CSPAN - Washington Journal Chris Gibson

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 28, 2025 00:55-01:40 - CSPAN

44:54

Washington Journal Chris Gibson

Participants

Main

chris gibson

33:48

Appearances

john mcardle

cspan 03:13

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Live at 7 Eastern Wednesday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity, this fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Former Congressman Chris Gibson is back at our desk, a Republican from New York since leaving Congress in 2017.
		He's written three books.
		The latest is The Spirit of Philadelphia, a call to recover the founding principles.
		And Congressman Gibson, take us back about 238 years or so.
		Explain what you mean by the spirit of Philadelphia.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, we're in a tough time right now.
		And I just enjoyed your last segment.
		I understand how divided the country is, the consequences of these policies, both half the country supporting them, half the country opposing them.
		You know, it's interesting.
		I wanted to take a look at, you know, what happened.
		I mean, a lot of Americans are wondering out there, how did we get to this place?
		And so I went back to the beginning of our country.
		And I would say to encourage the viewers here right now, I believe that they were actually facing tougher circumstances when they arrived in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention in this way.
		They had a very difficult problem because they knew that the Articles of Confederation were failing.
		They were failing.
		We were at the time free and independent states, free and independent states.
		The closest analogy would be like the EU, because we were a confederation.
		And we had states that were obviously coining money, states that were putting tariffs on other states, states that were being lured into trading agreements with other countries.
		And we had insurrection.
		We had the Shays Rebellion and we had others.
		And so they knew that what they had done with the articles didn't hit the mark.
		And so they had this problem and why I think it's different.
		They actually had to adjust our governmental structure to actually give it more power.
		But at the same time, they were very ensconced and concerned about overshooting the target.
		So they had to at once, and Madison talks about this in the Federal Papers, you know, they had to create this government that could essentially do its part of the social contract, but then also have it control itself.
		And so what they did was genius, but I believe they actually got it right.
		And the way they did it is, because they had tried.
		The thing that the viewers, I want them to appreciate is these were practical people.
		They tried to solve the problem several times and failed every single time, including the last one at Annapolis in 1786.
		And they didn't throw their hands up.
		They said, we're going to meet in Philadelphia.
		And what they did between Annapolis and Philadelphia is they studied extensively.
		They reviewed everything they could get their hands on.
		Jefferson made a difference.
		He was actually in Europe.
		He sent a truckload of books to Madison.
		And they read about Greece, they read about Rome and other attempts to get a republic right.
		And ultimately, what they ended up with, they created, I call the spirit of Philadelphia.
		It was actually unexpected.
		What they wanted to do was fix the governmental design.
		They wanted to, they were supposed to be there to fix the articles.
		Articles required a unanimous consent of the states to change it.
		They could never reach unanimous consent.
		They knew that that threshold was too high.
		They needed a governmental structure that could breathe.
		And they wanted the bar to be very high to bring change, but they needed it to be possible.
		And this is the Constitution that they bring forward.
		And arguably the most, you know, argumentative part about the Constitution was it required three fourths of the states to ratify it to go into effect.
		That was facially unconstitutional to the Articles of Confederation.
		And really they weren't challenged on that point.
		So the spirit of Philadelphia, yes, they worked, they brought forward this new document.
		It was different.
		It was decidedly philosophically different.
		Perhaps we'll get into that today.
		But the spirit of Philadelphia was the breakthrough.
		First of all, it took two weeks to get enough delegates there to even get a quorum going.
		And then they ended up in the same old arguments.
		It looked like for the first month, five weeks, it looked like it was going to be yet another failed attempt.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And we should note that they first met on May 25th of 1787.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Here we are almost in that week.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		We have an anniversary.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I know.
		And then we're getting ready next year, of course, to celebrate 250 years of the Declaration.
		This is an important moment.
		We're at an inflection point for our country.
		And that's why, you know, your last segment had people who support the Trump education policies, those that oppose it.
		I'm trying to actually reach all of those viewers.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The book, again, The Spirit of Philadelphia, a call to recover the founding principles is the subtitle.
		That subtitle, the word recover meaning we've lost the founding principles.
		And it was.
		When did we lose the founding principle?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, a little over 100 years ago, these were conscious choices, by the way.
		We started moving away from it.
		To make the last point on the spirit of Philadelphia, why it was unexpected, is they expected to tinker.
		They were practical people.
		But what ended up happening is that Connecticut compromise between large states and small states, when they finally got over that hurdle, all of a sudden the world looked different.
