tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 24, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
nation of nations" which examines how the nation has changed following the integration act. later, robert jones on his ♪ morning.d it is saturday, december 20 4, 2016. christmas eve and the first day of konica which begins this evening. in the headlines, a vote yesterday by the un security council demanding israel stop expansion of jewish settlements in palestinian territory has caused a rift between the obama administration and president-elect donald trump. the united states abstained from the vote, a departure from tradition which has seen the united states beat so such resolutions. the abstention, which allows the measure to pass, was met with
criticism by israeli president benjamin netanyahu and donald trump who tweeted things of be different in his administration. we're taking your calls on the vote to criticize the expansion of jewish settlements in palestinian territories. tell us what your views are. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. independents can call (202) 748-8002. you can also reach us on social media, on twitter, @cspanwj. cspan. facebook.com/ let's look at what the u.s. ambassador to the when had to say about yesterday's vote. [video clip] >> because it are important issues not addressed in this resolution and because the united states does not agree with every word in this text, the united states did not vote
in favor of the resolution. but it is because this resolution reflects the facts on and is consistent with u.s. policy across republican and democratic administrations throughout the history of the state of israel that the united states did not veto it. yesterday's vote from the washington post. it says the un security council on friday passed the resolution demanding that israel cease jewish settlement activity on palestinian territory and the unanimous vote that passed when united states abstained rather than using its veto as it has reliably done in the past. the resolution declares settlements constructed on land, including in east jerusalem, has "no legal validity." it said settlements threaten the viability of the two state solution and urges israeli and
palestinians to return to negotiations that will lead to independent -- to two independent nations. more on this from the obama administration to abstain from that book continuing from the post. the move the five donald trump's edll on thursday -- thdefi donald trump's call on thursday. point the president-elect hammered home about an hour after friday's vote when he tweeted, "as to the wh -- the un, things will be different after january 20." we're taking your call. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.
a little bit more on that issue today from the new york times. it details the ongoing relationship, which is sometimes ethical between -- difficult between president obama and president netanyahu, this is a final class in a relationship that never clicked according to the times. mr. obama's decision not to block a united nations security council resolution condemning israeli settlement laid bare all the grievances the two men have nursed shortly after they took office in 2009. mr. netanyahu, it was the final betrayal by a president it was supposed to be an ally but never really was. for mr. obama, it was the inevitable result of mr. netanyahu's own stubborn defiance of international concerns with his policies. the two sides did little to hide
their mutual contempt. mr. obama would not be retelling the resolution as presidents of both parties have done in the past. theiri officials watched hands of the incumbent and contacted his successor. president-elect donald trump probably put out statements calling on mr. obama to veto the resolution. we had james comic from santa fe, texas on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. israel has been going back for years and years. tried tosidents have get these people to talk. israelisto me like the -- i know they want to bring their people into the country. mexicoseems to me like
coming into the united states and people here letting them come in with nothing. they just come in and take our land. palestinians are right in the way they feel, but the israelis are right on the way they feel, too. mr. trump is a fool. he is probably going to get united states with all this nuclear talkie is talking about, and the way he treats people, -- wee are going to be are going to have problems with this person in office. host: president-elect trump's position is the same as has been the position of presidents of both parties in recent years on this.
do you think in this case perhaps the administration may be should have considered that approach rather than abstaining? there has got to be cooler heads on this. netanyahu and trump all to make ught to make-- o a good pair. nobody says no to them. trump especially. i don't really understand the people that voted for this man. he has got no common sense. host: jim is calling from fort lauderdale on the republican line. caller: good morning. as republican, i would like to thank barack obama for this vote because with this vote he pretty
much blew up the democratic party for who knows how long. debbie wasserman schultz knows it. has anyone seen the statement she has made? it is really a very violent statement against barack obama's decision to do this. i would like to remind everybody of one thing. for years i thought the israelis or the biggest problem with the settlement in that area. that years agoet the israelis gave the gaza palestinians autonomy. and what did they do? as theirted hamas government, and there has not been an election since then. this to me, and it should have been to the whole world, this is a precursor as to what would
happen if the israelis settled in the way the rest of the world seems to think they want them to. two statee the solution a trial run and the palestinians elected terrorists for their government and they continued to blow up israel until they built that great big wall everybody hates. host: what about the idea that can only be one president at a time? do you think is problematic that mr. trump is making his views on this in so many other areas so vocal at this time rather than letting the obama administration continue until its end? caller: barack obama is a coward. trump is not a coward. that is really what this points out. barack obama is over in hawaii
and he is saying he doesn't have anything to do with this. he pretty much blew up the chances for a settlement over there. that is really what i see. i don't know what anybody else sees. barack obama is unable to convince people to his way of thinking. he doesn't want to take the time to do it, so what does he do? he takes out his pen and write all these presidential resolutions that are probably going to be undone. the man is a coward. he was an effective. i am done with him. host: tommy from tennessee of the independent line. what do you think about the vote? i think ituse me -- is a sad day in america. i think mr. obama perhaps made his most poignant and most pardonred part in --
when important the plo and hamas. the plo in my opinion was pardoned for what they had done through the years the people in israel and their own people. the palestinian people are good people. they are honest, hard-working people who have been basically manipulated by political system that has no regard for anybody but themselves. they don't even with the palestinian people that supposedly represent. i think it is a sad day in america. it shows mr. obama can pardon a terrorist organization by the plo. thank you very much and happy holidays to you all. host: lydia is calling from upper marlboro, maryland. good morning. caller: i think it is about time the united states stands up to israel.
billion a year in financial and military assistance and we have asked them over the years one thing, to promote the two state solution and to finally have a peace settlement in the middle east. is to stop settlements on occupied territory. they thumb their nose at us and then netanyahu is the worst. behavior last year and spoke in the house -- he came here last year and spoke in the house, didn't even tell the president and he lobbied against the iran nuclear deal. it is about time. eventually they are going to say, oops, there is not enough land for a two state solution. israel is not interested in a two state solution. they are not interested in peace. the palestinians were there when the state of israel was created in 1948. host: let me ask you this, other
past presidents have vetoed the measure. is it a concern now that the alliance between israel and the united states may be damaged by this decision? caller: it's been damaged by the actions of benjamin netanyahu. he doesn't like president obama and i think the feeling is mutual. the final straw this time is he called donald trump. donald trump is a private citizen until january 20 when he takes the oath of office. then he had the nerve to call president obama and tell him he should veto the resolution. who is he to tell? we all have one president at a time and donald trump his bounds inserted benjamin netanyahu. thank you -- and so did benjamin netanyahu. thank you. host: one from senator chuck schumer who tweeted, "extremely
frustrated, disappointing, and confounding that the administration has failed to veto. the human resolution" also a tweet from house speaker paul ryan. " today's vote sent a dangerous precedent -- set a dangerous precedent." is calling from new castle, pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: good morning. decision.this it is about time. i hope it is not too late. i am proud of our president for at least acting now. i would like to correct a couple of things i have heard. first of all, as far as being a break with u.s. policy, yes, it is a break with the policy of issuing the veto vote. it is not really a break with
u.s. position regarding the settlements. acknowledged they were illegal. we have always acknowledged they are destructive in regards to the peace efforts. for -- primarily for political reasons with the vetoing these you and resolutions. -- un resolutions. i would like to correct the previous caller restated gaza was given autonomy. i believe it was 2005 or whatever. that is a bit of a joke. yes, there were given autonomy but they were also surrounded and they were not allowed to suppliesmport basic
into gaza. they were only allowed to fish a couple of miles out to shore in the mediterranean. it was kind of a false autonomy. i think this is great. i just hope that our incoming president builds on this and does the right thing. it is not encouraging what we are hearing from him right now, trump is a dealmaker. he might just be positioning himself to where he might be able to do the right thing in the future. host: a little bit more on the timeline leading up to yesterday's un security council vote from the wall street journal. it says israeli officials said they were spooked by a december
for speech -- december 4 speech john kerry gave where he sharply criticized the settlement policy. he then held meetings with the palestinians' lead negotiator on december 12 two to discuss the peace process -- december 12 to discuss the peace process. they discussed that the u.s. was likely to abstain from the u.n. resolution. it says later on word of the u.s. abstention created panic in israel. mr. netanyahu held emergency meetings among senior aides. he talked to mr. kerry on thursday morning. israeli officials said they would seek mr. trump's support and blocking the resolution give the obama administration did not act. when a guarantee was offered, they began reaching out to
senior leaders in the trunk transition team. there is a timeline about things leading up to yesterday's vote and the israeli officials talking to members of the trunk transition team. mary is calling from potomac, maryland. caller: good morning. callsd say everybody who in to criticize this boat is obviously morally bankrupt. israelators kowtow to because they are scared of the israeli lobby and the damage they can do because they have senators to overthrow in elections. was a morally courageous vote, something that should have been done years and years ago.
paul ryan: shameless, but i -- paul ryan called it shameless, but i think paul ryan is shameless. i applaud the president for taking this bold step and showing the world that israel does not dictate our foreign policy and that we stand for decency and honesty and we intervene when it is necessary on sides other people may not like. i mean the palestinians. host: let me ask you this. some criticize the move saying it makes it harder to obtain mideast peace or open discussions about a two state solution when you have this antagonism between the u.s. and israel. do you agree with that? caller: no, i don't because the two state solution has been talked about for years and years, and all along america has
gone along in favor of israel. what has happened? nothing. nothing has happened. now it is time to take the bold move and the honest thing to do, and i'm very proud of this vote. very -- it wasa the right thing to do. host: ok. a little bit more about the reaction from prime minister netanyahu, according to reuters. "israel rejects the shameful anti-israel resolution at the u.n. and will not abide by its terms." that is the reaction from prime minister netanyahu as we discussed yesterday's un
security council vote. lisa from maryland on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i could not be more proud of the two maryland callers, one republican and one democrat. i think this resolution was exactly what we should have done to abstain. those who call and say barack obama is weak, on the contrary, he is quite strong standing up to israel and not being afraid of the jewish lobby, not being afraid of donald trump calling him -- which was totally out of bounds and disrespectful of his office. he should be sitting on the sidelines waiting for his turn, if he in fact -- those are my comments. i am so happy the maryland callers agree on this issue. they stand up to the bully
netanyahu there in israel. thank you. host: in today's washington post there is an op-ed. two middle east experts say that the move by the obama administration just made mideast peace a little harder to obtain. they close by saying a u.s. veto of the resolution would not have been an endorsement of settlements. it would've been an affirmation that this is an issue that can only effectively be addressed through negotiation. the best way to encourage those negotiations is not to prejudge timetables, but create the right regional conditions by countering spoilers such as iran and the islamic state who oppose peaceful coexistence, and the right local conditions for them by reinvigorating programs and that building confidence through economic and security cooperation.
