Electoral College vote, where this historic session will officially confirm Donald Trump as the winner of the 2024 presidential election.
And on January 20th, tune in for our live all-day coverage of the presidential inauguration as Donald Trump takes the oath of office, becoming the 47th President of the United States.
Stay with C-SPAN throughout January for comprehensive, live, unfiltered coverage of the 119th Congress and the presidential inauguration, C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered, created by Cable.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We're in open forum ready to take your calls on your thoughts on the news of the day or of the week.
Our line for Republicans, 202-748-8001.
For Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
Before we get to your calls, a couple of the headlines that we're following this morning here domestically, as is reported in the Washington Post, conflict over work visas tests Trump's coalition.
Far-right activists clashed online with billionaire Elon Musk and other supporters of President-elect Donald Trump over the need for skilled worker immigration program that has long been a lifeblood for Silicon Valley, signifying a potential rift between Trump's core nationalist base and a technology executives who have come to support him.
This fight that spilled into public view over the holiday week could preview a wedge within Trump's coalition over how to execute immigration policy, an issue that animated Trump's White House campaign.
The controversy spread over X after far-right activist Laura Loomer on Monday criticized Trump's choice to name Shiryam Krishnan, a technology entrepreneur and investor who was born in India, as his senior policy advisor on artificial intelligence.
She pointed to Krishnan's previous support for removing some caps on green cards and easing the ability of skilled foreign workers to come to the United States.
The policy is in direct opposition to Trump's agenda, Loomer wrote.
The critique sparked a broader debate about immigration in the tech industry, which relies heavily on a visa program that allows foreigners with technical skills to work in the United States for up to six years under H-1B non-immigrant status.
Moving over to international news, there's more updates on that plane crash in Kazakhstan and the fact that the United States has attributed some responsibility for that to Russia.
This is the latest from the New York Times.
Putin apologizes but stops short of taking responsibility for Kazakhstan crash.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia told the Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev in a phone call that the tragic accident took place in Russian airspace.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia Saturday apologized for the crash of an Azerbaijan Airlines plane this past week, breaking the Kremlin's three-day silence on the accident that claimed the lives of 38 people.
He did not explicitly acknowledge Russia's responsibility for the crash.
The Kremlin said in a statement that Mr. Putin offered his apologies for the crash in a phone call to his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev.
Mr. Putin told Mr. Aliyev that the tragic incident took place in Russian airspace.
The phone call was initiated by the Russian leader, the Kremlin said.
Now then, let's get to your calls in open form, starting with Bernard in Dallas, Texas, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Bernard.
Good morning.
This country has always had a boogeyman.
It was the blacks, the Chinese, Mexican.
I mean, everybody, it's a boogeyman.
I mean, white people have no reason to be poor.
They've been in your country and they've been running things for 300 years.
If you're poor, that's your fault.
Thank you.
Vincent is in Duncan, Oklahoma, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Vincent.
Yes, I'm a 72-year-old man.
When I was able to register to vote, I couldn't wait to vote.
But then by the 1980s or so, I quit voting because I was so tired of the politicians saying one thing to get elected and then doing whatever their rich backers wanted them to do.
And I am not against any of Trump's nominees because I'm sick and tired of politicians.
I voted for Trump because he said this then, not because of anything else.
I, and I'm talking about the first time, I was so sick and tired of politicians, I actually began voting again, registered to vote, began voting again, so I could vote against Hillary, not because she was a woman, because she was a politician.
And I wanted to see what a businessman can do.
And I want to see what these businessmen can do that Trump is nominating.
I don't care how much money they have or what their past is.
I just like the idea of having businessmen taking care of our country instead of these self-absorbed politicians that think they're going to help our country, but they're really only out for themselves.
Okay.
Debbie is in Virginia on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Debbie.
And good morning to you, and how are you?
Doing well, thank you.
I've been sitting back watching and listening and all that.
And man, I think that the American people, when it comes to our government, has taken a lot away from them through the years.
I think I feel the American people and all to give our government a good ranking.
Thank you very much, Hannibal.
Okay.
Stephen is in Kingsford, Michigan, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Stephen.
Hello.
I've been watching C-SPAN for, oh, I don't know how long it is since 1980.
And I primarily watch C-SPAN 2.
And seeing how this is an open forum, C-SPAN 2 has changed their format of showing a speech or something that previous they had or is on c-span.org while there's a roll call vote in the Senate.
And I mean, I have a widescreen TV and I can't see and I really can't hear.
I like to hear what they're saying.
And I also like to see what they're doing what they're chatting about when there's a roll call vote.
I wish C-SPAN would change that format.