		Once they agreed to come with a bicameral legislative body, all of a sudden this issue over how to deal with the executive seemed solvable, which they couldn't reach consensus on.
		Now they did.
		And this, what I argue is this was the spirit.
		I mean, the viewers out there, many of them may have served in the military, been in good companies, you know, private companies that do.
		There's something about us as a species.
		When we come together and we meld, we work hard.
		Sometimes we compromise.
		We come together.
		We create something bigger than ourselves.
		That's what we did.
		That spirit of Philadelphia, you know, that's what came as an unexpected gift of the Connecticut Compromise.
		What happened to us is, you know, in the 19th century, first of all, the Civil War, okay?
		You know, the philosophy that we chose, which, you know, I argue is common sense realism, you know, essentially focused on two factors.
		In fact, it focused on human nature.
		Who are we individually?
		Who are we as society?
		And then given that, what should we do with power?
		How should we array power?
		And they chose some conscious choices here.
		They knew they had to have enough in the government to be able to effectuate its side of the social contract.
		But what they decided is all of them, that is to say, as a collective body, there were a few naysayers, Patrick Henry, there were some folks that were opposing this, the anti-federalists.
		But what they said is, look, given what we know about human nature, which it's conflicted, humans are neither all good nor all bad.
		We're conflicted.
		Sometimes we're amazing, we're selfless, at other times we're very aggressive and self-serving.
		And they said the best thing we can do is decentralize power to the extent we can, and then we need to separate power, and we need to keep it transparent and checked.
		And we believe, the founders, that this is the best way that a republic can last.
		And so, you know, we come forward with that.
		And how did it go?
		Well, generally, well, with one major exception.
unidentified		The Civil War.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		So the Civil War.
		But I want to say that the system worked as designed.
		People say, well, why is it that they had trouble?
		you know, solving the issue of slavery.
		Well, it's a flawed assumption.
		They actually thought they had put it on a path towards extinction.
		I mean, you look at Federalist 42.
		Madison says this.
		He basically says that what we did was, he doesn't use the word genius, but this is incredible.
		We figured it out.
		You know, when we ban the international slave trade, it's going to die out and we're going to be able to move forward as a people.
		And so when that didn't happen, what did the system do?
		Well, it did a lot.
		It launched us into the industrial age, put us on a path to becoming a global superpower.
		But whenever we hit conflict, political conflict, what happened is the system works towards compromise.
		So what did we see?
		We saw the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
		We saw the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
		We had a series of legislative actions that were, the system worked, it produced a product.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		But this system that you say, you argue was working.
		What happened to it about 100 years ago?
		What changed in the political philosophy of this country?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		So immediately what happens is because we had a flawed assumption with regard to a first order moral question, the question of slavery, is we were not able to peacefully resolve it.
		Lincoln, we fight this war over states' rights and over slavery.
		And then in his second inaugural address, Lincoln says, we're going to bind up the wounds of the nation with malice towards none.
		He had a vision.
		He had a plan to actually bring us back under common sense realism, having resolved the first order moral question.
		Of course, he was murdered.
		We never fully recovered.
		We had so many casualties of that war.
		Among those was our founding philosophy that really worked so well for us.
		So what happened?
		Well, by the 19th century, new ideas are in the ether, in the world, including in Europe, German idealism.
		And among those that were very enamored with it was Woodrow Wilson.
		He was one of the first in our country to get a doctorate, a PhD from Johns Hopkins in what they were calling political science at the time.
		But in his dissertation, Wilson argues the founders got it exactly wrong.
		He said, there's no point.
		We don't have to do this.
		We don't have to decentralize.
		We don't have to separate power.
		What we really should do is come forward with centralization and allow us to move towards ideal circumstances.
		Not optimal, but ideal.
		And this is what's in his dissertation.
		So when he becomes college president, he's working on Hegel, I call it Hegelian ideas.
		It's German idealism.
		But then when he's president, what you see is, well, the war.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is German idealism?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		So, I mean, there's so much.
		It's a very dense topic.
		But what it means for us here, and particularly what we're talking about today, is the idea that the state, the state broadly defined, can perfect man.
		In fact, Hegel says, although he would really push back if he were here today saying it was taken out of context, but he said the state is what man has created.
		The state is the march of God in the world.
		Okay, now, from where he was standing, he didn't have everything that we've gone through in the last 200 years.
		But people leaned, I mean, Nietzsche leans on this, and then of course we know what happens in the 20th century, not only with Nietzsche, but with Hegel.
		But there's this movement towards greater bureaucracy, centralization.