peace in the middle east will not be accomplished through a u.n. vote. rather, it will require renewed u.s. leadership in the region in the rebuilding of relationships of trust with all of our partners there. this is where the next administration should start. john is calling in from arlington, virginia on the republican line. caller: i don't consider the vote, the abstention either anti-somatic or anti-israeli. i consider it one more chance to whichhe two state policy, everybody including netanyahu say they support, a chance. the israelis were right in the 2000's not to agree to further negotiations so the -- until the violence stopped. the palestinians see a creeping
taking of land on the west bank to the point where a state that anybody could consider contiguous, meaning one solid-state, that is ridiculous. it is way more like the apartheid system that the south africans set up and it is not good for anybody. this is a condemning of the settlements and it has to be done that way because israel has the power to do this and the palestinians cannot do anything about it. the peace process is stalled. i think the president did the right thing. the usual suspects voted for the resolution, like russia and china, but he had important now is like britain, our best ally, france, new zealand voting for the resolution. it is not exactly a resolution that threatens israel, it just threatens the policy was provides for increasing expansion to make a two state
solution impossible to the point where the israelis either would have to allow the palestinians to vote in their elections or concede they are running an apartheid system. host: what about that last op-ed piece i read that said in this kens the-- wea ties it gets it harder to obtain. caller: that would be ok if there was a freeze on settlement. but the negotiations have not gotten anywhere. the israelis are continuing to expand to the point where a legitimate state that could be organized is impossible. yeah, but one of those negotiations going to start? when will they end? at a minimum if they froze the settlements, then you have time to do all this. but the israeli policy is to continue the settlements, then
pushing the peace process off into the far future makes no sense at all because the onaelis are creating facts the ground that would be difficult for them or anybody else to reverse and make a two state solution possible. host: looking at some of our other headlines today from the washington post, trump's nuclear tweet leaving many unnerved. racebraced a nuclear arms and his staff scrambled to minimize the fallout, underscored in emerging modus operandi for the president-elect. he has seemed to revel in tossing firecrackers in all directions, often using twitter to offer brief but provocative pronouncements on foreign and domestic policies alike and leaving it to others to flesh out the issues -- his true intentions. he pitted to military
contractors against each other, proposed a ban on foreign ed china aftereedl a seizure of an underwater drone. "reallyon should, strengthen and expand" its nuclear capability. miami of the independent line, good morning. caller: i have been listening to the argument. i am surprised that a lot of people not noticing that this decision was a unanimous decision by the united nations. america -- it was not like america alone pushed this through. america is not even favor of the whole thing. it is clear the israelis don't intend to stop settlements.
if my memory serves me right, past president carter was accused of accusing israel of having an apartheid system in israel. israel has been doing what they want as long as they want and demands forsraeli housing because people are coming from all over the world to make israel a jewish state. and they need the land. the world needs to step up. not only voting in the united nations, but boycotting israel until they come to some peaceful agreement with the palestinians. more war and killing and catastrophes. unless the world puts its foot down and says enough is enough, you guys have to come to the table and decide on what you
really want. do you want a two state solution or to challenge as one stay together? it is time for something to be done. host: let's take a look at some other reactions from lawmakers to yesterday's u.n. vote. congressman jim jordan tweeted, i can -- "i condemn the vote today. i stand with our great friend israel in opposition to this resolution." we also have a tweet from commerce and scott peters. he tweeted his statement of the security council vote. he essentially is chiming in on this as well. we have randall calling from stephenville, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for allowing me to be a guest on your show.
the first caller i listen to from arlington, virginia was well informed, but i go back to 1948. i worked for jake barbee in chicago. in world warnel ii. in thehe fellow democratic network that picked farmgo and fixed a few boxes to the south and told harry truman we believe that with the help of the great people of chicago and a few farmers to the south we can return you to the oval office. the first thing, the reply from the american people to netanyahu on his last offense towards us, he is way out of line. secondly, i look at what is going on currently as perhaps a
mother would. there are mothers in black over there. 200,000 of them have marched in jerusalem. no news coverage. i am well up-to-date with the brainwashing the israeli people -- israeli government set out to have the network news and the cable news done. it began back in 1991 or 1992. the fellow from arlington is up to date, but here is the matter. in 1968, mike wallace of cbs interviewed moshe diane. he asked what are you going to stop? he said we get to the west bank. that was cut and dry a long time ago. the israelis do not want peace. netanyahu, hey, is the last of the neocons off of karl rove and george bush and all that nonsense. he is the last guy steadfast.
he will hurt our farmers but i should not go there. it was cut and dry a long time ago. respecton that would what israel would do will know that einstein turned them down for the thing you are seeing today. einstein would not be there first president. i know the locker room talk he involved. you read what historians will put in the paper for you, but i know the locker room talk he used refusing his job. host: let's look a little bit -- what wasat went going on behind the scenes with the incoming trump administration before the un security council vote yesterday according to the wall street journal. mr. trump and his team on thursday had talks with egyptian lsisi.ent a
israeli officials originally drafted the resolution. but after the conversation, egypt pulled the resolution from consideration a few hours before it was scheduled to vote. the move infuriated u.s. and european diplomats who saw the decision as a result of interference by mr. trump after egypt's withdrawal. it was cosponsored by new zealand, malaysia, venezuela and senegal. kathleen from riverside, ohio on the democratic line. what you think about the un security council vote in the u.s.' abstention? caller: i think it was a choice by president obama, as many other callers have said. it is about time. if other presidents had stood up to israel at the u.n., i don't
think -- we don't really know if the settlements would have continued to expand as they have. i know bush 41 had at one point continue expanding settlements, that our aid to for put ald be halted temporary hold on it. i know bush 41 suffer consequences for that public statement. the other thing i want to say is i think really the u.s. in many ways is being israel's best friend. it is like having a friend who is an addict in some ways. you are standing up to israel saying look, did he continue to do this, you are doing yourself more harm. if your intention is a two state, which many of us on the
phones have expressed, if you say you are for the two state solution, there have to be acts that represent that. you can claim them in some ways for the wall, but they will -- but they built the wall on internationally recognized palestinian land. continue to speak tongue and say you are for a two state solution and expand illegal settlements. i want to mention several websites i think are incredibly informative, although a lot of informed people have been on the phone sitting. one is called if americans knew. another by philip white is weiss. mondo both incredibly good websites. and watching professor near
shimer's lecture on israel and the consequences of their choices. and professor norman finkelstein who has suffered consequences because of speaking the truth about what is going on. host: ok. mitchell from harrisburg, pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: i have been listening to everybody speak. i am very interested in it. however, when george bush, the officeone, was in the the muslim brotherhood used to attend the negotiations. brotherhood muslim controls and does everything. you have to realize who you were talking to, trying to make
agreements, the deal. negotiate. forget about it. you are dealing with the muslim brotherhood. as far as nuclear weapons go with whatever the hell donald trump said, check it out. you can dial in the new nukes to 2000 or 3000 people. you dial in 2000 or 3000 and boom, you hit them. until israel builds a new wall, a temple, don't worry about the world coming to an end. just a member who you are dealing with, the muslim brotherhood. host: a little bit in some of our other headlines from today's washington post. it talks about vladimir putin and his end-of-the-year press conference, giving a message to democrats saying they should learn to lose with dignity.
according to the post, russian resident vladimir putin has a message for the white house and democratic leaders who accuse him of having their candidate's victory. don't be sore losers. that was how putin answered a question friday about whether russia interfered with the u.s. presidenta'election -- presidential election. the democrats are "losing on all fronts and looking for things to blame." he told the nearly 1400 journalists packed into a moscow convention hall, "in my view, this to grayson own dignity. -- this degrades their own dignity. he pointed out republicans won the senate and the house and the election, adding "did we do that too?" twitter, responded on
"in my opinion it was humiliating. one must be able to lose with dignity. so true." john from kansas city, missouri. what you think about the human security council vote on -- the un security council vote? caller: israel is getting ganged up on again. the israeli state was made back in about 1945, 1946, something like that. because they were chased out of europe, the ones that were killed by hitler, they needed a place to go. palestine has not been a country for several thousand years. they and the israelis have been added for most of that time. -- at it for most of that time.
you have to remember when the israelis are pushing their weight around they are trying to get a little bit of real estate every one ofand the countries that surrounds them that are not shy at all about saying they want to push them into the sea. that is what they are trying to do. that is not changed a bit. -- has not changed a bit. i do not begrudge the israelis anything. i grew up during the seven-day war never think back in the 1960's. everything back in the 1960's. vegas on theom las independent line. what do you think about the security council vote in the u.s.' abstention? caller: it is 60 years late.
the vote on the u.n. the israelis are the terrorists. they are a russian satellite country now aided by russia. they had truman's endorsement of a russia did. let them have florida, new york and california, they already own those. israel is the world war leader. that is exactly what is going to happen. world war iii is coming. we have trump with his son-in-law. juice come from ireland, in a palace -- jews come from ireland. let them go back to ireland. they deserve ireland. host: doug from brookline, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. earlier on you described elliott
abrams and michael singer as experts in the middle east. they are lobbyist for the israeli interest. patrick b can once said -- patrick buchanan said that the congress is the israeli occupied territory. it is no wonder chuck schumer is upset. in this election cycle alone, chuck schumer has received over $1 million from israeli pacs. the level of money that flows in the congress or israeli interests is absolutely embarrassing. shouldartment of justice american israeli political affairs committee as an agent of a foreign country. that is my remark and thank you and good morning. pages, thes opinion wall street journal reacts to yesterday's u.s. abstention in the un security council vote as
obama's anti-israel tantrum. it says the decision by the u.s. to abstain from a security council resolution condemning israel over settlements on the west bank is one of the most significant and defining moments of the obama presidency. it suffices presidents extra nearly -- extraordinary ability to transfer medicine public policy into personal pique at adversaries. it defines the reality of the international left's implacable opposition to the israeli state. egyptr this week, withdrew the security council resolution under pressure from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. donald trump also intervened, speaking with egypt's government and, via twitter, urging mr. obama to block the resolution, as have passed u.s. administration's and mr. obama himself in 2011. as was widely reported after the u.n. vote, the white house decided to abstain, thereby
allowing the pro-palestinian resolution to pass. in retaliation against the sntervention by mister netanyahu and trump. o,da from san liarn california. what do you think about the vote? caller: i think it is really not that much of a difference. first of all, we need to stop saying it is a two state solution. israel has been allowed to build settlements which is against the u.n. and the law, that has been international law. the other fact is we need to take a look at our leaders, our political leaders in congress. the senators and representatives, because they make a pledge. they have to make a pledge or write something saying they will
support israel. patriotic to the united states citizens over a foreign country. not even a country because israel is not a country. and the other fact is there is a called "the general's son." his father was a general when they first started the war. israel started the war. he also was a military -- was in the military for israel. he writes a great book about how israel has been wrong in treating the palestinians. how they have been taking their land without any cause. they just government for the people out. and also israel should give
reparations and money to israel for the holocaust, in a foreign country, in germany, but we won't give reparations to black americans for slavery. we will give money to israel for people saying that because they are poor -- people because they are poor. for over 400ved years and we can get reparations. everybody falls apart and goes crazy if black people asked for reparations. the chinese government rations. we get billions and billions of taxpayer money to israel. host: max is calling in from los angeles on the republican line. caller: hello, good morning. the last caller was actually -- herrrect in that point about israel being illegally occupying the west
bank with their territories. it goes against the u.n. charter way back in the day. israel emigrated into the area when it was palestine. palestine was a nation. the caller who called before the said it was not a nation, it was a state and the u.k. ran that state until they allowed the u.n. to give israel a piece of that land for the charter. the vote ishat, inconsequential when you look at it and understand that the united states is basically backing of the international policy and stating israel has violated international law with their expansion of the territories. causinged confusion and isis and these things to happen. if we go back to putin, what he
and are losers are losers will make excuses and point the fingers at others in order to blame everyone but themselves. he said the democrats need to look at themselves and what they did wrong. he also stated the russian government does not want a nuclear arms race, they don't want to proliferate and arms race. host: let's get back to the discussion about the un security council vote. you said it is largely inconsequential. what do you think needs to get to a order to place where negotiations can continue in the middle east, or do you think that is possible? caller: the negotiations are continuing. you have sour grace between pro-israel camps and the propaganda news media -- sour grapes between the pro-israel camp and the propaganda news media saying it is the end of the piece.