I thank you very much.
You're a wonderful network, both of you.
I thank you very much, ma'am.
David is in Independence, Louisiana on our line for independence.
Good morning, David.
Good morning, Miss Adams.
My name's David, and we call our house out here Camp David.
And trust me, I'm the senior fellow here at Camp David.
But I just want to talk about two things real quick.
The mega millions.
Last night, another millionaire in California won.
And it's just unbelievable that it's like no one has ever won in Louisiana.
I don't see how that's possible.
But, you know, Trump talked about no taxes on chips, no taxes and this.
Why don't we have no tax on a lot of winnings?
Like the 51st state of Canada, I hear that they have a little style and class, and they let their people keep the money.
What else can you do with it except spend it?
They're going to get it back anyway.
And I want to say, you know, if it's mathematical odds, they tell you the odds of winning, but what would be the odds of no one winning 10 times in a row?
Seem like it'd be higher.
And the next thing is concerning daylight savings.
Now, all my life, I don't think I've ever met a person that's far daylight savings.
But yet we still have it forced on us.
So there must be a real good reason that it keeps us sleepy or something.
I don't know.
But maybe they should just split the difference.
You know, 30 minutes and then just leave the damn clock alone.
To keep the language clean.
Leave it alone.
All right.
Well, David was referring there to the Mega Millions jackpot, which NBC News reported that the winning ticket for $1.22 billion Mega Millions jackpot was indeed sold in California.
That jackpot on Friday was the fifth largest, surpassing the $1.128 billion jackpot from March that was claimed on Monday.
So lucky person in California.
Lawrence is in St. Paul, Minnesota on our line for independence.
Good morning, Lawrence.
Hey, first off, you do a wonderful job.
I really appreciate how you've morphed into your position.
Earlier today, you were talking about ways to make a difference.
I'm going to give you two suggestions.
So I'm going to give listeners two suggestions.
First suggestions is if you watch television, and a lot of people use television as to how to communicate, most television programs are geared towards talking at people and not engaging in dialogue.
And I think, you know, stop the drama and learn to talk to people, not at people.
But if you're sitting with somebody or a group and you want to figure out how you can work towards common ground, create three lists, one federal, one state, one local.
And write down what do you see as the top roles or the top priorities for each of those branches.
And then compare notes in terms of what people's perspectives are in terms of what is the role of government.
And then don't work on what your differences are, but take those lists and try to determine where there is common ground because what is missing is discussions.
I'm sorry, what we have are discussions on the extremes and not discussions on where we have common ground.
I'm going to hang up and listen to the rest of the program.
And again, I truly appreciate your professionalism.
Thank you for your comments, Lawrence.
He was talking about ideas to help bridge the partisan divide here in Washington.
And C-SPAN spoke with some retiring members of Congress from both parties about what they think would actually make Washington work better.
Here are some of their answers.
I just think that there ought to be a notion of people ought to treat others the way they want to be treated.
I want when a new Congress sets up the rules, I want the old Congress to set up the rules before they know who's actually going to be in charge.
I think that there are opportunities for us to have a more humane schedule.
I would put my foot down in terms of people, and I don't know how you do this by rules, but have people who are hired just to be political flax and not do actual policy work.
But part of that can come from the top, having legislative leadership in both parties taking a firmer line about performance and individual members of Congress not supporting people for leadership positions who are not providing the leadership that we think need to happen.
And it's easy for a geezer who's got one foot out the door to pontificate, because I know this is hard.
And I know the politics are serious and the stakes are high, particularly in the time of Trump.
But I think there's more we could do to humanize it.
And I think there is more work that rank and file members can do to enforce norms that are more civilized.
We need to make it okay for members to have their families here with them in D.C. Families serve together.
Families serve together.
So members of Congress get elected, and it's their spouse, oftentimes, is the one staying at home and on a random Tuesday night getting yelled at at the grocery store because their spouse voted in one way or another.
If you had families here, you then see the human element that is so missing from our current dialogue and debate of understanding when you're dropping your kids off at daycare and you have the courtesy of your friend telling you that your child just got sick on your shoulder, on your suit that you just put on.
They know that you're a human being.
And missing that piece of it here means that we just come here, we battle, we put our armor on and we battle, and we don't know who's on the other side.
What are they concerned about?
What are they fighting for?
What's a little bit of understanding of their life that you might be connected with?
And just because they're liberals versus conservatives doesn't mean that there isn't this human element where you can actually work on something, something that affected your life that affected their life, or that your constituents have unified unified concerns or challenges.
That's the piece that's missing, and understanding the humanity here, that we do have to work with individuals as they are, where they are, and to make this place function.