		And so Wilson's among those believers.
		And what you see during the First World War, I mean, we have price controls.
		I mean, we have the espionage and sedition acts.
		If you speak out against the war, I mean, there was a whole number of initiatives, including the creation of bureaucracy to control.
		And, you know, there's an undertow after he leaves in the 20s.
		We move back.
		Logical positivism, I talk about in the book, about that reaction to it.
		But ultimately, what happens over the last 100-plus years, regardless of party, even though there's some pushback, you know, here and there, Reagan, of course, has a different vision.
		But the thing to remember about Nixon, President Nixon, is the fact that he basically said we're all Keynesians now, and he created the EPA.
		So what I'm saying is there was largely a consensus that was inimical to the founding principles.
		That doesn't mean they couldn't do it.
		The founders themselves said the system needs to be malleable.
		But this book is ultimately about ideas and their consequences.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was a quick march through about 240 years of Americanism.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		There's a lot of philosophy.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Meet this book, The Spirit of Philadelphia.
		I want to invite viewers to call in and join the conversation as well.
		Phone lines, as usual, with former Congressman Chris Gibson, Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 2027-8002.
		With the philosophy that we just went through, with the history.
		What are the suggestions that you make at the end of this book?
		What can we do to do the verb there to recover the founding principles?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Well, the first thing is to recognize the moment we're in.
		I mean, I just explained the beginning, and it wasn't nefarious, by the way.
		I mean, Wilson really believed in what he was doing.
		He believed that was what was best for our country.
		But, I mean, today there are those who really criticize President Trump.
		They say he's centralizing so much power.
		He is transforming the political landscape.
		He is a highly consequential president.
		And in that regard, and it's important to note that history just didn't start in 2015 or 16 or 17.
		I mean, he is actually leaning in and moving to the front of the formation of something that started long ago.
		And so where are we today?
		Well, I mean, I understood the book explains how we get President Trump and the phenomenon of this populist moment that we're in.
		It is widespread disaffection, alienation, disappointment with institutions and their leaders.
		So now the choices, look at the choices in 2024, philosophically now.
		There's certainly ideology and platform, of course.
		We'll probably get into some of that.
		But philosophically, you had a choice between progressivism, which is a form of idealism, which believes in centralizing power as a principle, as a principle regarding power.
		Remember what I said about the founders?
		They were looking at human nature.
		And given that, what do we do about power?
		Progressives, they actually see humans as good and want to centralize power because you can achieve idealistic outcomes.
		The populists actually don't have a strong position on power from a principle perspective.
		It depends.
		Like, if power is being accumulated to President Obama, that's not a good thing because he could be working against the folk community.
		The thing about populism is it's very focused on the community.
		And they want to know what government's being used for.
		If government's being used to be helpful to the folk community, that's a good thing.
		So, you know, and Walter Russell Mead, I lean heavily on his research as regard to populism, but the thing about the Trump movement is that, I mean, you had Americans who were just totally turned off by what was going on.
		They looked at him and said, maybe we just need to give the power to him and he'll fix all this.
		So your choices were progressivism on one hand and populism on the other.
		And what I'm arguing here is: look, to all the viewers, and you had viewers on both sides of Trump on this last segment.
		I'm saying I'm trying to reach everyone.
		I'm saying, let's take a step back and let's take a look at history and philosophy and the consequences of the choices that we've made.
		And I could find no example in history where a nation, a people in a nation, centralized power, especially into one person, and it ever worked out well.
		Could happen, but if it does, it'll be the first time in human history.
		That's power.
		And then you look at the product.
		I mean, these deficits right now, we can't sustain them.
		There are all kinds of historical examples.
		The Roman Empire, Great Britain, frankly.
		I mean, if you spend beyond your means and keep doing it, you cannot survive in that political state.
		So I'm telling you, the founders, look, they understood that too.
		So, I mean, so that's probably enough for now.
		Let's hear from some of the callers.
		But I'm glad I had a chance to sketch this.
		And I would love to, at some point, even get into education because the founders, Jefferson and Adams disagreed about a lot.
		What they agreed upon was, first of all, common sense realism.
		They were on the same page with regard to human nature and what it meant for power.
		And they also believed that we would never survive if our citizens were not educated, informed, and engaged.
		Educated, they're all three different.
		Educated, informed, and engaged.
		And so that means classical education, a broad temperament, or a temperament that's influenced by a broad education.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Chris Gibson is our guest and author in his time since leaving the Congress from 2017 on, three books, the latest, The Spirit of Philadelphia.
