tv Washington Journal 03222019 CSPAN March 22, 2019 6:59am-10:05am EDT
growth president david mcintosh on the 2020 presidential campaign, also on the program, jonathan metzl, author of "dying of whiteness" and how it is killing americans -- american heartland. ♪ announcer: good morning. expanding the supreme court, becoming a kit -- key litmus test in the presidential primary field. the president and the republicans have dismissed the idea. this morning we want your take on it. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independence (202) 748-8002. progressive groups and high-profile democrats are calling for democrats in the
presidential field to endorse the idea of putting more justices on the court. here is a headline from the daily beast. eric holder says the next candidate should consider court packing. they write he said recently the next democratic president should add additional seats to the supreme court. should they be elected alongside a democratic majority in the senate. presidentunning for as well, and the mayor had to say this about the idea in philadelphia. >> would you support a packing of the court to expand the supreme court by four members? >> i have not reached a considered position on the question. i don't think we should be laughing at it, because in some ways it is no more a shattering of norm then what has already
been done to get to where we are today. the mayor talking about the idea in fellow deal -- philadelphia. wondering what you all are thinking. jerry, what do you think? i am opposed to it obviously because this is a relatedl, not a justice concern. the people, they are afraid that republican nominated justices will not vote the way they want, so instead they pack the court. -- with people but -- to vote the way they want. and also this concern about the court, like the concern about climate change and other things, it is missing -- there is a tragedy in america, and i just froma friend last night this heroin laced with fentanyl crisis. i do not see any democrat
dealing with this issue that everybody i know knows somebody who died from this. all you hear about is climate ,hange and supreme court identity politics, when there is a true crisis, and it has gone and addressed by any of these -- unaddressed by any of these democratic candidates. so deal with a real issue, not the supreme court. >> sorry to hear about your friend. here is an exclusive this , the inside cnn story of how john roberts negotiated to save obamacare. it reports that roberts, in congress aticans in the time had been fighting the law at every turn for two years, in all of the gop candidates
2012 vowed to repeal it, now roberts had saved it. going forward, the chief justice would be viewed with skepticism , helpingvatism rollback campaign-finance regulation and voting for second amendment stronger gun rights. moves behind the scene were extraordinary. he change the court multiple times. he was part of the majority who initially voted in a private conference to strike down the individual mandate, the heart of the law, but he voted to uphold an expansion of medicaid for people near the poverty line. later he shifted on both. uphillal tally, i've-42 -- uphold the mandate, and this came weeks after negotiations among the justices. more on this if you want to
read, but that is breaking this morning. we are asking for your thoughts. this is what the president had to say about it. no, i would not entertain that. the only reason they are doing that is they are trying to catch up. if they can't catch up by winning the election, they want to try a different way. we would have no interest in that whatsoever. it would never happen. robert, a democrat, what do you think? caller: i think we should expand it. >> why? that he gets all of his little cronies in there, so basically we have more expanded justice, said --
justices, and i think we have -- having justice basically because i feel that we don't have justice right now. you -- you are concerned that the president continues his tenure and justices retire, that he would get more conservatives on the court, so you are saying lex -- let's expand it to even it out? caller: exactly. because if you get it to where, like right now, how many justices? >> nine. out,r: even if you even it it won't make it even to even right now -- it would take five to four, so if you even at out, you know, expanded a little bit more, you would have a little ,ore variety of justices
something that is for the people, not just for the government or the president. ages ofa look at the the court. roberts,n wikipedia, 50 four, thomas is 70. ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer are 85 and -- lito is 68 years old. and then you have sotomayor who cavanagh is 50. let's hear from john in georgia. it is no fair to attempt to pack the supreme court. it's been tried and failed back it is tosevelt, then try to pack the ninth circuit court of appeals. just because litigants don't like the decision they get, they
have an option, go to court. but if they do, then we have got to maintain the dignity and respect for the judicial branch of government because nobody nowects the presidency nobody respects the congress. look at the ratings. -- much higheraw from the people than the other two branches. it's the concept. project --u need the to protect the reputation of the court? to have anwere going independent judiciary, you have got to have the respect of the
people through its decisions, , but inonpartisanship the environment we live today, everybody wants to win. and if you can't abide the best football player -- by the best football player or what have you and you lose, it's crazy. it is just a crazy concept. host: let me hear from jacob, a republican. go ahead. i just think the supreme court should stay how it is whyt now, i know don't know everybody is putting so much stock in this, because we have been doing this forever. it works, so we should keep it
the way it is. int: amelia, a democrat california. caller: good morning. if we could just get moderate justices elected, we would not have to change or make it any bigger. couplenately, the past justices, democrat or republican, and there is no one in the middle. i think that is said. they should keep it the same, judges, more moderate not so conservative, not so liberal, just keep it in the middle so they can make a better decision when it comes to cases in court. greta: go ahead.