I think campaign finance reform would help a lot because one of the reasons why senators on Thursday afternoon tend to scatter is that senators are leaving for one of maybe two or three purposes or some combination of these.
Trying to get home, which is understandable.
I certainly like being home if I could on a Thursday night or Friday night and being home for part of the weekend.
But a lot of it is senators are leaving to raise money.
That's the reality of American politics today.
That was not the case 25, 30 years ago, and dramatically so before that, not the case.
We need campaign finance reform so senators and House members don't have to spend as much of their time raising money that adversely impacts the Senate.
Some ideas from retiring members of Congress on how to make Washington better.
Ron is in San Clemente, California on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Ron.
Yeah, good morning, Kimberly.
Thanks so much for taking the call.
A couple of things.
I'm a Reagan Republican, now considered a splitter, I guess, to the party.
But I have two issues here because elections do have consequences.
And because of who we've chosen, I'm going to point out two issues that are extremely keen to the future of our country.
The first one is the mass deportation concept, which they say is going to be started on January 20th.
First of all, there won't be anybody to work on roofing or to do construction.
There won't be anybody to do your gardening.
There won't be any people in this country to do take care of your children.
And you know what?
It's going to be a, you're going to put 500,000 people in concentration camps while they're having this mass deportation go on and cost our country a fantastic amount of money just in repairs.
Think about North Carolina and how much it would cost to put on a roof if you had to use all white guys that came in at daylight and worked until night and work for $125 or $150 an hour.
I mean, it's crazy.
Number two, tariffs.
The tariffs are the worst thing possible to this country, and he's going to put tariffs on Canada and Mexico and China.
And when you do that, what you're going to do is raise the cost of all products in this country.
And what will happen is I don't care from transportation, oil, the whole thing.
It's not reasonable.
So the bottom line is I'm hopeful that President Musk will be able to tell Prime Minister Trump not to do these things.
And I hope that we can work that out in the future.
Anyway, Kimberly, thanks so much for taking my call.
Always a pleasure to have you.
Thank you.
Bye.
Ron was referencing the difficulty in finding many types of workers in the event of Mass deportations, as President-elect Trump has said he would do.
There's a story about this in Politico to this effect.
These MAGA farmers could be ruined if Trump follows through with mass deportations.
California's farm owners bet on President-elect Donald Trump and one.
His campaign promise of mass deportations could ruin them.
California farmers could soon enjoy bumper crops thanks to President-elect Donald Trump's pledge to lift water restrictions, but who will pick them if he follows through on his deportation threats?
The country's largest agricultural consistent constituency backed Trump in November, bucking California's deep blue electorate over his campaign promises to open the faucet and deliver more water to the state's parched, conservative-leaning Central Valley.
But now it's reckoning with an uncomfortable contradiction.
Trump also campaigned on mass deportations of undocumented immigrants who make up at least half of the state's agricultural workforce.
Eugene is in Boston, Massachusetts, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Eugene.
Oh, yes.
Good morning.
Happy holidays to you.
Thank you.
And to all the C-SPAN listeners.
I just want to just cover three just really quick things this morning.
It's a couple of times a week that people call in saying that the Russian investigation was a hoax.
And none of your people ever called them on that.
Bob Mueller, longtime lifelong Republican, came up with multiple-digit charges of things of infractions and crimes that Trump had committed.
But it was his newly appointed Attorney General, Bill Barr, who said that a sitting president, by his interpretation of the Constitution, cannot be charged with a crime.
So the Russian investigation was not a hoax.
It's just that he was not charged with a crime because Bill Barr gave us a history lesson because he's right.
America was founded in crime.
So is it really surprising that a criminal becomes president?
America is a criminal nation.
And those people that call in about affirmative action, affirmative action never did anything to help black people.
It didn't help black farmers.
It didn't help black builders, black carpenters, black brickmasons.
Didn't do anything for them.
The biggest winners of affirmative action were white women.
Under affirmative action, white women's salaries skyrocketed.
And they got huge positions that they were overlooked before.
And so if white women are the biggest winners, guess who the second biggest winners are?
The white men who marry them and date them.
Affirmative action was introduced as opposed to being able to close the wage gap, but underneath it, it exploded the other way.
So get that stuff out here about affirmative action.
When affirmative action was ended, you didn't see black folks out protesting because they knew it never helped them.
And nobody plays the victim role as well as white folks.
The only difference is, white people play victim while they're mass murdering, mass raping, and mass.
Hubert is in Indiantown, Florida, on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Hubert.
Yeah, good morning.
I have three things I want to say.