		He's also served as professor at Williams College, the president of Siena College, before your time in Congress, served in the military, and taking your phone calls here on the Washington Journal this morning.
		And there are plenty for you.
		Peter's up first here in Washington, D.C. and Independent.
		Peter, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I have a quick question for Congressman Gibson.
		Across a number of issue areas in your book, you argue for limits on the executive branch and in favor of a return to the constitutionally prescribed role of both the federal legislature and state level government.
		Absolutely.
		Is this approach to government still viable when modern politics is so fast moving and policy points feel, policy issues, excuse me, feel so acute?
		For a quick example, I have deep sympathy with your expressed views on the War Powers Act.
		But realistically, how effectively could our 535 congressmen and senators reach consensus in a true moment of national crisis?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Peter, you've already read the book?
unidentified		Yes, I have.
		Yes, sir.
		I'm a big fan of Congressman Gibson's.
		I've followed his career for quite some time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you work on Capitol Hill, Peter?
unidentified		No, I do not.
unidentified		I work for a foreign policy think tank based out of New York, the Foreign Policy Association.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Here, thanks for the call.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		I wanted to say I know this young man, and he's got an incredible future ahead of him.
		He's a nice balance of he's very serious in his work, but he doesn't take himself seriously.
		And as you can tell, the way he just constructed that question, I mean, that is, in essence, one of the preeminent questions for all this.
		And my answer would be yes.
		But I also acknowledge.
		I mean, I was at a conference out at Stanford about two months ago, and I had a very thoughtful colleague of mine from Hillsdale College, and he's from Hillsdale.
		He asked the same question.
		He wondered, can we in this information age, and I say, I believe it true.
		I don't know it to be true, but from my read of history, I believe it can.
		These principles that the founders had actually, it's amazing how much they grappled with.
		How much they had read Gibbon that was recently published.
		That's the decline of the Roman Empire.
		The first volumes come out in 1776, last volume in 1788.
		They had read all about the Delian League, the Achaean League.
		They read about the Greek republics.
		And these were principles that they believed stood the test of time about us, about who we are, and about the reality.
		I mean, that's why I call it the realism.
		And that actually comes from the Scottish Enlightenment.
		But more specifically to the point, what we're intending to do here is recognize the fact that the founders said that we're going to have three co-equal branches.
		They did put pride of place to the People's Representatives.
		The first, Article I, the Constitution is the legislature, the legislative body.
		But they knew that we needed a magistrate, we needed a leader, they understood that, but they also expected the other branches to check each other throughout.
		I believe today, in 2025, we can still do this, but what we have to do as a people, and I've got a chapter on this, it's called We the People.
		Notes for Us, We the People.
		And it's a recognition that we own some of this too.
		We have to look at our expectations.
		A great country in a good country too, and there's a difference.
		But what we need to do is really hold our representatives to account, hold them to account, and then in issues where we cannot reach consensus at the national level, we need to push that back down.
		We need to push that back down to the states until such time that we can have persuasion enough to do legislation at the national level.
		These principles will work if we use them again.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		On We the People, this is page 125 of your book.
		You're right, the founders understood that this form of government that they were creating would not work without an educated, informed, and engaged electorate.
		Channeling Montesquieu, the founders recognized that this required the widespread promotion of broad liberal education aimed at cultivating virtuous citizens capable of critical thinking, cultivated in this way citizens would then safeguard their freedoms and act as active voters would serve as a check against fanciful government proposals and actions.
		Are we that people that they envisioned?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think there's so much disaffection right now.
		And of course, as humans, we're also emotional.
		So this is intensely personal to us.
		And I think it makes it very difficult for us.
		But this is part of what a conflicted human nature is.
		I mean, how many times I'll say in my own life, you know, I have an emotional reaction to something, and I ask myself, is that really the right thing to do at this moment?
		Or should I think that through?
		Maybe delay the decision if I can until I can really think it through.
		And I think as a people, we have to recognize that we're out of balance.
		And balance is a big part of this book.
		But when I say out of balance, what do I mean by that?
		So, and there's an extensive section in the book on this, but where we are right now is, regardless of party, by the way, we are now, rather than have a balance between the individual and the obligations we have to others, we are all for the former.
		We're for the individual, mostly for the former.
		Whereas I don't want to live in a country that doesn't find the individual of the highest value.
		I mean, we definitely, that's one of our things we're most proud of, is that we value individuals and our rights.
		But our social contract had rights, had responsibilities balanced with rights.
		And rather than having primacy of individual obligation to others, what the founders envisioned was a balance.