israel has been encroaching ever since the 1960's. they don't want to follow the rules. they want to act as if i can do what they want to do and use of propaganda media to present it as if it is an affront to the piece. -- peace. host: deborah, good morning. caller: i wanted to weigh in on the issue. first off i read yesterday that senator mccain, senator lindsey ryan, commenting that what we have done in the united nations way of standing on that vote about israeli settlements, that it was shameful. quite to the contrary. our political leaders in congress, that goes for the u.s. senate and house of representatives, just like the cinnamon for massachusetts said, they have been living with one side of facts. they disregard everything else
but the talking points they get from the american israeli political action committee. dollars --ens of billions of dollars of aid funding israel. we have problems at home. we turn the other way when they incite violence on a regular basis. they do not want to negotiate. they want to have a one state. we needed two states.\ the israelis as a people who are equal in worth to the palestinians and every other person that lives on the globe, everyone is equal. they are entitled to political, social and human rights. i have not seen that. andy trump -- and the trump administration will not be able becauseh any ideology of the blowback of this particular palestinian-israeli conflict which has been going on for years. host: do you think there is any
possibility to get to a two state solution? least,think at the very if there is a warmer relationship between the u.s. and israel, that it might a discussions and negotiations towards a two state solution? caller: the problem is the united states is not neutral. the problem is the united states always takes israel's position. i think her once the americans have to turn out and unelect the members of congress using our taxpayers to incite this one-sided vantage point. it will never push towards peace with that credit mentality. i believe what was done in the u.n., and abstention vote was gutsy. i think it was important to send a message and i'm hoping trump, who says he wants to sell the israeli-palestinian issue, i hope the ambassador he is
appointing is going to be disallowed to serve as ambassador. he is even more to the right than prime minister netanyahu. we are all equal and we need -- we don't get anything but low back by being so -- but blowback by being so one-sided. it is time for the american people to study the facts and started lobbying our members of congress or telling them you are unelected. host: kalid from santa fe, new mexico. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on the vote? caller: i disagree with obama's stance on israeli settlements. i still have confidence in his intelligence and integrity. trump is a bragging conmen who assert our democracy into a circus. i doubt his commitment to israeli security. host: ok.
according to the times of israel, it says the u.n. chief says the security council resolution on settlements shows "leadership." the u.n. secretary-general said friday that the anti-settlement resolution passed earlier in the witht the security council a u.s. abstention was, "a significant step" that showed leadership and demonstrated the international community'd collective efforts -- community's collective efforts for a two state solution. the heirs israelis and palestinians to work towards creating an environment that would allow a return to the negotiating table. he said the u.n. went "support all concerned parties on achieving this goal. the resolution demonstrates the much-needed leadership and the international community's collective efforts to reconfirm the division of two states is still achievable."
is calling from illinois on the independent line. caller: good morning. israel wase people, given. that is the promise land. it was given to the hebrew children by the god of the holy bible way back in the new testament time. god scattered the people because -- they started worshiping other gods. god scattered the people from israel. thus they became known as jews. israel is no bigger than the state of new hampshire. but god says i will bless israel. i will curse those who curse
israel. jimmy carter, which i voted for, he talked to israel into giving up the sinai financial -- peninsula for peace. they gave it up. they got no peace. herbert walker bush. they talked to israel into giving up the gaza strip. for peace. they got hamas. hamas was put into the gaza strip. by the palestinians. which, by the way, did not exist when god gave israel to the hebrew children. israel, you against stand against the god of the holy bible. we got a huge recession with jimmy carter did it. ingot a huge earthquake
california when bill clinton said quit building in the gaza strip. and we got two major hurricanes when herbert walker bush talked them into giving up the gaza strip. host: richard from louisville, kentucky on the republican line. caller: good morning. barack hussein obama will go down as one president who has back and supported behind closed doors islamic terrorism. case in point, his push for keith ellison to run the giveratic committee would terrorists and the muslim brotherhood, who keith ellison took money from, it will give these terrorists a national
platform. they will be in charge of the democrat party here in the united states of america. israel will not stand for anything the united nations does against them and their people. i predict that the united nations will be long gone before donald trump leaves office. host: coming up next, what has been the influence of immigrants on the united states. national public radio's tom jillson examines the impact over the last 50 years and joins us next to discuss it. our book series conditions with robert jones, the ceo of the public religion research institute and the author of "the end of white christian america." first, c-span's newsmakers interview the president of the nation's largest employee union. lee saunders of the
confederation of state, county and municipal employees. here he talks about whether he can work with president-elect trump's labor secretary nominee. let's take a look. [video clip] >> we will see. his past record, as far as we are concerned, is not a good record for working families and the department of labor. they should be standing up for union members and working families across the country. he does not support the increase of minimum wage. he did not support the overtime ruling. his company has had numerous violations, labor law violations. he has made the statement that he would prefer having robots as employees because they were not have to take sick leave and vacation time. that is not have you grow the american dream among working families. workers are suffering in this country. clearly the economy is improved
under president obama, but there is still a large section of this country, especially in certain pockets across this country where people and communities are suffering. and because of that i believe that is why trump is the president-elect. people were so angry and frustrated with what they consider to be business as usual. they wanted to make a statement and wanted to try something new and try something different because of that anger and that frustration. but to talk about not supporting the minimum wage for the overtime provision or having a questionable record as far as labor law violations, that concerns all of us. we will have to hold him accountable. we will have to hold the president-elect accountable. all of you will he talked about bringing jobs to this country and helping folks who are struggling every
single day. that was his message especially in the rust rust belt, in local communities where the manufacturing jobs have almost disappeared or plants have closed. he said that he is going to help those working families. and i believe we've got to hold im accountable for that. host: joining us now is tom jolten, author of a nation of nations. a great american immigration story. he's here to talk about the book which examines how america has been transformed in the 50 years following the 1965 immigration act. thank you so much for joining us today. iverpblgtsdzniced to be here. zphreels us about what made you embark on this project. guest: we were coming up on the 509sdz anniversary this law, immigration act of 1965. i considered it one of the most
important laws pass t in the 20th century as far as its effect on this country and yet a lot of people didn't know about it. so i thought that's a good opportunity. the anniversary of it was a good opportunity to take note of the passage of this law, the importance of the law, and most important how the country has been changed transformed in the last 50 years as a result of this law, which for the first time opened america's doors to immigrants of color up until 1965, 90% of immigrants were coming from europe, northern and western europe. and that was as a result of deliberate policy. the aim of the u.s. government was to maintain the united states as a white european country. the 1965 act really did away with that policy and put all nationalities on the same basis. and so as a result of it, over the last 50 years america has
really become a truly diverse country for the first time in its history. host: as you said, nine of ten immigrants now come from other parts of the world including vietnam, korea, india, pakistan, egypt, mexico, and central america. talk about a little bit about how that change happened and what the impact has been. guest: well, there was -- there were actually a couple of factors. by the mid 18960s europe was really prospering and had recovered from the trauma of the second world war. it was doing well economically. the urge to migrate was really reduced and so there wasn't a great impetus to move to the united states from europe as there had been for the previous hundred years. by that point, the real urge to move was coming from what we used to call the third world,
from asia, africa, the middle east. a lot of countries were going through a kind of decolonization, becoming independent. there was a lot of conflict associated with that. there was more opportunities in terms of communication and transportation. it was easier to migrate. so there was a great demand this those parts ot world to move to the united states, reduce demand from europe. so once the doors were opened in 1965, people just flooded in. host: we are talking to tom the author of "a nation of nations," a great american immigration story. talking about how immigration has changed since the passage of the 1965 immigration act almost 50 years ago. republicans can join our discussion at -- the numbers are on the bottom of your
screen. the pew research center has a graphic that shows how immigration has changesed over the course of american history, primarily back to 1850s, mostly european countries coming over. by 1900 you're seeing more immigration in the south from mexico and from the north from canada, and places like cuba. but by 2000, the immigration is coming in largely from mexico and a lot of other countries in the eastern part of the united states, places like china, portugal, poland, india, and el salvador up until today where you see people coming in from china, in places like pennsylvania, as well as the dominican republic and new
england. and more from el salvador. but mexico seems to be the largest in the number of states in the south and midwest. talk about these patterns. what led to the specific patterns emerging over the course of that time? guest: well, the biggest factor in immigration is essentially family connections. so people tend to migrate where they already have relltoifs living. in the case of my own grandfather who came here from norway, he came to where his uncles had come. that is a very typical pattern. you're moving to a strange country. the most comfortable thing to do is where you know people, where your relatives are living. so you see a pattern of chain migration. and in some cases, i used to live in mexico and there were entire villages in mexico that would migrate to a particular village in the united states
because that was where the connections were established. so that explains why different nationalities or cities even or communities end up people from those areas end up going to a particular place in the united states. host: let's talk a little more about the 1965 immigration act. what it does and what is going on at the time. what is the national origin system and what was its purpose? guest: well the act needs to be seen as a civil rights act. it was passed in 1965. the soifl rights act was passed in 1964, the voting rights act in 1965, the fair housing act about the same time. this was a period at the height of the soifl rights movement when there's a lot more sense toifl in this country and a determination to sort of right some of the historic wrongs. prior to 1965, the united
states had a policy of allocating immigrant visas on the bifes of your national origin. and again it was a deliberate effort to keep the united states as a white european country. so if you were somebody from germany or from scandinavia or the british aisle, you would have tens of thousands of slots available to you as an immigrant. on the other hand, if you were from any country in asia or africa or the middle east, those countries had a quota of maybe 100 visa slots per year. so it was a completely unbalanced discriminatory system. the midst of this increased awareness of injustice and determination to end discriminatory policies, the 1965 act eliminateded those national origin quotas. that was the main effect of it. so every country had more or
less an equal opportunity. people from any nationality had more or less an equal opportunity to come here for the first time. host: talk a little bit about the forces in some of these other countries, what was happening. has there been a change in the motivation both of europeans moving to the united states as well as people from asia and south america and other countries? guest: just consider africa. there were very few independent countries in africa. they were all colonies largely of european countries. during the 1960s a lot of african countries became independent for the first time. but there were often war and conflict associated with those movements. so those movements produced refugees, they produced a desire to get away from violence. and the same time in countries in asia there were -- the economies were gradually getting better and people were seeing opportunities to move
that may have been unrealistic before. and you had -- it was cheaper to move. and also, you had international communication. telephone and so forth. so people were able to make contact with their relatives in a way that they hadn't been before. so all these forces come together to make international migration more practical, more feasible than it had ever been before. we talk about push factors that are pushing people out of their countries and we talk about the poll factors. here in the united states the opportunities here in the united states that were pulling people in. so the factors pushing people out and factors here pulling people in produced this big migegrat tory wave. host: a nation of nations. the great american immigration story. good morning, al.