i spoke to you last year, because i had cancer, i still have it, but i am still here. your 40thtions to anniversary, i was able to experience that with you and all of your viewers. i wanted to ask you, are you going to show bernie sanders? greta: is that on his schedule? caller: i am not sure, but you can check our schedule for our 2020 coverage. we are covering the candidates, and they are busy. it is every weekend in the early primary stages, according to amelia. thank you for the call. we are so glad you are here. good luck. mark green, a republican has reposed -- proposed an amendment
to stop the idea of expanding the court. it reads, the supreme court shall be composed of nine justices, so one a more may be vacant until filled. it would take an act of congress to change the number of justices. it decides if the supreme court decreases -- before the amendment may be ratified, until those additional offices may be void. , rick?ndependent caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been following politics for quite some time. in my opinion the only time you heard about things like this, expanding the court, changing the electro you'll -- electoral college, or this last thing vote istting people to when the democrats struggle on merits of their arguments,
produce viable policies, then they want to change the rules so they can get what they want through other methods. i think it is obvious that it that desperate, and i wish the democrats would just come up with better policy so they can change thingsand through that method, which is the way it is supposed to be. bank --isten to beta beto o'rourke talking about the idea. >> there is nothing in the constitution that defines the number of justices. some are proposed, do you want five democrats and five republicans, and then those can choose another five, i like the
creativity the hind that. maybe it merits debate. i feel that it is oncoming to partisanship. you know what, part of the supreme court will be part of this forever. we ask for the number of justices in another way, can we set term limits so there is some and i am more, partial to that as a solution. whatever we do, at a time when our institutions, from press to court to access to the ballot box is under attack, we want to make sure we do this deliberately and soberly, and i say this in a bar, and we will bring you republicans as well as democrats. greta: this newspaper says this idea is becoming a litmus test for the 2020 field, and we want to know what you think of the
idea this morning. dave, republican in missouri. you are on the air. caller: why does it have to be partisan? why do they have to be labeled as conservative or liberal? judges should be constitutional, and of discussion. judges on the supreme court, lower courts, whatever court, they should not be partisan. there politics should play no part in their judgment whatsoever. democrat., michigan, good morning. what do you think? court: absolutely the should be expanded. mcconnell has destroyed the court. because what he has done, when obama was in, they wouldn't allow any justices to be confirmed, so absolutely they need to change that, expanded so
there can be more. democrats, five theblicans, the fact is republican party has destroyed this court. that is why it is so partisan. it is because of the federalist society. that is the screen test as to whether you can even be nominated. they are right winged before they even get there. cavanaugh should never have been conformed. he is not qualified. gorsuch may have had some qualification, but that was a stolen seat. that should've been an appointment by obama. the fact is republicans have been playing wrong for many years, and this thing about abortion, they are using a litmus test. those are the things that have destroyed the court. there should be at least 11 people in the court. what would that
accomplish? caller: the first thing, having a democrat having these additional appointments, what that should do, that would cancel out the 5-4. that has been the problem. the federalist society, the right wing have taken over the courts. it is not just the supreme court. the people they are nominating now, that the president is nominated, are unqualified. this is crazy. it is the republican that is doing it. it definitely should be expanded. a michigan, and democrat, -- a democrat, what do you think about what he had to say? here is a political science professor to talk about the
history of this idea, so mr. keck, when has this, before, the idea of expanding the supreme court justices? so as we just heard from betta bank, the size is not specified in the constitution -- over, -- ittta started as six, went down to five, went back up to six, then up to 10 and back at nine where it has stayed for a while. so in the first 100 years, it was a regular occurrence for the car -- court to alter the size of the court, and if you look at examples, i think they fall in one of two categories. sometimes congress changed the court because it was a partisan power grab. the party in power was trying to seize control of the courts in