Number one, there's no such thing as a rich, honest rich man.
Number two, trigger down economy.
It triggered down economics never work.
And number three, American people need to understand that this college was built on what the previous caller said about criminals.
It was founded by criminals, established by criminals.
That's all I got to say.
Mustafa is in Jackson, Mississippi on our line for independence, excuse me, in Michigan, Jackson, Michigan, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Mustafa.
Thank you, Kimberly, for that correction.
And I also believe you're doing a wonderful job.
Happy New Year.
Even though you cut off a previous foundational Black American caller in the previous segment on the discussion of political divide.
So I will try and articulate her point real quickly.
So as a proud U.S. Army veteran and a proud foundational black American whose ancestors built this country, I assert there has always been a political divide stemming mostly from anti-black racism.
So with the influx of more illegal immigrants who are even more anti-black racist than the dominant society, the political divide will continue based on anti-black racism.
And then lastly, if you allow me, excuse me, I would implore you and your listeners to please stop referring to foundational black Americans as African Americans.
It helps create ethnocide against black American descents of freemen.
We are not some generic Africans.
Some black people were here prior to slavery.
Furthermore, an ethnogenesis has taken place with us.
Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
Gary is in Indianola, Mississippi on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Gary.
Good morning.
I'm a military veteran as well.
I'm trying to find out how is it that you can't be in the military and have a felon, a felony, but you can run for president and be a felon.
That doesn't make sense.
And where do we find the space to have people like Elon Musk, who's not an American citizen and Vivek Rama Swami, running running, running, how are they running something that's not even in the government?
Okay.
Troy is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Troy.
Yes, I was calling and I was going to try to square things away.
President was a political thing with the prosecutions and stuff that happened.
That's why they're disappearing now, now that he is the president.
With the immigration, our country, I mean, we're at, I think, 3 almost 60 million people.
You know, we can't have open borders.
So that's why he's trying to shut the border down.
With taking Panama back, he cuts the route.
So people coming from down in South America would have to come through the Panama Canal.
That's cutting them off.
And then the tariffs, when NASDAQ came into play, it pushed a lot of jobs either north or south.
So what he's trying to do is he's trying to bring the jobs back.
And I was watching the segment when they were talking about it's going to hurt the people in California, the farmers, the illegals that are working.
No, it's going to force the farmers to pay a wealthy wage that regular people can go back to work at those farms because right now they're paying the illegals the least amount of money to work there.
And that's why they're there.
Thank you this morning.
Eric is in Surprise, Arizona on our line for independence.
Good morning, Eric.
Good morning.
I was just watching the clip that was talking about the amount of immigrants that do the farm work and just kind of had this idea.
It would have to be a lot of other worked out, but it suddenly dawned on me.
We've got homeless people across America all over the streets, people in halfway drug houses.
If we start orchestrating somehow a nationwide thing where the government's involved and they're financing it and we put them on the farms doing all the work and it gets them on their feet and a way to work out of the homelessness or whatever it is they're in and the drugs gets them up in the morning, gets them busy doing stuff as opposed to being on the street just asking for money and doing drugs.
So that's just a thought.
Would that program, would you suggest, be voluntary or non-voluntary?
It would have to be organized and it would have to be something where, like I said, there's a lot of details.
It was just an idea to start with.
I think it has a lot of room for people to figure out what you just asked.
I think if there's a government program that actually it would have to round them up, of course, volunteer terribly, but where they are going to be taken out to the farms and then put to work, and it's like a step up back into society.
It's better than just sitting on the street doing drugs and panhandling.
It gives them a stepping stone to yeah.
Eric was talking about homelessness and we received new data on homelessness this week.
As reported here in the Associated Press, U.S. homelessness up 18% as affordable housing remains out of reach for many people.
The United States saw an 18.1% increase in homelessness this year, a dramatic rise driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing, as well as devastating natural disasters and a surge of migrants in several parts of the country, federal officials said Friday yesterday.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said federally required tallies taken across the country in January found that more than 770,000 people were counted as homeless, a number that misses some people and does not include those staying with friends or family because they do not have a place of their own.
That increase comes on top of a 12% increase in 2023, which HUD blamed on soaring rents and the end of pandemic assistance.
The 2023 increase was also driven by people experiencing homelessness for the first time.
The numbers overall represent 23 of every 10,000 people in the U.S., with black people being overrepresented among the homeless population.
Rob is in Auburn, New York on our line for independence.
Good morning, Rob.
Happy New Year, Kimberly.
Thank you.
I'd like to address just a couple of things that the press seems to overlook every day.