caller: good morning. i've got a question and probably a question for your audience. the last couple of years, how many gcomb grant illegals came into the country compared to the previous five years? and the same question. indian american on there and find out what happened to them when we let too many illegals come in at one time? it could happen again. thank you. guest: i'm not sure when you mean -- if you mean indian american or somebody from india. it's not clear what you meant. as far as illegal immigrants to the united states, i don't have those numbers. my understanding and -- and my book is really about legal immigration. not about undocumented immigration. so i'm not really an expert on that. but my understanding is that the number of people entering
the country illegally, the number of immigrants who have come here illegally actually has reduced in the last ten years largely because of the economic crisis that came out in 2008 that meant lot fewer opportunities here, fewer employment opportunities. people didn't see quite the advantage of coming to the united states. in fact, a lot of people left during that time. there were a number of years in the last decade where we had a net outflow of people. more people were leaving. more undocumented immigrants were leaving the country than coming in. now i believe the numbers have begun as the economy has improved the number is going back up again. but over the last decade it's actually been a reduced flow is my understanding. host: you said in the book that the immigration influx set up a blated sest of america's character and identity. you write, was it strength and
resilience as a result of its formation as not merely a nation but a teaming nation of nations? or were its achievements actually due to its angelo saxen heritage? did you find an answer to that question? guest: so the idea of the united states from the very beginning has been that we're a nation open to everyone. where everybody can get a fresh start. we're a nation of opportunity. george washington way back in 1792 said the booze m of america is open to receive not just the stranger but the oppressed and persecuted all nations and relingance. so this was the idea of america. you know the plaque of the base of the statue of liberty. give me your tired and poor. this is the idea that we've told ourselves throughout history. but we didn't really put it in to practice. so we didn't really know as a nation whether we could be as strong as we claim to be if we
were in fact open to everybody. it was only in 1965 that we actually dared to make that commitment. so in the last 50 years i argue in this book that we actually demonstrated our resilience, demonstrated our capability to be one nation of many nationalities, many national origins. but it was really only after 1965 that we dared to put ourselves through that test. host: gene from michigan. caller: right after apparel harbor in 19 41 and the spring f 19 42, my parents lived in kentucky at that time and they would load up 10 or 15 nam liz and trucks to bring their belongings to michigan where we worked on the farm. and they brought mexican people and i'm a up here
member of a mexican family there's five generations of us. but they paid kids 15 and under , 12 cents an hour, grown ups got 50 cents an hour. then after the war was over, no one went back where they were brought from. that's when eisenhower sent thousands back and in about 1955 or somewhere in there. and right near where eloif they had german prisoners of war there. and they had they had the farms, too. and they got paid better than we did and they were fed good. it was just -- when you needed them they brought them here and then they wanted to throw them out. guest: your family was among the mexican imzpwrants who came here to work?
caller: no. i was from kentucky brought up here to work. in the sugar beet fields. then in the 60s i married in to a mexican family. guest: that's gene's story as he says, there was a -- up until i think 1964 there was something called the brassero program. somebody who works with their hands, in spanish. and this program people were -- of mexicans largely were able to come here legally to work in agriculture. very, very low wages. and actually that program was eliminated in 1964 there was a feeling among some liberals that we were taking advantage f these people and paying them zirt poor wages. so that program was eliminated. the problem is that the demand
for those workers continued and so the very same people largely mexican who had been coming here under the brassero program legally up until 1964 continued to come to work in the same jobs in the same places for the same people but after 1964 they were illegal because that program had been terminated. it was the same phenomenon but from one day to the next someone who was here legally was all of a sudden here illegally. and that was actually the origin of the big move of undocumented people into this country. it came as a result of a decision to eliminate this agricultural guest worker program. host: all right. since you began writing this book, which is now iveble on paperback, since you began, we've had a presidential election where immigration took a very large role in the
discussion. not just the issue of illegal immigration but legal as we will. compare the discussion happening now over immigration to what was happening in 1965. guest: actually, some of the debate around the immigration reform that took place in 1965 has now come back again. and it's sort of surprising because over the last 50 years the attention increasingly has been on what to do about people here illegally. should there be amnesty, et cetera. and that was a big part of the election campaign this fall as well. there was talk, donald trump talking about building a wall, talked about deporting people here illegally. but as you say, for the first time sort of the question of whether we need to actually change our laws and allow fewer people to come here legally became an issue. ght now we are approaching
the point of -- that we were at at the beginning of the 20th century when about 13, 14% of the population was born outside the country. it went way down in the subsequent years. and then after 1965 the percentage of americans born outside the united states started going up again. now we're back up at almost record level. so some people are saying it's time to put a brake on this migration into the united states, even though coming here illegally. time to change our laws, give out fewer visas. do whatever has to be done. one thing that's been talked about is changing the law that allows immigrants to bring their family members here. because that sort of opens the door to ever more number coming in. and maybe do an immigration policy more like canada has which allocates visas on the basis of what you can contribute to the economy, your
education, your skills levels. that kind of need-based merit-based immigration policy is one that people are talking about, as opposed to this family unification policy that we have now. host: you're on with tom. aller: good morning. the previous caller had mentioned something to the effect, my question is, too, during this past election campaign we heard so much about illegal immigration across the border. and i was wondering if you had any insight on the nurl of illegal immigrants in the united states from other countries and who -- people who are not people of color because we hear so much of mexico. but i'm sure that there are many people who come here on visas and overstay. they are illegal.
we never hear in the national media much about that. we only hear about mexico. so my question is do you have any idea how many illegal immigrants that are here that did not come across the border from mexico? >> well, again, this is not my expertise. but i think you're absolutely right. i think there are actually more people who are here without legal status as a result of having overstayed their visas than there are people who have snuck across the border. i think that that is a huge issue. and you're absolutely right, those people are largely not mexican or central american. a lot of them would be from much further away. a lot come on student visas and then overstay. maybe they come on some kind of tourist visa and overstay. a lot of them would be from asia or the middle east. south asia. some from europe as well. so you're absolutely right. and if we're going to have a
fair and complete discussion of the issue of people here illegally, it's important to keep these numbers straight. that thear not all mexican, they're not all central americans, not all people who have come across our southern border. and building a wall is going to keem them out sh -- not going to keep them out. host: you pointed out in your book looking at people from asia coming to the yilingts and how those numbers have changed. in 1960, barely 11,000 koreans lived in the u.s. by 2000 that was 864,000. people from pakistan jumped from 1700 to 223,000 in that time. people from india rose from 17,000 to more than 1 million. talk a little bit about -- guest: i'm not saying these people are here illegally. host: this is legal.
guest: these are people who came here as a result of the passage of the new law. so they're people here legally. so this is an example of how america has changed and become a much more multicultural, much more diverse nation than it previously was. nd again, in my book i talk in particular about one county here in northern virginia that has really been transformed by immigration and where now about 30% -- this is fair fax county. about 30% is born outside the united states. it's a very prosperous county, one of the richest counties in the united states. and its success demonstrates that a lot of these new immigrants are very successful, very productive, very proud of being american, and contributing a lot to this country. so i profile a number of families in this book whose lives and experiences really demonstrate that.
host: paul from pennsylvania. aller: good morning. my family, we were in england first. so we came from jamaica before independence. so the mccarren act stopped us from coming to america so we were in england lapped first. we were in england until the 70s. when the economic crisis started happening over there. and then a lot of xenophobia started in england much like up here. you have the skin heads and national front. that pushed us to come here in america. i think there's a little bit of unknown history that there's a collaboration, i would say, jewish like upper class housewives looking for house mates and many through a
network were able to connect with caribbean women who became house maids. and my mother was one. so she came and she was sponsored by a doctor -- a dentist and his wife in new jersey. in 77. and we stayed in england until like 80. so we were separated for about 3-1/2 years. and then we came over afterwards. and we also then brought -- behind us, the rest of our family, which at this point almost everybody is here in america. there's very few people left back in jamaica. i would say that this election, though, has really -- in all of the years that i've been here. i went to demredge america, i actually teach college english and i've had a lot of opportunities here in this country. but this last election has me feeling like i felt when i was a young teenager in england
during the 70s. and i think that's a shame. i think that people's thoughts about immigrants just seems to be always a battle between the new immigrant and the old. and the old tend to forget very quickly that they were immigrants just a couple generations ago. when we first in the early 80s there were a lot of people from the caribbean coming up from jamaica trying to get away from political violence. some of them got involved. that tainted all of the caribbean community. i think that when phil jackson said to lebron james you and your posse. but he didn't quite understand what was the problem. maybe if lebron james had been jamaican it would have been more of a problem. that was one of the names of the drug-dealing cartels that came up here.
host: let's give tom a chance to respond. guest: well first, i don't -- i'm not so sure that the entire caribbean community has been that tainted. i just actually reviewed a book for the "new york times" about the caribbean culture and the richness of it. and how it has rally changed music and literature for the whole world the caribbean influence. so i think -- i would say that people of caribbean origin are not necessarily deemed as being tainted by the drug trade or something like that. so -- you mentioned a couple of other points that i think are words underscoring. one is, your own family illustrates our immigration policy has been so family centered that one member of a family gets legal status here, he or she has the right to
bring over siblingings, parents, children, so you get this kind of exponential growth in immigrants by virtue of this family unification. which is really important principle in u.s. immigration policy. i tell a story in my book of a man from pakistan who came here in the 1960s got an employment visa. his company brought him over to work in a factory here. and once he was established legally, he was then able to bring over his brothers and sisters and everybody else. and by the time, by the 1990s, he had been personally responsible for 100 people coming here. so it's like the case with paul, where one, his mother came over and as a result of his mother getting here other members of the extended family were able to come. again, that is one of the ways that our immigrant population
has grown so much. host: you anticipated one of my questions. before you did focus on fairfax county you looked at several people who had come from an array of countries. south korea, libya, bolivia, and others. what made you focus on these individual stories and what does that tell us not just about fairfax but america? guest: i wanted to sort of capture the variety of backgrounds that immigrants in the united states have. so we have here an example of a muslim family from north africa, from libya. we have the example of the family from bolivia in south america. and we have a family from korea. so we're sort of -- i'm trying to represent the diversity of the immigrant flow. these are all people who were first of all willing to share their life stories with me. and immigration moving from one country to another country can be a pretty traumatic thing and
a lot of immigrants don't want to necessarily relive all the difficulty and stress that is associated with moving to a new country. so i needed to find families who were willing to share with me their personal stories and i did with these families. i also wanted families whose stories were interesting, whose experiences explained some things, told larger stories that you could learn from. these are people who had given a lot of thought to what does it mean to be american. and when you are talking about a muslim family from libya, a korean family and a blivian family, the one to find out in -- what do they have in common and what are their -- with a do their experiences sort of tell us about what america -- what does it mean to come to americaw america changes you. helpedre all people that me tell that story. they are fascinating people.