order to use it to promote their own interests at the expense of public interest. whereme of the instances congress proposed changing the court are almost the reverse of that. their efforts to respond to partisan power grabs, the other illegitimately seize control, and we are trained to bring it back in line with the broader public views, and the best way we can see to do that is alter the size. greta: when did it expand to nine, and what are the specific circumstances? 10 -- itand its to expanded to 10 at one point, and then it was reduced following the civil war after president lincoln was assassinated and his vice president came president, and andrew johnson was opposed to the plans for reconstruction that lincoln had initiated, and
congress,allies in they reduced it back down to nine in order to prevent him from making the next appointment. greta: the most famous effort to expand the number of justices was attempted by president franklin roosevelt. why did he want to do it? >> we are in the great depression, unemployment is 25%. banks are failing left and right. roosevelt gets reelected in 1932 with a promise for activists efforts to get us out of the depression. 1936, andelected in every economic regulation that he and congress were enacting, the courts were striking down, minimum wage laws, retirement pension laws, regulations of labor relations, over and over
they were saying the federal government is not allowed to enact these laws. it was a crisis. cornerfelt backed into a that the only way was to help preserve and protect the whole country, and the only way he is going to be able to do this is if the court stops relying on outdated interpretations of the constitution. put -- proposed increasing the size, and it was a pretty forward proposal. he wanted to add six. some of his democratic allies said, could we do two or three instead? he said he wanted six. that was not enacted, but one of the reasons it was not was because the court just fell back down. 1937 it upheldf the minimum wage law, so if the
court is not going to serve as a partisan obstructionist body anymore, then there is no longer any justification for the political branches to try to tinker with its size. ,ut if the court had continued then i think some version of the packing plan would've been enacted. it was seen as necessary. greta: professor, what is your opinion of the constitutional amendment by mark green to put on the books that the supreme court shall be composed of nine justices, that one or more may be vacant until filled? >> at the moment it is clearly just a partisan attempt to respond to these proposals that democratic candidates are starting to endorse. the issue, if we are trying to
think what size it should be right now, your answer to that question will depend on what you think has been going on with the court in the past few years. as we just heard from one of ers, if your sense is republicans have altered normal procedures in order to help seize control of the court for their own interests, if that is how you see recent actions, then you see -- then democrats have justification to propose changing the size. if you see republicans have not done anything wrong, and now it is just democrats think they want to change the size of it, then you would be inclined to try to fix the size at nine. if we are going to pass an amendment to alter the rules about structure of the supreme court, there are more important things we could do than just fixing the size. i think the proposals for term would certainly be
worth considering. the fact is when the framers said that judges would be appointed for life, life expense and see -- expectancy was shorter. republican presidents have intensely been appointing young supreme court justices, justices who are about 50 years old at the time of appointment on the hopes that those folks will serve for more than 30 years. the creates a danger that court, and which is what is -- happened during the great depression, that the court is fundamentally out of line with the views of the american people, which leads to obstruction by the court. if the agenda cannot be enacted because the court stands as a partisan bearer, -- barrier, -- if we had a democratic president after 2020, and if the republican court acted in a
partisan manner to obstruct the agenda, then i think you will hind thesementum kinds of proposals. we have to restructure it in some way if it is serving as a partisan court. thea: you wrote a piece for washington post. -- supreme court justices they must give the branches room to sis -- address societal need. what is your opinion? so changing the size of the court i think is sometimes justified when two things are in place. partiesof the illegitimately seized control of the court? they have attempted to capture procedures,normal refusing to fully investigate brett kavanaugh before confirming him, they have normal number proceed --
procedures. i think that is clear that has happened. the other criteria, have the judges they appointed abuse their powers? it is one thing that there is a majority of republican judges on the court, but if they act like normal judges, they have a right to be there, and we don't need to alter the structure, but if the republicans on the court, if they act instead of like judges, like partisan republicans and go on a bit of a rampage obstructing agenda after 20, then i think democrats are justified in thinking about restructuring the court. keck, thank you. >> thank you so much. greta: back to your calls. charles, independent, what do you think? i think leave the court