First, that Mr. Musk is a guest of the United States compliments of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
And I suggest as a project for him that Mr. Trump ask him to go back to his native South Africa and help them correct an economy where 35% of the adult population is unemployed.
Second, when it comes to Mr. Ramaswamy, perhaps he could don an American Peace Corps shirt, return to his ancestral home and help them build a reliable national electric grid with a reliable national railroad service that doesn't kill hundreds of their riders every year.
And finally, remind the American public of this.
An executive order by the president is not a law.
Now, Rob, both of the gentlemen you just mentioned, Musk and Ramaswamy, are U.S. citizens.
Why do you think they should be focusing their efforts in other countries?
Well, okay.
Musk is not.
He has a green card.
Okay.
I do believe Musk is a U.S. citizen, but I'll double-check.
Okay, you can do that.
As far as I know, I'm right.
My daughter was an Eisenhower fellow in South Africa.
But Ramaswamy, I mean, these guys obviously have a lot of money and a lot of time and talent on their hands.
And there are a lot worse places in America facing far more serious economic problems than the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the United States, which is, of course, not even a department.
But the other thing is, a presidential executive order is not a law.
Laws are passed by both houses of Congress, signed by a president, printed in a law book.
And that's a law.
I just want to follow up on your point about Elon Musk.
This is reported here in the Washington Post.
Musk, who was born in South Africa, obtained Canadian citizenship through his mother and is now a naturalized American citizen.
He has denied working in the United States illegally because this particular article is about the student visa he had before working on an H-1B visa, which the Washington Post and others have reported that he worked in the U.S. illegally when immigration enforcement was more lax.
But he is currently a U.S. citizen.
Oh, okay.
But he started with an H-1B visa.
Okay.
Yeah.
And also that point on a presidential executive order not being a law of the United States.
Okay.
Thank you.
Ray is in Tennessee on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Ray.
Yes, one of the gentlemen before said that the Russian was not within the hoax that he was a felon.
He didn't tell you what felons that he committed.
He just said he was a felon.
That's easy to do.
You can say what you want to say, but it don't mean it's the truth.
And look, we've just come through four years of a Democrat politician that did do nothing for 40 years.
And then we put a woman as vice president who her own state didn't want her to run for president, couldn't even get the votes for, put them in four years.
This country has been a mess for four years.
Here's Donald Trump.
He has proven that he can govern.
And Elon and Eve, they're all looking to make this a better place.
Give them a chance.
You gave Biden, and you see what happened?
He run in the ditch.
So give Donald Trump a chance to do what he said he's going to do.
Thank you.
Sarah is in New Hampshire on our line for independence.
Good morning, Sarah.
Good morning.
I'd like to remind everybody that the day before the election, our inflation was down to 2.1%.
Gas was $2.99 a gallon.
We had dropped 75 points on interest rates.
We have more jobs than people to fill them according to unemployment rate.
And the people in the southern border come here.
They are our neighbors.
And any Christian knows love thy neighbor.
These people come here, they help put food on our tables.
Every time you put a mouthful of food in your mouth, an immigrant, I'll put it there.
If you go back and watch a documentary, I think it was called The Corporations, you'll see that suppressing the employment of engineers, American engineers, goes back 10, 15 years anyway, with executives from GTE telling their hiring people how to hire Indians instead of Americans.
And as far as the homeless rate, New Hampshire's homeless rate went up 50% last year, and the biggest influx of immigrants into the state of New Hampshire, Indians.
Okay, so Donald Trump ran our economy into the ground by not managing COVID when he was in office, causing the shutdown.
He gave away huge amounts of money, PPP money.
And everybody's ignoring this.
I'm not a big fan of Biden this past year, but he did get us back on track under his administration.
And now we're giving Donald Trump another chance to run us into the ground because he does not care about his constituents that put him into office.
He cares about himself, lying in his pockets.
Musk is, I think, gave him $400 million to get into office.
So Donald Trump is indebted to him.
And we are now seeing how that's playing out.
We have to support the family.
When people have children, they have to take care of those children.
It costs money to take care of those children.
And the minimum wage has gone up a quarter in the last 45 years.
So we don't support the family.
We have Republicans complaining about the birth rate being down.
But we're, you know, help these people.
If you want Americans to have children, they can't really afford to do this.
I don't understand why, you know, Republicans, they're trashing public education.
They're against any kind of welfare.
They're against food stamps.
They're against any of Now they're trying to undermine Social Security and Medicare, things that we paid into.
And why?
So they can line their pockets a slave system.
I was underpaid for 45 years based on that system of not increasing the minimum wage with the cost of living.