their stories are in this book. host: karen from illinois on our democratic line. you are on with tom gjelten. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning, mr. gjelten. i just wonder, i don't know if you answered this question in your book. now that we are such a diverse culture, a diverse nation with so many cultural influences, how do you think that we can define ourselves as a nation? what brings us together when we say we are american? guest: that is a good question. i would say that it is more of an idea, an ideology than a matter of your blood or ethnic background. free in thisd of
country -- creed in this country. there are political ideas that we believe in in this country about what it means to be a citizen. we have a constitution and bill of rights. we have a declaration of independence that laid out a number of principles about all men being created equal. i would say that being american and coming to see yourself as an american is an ideological exercise where you accept the political idea of what america stands for, and that is in contrast to our ethnic idea of what america stands for. it does not have to do with your bloodline or race, or race, acestry, it has to do with commitment to a set of principles. that is what i think we can all agree on regardless of what our backgrounds are. host: tom is calling in on their
independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. do you have any statistics on americans living the american dream and migrating to canada? guest: i do not have any statistics. my guess is probably more canadians come to america than americans go to canada. the migration flow between the united it and canada is -- states and canada is big. it is not a story we think of often. similarder ourselves so , we live so close together that when people talk about immigrants, they don't really think about canadians. when people talk about immigration and movement, we don't think about going back and forth between the united states and canada. it is an international border.
canadians are every bit as much of an immigrant to this country as any other country. i'm sorry i don't have more numbers. host: we do have numbers on something else. on what the immigration wave will bring moving forward. your book talks about what happened in the last 60 years. as you pointed out, according to research, from hugh the immigration levels were about 14% around the turn of the 20th century, down to 4% in the 60's and up to 13.9%. it is protected by 2065 to be at 17%. guest: that would be the most ever in the history of the country. host: it is an upward trend. immigration's impact is mixed.
what do you think will happen as immigration continues to grow? guest: we will see basically a continuation of the trends we have already seen. we are going to see, i would say, more appreciation of other cultures. whether you are talking about holidays, religion, food or dress, we are already much more aware of the diversity in all those areas then we used to be. -- whetherss that we it is art or music or anything else, we will be much more aware of the richness of other influences. there could be more conflict. we have seen that. just one happyen last 50 years. we have learned, i think, that there are a lot of people that get nervous when they see the
country changing this way. they feel that there are perhaps certain values that are put at risk, values they consider really important. to have different religions, we think of ourselves as being largely a christian nation or a judeo-christian nation. when you get a lot of immigration from untraditional areas, you have to rethink some of those things. that can be unnerving, stressful, produce conflict. i don't think we can necessarily assume that these trends you talk about are going to continue. there could be changes in our immigration policy that would make it harder for people to come here. in which case you will not reach 17% in 2065.- that is assuming our laws stay the same. if we begin to allow people to
come here according to what they can offer as opposed to whether they have relatives here, that will reduce the number of people coming in. host: we are talking to tom gjelten, a correspondent with npr. covered u.s. diplomacy and military affairs for npr. the pentagon -- lead pentagon reporter during the war in iraq and afghanistan. caller: good morning. in who immigrants coming get benefits, financial benefits when they come in, and when my grandparents came here -- they had nothing. my grandfather had to pay for my grandmother to come here. he had to pay his own way.
he had to financially take care of his own family. benefits are given now to immigrants. when my grandfather came here, he had to speak english to his children. now they don't have to speak english to their children. he was told if he did not speak english, his children would be taken away from him. why aren't we going back to no benefits and teaching people that have to speak english? that is my question. guest: my grandfather came here, too. he had to pay his own way. i think people who migrate now still have to pay their own way to get here. we don't pay people to come here. you are right, there are more benefits for people arriving then there were when your grandparents came or my grandparents came. this is not necessarily the result in our change of treatment and immigrants.
there was not social security when your grandparents came. there wasn't medicare or medicaid. the social welfare system, the safety net was not established for people of limited means. it is not necessarily a change in the way that we treat immigrants exclusively. it is a change in the way that we treat people with low incomes generally. immigrants fall into that category. some immigrants fall into that category. i think there are a lot of immigrants that pay taxes and pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits. even a lot of people, immigrants who are here without papers pay taxes. they are able to work and pay taxes and don't get anything for that. they don't get social security or medicare or medicaid. it is a complicated picture. the other thing is that my grandfather came here.
he did not get any benefits. he was able to stake a claim on land and claim it as his own. there was a whole period in the settlement of america where anybody could stake a claim and homestead a piece of land. an awful lot of immigrants from your grandparents generation and mine benefited from that. times change. the idea of benefits change. benefits our grandparents got are not available to immigrants now. on the other hand, immigrants can get some benefits now that our grandparents did not get. it is a complicated picture. i try not to oversimplify it. host: carlos is calling in from florida on our independent line. you are on with tom gjelten. guest: hey, carlos. host: are you there?
we will move into grade from texas. good morning, greg. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i am so glad for c-span. education is very good. you will hear me? guest: i can hear you. caller: anybody that gets rid of fox news that talks bad about their country and divides people, when i see c-span, you educate people. i don't know why you are not on the regular channels. i appreciate you. thanks to c-span. i cannot read. i cannot write. i am 57 years old. i grew up in an environment where if you don't learn at school, you don't learn. i grew up with hispanics and blacks. i thought they were in the same boat we are. they are not. we should pull together and stop
letting use the white man use us against each other. we voted. the hispanic people don't have your back. you go to the job, they smile in their face and underbid you on everything. they have these babies and get the money, and then they write them off on the income tax. foodhave a wife that gets stamps. they bring these illegals over here and work them like slaves. they treat their own people -- guest: carlos give tom gjelten a chance to respond. guest: you raised an important point. there is a lot of debate on whether immigration is good for the country or not. how it affects different people.
one thing that i think is indisputable you have already pointed out. when you bring in immigrant workers, they will compete for jobs and especially they will compete for jobs that would otherwise go to low income people in this country. the competition is most intense at the low end of the skills ladder. people who do not have a lot of education in this country are more likely to be affected by immigration than people who have a lot of skills and education. to the extent that there is a negative impact of immigration, it falls more heavily on people of low income with low skills, low education. they are the ones who may lose jobs to immigrants who are willing to work for lower wages than they are. to an extent, that affect is
counterbalanced by the number of immigrants who come in with skills and education and are able to play productive roles in the economy. if you look at the economy as a whole, you can make the argument that immigration actually brings economic growth and innovation and is good for the country. stratumook just at that of people at the low income level, therecation is a lot of competition from immigrants as you have found in your own experience. host: we are talking to tom gjelten, the author of a nation of nations: a great american immigration story. immigrationng about since the 1965 immigration act. democrats can call (202) 748-8000.
independents "washington journal" -- independence (202) 748-8002. if you are in immigrant yourself (202) 748-8003. chris is calling from maryland. caller: good morning. i have heard the usa is the most permissive -- has the most permissive immigration policies. i want to ask if that is true. i have found the most resistance against immigrants occurs during economic downturns and when the u.s. is being attacked. holocaust victims, there are stories that they were not admitted. i wonder if that was because they were germans or jewish. andlast part is the hutus were massacred. were they brought over after the massacres? guest: is the united states the
most permissive? i would say that in some ways it in anyone whotake has a family member here who is already a citizen, not just any family member but assembling for example. that means we open our doors to a lot of people. has, asn the other hand i have said, a more skill-based immigration policy. they bring in a lot of immigrants. right now, the percentage of canadians who were born out of canada is higher than the percentage of americans who were born outside of the united states. canada has a pretty permissive immigration policy human though the criteria are very different. -- even though the criteria are very different. go back to the beginning of the 20th century.
wasnational origins quota put in place in 1924. that was a period of time when a ert of anti-foreign sentiment was in this country. the ku klux klan was coming back. catholicseven towards in some cases. a period when there was a lot of opposition to foreigners from anywhere just about. that even included people who were fleeing the holocaust, jewish refugees who found it hard to come to the united states for many years. that is to the shame of our country. genocidal warser in the years since. you mentioned the fighting in central africa that resulted in a lot of hutus and tutsis
fleeing that violence. in the horn of africa in somalia and ethiopia, a lot of violence there. we have people fleeing. you have people fleeing from syria. people fleeing from afghanistan. throughout history when you have oneviolence and conflict, result is a large refugee flow. the united states for the most part has been pretty accommodating to refugees. periodically, there is a feeling that we should not take in any more refugees. that is not just a recent phenomenon. that is something that has been, as you have pointed out, we have seen throughout our history. host: something you pointed out in the book, akin to the impact on lower wage workers here, the fact that you call it the immigration act a civil rights
act passed with other civil rights measures. you pointed out that the influx of immigration sometimes conflicted with other civil rights issues. in places like their backs where racial segregation had been the role, it created conflict. no standard get black residents when a measure of justice than the common sense competing for scarce resources with newly arrived immigrants. guest: fairfax county is an interesting story. it is in northern virginia in the metropolitan d.c. area. it is much more tied to the south. there was segregation in fairfax county and throughout virginia. that area, that community had to go through a desegregation process, which can be traumatic. african-americans lived in segregated neighborhoods and went to segregated schools.
they only got improvements in their services by fighting for them. actually --ce they i tell this story of a group of african-americans in fairfax county that finally got a community center built for their children and community activities. no sooner was it built then immigrants were coming in and using it. immigrants have not fought for it. they do not work for years to get it established. once it was established, they started taking advantage of it. a lot of people said wait, we have to fight for this and now we have to share this with people who did not fight for it. that story is indicative of the tensions that arise in communities where you have changing populations. our independent line in texas. caller: good morning.
my name is men well. -- manuel. texas did not become a state until a few years ago. guest: quite a few years ago. caller: i am latin. i am latino. when i grew up, i grew up in texas. texas was already estate. state. mexico about 160 years ago. i did not know any english. i went to school and learn my english and came out a pretty smart person. , i remembercourse all these people that started coming from mexico. i already knew how to speak english. i had a rough time learning and growing up.
here is my deal. these immigrants,. and do not know any english. i already know my english. i already know the traits that i learned. i have to teach these guys the english language and what to do and what not to do. let tom gjelten response. guest: your story is one that characterizes a lot of the history of this country with newcomers coming in and having to find their own way and achieve whatever they have been able to achieve as you have, learned which. learnms like you have -- a which. seems like you have a responsibility to help those that have come after you. it is to your credit that you have done that and share your skills and teach these newcomers. the you feel at times like it is
unjust. maybe you feel like there was nobody there for you when you are having to go through that period. you said it was a rough time. it is your credit that you are in a position to help those people and it reflects very well on you. host: you were a reporter at the pentagon on 9/11. how do you think that the 9/11 attacks affected the view on u.s. immigration policy? guest: i have a family from libya in this book. they are at about muslim family. i wanted to make sure one of the families i profiled was muslim. islam is the fastest growing religion in the u.s. right now. immigrants from muslim majority countries are coming. they meet all the other criteria that other immigrants have.