		Absolutely, the celebration of the human soul, the individual, but the obligations we have towards others.
		That's just on individuals and obligations to others.
		We're out of balance.
		We're also out of balance between the now and the future.
		Okay?
		I mean, the founders envisioned both.
		We only live in the now.
		The now is important, but do we really, if you think about the American dream, what is the American dream?
		It's two things, basically.
		It's that you have the right to self-determine.
		You are in control of your destiny, your potential.
		But what else is the American dream?
		It's the idea that I want my family to be in a stronger position than I was when I was growing.
		We've always believed that.
		And that's why, you know, throughout the years, when you talked about when this changed, look, the election of 1896 was highly contested.
		There's, I mean, McKinley, William Jennings-Bryan, how they, but neither candidate said, I got an idea.
		We're going to spend a trillion dollars or two trillion dollars more than what we bring in.
		Nobody would have ever done that.
		It was beyond the pale because they knew if they did that, that was going to adversely affect their children and their grandchildren and future generations.
		This is that balance between the now and the future.
		And finally, one more thing on balance is we're out of balance between the material and the spiritual.
		And that's why, you know, I talk in the book about the angsting, the angsting that's, I mean, widespread angsting.
		I mean, Jonathan Haight writes a book called The Anxiety Generation.
		We're seeing the anxious generation and, you know, just how much young people today are suffering from anxiety and depressions.
		This has happened over time.
		It's a lot of factors.
		Haight's book's great.
		I cite it.
		But the point is, is that we are, yes, we're material.
		Of course, we have a physical dimension.
		We have an intellect, but we also have a spirit.
		And if you don't nurture the spirit, we're going to end up where we are at this moment.
		It's about getting the blend right between the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual.
		And being out of balance in all three of those things is where we are today.
		And, you know, it's interesting because when you talk to people who are either for or against Trump, they believe that, first of all, some who are against him are surprised that what's happening now in relation to 2017, but they believe they have nothing in common with progressives.
		And my read of history is actually what they agree upon, both people who are against Trump and for him, is they believe we should centralize power for different reasons.
		But the people who are supporting Trump right now, he's the only one who can fix it.
		You know, we should give him absolute power.
		And the people who are against Trump just don't want him to have that power, but generally believe in the principle.
		You know, if somebody like President Obama had that power, they would be fine with it.
		And that's the moment we're in because I think we need to take a step back and take a look at history and philosophy and say, what are the consequences of choices and where are we today?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Bob's waiting in Texas, Republican line.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Bob, you're on with former Congressman Chris Gibson.
unidentified		Yes, I consider today a gift from God, and I thank Congressman Gibson for his enthusiasm and his book and his questions.
		On getting back to principles and to education, I know that the first sentence of U.S. law of 1776, they only had two principles with which they declared and won independence from England.
		And those were the laws of nature.
		That's understood to be creation, and the laws of nature's God, the Bible.
		Now, Sir William Blackstone, who wrote his first volume 11 years before the Declaration, and he was the most quoted man by our founders.
		And his most quoted quote was, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
		So we've got to get back to the first sentence of U.S. law and get back to creation and the Bible.
		And any laws that contradict those are no law at all.
		So I just want example here in Texas.
		We had over 9,000 bills that were submitted in this session.
		And I will guarantee you that 99% of them violate Blackstone's precepts that no human laws should contradict creation in the Bible.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Well, Bob, let me take that point, Congressman Gibson.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So a few things on this is one, look, again, this is a book about history and philosophy, the intersection of history, philosophy, and then the consequences for public policy.
		And unfortunately, today, a lot of the conversation about religion and faith is not historically based because there are those that say the founders explicitly formed a secular nation and therefore they didn't want God.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Separation of churches.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So that's a misconception.
		Now, absolutely.
		They did not want, I mean, the issue, the challenge is maybe some of the viewers, perhaps Bob, has watched The Chosen.
		And, you know, one of the challenges you see in that rendition is which part of the Bible.
		I mean, clearly we're living now the New Testament when we're watching The Chosen.
		But the point is, is that the Old Testament was really about judgment.
		And it was, some would say, harsh, but it was about living in a certain way.
		Jesus comes and says, I'm here for the sinners.
		And I'm looking to bring mercy.
		And actually, he has conflict with the Pharisees over this thing.
		I really strongly recommend this series, The Chosen.
		But I'm bringing it up in this context to say that the founders, this was an issue back then.
		In fact, how it became an issue is actually very curious.
		I got more detail on this in my research.
		James Madison.