And so now I'm at the Social Security age, I'm going to be in poverty because of my low wages over my work career.
And I don't understand why people voted Donald Trump back in.
I just don't understand that.
I grew up working in agriculture and construction, working very, very hard for very little compensation.
People cannot afford to work for $6 an hour or $7.25 an hour, which is what farm labor pays.
And if a farmer brings in immigrants legally, apparently he has to pay them like $17 an hour to milk cows.
It's not going to happen.
If you want to eat today, we should embrace some of these immigrants that come here.
They should come here legally.
But as far as importing people from India to take over our higher-paying jobs from Americans, you know, I'm all for embracing our neighbors.
But, you know, as far as taking in everybody from Europe, Asia, India, Africa, I think that's not realistic.
Okay.
So let's now hear from Mick Lowe in Fairfax Station, Virginia on our line for independence.
Good morning, Miklows.
How are you doing?
Good, thank you.
I just don't see how in the United States of America you could let a guy with 47 felony charges.
You got guys in prison with one felon that get out and they can't even get a job at McDonald's.
They voted him in as president, and the guy is a crook.
He lies.
He says sexual stuff about women and tape he made.
So I do believe if you're referring to President-elect Donald Trump, he's only been convicted of 34 felony counts at this point.
Sorry, 34.
And all I'm telling people is just sit back because he wanted the job.
Now he has it.
And let's see what he does with it.
I think he's going to make a lot of mistakes.
And I tell folks all the time, we need to refer to him as not President Trump.
Felon.
He is a felon, right?
Felon President Trump.
That's how we need to talk to him.
When you get on a talk show and people are asking him questions, they need to all say, felon President Trump.
What do you think about Germany?
And they need to keep doing it because he needs to be reminded that he is a felon, regardless if they put him in office or not.
The guy is a convicted felon, and he can't overturn that with his power he has.
And people need to realize that he doesn't care about those poor white people that put him in office.
He doesn't care about black people that put him off in office or the Latinos.
When the black guys that voted him in office, when policemen started shooting them more and arrested them more, and the white, the Spanish people that put him in office, they're going to be, half their family is going to be deported out of this country because of Trump.
They need to realize they voted the wrong man in and they're going to pay for it.
That's all I have to say.
Ronnie is in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Ronnie.
Yes.
Say, I'm a disabled veteran.
I was wondering on the cost of living raise.
This year we got $100 on our VA check.
So I was wondering why, well, last year we got $250.
So I was wondering why.
And I'm on Social Security also.
I'm a disabled vet.
I was in Vietnam for two years.
I'm not able to find that information for you quickly, but usually the cost of living adjustments are related to the overall rate of inflation.
And so since the rate of inflation has gone down, that could be one of the reasons.
Did you have any other points you wanted to share, Ronnie?
Well, you know, the thing is, yesterday you were talking about the death penalty, and they were saying that they're better off just to let them in there for life.
You know, I got in a car wreck back in 81, and I went to prison for eight years, and my stepbrother got killed.
I'm sorry.
And we were drinking and drugging.
And I went through riots.
I was out west in Walla Walla, Washington, in the walls over there in Monroe.
And I've lived it, you know.
And we'd be better off just to let them do their time in prison, but then they put them in protective custody so nobody can get to them.
So, Ronnie, I was able to find a little bit more information about those cost of living adjustments that you were referencing earlier.
This is from military.com back from October, where it says military retirees and disabled veterans will receive a 2.5% increases to their monthly paychecks for 2025 thanks to the annual cost of living adjustment or COLA tied to inflation.
While 2.5% may look low compared to recent years, COLA adjustments of 3.2% in 2024, 8.7% in 2023, and 5.9% in 2022.
It's still close to the average of about 2.6% for the past decade.
And if you go down a little bit, it says the Department of Labor determines the annual COLA by measuring the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, a measurement of broad samplings of the cost of consumer goods and expenses.
The CPI is compared to the previous year.
If there's an increase, there's COLA, cost of living adjustment.
If there's no increase, there's no COLA, and benefits remain the same.
They don't increase.
And so it's the overall inflation rates that determined how much that adjustment was this year, Ronnie.
Well, thank you for your extra effort.
I appreciate you.
All right.
Have a good day.
Let's hear from Albert in Woodbridge, Virginia on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Albert.
Yes, good morning, Kimberly.
Happy New Year.
Thank you.
Listen, I'm going to be very short.
Donald Trump, the Democrats lost the Congress and the presidency simply because of one person, and that was Merrick Gollin.
Merrick Gollin took his own good time bringing charges against Donald Trump.
Donald Trump shouldn't have even been on the ballot because of Eric Gollin.