aboutis a lot of anxiety -- and misunderstanding of islam as a religion and nervousness about that. 9/11nk in the aftermath of , in these 15 years since, we have seen that. -- trabeen a dramatic umatic experience for many muslim americans. there are many non-muslim americans that are nervous and confused about what it means to be a muslim, and where are your loyalties. i wanted to explore the experience in this country of a muslim family. everybody who is listening, watching the show now, knows how many issues there have been around extremism and islam and
radicalism and religious violence. it is a troubling issue. from ronald is calling in new york on our democratic line. caller: good morning. phraseu used the popular that all men are created equal. in what sense do you mean this? albert einstein was an immigrant to the united states. legally, of course. i have never known anyone beginning to be equal to einstein in any way. have you? guest: you know that is not my phrase. that is thomas jefferson's phrase. that is in the declaration of independence. as you know also, i don't think even thomas jefferson meant that literally. people -- allow black
were not considered equal to other people. that was kind of an idealistic statement or unrealistic statement at the time. i am not sure exactly what thomas jefferson had in mind. it is kind of an ideal we have aspired to. it is an ideal that we would like to leave even though we have not always put it into practice. i think it is an important principle, and it is a principle that this country has been built on. i would say it has taken us 250 years to get to the point where we are actually beginning to put that into practice. i think it is good for the country to have an ideal to aspire to. this notion that all people are created equal is a pretty good principle to base a country on. tom is calling in from new york on our democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span.
i would say this statement is not true. i believe in immigration. i believe in legal immigration, not illegal immigration. that is the problem we have in our country. we have been flooded by illegal immigration by the hundreds of thousands. have 26 taxpaying americans working for me of all nationalities. illegal aliens came in and under get my prices and put my guys out of work and start my country -- company of work. i cannot survive anymore. they are flourishing. i'm going under. nobody seems to care. guest: that is a story that certainly resonates with a lot of americans. as i have said over and over, my book is actually about a decision by the american people and american government to open
doors wider to allow more people to come in legally. it is entirely about people who are here legally. one of the things i learned in the course of writing this book is that a lot of people who did come legally don't have tremendous sympathy for those who came outside the system. they had to wait in line. i'm sure that some of the people you have employed have those stories. you can take and usually does take years to get your visa approved save connection to come here. you do have to wait in mind that -- line. i think there is frustration and lack of sympathy over how many people have come here outside the system. i think the feelings you have are ones that even a lot of immigrants would share.
i am sorry you have had this experience. that is a difficult thing to go through. i am glad you shared your story with us. host: brian is calling in from washington state on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, "washington journal." happy holidays. am calling in regards to my wife and i both have great grandmothers from norway. in the migration and family history. i think that is something people need to remember. it is something you talk around the holiday table. the upcoming generation gets to learn stories that are passed on as civilizations and cultures do . i will like to ask the guest what his opinion of the
migration that is coming from puerto rico due to their financial chaos. 1000 puerto ricans a week, not considered immigrants, but coming to the united states as u.s. citizens with no vetting. this seems to be something that is not being discussed at all. guest: the reason it is not being discussed is because they are not immigrants. puerto rico is not a state, but puerto ricans are u.s. citizens. situationimilar during the depression when people from what was called the dust bowl in the south were migrating to other parts of the united states, california or example where there were more employment opportunities. you saw the same thing with african-americans migrating to the cities from the south.
we are talking about migration from one part of the country to another part of the country the cusp there are different economic opportunities. you are right, puerto ricans are going through a terrible financial system right now, but those people have every right to move to some other part of the country where there are more jobs. do talk about setting -- we not vet people who move from one part of america to another tear it that is their right as americans, to move. i do not see how we can institute some kind of special policy for people from puerto rico who want to move to some part of the united states to find work. ,ost: all right, tom gjelten thank you so much for joining us this morning, and happy holidays to you. guest: same to you. next, is america still a
christian nation? robert jones examines that idea in his book, "the end of white christian america." he will join us next. stay tuned. >> this holiday weekend on c-span, here are some featured programs. today, a look at farewell speeches and tributes for outgoing numbers of congress and the white house. 12:30 a.m. eastern was senator barbara mikulski of maryland. :00 p.m., tributes in speeches for vice president joe biden. at 8:00 p.m., join first lady michelle obama as she receives the official white house christmas tree. see this year's decorations at the white house. withchristmas projects children of military families visiting the white house. finally, the tree lighting ceremony on the national mall.
at 8:40 p.m., here from john boehner on the trump presidency. p.m., it in the portrait unveiling of outgoing senate minority leader harry lee -- harry reid. speakers include hillary clinton, vice president joe biden, and charles sumer -- charles schumer. on sunday, we will hear from charles rangel of new york. and then from the shakespeare theatre on capitol hill, we take you to the "romeo and juliet" wrongful death mock trial where samuel alito serves as presiding judge. then a look at the career of vice president-elect mike pence and his new role as vice president. watch on c-span and c-span.org, and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: joining us is ceo of public religion research institute and author of "the end of white christian america," robert jones, here to discuss his book. deals with the politics and social values of our country. thanks for joining us. explain to our viewers what the public religion research institute is. guest: yes, we go by our acronym, prri, but we are a nonpartisan, not-for-profit research organization that specializes in doing mostly public opinion research at this intersection of culture, religion, and politics. asks ther book question, is it the end of white christian america? what do you mean i white christian america? guest: it may be helpful to
start with what i do not mean. i do not mean the end of all white christians in this country, nor do i mean the end of all white christian churches in the country. what i do mean and what the book is really talking about is the cultural shift we have had in the country, and when i use the words white christian america, i mean this really dominant cultural edifice that was built primarily by white protestants in the country, not even by catholics. at the kind ofck stereotype of the cultural center of the country being white, anglo-saxon protestant, this waspy cultural center, that is what i am talking about that we really have seen the end of as the country has grown more and more diverse. findingsone of the key in the book is that we have already moved from being, just demographically, over the last eight years, we have gone from
an majority white christian nation, going back to 2008 when 54% of the country was white and christian, and today that number is 43%. we have crossed this threshold of being a majority white christian nation to a minority white christian nation. at a whiteis looking christian country, saying it is now a minority. 43% of the country is made up of white christians. try 4% nonwhite christians. -- 24% nonwhite christians. 23% unaffiliated. in what ways have we seen a change in the cultural paradigm, based on the diminishing numbers of white protestants in the united states? ofst: you see the big wedge the religiously unaffiliated, the other end of the story. as the number of white christians has come down, part
of that is an immigration story and the changing ethnic composition of the country, but the other part of that is that white christians are disaffiliated, especially young people, from christian churches. that has accelerated this trend. one-quarter of americans claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. if you look at younger people, it is nearly four in 10 young people that claim no religious affiliation today. most of that shift has come from white questions -- christians in the country. host: an excerpt from your book says the american demographic, cultural and religious, is being remade, but while the country is shifting, racial dynamics alone are a source of apprehension for many white americans. it is the disappearance of white christian america that is driving their strong, sometimes apocalyptic, reactions.
host: what do you mean by that? guest: for so long, the and white and christian has been central for what it has meant to be america. after barack obama's reelection, i received this email that had this black and white photo of a white christian family and prayer around the dinner table, and it was a lament about losing white christian culture with the reelection of our first african-american president. for many, barack obama was a symbol of this changing landscape. the rising number of latinos and people speaking spanish was part of the realization. and many older white christians are looking at their pews, and
they see the sea of heads that is more and more gray. more numbers of young people are leaving white christian churches. host: we are with robert jones about his new book, "the end of white christian america or coke republicans can call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. the book talks about white christians, but you focus on product is -- you focus on protestants. why leave out catholics? believe it ist leaving them out, but the tribe cultural force has been the world of white prodded to -- white protestants. going back to the mid-20th it wouldin the 1950's, not be unusual to go to a country club and see a sign, or at least in the policies, the
people not allowed, african-americans, jews, and catholics. catholics have often been excluded from the story, and only recently have those barriers actually come down. host: ok. and you talked about age a little bit as another sharp difference. prri talks about white christians by age. we look at people over the age of 65. 65% are white christian. down to millennials, the folks between 18 and 29, it is less than one-quarter of them that identify that way. tell us what is happening. guest: i like to look at this chart as an archaeological dig through generational strata. as you dig down, you see that it is linear. you can draw a line to these generational trends. and that is just a snapshot of
americans living today by generations. in ais a big change generations-time. -- and a clue as to why has sent shockwaves through american culture. this happened very quickly. talking about the demographic trend, and the last hour we were talking about the effect of immigration on the country -- is that part of it? is it because fewer people are identifying as christian? is it that there are fewer whites? or is it a combination of both? ofst: it is a combination both. certainly, immigration has been a factor. but that has been flat or even negative over the past few years. one of the things i talked about a lot is birthrates, so lower birthrates among whites compared to nonwhites in the country. fuelhing that pours
on this fire is young people leaving white churches and becoming nothing, becoming religiously unaffiliated. host: robert jones, founding ceo of the public religion research institute, talking about his book, "the end of white christian america." from thousand in oaks, california, on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, and happy holidays. i do say happy holidays, because i am neither white or christian. my religion, hinduism, this is really nothing holiday season for us. just something appointed out, because -- just something that i pointed out, because we had our holiday office party a couple days ago, but our holiday season was a couple months ago. in your book, sir, did you examine the growth of other religions?
did you call out religions such as hinduism? it is important in the modern-day context, because a get misidentified as muslim because of the turbine, etc. guest: yes, where you would find in the buddhists, are wedge of other religions in the country. it has been growing and the country over the last few decades. one of the challenges with public opinion research is that in your typical political poll or public opinion poll, it has about 1000 people in it. if you have a group the makes of 1% or 2% of the population, and jews make up 2% of the country, there is never quite enough for analysis. it is one of the real challenges of public opinion research as we
have growing numbers but not studies, enough for unless they are specialized studies focusing on that group, which is very expensive here at those are few and far between. but from the holiday party thing, i think it does to the cultural divides we are feeling and the country and defensiveness that many white christians are feeling around this. we put out a poll last week about this very thing. orwe say happy holidays merry christmas? this so-called war on christmas kind of gets revved up every year at this time. it is really about this changing demographic. you're not quite sure whether you can say merry christmas to everyone on the street. we found the country divided right down the middle on whether, for example, the question was whether store clerks should greet customers with merry christmas or with happy holidays at a respect for those not celebrating holidays at this time.