		So Madison was dealing with a legacy in Virginia about whether or not the taxpayers should pay for pastors and for the maintenance of church.
		They were.
		And Madison said, we're going to have to get out of this business.
		Now that we're talking about breaking from England, we shouldn't be paying the pastors and we should get that.
		So it's interesting what happened.
		They actually, they did this.
		They had a religious toleration bill.
		But what Madison learned, he flipped on a key principle based on his experiences in Virginia.
		What he learned is that the Anglicans, who, you know, that's the Church of England, of course, they wanted to keep going in that direction.
		But there were multiple factions.
		And he was able to, he initially disagreed with David Hume, who was one of the philosophers who believed the best way to deal with faction is to have a whole bunch of factions.
		And then, you know, they'll cancel each other out and they'll check each other.
		That's eventually what we get with ambition to counteract ambition.
		That was actually contra to the council of the wise since time out of memory.
		But what's interesting about what happened in Virginia is what Madison says, I'll be darned.
		Maybe Hume is onto something.
		Because what he found is with the multiple of factions, they actually outvoted the people who wanted to keep paying.
		But the larger point is he wanted religious freedom.
		So when the left says that they meant to keep God out, that's just not true.
		I mean, the founders deeply believed in God, and they wanted to be reverent in that way.
		Now, Jefferson was a deist, so he was not in any one of the particular denominations.
		But the point is, is you can find examples.
		And John Adams literally says, when he writes to Jefferson, he says, yeah, I know you love the French.
		He goes, just explain to me how 20 million atheists are going to be able to govern themselves.
		He doesn't believe it's possible.
		He believes that you need a core set of values to be able to make a republic work.
		Now, so it's conflicted, right?
		But the point is we weren't trying to keep God out, but we did set up a constitutional system that we were going to follow through with.
		Now, what I would say is, with regards, one last point on education, because I listened to your last segment before I came on.
		I really appreciated the gentleman who called in and said culture matters.
		And he said, look, the reality is we're dealing with indoctrination.
		And he made some comments about Howard's Inn.
		Look, with regard to the Trump administration's view on education, look, I think the record is a little mixed, but I have to say the arc of what they're trying to do, which is really to teach history in a way that is constructive so that we recognize we have warts and challenges, but we are a great and a good nation.
		They're different.
		Great because we achieve, but we're a good nation because we're basically a good force in the world.
		I mean, think about it.
		We won World War II, saved the world from a dark age of fascism, and then we dedicated 5% of our gross domestic product to rebuild those nations.
		That was our money.
		And we did it, yes, for our own interests, but also for theirs.
		So we are a good nation with flaws.
		No question about that.
		But, you know, the arc, so for example, the one place where I did disagree with the caller, and again, I thought he was well communicative and had important points, is, I mean, I'm a believer in American exceptionalism to such a degree.
		The first term of the Trump administration, they published, their group that was working on that issue published a paper called the 1776 Project.
		I like it a lot.
		I like it so much that I don't have any problem debating it.
		So in my class, I had my students read both.
		They read the 1619 project and the 1776 project.
		The primary documents there, along with all the founding documents, what the founders were influenced by.
	And then we read secondary sources widely.
	So I assigned both Howard's Inn and Bill McClay.
	The previous caller talked about Howard's Inn, the People's History of the United States.
	Bill McClay writes a book called Land of Hope.
	I believe it's pretty balanced.
	But the bottom line is that I wasn't there to indoctrinate my students.
	I wanted them to read primary sources and then read secondary sources widely and make their own call.
	So I'm not for banning books.
	I think you should, if you feel strongly, I do, about 1776 project, you should be not afraid.
	But what I did insist upon was a debate.
	And in the book, I explain.
	I explain that I insist upon the debate because, you know, the fact is, and this is data, a lot of academia today is of the left.
	So I think it's important that there be a balance on that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Less than 10 minutes left with Congressman Chris Gibson.
		The book is the spirit of Philadelphia.
		Several callers waiting to chat with you.
unidentified		Will, Virginia Beach Independent, go ahead.
		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Just want to say, sounds like a very interesting book.
		I'm planning on adding it to my summer reading list here for sure.
		And I do want to preface this statement just to sort of agree with the concept that certainly faiths of all kinds should and almost inevitably will bring their ideas into policy and legislative derivation and creation, but certainly shouldn't be the source, right?
		Exclusively.
		But aside from that, then I just wanted to sort of point out an idea that I come from where sort of with a scientific viewpoint that when you sort of create, say, something like a chemical, right, it requires some sort of catalyst and reaction.