Eric Gollin is the corporate, is the one that caused the Democrats to lose.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
All right.
Rose is in Batavia, Illinois on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Rose.
I want to answer a couple of questions.
Some of your people stated today they called in about Elon Musk.
And let's include Ramaswamy with it.
They are virtually and like advisors to President Trump.
They're not going to change any laws or do anything.
And Trump will handle everything that they advise them on.
And they're much like Alexander Hamilton, who advised President Washington.
And Alexander Hamilton was a foreigner who came from one of the islands, who was a mulatto, who was very smart.
And he was very needed at the time.
I think God sent Alexander Hamilton to this country.
And I think he did the same by giving us Elon Musk and Ramaswamy, people that we need to advance our country to make it great, not to keep pushing it in the marshes like the Democrats have been doing with all their sexual deviancies and ruining our children with sex and all their other bad things that they do.
I think that we need to get ahead.
We need to be civilized, and we should honor people no matter what rankings they have in this country, whether it's the president or an immigrant.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, most of these immigrants that are coming in, I see them on TV.
They're sitting on the streets collecting food and shelter from us.
And there's no place for them to have jobs.
And a lot of them don't want to have when I see the pictures of New York, I never want to go to New York.
It's just the thought of going to New York makes me want to vomit.
That's how bad I think it is.
So if you can't run this as a good civilization for all the people that are citizens here, then you shouldn't be running it at all, which was Biden.
So thank you for listening to me.
David is in Chicopee, Massachusetts, on our line for independence.
Good morning, David.
Good morning, Kimberly.
First of all, and I am an independent, but I'm a little bit more on the conservative side.
And I have a trouble with the Democrats who are so hypocritical, especially that woman from New Hampshire.
You know, we need people here, we need immigrants, but not from India and not from Africa.
And it's like, really?
So you're going to pick and choose where these people can come from.
And in the past, we've had incredible people come from all those countries here and really help make our country what it is.
But the biggest problem I have overall with this whole political thing that happened this year was on the issue of abortion.
You are sitting here today because you were born.
I am here because I was born.
And yet the Democratic Party believes in being able to destroy unborn children up until nine months.
I mean, there's something wrong when we lose respect for the most vulnerable among us.
So when we lose that, why not worry about anybody else?
Like President Biden, he just took away those people that were supposed to be killed in jail and pardoned them.
Yet they killed somebody.
And yet every day, people have an abortion and kill a human being.
And they look the other way.
So I just, I don't know, hearing all the callers, it looks like we are still totally, probably for the next four or five years, separated in what we believe in this country.
And I don't think it's going to get any better, unfortunately.
But I think you do a good job sitting there.
I watch you with your hand waiting to knock somebody off, which is funny sometimes, and I don't blame you.
But I just appreciate what the Washington Journal does.
Thank you.
Tom is in Green Ridge, New Jersey on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Tom.
Yeah, good morning.
Happy holidays.
I just have two things to say.
The lady from New Hampshire gave a long rant telling every American this and that.
And that's the reason.
Everything she said was the reason why I voted for Donald Trump.
She said, let's see, unemployment or homelessness is up 50% in New Hampshire.
Well, that was under the person she put in office.
Right?
Kamala invited.
So I don't, that lady must have been still living on the farm in the back somewhere behind the other horses.
But I just want to say, I'm a man of color, and I'm white.
And I hear people complaining: if you don't like it here in America, get on an airplane and head back home to where your family is probably from.
Thank you.
Mark is in Cloverdale, Indiana, on our line for independence.
Good morning, Mark.
Good morning, Mrs. Mark.
I'm calling in.
First of all, I'd like to make a couple short comments.
My doctor is from India, and she's a lady of probably about 50 years old, and she's featured on the front of the Indianapolis thing.
Beautiful gal, wonderful doctor.
And I thank India for every doctor that they send here.
Another thing I'd like to mention is we have had a discussion earlier, and I didn't manage to get in on the discussion on polarization in America and so forth.
I've driven a truck up into Canada many times, and I've met the Canadian people, and they're just wonderful people.
And if they could become part of the United States, I would welcome them with open arms, especially those that are from Alberta and Manitoba.
They're just like the center of the country.
The polarization is always around cultural issues.
It used to be the Democrats and Republicans could get along real well with each other when it was just how you divide the economic pie.
But since it brought in abortion and perversion on children, there's no way that this country can ever come together because those involve moral issues of evil and good.
And you can't bring evil and good together.
Do appreciate your taking my call and wish you the best today.
Alan is in Mississippi on our line for Republicans.
Good morning, Alan.
Hi there, Alan.