at nine people and have five women and four men on it and also the u.s. congress should it be half women, and also more does the if the woman same job as the man, she should get the same pay. nick, republican, from illinois. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i find it amazing how mad some people that have called in over a lost election peered that is the reason they want to change everything, because we lost. i have also taken a consensus, it is only democratic when the democrats win. go ahead and try to eliminate the electoral and watch the mess that happens. chicago has control over the
state. democrats have full power over the state of illinois. i am waiting for them to bring up the number of senators from each state. i'mcome california -- sorry, with 30 million people, have the same number of sanity's -- senators as wyoming? i am waiting for them to bring up stupid stuff like this. counties in one 85 the state of illinois and did not get one electoral vote. caller,avid, democratic what you think is behind this idea of expanding the supreme court? talking about expanding it and everything is not going to go nowhere. i think you need to go with term limits. that is the only solution they have. they got to know that their job is not a lifetime job. they got to take it serious. it is up to the people that bring the cases to them, how
well they argue it. aboutpublican that talked talking about opioids and stuff, that is wrong. o'rourke was just talking to they'll them kids, and he says the right thing. you got to go for the people that are making the medicine, and there's got to be some sense in it. everybody get started by prescription, so that is one way to do it. in the electoral college, it has got to go. if he thinks he could have won the popular vote, then he could have won it, but he did not. the best person did not win. that is all there is to this. heard the supreme court oral arguments this week. the washington post headline on the case, race and the death the issue before the court on wednesday was at this
sixth condition by the same -- conviction i the same attorney, and was weight race used? raced used? -- was we will hear the oral argument tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. for our coverage of that. keep dialing in with your thoughts about this idea of expanding the supreme court. i want to share some other news with you too. , writing an opinion piece today in the new york times about the robert mueller report. he writes, i do have one hope. i hope the president is not impeached and removed from office. i do not mean that congress should not move ahead with the process governed by our constitution, if congress thinks it is -- provable facts are there. i just hope it does not.
if the president were removed by office, a significant portion of this country would see this as a coup, and it would drive those people farther from the common center of american life. he goes on, we need resounding election result in 2020 for americans take a moment to show that they are united by something even more important, the belief that the president of the united states cannot be a call meen we can, writes, get back to policy disagreements. i just hope we are up to it. schiff, the intelligence in then also writing, usa today, don't hide the molar fbi findings, protect america and the rule of law. he writes there are suggestions that attorney william barr may resist.
last week to anonymous sources described the senior department official told abc news it would be consistent with past practices if justice withheld information from the investigation. last july, the department informed me had given me thousands of pages from the clinton probe to the gop led congress with more to come. adam schiff writes that if the justice department now decides not to release the mueller report, he says these documents also include sensitive material related to the mueller investigation. i made clear to officials that if they reinforce the precedent of this kind, they have to live with it. even if congress changed hands, should justice abandon their own practices when the need for transparency is vital, it will stay in the reputation for years to come. attorney general barr, do not make that your legacy.
let's go back to the conversation about expanding the supreme court. david has been waiting. court, whensupreme you talking about expanding it, it's like where does it end? i think it ought to be term limits, and it makes them more concerned about what they're making a nameof so they can get a book deal later. i believe that. the people that are in there, they are in there, they're there, that's it. anything that needs to be done, this is not a normal presidency. normal is gone. it will be hard to get it back. i think whatever comes out of the report, the american people need to hear everything. mark, a am going on to republican. caller: thank you for taking my
call. i just want to say that democrats keep shooting themselves in the food. harry reid is the reason why we are in this situation. he change the filibuster rule. mcconnell is just following suit. it is not his fault. adam schiff, he should not be trusted. he has lied to the americans about this report. it is a disgrace and a shame, but he alone has done to this nation. greta: i'm going to stick to the question. expanding the supreme court, chris in new york. comment, i believe this all stems back from the constitution, first of all, people keep on saying we are democracy, and in reality what constitutional