to this, the way it falls out in our politics, is that republicans and democrats ends of theite spectrum. two-thirds of democrats say happy holidays at a respect for those who do not celebrate christmas. of republicans say, no, no, we should say merry christmas. host: talking about the politics of this, as we have often discussed on this show, white protestant made up a big part of the electorate who helped propel presidentialto a victory. at the same time, according to another prri chart, it talks about how the percentage of people who voted for a democratic presidential candidate over the past several cycles, whereas black protestants were voting as much recent years,t in but on the other end, you have white evangelical protestants
who vote less than one-quarter percent of the time in recent elections. guest: that chart has the last several election cycles, and it shows kind of a consistency. it does not change that much from year to year. that is pretty remarkable, given the candidates that have been running have been very different. really is party that provides the stability. the one remarkable thing to me is that, since reagan, if you want a shorthand for understanding the religious landscape in politics, it is that white christian groups tend to lean toward or strongly support republican candidates, and everybody else in the country, nonwhite christians, non-christian religious groups, religiously unaffiliated lean toward or strongly support democratic candidates. that is the divide we have been living with since reagan, and the democratic party became the party of civil rights. whites in the south went to the
republican party, and that is the divide we have been living with all this time. host: we have a call from houston, texas, on our democratic line. caller: praise the lord, and good morning. i am a minister and a person who loves jesus christ, and i do not feel that we should honor anybody else's religion as far as whether we say merry christmas or happy holiday. that part, i do. however, i do want to say that it is laughable about mr. robert jones. clan, --ay few clucks why not say kkk, period? i am in the brown skin, but i am a jew. i have been part of the kingdom of the living god. you cannot be a real priest and sit up there talking about whites, because color has nothing to do with god. host: let's let mr. jones
respond. guest: it is interesting. this kind of theological point, which i hear a fair amount. i appreciate the argument being made. as a social scientist, when you actually look at the behavior of persons in the country, one of the reasons why virtually every social scientist and political scientist that studies the itigious landscape sorts using race and religion is because of the political behavior and beliefs and values veryite christians are different than african-american christians or latino christians are asian-pacific islander christians. one of the interesting pieces of is howrican landscape very similar beliefs, like african-american protestants and white evangelical protestants share three-quarters of the theological beliefs, like the virgin birth, a literal view of the bible, these kind of things,
a literal heaven and hell, are all shared, but when he gets refracted through the experience of race, they go to very different places in terms of public policy. that has been true in the aretry, for those who ministers like the previous caller, noting that difference does raise some interesting and perhaps troubling theological questions. host: at a postelection campaign forum last month, a gop pollster discussed the shrinking the burr of white americans and -- shrinking number of white americans and race overall. [video clip] of peoplean half being born in the country and younger kids are nonwhite. there will be an incredibly sharp change. we have today the highest number of people born outside the
country since 1880. we have the highest number of people speaking a language other than english in literally the last 80 years. i believe america is founded on a principle, and we are stronger because of this incredible influx of new people. every wave of immigration in this country has led to social tension, dislocation, kind of a battle. guess what has been the happy icon over a generation? our country's capacity to assimilate people and to function as a nation. i believe that will happen over time. we are watching the same dislocation that took place at each different time of these immigration waves. and i think there is a right noe of history, and that is
party is going to survive in this country for very long as a white party. if you do not find a way to have some inclusive message and some capacity to motivate people around these divisions, you are not going to survive as a majority party. host: talk a little bit about that in terms of cultural power in america. if this is a shrinking group, isn't it more important to focus more broadly? guest: it is a republican pollster talking, and one of the things i wrote in the book is exactly this point. the republicans themselves in lost, did mitt romney some soul-searching and determined exactly what he is saying here, that unless they brought in the tent, the long-term future of the party was really at stake. if you go back from the 1990's to the present, republican presidential candidates, whether they win or lose, their coalitions are about
80% white christian voters. net is even as that proportion has been declining. they have been remaining reliant on a shrinking group of voters. democrats have been moving with the times, so bill clinton's coalition in the 1990's was about two-thirds white and christian, but barack obama's in 2012 was only 7%. so this gap between the two parties has become a norm us. enormous.ome i was skeptical that a candidate like donald trump did run a campaign that would double down on white christian voters as a winning strategy. i liken this to kind of a hail mary pass. it was highly unlikely but occurred. it ishat means is that not a long-term strategy, right? if you win your final football game by throwing a hail mary pass into the end zone and your
guy happens to catch it, you do not want to hold onto that as you are playing for the next playoff game. that is a very unlikely strategy for long-term success. calling in from asheville, north carolina, on our republican line. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: great. you are on with robert jones. aller: i just wanted to say kind of unusual viewpoint. i did not endorse donald trump. i really appreciated the christian preacher, martin luther king, jr. i thought it was awesome, his last words in memphis about the coming of the lord, because god is a god of justice and truth. saying all that, and my one comment is that i really wonder if there is less white christians because they have been monitored, -- mar
tyred, and that is what i wonder. it is sad that people have not been taught right about what god is all about. guest: thank you for that comment. i think if you mean literally killed, i do not think we have much evidence for that. what we do have a great amount of evidence for is that young people have essentially been looking to the exits of churches. there are a couple factors. we have asked young people who were raised religious and then left, and most of them leave before the age of 20, so it is a very early decision for those who left, and when we asked why they left, we hear a couple things. iny say they stop believing the supernatural teachings of the religion, the virgin birth, those kinds of things, the religious teachings of dogma. is other thing that comes up
more than one-third of young important that a very reason why they left was because of negative teachings or negative treatment of gay people. among conservative white churches, that has been a point of contention with younger generations that are very supportive of gay rights. host: next is james from mississippi on our independent line. morning.es, good how are you all doing? host: doing good. , what is yourbert denomination? up in jackson, mississippi, not far from you. i grew up southern baptist. say thatk, i heard you this particular race is beginning to decline, but isn't that true for most of the
denominations, a lot of them are beginning to decline? also, the decline is not necessarily because of the denomination of white, because a lot of the people you are talking about are so tired of the fraud and hypocrisy that goes on in these religious organizations, and a lot of them are just fed up with it. it is not just white, as you say , but there are african-americans, hispanics, you name it. they are tired of being labeled, rather than being filled with the holy spirit, and the teachings in these churches that the young people are turning away from, what you are saying, into satanism and these other
.rganizations they are worshiping all other kind of things, and that is because of the way you are approaching this conversation, talking about white. it is like you are putting racism in it. host: let's give robert jones a chance to respond. guest: thanks for the comment. that thereere is actually are differences. let me be clear that the reasons and most other social scientists, it is not unique to this book -- it is a pretty common practice -- to really look at religious groups by religious affiliation and race in the country is mostly because they behave on the grounds so differently. you go to api, white church or african-american church, and you see what those people in the church is do.
they look really different from one and another, and that is why we study them in different categories. at the macro level, we do see differences here. among asian-american pacific islander churches, latino churches, they are actually growing in this country. we see those standing. african-american churches, over the past few decades, are basically holding their own. general replacement. not growth but not great decline. the really great decline is really among white to moment -- white denominations, both catholic and protestant. host: we are talking with robert jones, founding ceo of the public religion research institute and a columnist for the atlantic. he is talking about his new book "the end of white christian america." you pointed out, on the issue of younger people, that a lot of factors is driving this, including support for
same-sex marriage. putsf the reports in prri the percentage of americans who are white christian versus the percent of americans who favor same-sex marriage, and the two have been reversing course, particularly during the obama administration, whereas, before there were 32% of americans in 2004 who favored same-sex marriage, while nearly 60% identified as white christian. same-sexy 60% support marriage and 43% identified themselves as white christian. guest: the reason why i put those on the same chart is because i think if you want to understand the kind of white christian anxiety we saw in this chart goescle, that a long way toward explaining it. you think of yourself as , white christian,
conservative, these trends are fairly fast and alarming. if you go back to popular in cycles, only four in 10 americans supported same-sex marriage. today that is six in 10 that supported. if you go back to 2008, if you were in service of white christian, you were a majority demographically, and a majority of the country agreed with you on same-sex marriage. today, neither of those things are true. you are no longer a majority of the country, and the majority of the country disagrees with you on this kind of flagship issue for many white evangelical christians, gay marriage, a very symbolic issue. we talk about the feeling of vertigo for many white christians as to what has happened in the country. ?hat has happened to my country that is the way it comes out too
many of them. host: jamie is calling on our democratic line. you are on with robert jones. caller: i am a white christian. like the lady said earlier, i do not see color when it comes to religion and christianity. it is a believe in jesus christ, the lord and savior. and the decline, and is all the millennials and the decline. -- decline has been getting changing as time goes on. for me, i look at mtv and a lot of the popular media pushing a lot of that. it would take too long to explain. but it is like america was americaon god, and
is a melting pot. it is for everybody. the religion, it is like now if you try to voice your religion, it is so serious and hateful in a lot of ways. it is just, i don't understand a lot of people's views. i am a democrat, but i was for donald trump. it was completely based on because i thought he was more for the evangelicals. and i hear the thing about, you know, about the same-sex that y'all are talking about. they think it is so normal and right. if the world was full of same-sex people, it cannot last. no reproduction. it is a contradiction in itself. i just want to say one thing, that jesus christ is the son of
will bow tory knewe him one day. guest: thanks for that, interesting. a democrat from kentucky, evangelical, voted for trump. , but i appreciate the call one thing i hear and that is, you know, i don't understand these changes in the country. i do not like these changes in the country. and that was one of the things that pushed me to trump here at one of the things i have argued, to explain one of the biggest mysteries in the election, was why 81% of white evangelical newrs voted for trump, a high water mark for support for a republican president. he does not really fit this will -- the so-called values voter. did not really have a history with churches. it was an odd fit. yet, there is the high water
mark of the so-called value voters. trump was successful in the sickly converting values voters into what i call nostalgia voters. voters wasgroup of fully looking back, right, make america great again, and the last word was the most powerful part of this, looking back to a valuesen white christian had more control, more prominence in the country, and when things like same-sex marriage and more women in the workplace and civil rights, and all that stuff, that is part of what happened here. trump made this appeal to turn back the clock and kind of turn the tide on many of these cultural changes that white evangelicals found very uncomfortable. host: let's look and an excerpt from your book that talks about that point. t says --
host: talk a little more about that. sections is in the called the social world of white christian america, describing some texture to it. earlier, you tied some trends together, and i often say it is a world where you could walk down the street and say merry christmas and not think anything of it. but i think it was a very insular world.
it was also a world that was only visible from the inside. if you were white and christian, that is what the world look like. if you were african-american, that is not what the world look like in the 1950's for sure. if you are white, it was a fairly comfortable place to be. as it has been broken down, it has been challenged and dismantled in many ways. it is part of this sense of cultural vertigo that many white evangelicals are feeling now. many of the touch stones are not there. even the ymca is now does going by y, dropping the men's association part of that. the masonic lodge membership has gone way down. but i think it really is this sense of a lost cultural world and this deep sense of nostalgia that is driving a lot of the anxiety we are seeing in our politics. host: floyd from virginia is on
our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call, c-span. robert, you are really quoting the bible there, because this is the end days that we are living right now. see one-third of god's children following satan, so they are here now. they was born into this. satan is on his way back. toope everybody has a pen write down 1-800-643-645 or go to shepherdschapel.com to learn the truth. host: do you have a question for robert jones? caller: i am commenting. the comment is, i mean, it is bible, one-third of god's children follow satan. days, now in these last and they are here to follow satan. they are here now.
jesus was not born in december. he was born in september. he was conceived in december, for all you abortion people. you are celebrating his conception. and youo that website, can find all this information out. host: let's give robert jones a chance to respond. guest: so the end days, right, the apocalypse, very literally a reference to the apocalypse. i think the reasons why this election felt so divisive is people onn many ways, the conservative side of politics, it did feel kind of apocalyptic. one survey we had before the election, we asked what people made of these changes. just had, hiswe interpretation of the changes as there literally the end of the world.