Go ahead.
Hello, ma'am.
Am I Alan?
Yes, you are.
Go ahead, Alan.
Okay.
Just a food for thought about American politics.
Now, Clinton was a small-time lawyer up in Chicago, and his wife was his secretary.
After being in politics for the years, he was referring to Clinton because I believe he was in Arkansas.
Well, Arkansas, I do beg your pardon.
And now he has a net worth of 85 million dollars.
That's all right.
It's a capitalist country, and I understand that.
His wife, who was Secretary, Secretary of State, traveled the world.
She's worth $140 million.
Now, all these people, three and a half carat diamonds, go into the family of Bidens for what reason, goodness ever knows.
Well, we all know, but nobody admits it.
And now, with President Trump, the difference is that he's a self-made man.
He did not take any salary for what he does.
He has no shares.
And this man is feared because he's not in anybody's pocket.
And I think what he's going to do, what everybody's afraid of, that it's going to drain the swamp.
And that's, I think, that's what he's going to do.
And I'll leave it at that.
All right.
Carla is in New York City on our line for Democrats.
Good morning, Carla.
Oh, good morning.
Thank you, Kimberly, for taking my call.
I'd like to respond to that lady from Illinois who's had such negative things to say about New York City.
I am sick and tired of people dumping on New York City.
I am a 66-year-old single cat lady who has done very well here.
I love living here.
If I thought it was this safe cesspool, I would have been at it here yesterday.
And I'd like to remind her of something.
Your fearless leader, Trump Tower, is like the jewel in his crown.
If it's so terrible, why doesn't he just sell it and give it to somebody and sell it to somebody else who can turn it into something better?
If you think it's so horrible, the fact that it's still there, I think, demonstrates that he doesn't think it's really such a terrible place.
The one better thing I have to say is that now that President Trump is in Mar-a-Lago, I really am so grateful that we are rid of him.
I think New York is a lot better place since he no longer resides here on a permanent basis.
Although the people from Florida do have my sympathy, I do have to say.
And I just want to say there was an other lady from New Hampshire, and I thought what she had to say was very eloquent.
I wish I could be as articulate as she was, just outlining all the things that she's experienced throughout her life.
I really hope that she does well on Social Security.
And that's pretty much all I have to say.
It's just that I think New York City is a great place to live.
It is the capital of the world for a reason.
Thank you, and have a good day.
Well, and I hope everyone has a good day.
That is where we're going to end the show today.
Thank you to everybody who called in to share your questions and comments on Washington Journal.
We'll be back with another edition of the show tomorrow at 7 a.m. Eastern.
We hope you'll tune in.
Have a great day.
Watch the finale of Washington Journal's special Holiday Authors Week series, where we feature a new writer each day.
Coming up Sunday morning, writer and rural policy expert Brian Reisinger will talk about his book, Land Rich, Cash Poor, My Family's Hope and the Untold History of the Disappearing American Farmer.
Watch live and join the discussion on Washington Journal this morning starting at 7 Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
Next from the C-SPAN archives, a look at President-elect Trump's nominees in their own words.
You'll hear from Senator Marco Rubio, who has been tabbed to be the next Secretary of State, and Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary nominee, among others.
Then, the first public hearing of the Afghanistan War Commission examines the origins of the Afghanistan war and lessons learned.
And later, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discusses the role of civics education and its implications for U.S. democracy.
Ahead of the presidential inauguration on January 20th, American History TV on C-SPAN 2 presents a four-week series, Historic Inaugural Speeches.
Each weekend, listen to inaugural speeches given by presidents after they were sworn in, from Franklin Roosevelt through Barack Obama.
Today, we'll feature President Roosevelt.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
President Harry Truman.
I believe that those countries which now oppose us will abandon their delusions.
And President Dwight Eisenhower.
We sense with all our faculties that forces of good and evil are masked and armed and opposed as rarely before in history.
Watch historic inaugural speeches, Saturdays at 7 p.m. Eastern, on American History TV, on C-SPAN 2.
In his latest book, LBJ and McNamara, Peter Osnos' dedication reads this way.
To those on the Vietnam Wall, on the mall, and their countless Vietnamese counterparts, it did not have to happen, unquote.
In his role as publisher at Public Affairs Books, Osnos spent numerous hours working with former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara for his 1995 book, In Retrospect, The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.
Osnos writes, this book describes what happened in the years between 1963 and McNamara's last day as Secretary of Defense in February of 1968.
Robert McNamara died in 2009 at the age of 93.
Peter Osnos with his book, LBJ and McNamara, The Vietnam Partnership Destined to Fail.
On this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.