representative republican. if everybody gets that straight and go from there, as far as the justices, i believe it should be proportional to a ratio of one to five, depending on how many states we have. we have 52 states, so that would be 11 supreme court justices elected from the regional areas of our country so that our whole country is representative in the supreme court justice house. greta: would they be elected by the people? the people, but more so probably by the senate from region, like every five select a so would
supreme court justice, and then it would go through the senate of the federal government and then get confirmed through the sits onand that's who the bench. then you could have term limits, and then it would go through the process, and that way everybody is represented properly. as far as representation, since we are a representative soublic, the reason we have much civil strife is because we are representative by the metropolitannd in areas with more population, so the rural areas are not represented. --what they need to do because we were an expanding country in the beginning, so what they need to do is maybe go
to square miles representation so everybody is represented properly. that way they can't plug the metropolitan areas. greta: got it. we will go to john in georgia, independent. how are you? greta: i am doing fine. what you think about this idea? caller: i think they need to leave it alone and figure out what the major problem is. not in said the court is line with the people, but the people are not in line with the court. the people in this country want everything, and they want what they can have when they can have it, and they are not in line with our laws. law, at constitutional all, and that is the first problem. the second problem is the congress have been long paid
for. they sold out the country. janet, in new york, a democrat. janet, good morning. go ahead. caller: i am a registered democrat, and i think that government is to beg, including the courts. big,nk it should be -- too and that should be an even number. they have to get some work done, and who decides if there is a tie? take a turn, the present, the head of the senate or the house. we will know ahead of time who gets to pick because it will be whatever.e dice or the problem with the congress right now is the political parties. it is way too partisan. it was never designed to be that way, not in a million years, and i think there should be many
less representatives. the two senators are fine, and if anybody is interested in this, go to prager.com, and they will tell you all about the electoral college and the selection of two senators. you got to get the money away from the politicians. they use it as a personal piggy bank. nothing is getting done. buy a lottery to be our representatives. testhem take aces and ship like we make the people -- take a citizenship test and just stop the nonsense. c-span is magnificent the way they show the hearings. if you watched the judicial the other day, such an important issue, life or death issue, the immigration, and these guys, and
i use that generically, it is a joke. they don't care about the children. ida -- i am talking both parties. they don't care about people getting raped. they just care about power and getting reelected. we need a vast overhaul. the people are not being representative -- represented. greta: we heard your point. janet thinks government is to beg including the supreme court. more of your calls are coming up on expanding the supreme court this morning. we also want to share with you what the president said this morning on foxbusiness. this is an interview with maria, and she asked him about his decision yesterday to recognize israel's authority over the long here is what he told
foxbusiness. >> it is time for the u.s. to recognize the golan heights, why now? >> i've been thinking about doing it for a long time. it has been a hard decision for every president. no president has done it. this is very much like moving the embassy. i did that. everybodyderstand why campaigned on jerusalem. i even got the embassy built, by the way, but they never did it. i understand why. when i got elected, i also campaigned on it, and i was inundated with calls from all over the world, mostly leaders, saying please don't do it. i did it, and it's and done, and it is fine. golan heights is the same thing. for years other presidents have campaigned, and this is sovereignty, this is security. making thet about
reelection? >> i have no idea about that. i here it is doing ok. way, not now who is up for reelection, and he is running can the with his rival. times says as a --ctical man out -- manner, the united states could be to any resolution condemning the move. a lot of that in the papers this morning. by the way, the conference will be in washington this weekend and through next week, and the headline, democrats wrestle over there support for israel. two democrats introduced the resolution yesterday condemning a boy cap movement against counter theve to
perception that the party is fractured in its support of israel. it goes on, the mission is set out to plate next week as thousands gather at the public affairs conference. the headliners include top ranking democrats, including nancy pelosi in chuck schumer, all considered supporters of israel. look for coverage of this next week and also today c-span will be covering a discussion happening in washington, d.c. about mideast policy, specifically the israel young -- israel palestinian conflict. you can listen with c-span radio app or go to c-span.org.