		And in that process of creation, you create the thing you're looking to create a target of some kind.
		However, there's always inevitably a byproduct, something that is not part of the target, right?
		Absolutely.
		And that consequence, unfortunately, can be very toxic sometimes, almost deadly.
		And then sometimes it can just be certainly benign.
		So in the creation of an idea, such as a policy or even legislation, to the idea of the consequences of ideas, there is inevitably going to be some sort of aspect of it that isn't necessarily the point of the creation of that policy.
		So I just wanted to see if there was any sort of idea from that that could be derived in context to your writing.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Well, exactly.
		Let me just say a couple things on that is Madison actually addresses this point when he's arguing for the Constitution.
		I mean, he says that among all the things they considered, they were trying to figure out how to deal with faction, right?
		And of course, I mentioned just moments ago what his experience was in Virginia.
		He actually saw it could be a good thing.
		But he said, look, we considered just extirpation, which is basically, you know, banning it.
		The idea of factions and everything like that.
		He said that.
		He said the cure would be worse than the disease.
		So he's getting into this enterprise that you're talking about that you have to think about ideas and their consequences.
		Consequence is now broadly defined.
		Consequence can be a good consequence or a bad consequence.
		So you couldn't be more right.
		And the founders, again, had this dilemma, right?
		They knew that the articles were failing.
		And it was failing because there was not enough energy in the national government.
		States had the taxing power.
		I went through all that earlier in the segment.
		So they understood they were trying to get it right.
		This was not about, it wasn't about like some idea of progress, which is a 19th century German idealism.
		It was about a classical idea from antiquity, which is the idea of judgment about getting it right.
		Recognizing that, yeah, you're going to create externalities.
		You're going to create, the question is, do you have a system that actually can be malleable to deal with those?
		And knowing that there are sometimes what I call in the book, optimal decisions.
		Not ideal, but optimal.
		Now, I want to say one last thing, Will.
		Thank you for your commitment to read the book.
		I want to say to what I'm really trying to do is get all Americans engaged in this.
		It's a renewal of citizenship.
		Here's what I would love to do.
		When you finish reading the book, and perhaps you inspire some of your neighbors to read it as well, I recommend that you get together, maybe a book club, three sessions.
		The first session with introduction in section one.
		As you know, I mean, this is about philosophy and history.
		Then section two would be the subject of your second meeting with your colleagues, with your fellow neighbors.
		And then the third session would be the third section and the conclusion.
		You get through all that, Will?
		Reach out to me.
		I've got a website.
		It's easy to remember, thespiritofphiladelphia.com.
		Thespiritofphiladelphia.com.
		You can contact me.
		I'll zoom with your group.
		I'll take your questions.
		I'll interact with you.
		But what I would love to see is across this great country that we would actually take a second to actually put our partisan swords down.
		Just take a step back and say, you know, where have we been?
		And, you know, what were the reasons?
		What were the reasons behind the initial choices that we made, which were not perfect?
		Obviously, we had slavery.
		That was a huge error.
		And we had trouble recovering from it.
		We ended up fighting over it.
		But the point is, is, you know, what did they do?
		Why did they do what they did?
		And that we've walked away from some of that.
		What has been the consequence?
		And I'm hoping that we can get a real revitalization in our citizenship to consider these things.
		I give a whole series of reforms, but you've got to get way to the end of the book.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me get in.
		Joanna waiting, Germantown, Maryland, Line for Democrats.
		Just a couple minutes left here.
		Joanna, go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, boy.
		Okay.
		Good morning.
		There's two things that I think that are going on now.
		I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I intend to order your book as soon as I'm done on the phone.
		But two things that I think that are going now that go against everything you're talking about.
		The first thing is the death of expertise and expert.
		This administration is banishing experts in their field, whether it's science, medicine, education, health, it doesn't matter, national security, they're being banished.
		And what happens when you do that and there's no expertise anymore is it destabilizes the country.
		It destabilizes the society.
		The second thing is, and I'm going to be honest about this here, is you've got a group of congresspeople on the Republican side that are so afraid of being primaried that the exchange of ideas, the debate, they're not willing.
		They're not bold enough to do anything different than go along to get along because, I mean, they'll sell their integrity and their honor to stay in office.
		And I think that is not what the founders were all about.
		So I'd like you to address those two things, please.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And Chris Gibson, final two and a half minutes.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so let me just say, Joanna, thank you for the sentiments.
		I'm going to make the same offer to you that I made to Will is when you're done reading it, if you find other folks in your neighborhood, and hopefully regardless of ideology, but if they read this book and you do these sessions, I'm willing to zoom in with you and have this conversation.