we ask americans, do you think the american culture and the way of life has changed for the better or for the worse since 1950's? the country is evenly divided, right down the middle. half the country thinks the country is change for the better, and half the country thinks it has changed for the worse. two-thirds of democrats say it has changed for the better. two-thirds of republicans say it has changed for the worst. no group says it has changed for the worst more than white evangelical protestants. three-quarters of them say things have changed for the worst since the 1950's. it really is an interpretation of the end of the world. democrats say, no, no, we are moving into a golden age maybe and things are getting better in our country. host: talk more about the differences between 2016 and 2012 and the election. romney, you had mitt
mormon, and his faith was a big part of his story and his life, and he did not say or do the things we saw donald trump do in did not election, which align with a lot of religious principles, and why he resonated with the folks -- talk about culture and economics, how that plays into this. you did an interview with jennifer region from the washington post, and you said many white even tickle -- even evangelicaly white protestants and white voters, they talked about a lost cultural world. trump's promise is that if he is elected, the factory gates will reopen. the boards will come down off the storefront windows, the pews will be filled, and america will
know their place again. talk about how his message differed so much from governor romney's. to say thatre right -- this is one of the reasons why romney was one of the critical people of trump during the election. scorching speech about donald trump right toward the end of the election, so you could not get more attention than you had between these two people. vote chartok of the and it is not that different. vote fore evangelical mitt romney, donald trump got 81%. i think it goes to the power of partisanship, just how tribal, many religious groups, particularly those strongly on one side or the other. african-american protestants, being democrat has become part
of the identity. for white evangelical, it is part of their identity to be republican. i think the way that donald and no onesed this, is more surprised by this than expected-- he really evangelicals were really going to be the way he beat donald trump. but across the south, donald trump handily beat him. cruz was talking about getting religious exemptions from these gay rights laws, smaller policy things, and trump up was saying that we're going to turn back the clock. he promisedme way to bring back factory jobs in indiana or bring back call mining jobs to kentucky or build a wall between the u.s. and mexico, he was also making explicit promises when you just evangelical audiences to say i am going to fill the pews again
and churches will have more power when i am president. these were very big promises. i do not see any levers for many of them to get done. nonetheless, if you are in that world, a conservative white christian in kentucky, donald trump hit a lot of the points you really care about. even if there is no immediate way to deliver on those points, he was speaking to concerns and anxieties in a way that hillary clinton was never able to do. host: sabrina from tennessee on our independent line, hello. caller: hi, i grew up in the bible belt. i grew up pentecostal. now i practice my native american ways. i have left the church. the reason why i think a lot of people have left the church is because the church is very judgmental when it comes to people being different.
a lot of young people are addicted to drugs and have difficult lives, and the churches are not very understanding when it comes to that. i think that is why the younger people have left the church. but in our country, the white christians have always pretty much had a lot of power in our political system. but i think the reason why everybody rallied behind trump is because our government has become very oppressive. we have a child support system that much takes all of our money. we have the court system that also gets a big chunk of our money. we have our factories closing and going to other countries because we are too expensive to employ. i think that is what america is tired of. we are tired of having blocks put in our way. being beatenof down with an "i can't"
stick. there are so many blocks and the young american's life that we have to overcome just to break even. i think that is why everybody is tired of hillary, and that is why they voted for trump. host: let's get reaction to that. is pain and struggle, and i think that is true. one of the things we saw in some of our data into the election was that the economists were saying we are out of the recession and the economy has recovered, job reports look good, macro indicators that we were not in the great recession of 2008. but when we asked everyday americans whether they thought we were still in recession or not, 72% of them said yes, we're still in recession. there is a disconnect between macro indicators and what people are feeling on the ground in terms of economics, and that role. a huge
there is this economic struggle, and she mentioned drug addiction. one of the things of the sort of white middle america is experiencing that people are just getting their heads around is this opioid addiction that has decimated white working-class communities in the midwest and the south, particularly in rural areas. it has broken up families and marriages. people have lost jobs. even the jobs that were there. so it has been a really tough time economically. and then on top of that, there are these big cultural changes, and it is a pretty volatile mix. she is right. even if people had misgivings about donald trump, they reached for him as a mechanism for change. something had to change, and maybe he might do it. host: from the book put together by prri show the states were
white christians remain dominant, with more than 50% of all the way from the west, from idaho toward most and most of this -- you call this the near south. placesolinas, virginia, where they had a much bigger stronghold in the past are not so much anymore. talk about that. guest: this surprised even me a little bit. what that map is is the density of white christians. the states with higher proportions of white questions are not the deep south. there the upper midwest, all those states. that map has nothing to do with politics, but if you overlaid the states where donald trump did better than mitt romney did, the biggest movements are in those states.
when we did a correlation, we looked to see the correlations between white working-class people in those states and the density of white christians in those states, and a stronger votelation between trump's is the density of white christians in those states. yes, it is class, but it is also culture. the upper midwest and appalachia, and, west virginia, up into pennsylvania, and another one you can lay over that is opioid addiction and death, it would look similar to this. host: we have a call from ohio on our democratic line. caller: good morning. i am a 68-year-old white woman who was born again at 19 in a pentecostal church. we still believe you must be born again. we also believe that being
filled with the spirit is not an option. it is something that god asked us to do, to stay in jerusalem. you can deal with it whatever you want. but i say that the day after the rapture, the churches will be completely packed to far overcapacity. and the reason why we americans have had such a great falling away is because the bible says that we will have a great falling away. ours nobody's fault but own. we have allowed capitalism to be our god when we should have allowed the king, jesus, to be our god. we followed the good old yankee dollar, instead of following the rules of christ and what we're supposed to do for our neighbor. and yes, sir, i am my neighbor's keeper. it is my responsibility, as a
born-again christian, to do whatever it takes to lift up my neighbor. if that means i have to lift him up 10 times, the bible says that i should forgive somebody for an occurrence seven times seven times a day, for the same occurrence. that means i have to have a christlike spirit, not only on sunday when they go to church him and i teach sunday school, or when i take care of the nursery or one ago when on wednesday and teach a class, but that means also when i am at work, when i am at my business, when i am shopping, when i am driving. host: ok, let's give robert a chance to respond. guest: i appreciate the window into your world. one of the things i hear is multiple touch points with church. sunday or wednesday or doing volunteer activities. this is one of the things that churches have historically done, been a kind of social hub.
at the end of the book -- i begin with an obituary for white christian america, but i end it with a eulogy where i am thinking about the meaning and coming to the end of this social world. one of the critical things, one of the things i worry about is that white christian churches and protestant churches have served as points of community. they have been launching pads for all kinds of terrible activities. whereave been places people have been plugged into civic engagement, registering to vote and other kinds of things. one of the things people will have to figure out is that younger people are still less likely to vote than older people are. , one ofe, historically the ways people have been plugged into civic engagement is through religious institutions.
but as fewer young people are plugged into those institutions, how do they get cynically engaged? what are the mechanisms going to be? historically, they have been churches. that is still an open question as to how younger people are going to organize or not to maybe they will not. let's focus on white christian america. is there any way that that focus can be helpful? you talk about civic engagement. there is also civic engagement done through black churches and other groups, islamic groups. is this, in any way, a negative, to focus on just white christian americans and not faith more broadly? guest: every book has to pick which story to tell. one of the things i wanted to do was to focus on this world, and
the reason why is because it had such cultural dominance at one point, really through most of our recent history. itre is a historian who put this way, in the middle of the 20th century, 1940's, if you were in charge of something big and important in america, chances work you were white and male and protestant. that is not the way it looks today. there is the story of the decline of this world and the kind of vacuum it has left in its wake. i think that is where we are in the country. one of the important things it has told is really the source of some of the anxiety we have seen, particularly on the conservative side of politics, among white evangelical protestants as they feel that loss of power and influence. is there another book to be written amount -- around african-american churches and
where they are? there is an explosive growth of latino churches. absolutely, that is going to absolutely shift the landscape. even in places like north carolina -- we do not really think about the latino culture there, but there is a vibrant latino culture there today. host: a call on our republican line for mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning. what i wanted to a dress is it sounds like there is a little bit of bias in your treatment and the ideastians that they are looking for of oldia and the culture . instead, i think we're looking for a return to values that matter, that last, not just something that used to be a something that ought to be.
does that make sense to you? guest: sure. the thing about the book is it really is a database book. there is a lot of evidence base we have not gotten into. at the 1950's question is pretty stark reminder that, yeah, the values that last, values that matter, absolutely -- in some ways, i think that is what everyone in the country is looking for. but what i think has happened, and i say this as a man who is white and christian from mississippi myself, but for many white evangelical christians, those values are embedded in a social time and a social place, and they tend to be embedded accurate looking. even in the language the caller used, they used the word return. it is not sort of something new but something to go back to. i think it often gets played
that way, as a revival, return, backward looking. it is a sort of cultural loss. that is the thing i am trying to hold up to the mirror. cultural is a story of loss for many white evangelical christians, particularly in the south. i think coming to terms with that loss is really what the book is about. host: to what extent is the change attributed to or does it involve race or even racism? you talk about going back to a distant time and a 1950's, pre-civil rights act, before the transformation that the country really had based on race and civil rights. guest: yeah, one of the things i came away from the book with was centralse of just how race relations and the history of racism in the country have been for political life and our religious life and the country.
isost every denomination split over the civil war, for example. southern baptists and the american baptist have still not reconciled. southern baptists are still in the south and american baptists are still in the northeast. that is the civil war divide. it was actually over a missionary, whether a missionary andinted could own slaves, the south said yes and the north said no. that was the divide. in our politics, the way we get the lay of the land between republicans and democrats is essentially the 1955 civil rights act. before that, you can find more democrats in the south. it used to be the solid democratic south. and then there was the great white switch that happened post-civil rights. the democratic party became the party of civil rights. there was a plan put in place by republicans, the southern
strategy, to attract whites using race as a wedge. the structure of our churches and politics is already done up with the history of race in the country. i hope the book puts that on the agenda. host: ok, bill is calling from pennsylvania on our independent line. caller: hello. impact on -- [indiscernible] my question goes with the polls of the young unaffiliated people. did you ask them about their parents and how strong their religious faith is? are they regular churchgoers? something asked of the young unaffiliated? host: i will let you answer with
a few seconds. guest: great question to it we had a report in august called exodus, and we did ask about their parents. it actually is the second thing that makes the difference here. if they say that their parents and when they were raised were not that religious, that is the second most powerful reason why they end up not being affiliated in the next generation. the other two factors are divorce and having two parents of different religions. those are also factors in the next generation being unaffiliated. host: robert jones, author of "the end of white christian america," thank you for joining us today and talking about your book, and merry christmas to you. guest: thanks for having me. merry christmas and happy holidays. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: tomorrow, we will be joined by linda feldman, who
will discuss a recent article about donald trump remaking the presidency and his affect on the republican and democratic parties. we will also be joined by tevi troy. he will discuss his book which examines how presidents respond to disasters, how decisions can make or break their presidency, and why americans should be prepared to handle disasters on their own instead of expecting the federal government to save the day. that is all for today's "washington journal." we will be back at 7:00 a.m. happy holidays. host: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> today on c-span, a conversation with the ben & jerry's cofounder jerry greenfield followed by women entrepreneurs discussing innovation and does -- and diversity in silicon valley. then retiring senator barbara mikulski gives her farewell address from the senate floor and later, look at this year's white house christmas decorations and the lighting of the national christmas tree. >> every weekend, book tv gives you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors and hear what -- and here's what's coming up of a book about a book about abandoned schools across the u.s. at 8 p.m., joseph beck talks about his book, a