tom, a republican from illinois. back to our conversation about expanding the court. what do you think? caller: hello? this is tom from springville. greta: we are listening. i am a longtime viewer of spaceman -- c-span since it first came on the air when i was 16, believe it or not. i don't think it should be expanded to anymore numbers. if anything, it should be reduced to seven. greta: why? caller: why have more on the bench? money,ore mentally -- more clutter. seven can get it done. one thing, after 40 years of watching c-span, i have noticed is that particularly you, you are pretty quick on the button
pushing when there is a conservative getting ready to finish the point, and you cut him off. i see you do this every day. like you did that young man talking about adam schiff. if the viewers would dig into john and pedro, steve, you, they will find out you guys .re all lifelong democrats i used to be a lifelong democrat until about two years ago, because the democratic party is not the democratic party of old. these guys are not cases. they are so far out. it is pretty scary. ok.a: -- did wedependent lose him? to tony, from massachusetts, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my
call. i hope you give me the time that you gave these descendents of europe to speak. ok? are you for expanding the supreme court? listen, i have been studying put this country has done to the aboriginal people around the world, what you have banksith europe and the -- greta: are you talking about the supreme court? caller: can you let me finish? greta: no. we will hear from michael from california, republican. michael, good marking -- good morning. we are talking about expanding the supreme court. are you there? all right. we will go to larry in west
virginia, independent. caller: i am calling because i before the other person said the same thing i'm going to say. i think seven should be plenty on the supreme court. it is expensive to have people on the supreme court, and we are always talking about making the government smaller, and cutting costs, that would be a good way to start. and it seems like the people who want to expand it, they complain about the people put on by the republicans, but from what i can see, the only ones that ever vote both ways is like roberts, but he saved obamacare, and then he was appointed by a republican, and the other judge that retired, he was rip -- appointed by a republican, and they are the only justices that ever vote with the democratic justices. i never hear of a judge
appointed by the democrats ever voting with the republicans. but i think seven should be plenty and it would save the country money. they talk all the time about cutting the size of the government. here is a good chance to do it. cut it down to 73 that would be the best thing to do. call -- anifer, a republican in california. caller: i am thinking the only way to have a fair representation on the supreme court is for the justices to be elected and not appointed by any perhaps recommended through congress, but not appointed by one man, the president. however, if they wanted to expand it to 11, it has to be an odd number in order to have a decisive win on the court. if they wanted to expand it to
11, i would not mind as long as they do it doing the president's term. that is all i have to say. greta: a democrat from massachusetts, good morning. caller: thank you for keeping things on course and thank you for c-span. shouldion is they slightly increase the supreme court, and they might want to consider, like what the last one just stated, rather than having one person like the president appoint these individuals, they --d -- maybe the government governor should be involved so there is fair representation. i don't believe the supreme court should be term limited, because then they would be under decisions thate they don't agree with. i think it should stay, remain a lifetime position.
maybe they have to have an age requirement. they are saying they live too long, maybe they have to be 55. i hate to say that, but maybe they have to go to something like that where they get appointed to the supreme court at the age of 55. that would ensure that they have throught experience their knowledge of the judicial system. greta: of the current makeup, that would exclude only neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. caller: what was that? greta: if the rule was they have to be 55 years old, when you look at the current makeup, that would exclude neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. caller: that's just an example. maybe you could go to age 50, but what's next? do you appoint somebody that's 35? all right.
we've got about 10 minutes left in the conversation. keep dialing in. , this to share with you piece in the washington post this morning. the president could learn from john mccain, and he writes serious allegations were made in that dose ea file that the president has been critical of the late senator for turning it over to the fbi. he writes, serious allegations were in that file. having the file to anyone else would've been a dereliction of duty, and improperly -- improper in a rule of law country. mr. lieberman goes on to say, john mccain knew he might not have long to live, and the health care vote he cast ida been one of the last. -- might have been one of the last. so he made them and he did so
really atlee, and the senator writes that the reason why john mccain did thumbs down to the fecklessbecause of the gridlike -- gridlock and a divided senate did the senator wanted to send a message. you can read more of these inarks, lieberman's remarks the washington post. todd, from california, and independent. caller: good morning. as the supreme court, keeping the same number, but i would like to see, it should be three liberals, three conservatives, and three libertarians, and instead of being confirmed by the senate, it should be a national election like we do for president. greta: ok.
what do you think that would do? more init would be fairness and less stacked, like we are just going to have a bunch of five to four decision until there is another vacancy. from missouri, republican. what do you think? caller: i think we should take the court and divided into three divisions, a civil, criminal, and constitutional division. and i think it is time to look at the federal act that authorizes the courts and probably work on their jurisdictional restrictions so we get away from legislating from the bench. setress has a right to restrictions within the , notitution on the courts just the supreme court.