		To your two specific points on expertise, I mean, look, here's the reality.
		We're living in a moment where Americans across the partisan landscape, let's remember that this movement, in some ways, Trump gets in front of Bernie Sanders.
		I mean, a lot of what Trump was talking about, systems rigged, you can't trust these institutions.
		A lot of that actually started with populism, left-wing populism of Bernie Sanders.
		Trump gets out in front of it, and he starts moving in this direction.
		And so, I mean, it didn't come out of nowhere.
		I mean, the fact of the matter is, is the Wall Street crash, Americans looked and said, we trusted, I mean, these were the experts.
		They knew so much about finance.
		How did this happen?
		And then you look at the wars that seem to be endless and pointless to many.
		They're like, what's up with that?
		We got that from the experts.
		You know, and even now, when you look at education, they look at the fact that we pay so much for it.
		We don't seem to be doing well with regard to standards across the world.
		And people think that it's moved against some of our culture.
		And so people start to say, on both ends of the ideological spectrum, saying, who do we trust now?
		Now, I mean, obviously, we need knowledge.
		We can't live as a species without knowledge.
		And that's a whole chapter in the book.
		So I want to affirm your point that we need to get back in the space where expertise matters.
		But let's recognize that we are a republic formed on constitutional and democratic principles.
		And, you know, half the country really is concerned in moving in that direction.
		The last point on Congress being afraid, this is where you can make a difference, Joanna, and Will, is they're responding to, they're like anybody else.
		I was a member.
		I mean, they don't want to lose.
		Nobody wants to lose.
		Who wants to lose?
		You know, so they're thinking, well, the best way for me to win is to hug Trump.
		If they hear from you, and I'm talking about Will and I'm talking about Bob from Texas, who seems to have conservative sentiments like me, if everybody reaches out to their representatives and say, look, we get it.
		We understand that there's widespread disaffection, but what we really want is this anchor.
		We know what the founders did.
		We don't believe we should centralize power.
		We don't believe we should spend beyond our means.
		And I believe that's happening right now.
		I think there's a burgeoning split in the right wing right now about these deficits.
		And you're going to see it in the Senate.
		So, Joanna, I'd say, don't lose faith.
		I'd say that to Bob, the conservative from Texas.
		And I would say that to Will, independent from Virginia.
		We can do this.
		We are a republic.
		We can change.
		But we have to get involved in this.
		It's not all the leaders.
		We need to look at all those dimensions of balance and ask those hard questions.
		How are we doing on that?
		So thank you.
		And I look forward to hearing from you.
		I look forward to hearing your reactions to the entire book.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Final question before you go.
		You've been a college professor, served in the U.S. Army, member of Congress, author now.
		What job have you found most not enjoyable but fulfilling?
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I get this question.
		It may not make people happy, but soldier.
		I mean, I love them all.
		It's a great privilege.
		I mean, to be a representative, I thought about it one day.
		I was a working class kid.
		Nobody had ever gone to college in my family.
		You know, my dad spent most of the 70s.
		They were all working class Irish Democrats.
		And I was the first Republican ever in my family.
		I remember sitting on the floor one day and going, oh my gosh, it's only been 12,000 people in the history of our country that sat where I sat.
		So it was an enormous privilege.
		Frustrating too, if I'm going to be candid.
		I love academia.
		I love learning.
		I love being in the classroom.
		I don't love grading, to be honest.
		But I have to say, on a scale of one to 10, being a representative was probably like a seven.
		Being a professor is probably seven, seven, or eight.
		Being a soldier was like nine on an average day, ten on many days, eight on, or maybe even less on some hard days like in combat.
		So, but the thing about being a soldier is it doesn't matter your background of any kind.
		You know, we're there for the team.
		And I've actually got a section on that because I think it's illustrative and encouraging for the country to see that section.
		So thank you for that question.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The book, again, is The Spirit of Philadelphia, a call to recover the founding principles, the author, former Congressman Chris Gibson.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Always appreciate your time.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, John.
chris gibson ▲ ● ▼		Good to be with you.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
		Coming up Wednesday morning, Randy Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers discusses the Trump administration's proposed changes to public education.
		And then Robert Enlow of EdChoice on education policy changes under the Trump administration and their impact on the school choice movement.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Wednesday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		On Wednesday, conservative political commentator Victor Davis Hansen will talk about the importance of national borders.
		Hosted by the Heritage Foundation, watch live at Noon Eastern on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.

▲