getting them back in line with the constitution instead of starry decisive's, which destroyed our system, by the way. greta: we were is a democrat from fort myers, florida. say that just want to i am 36 years old. 2019, so many more things happening in the world than when the supreme court was first founded. i agree with the gentleman who just called and said you should split the courts into different sectors to handle the aspects of law. in addition, i agree with the many who agreed you should have some kind of odd number, some kind of split decision vote, and some sort of independent judge to sway the vote. i wake up every morning, and i have more than 36 emails more
that -- by the time of 10:00 in the morning. i can't imagine what these judges' life must be like. what their day-to-day workflow must be like, how many laws do they have to oversee? my dad is a lawyer. how could he possibly look at environmental law one morning, and the next morning try to view abortion law. greta: another headline to share with you this morning. two u.s. service members were killed in afghanistan, according to nato and u.s. officials. the statement did not specify the location of combat, what the service members were doing. the names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. according to the defense apartment, the fatalities are ur. up to fo
share your thoughts with us. caller: i think it is ok where it is at at the moment with nine. i don't need more. if you're getting the same thing, i don't need more of it. what we need, based upon my blackstone and locke and their intellectual pursuing of the law, what we need are the best judges who will look at the denotation, and not the connotation, because the circle of the law is to -- the purpose of the law is to restrict people within a certain boundary. therefore there is no expansion in terms of what has been written. -- thes been written is
denotation, not the connotation, and nine can do it. seven can do it. we don't need more than that. greta: we will go to michael, a republican. caller: hello. meritorious u.s. marine. i have been in the military sense 1981. -- since 1981. i have spent some time with providing democracy. if somebody needs help, you expanded and give them latitude, but help, don't be dumb? --his and -- if i could say something
about john mccain -- greta: randall, we will stick to the topic this morning. also, from florida, and independent. -- an independent. with the concur missouri person. we need complete revision of constitutional understanding of foot supreme court should do and what they should not do. we don't need to expand it. they need separation, because they need to do more cases, and a lot of injustice takes place when they don't have that process. if they are going to be an increase, hypothetically does that determine we will have more cases heard or have more cases cut as they do now summarily early -- summarily?
we nee a revision so we can have the supreme court not be rule creating the law but do their job as interpreting the law. that is critically important to the united states of america. russell, with final thoughts, and thank you for all of your calls this morning. we will take a short break and we will come back and turn our attention to the 2020 election. we will talk with david mcintosh about his groups role, and later we talk with dr. jonathan metzl about his new book "dying of whiteness" that looks at racial resentment and impacts on public health. ♪ ♪ get to know the freshman
members of the 116th congress monday on washington journal. learn more about the most diverse group of lawmakers in history. >> i am real and i am authentic. i will not be a polished politician. >> i am a small town lawyer from lexington. >> i served in afghanistan. >> i was a mcdonald's franchise fee for 22 years. >> i have a fascination of finding answers to questions no one else can find. my dad is a lifelong republican who has never voted for a democrat. >> watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. on monday morning. join the discussion. night on q&a. two-time pulitzer prize winning biographer on his book and his a search to find how political power works.
into his rather modest. he had torn out the walls at the end. it was all one big picture. he sat in the center of this black leather chair. if you look to the left of him out the window, it was the robert moses causeway. was the towerit of robert moses state park. there is robert moses sitting there. intimidating. upill never forget, he got and smiled. he was a tough old guy. still at the height of his power. he was a 78 but still at the height of his power. youngd so you are the fellow who thinks he will write a book about me. easterny night at 8:00
on c-span's q and a. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back david mcintosh, who is the club for growth the president and former congressman who represented indiana from 1995 to 2001. guest: it is good to be with you. the club for growth is essentially a group that is dedicated to promoting free-market ideas. and then we have two political groups, a super pac, club for growth action and a regular pack that funnels contributions. we pick champions that we endorse through political groups and fund their campaigns. we spent a lot of time looking at the races and analyzing who the best candidates are, how we can support them and we ask if they are good on economics. do they promote free markets and
economic growth? host: based for incumbents and their record. guest: we have a scorecard. we like to think we are keeping their feet to the fire. we score the different votes and then at the end of the year tally up and score them up to 100. all the way down to one or 2%. you would be surprised. there are a couple democrats that scored fairly high. , andgressman from texas republicans who you think would be conservative they score low because they vote for a lot of spending and more regulation and issues we think are bad. you? who funds about 20,000are people around the country. becausethem our members it is a membership organization. host: names that our viewers
would know? guest: there are but i do not like to talk about the donors. host: explain why. nott: some of them what do want to be in the public discussion. the onesd us to be doing the research. host: who are you supporting and what is your criteria? guest: we have three projects in the 2020 election. the first is the house. we are looking for free market conservatives to run in open republican primaries. we are looking at some of the new democrats who came in saying they would be more moderate and if they end up voting with nancy pelosi in more of the liberal expansionist votes. in the senate, there are three races where the republican primary will probably decide to the senator is, alabama could challenge senator jones. kansas is an open seat, and tennessee.
we are interviewing a lot of candidates in those races to see which one we think would be the most free-market and best senator in that criteria. our process is pretty rigorous. members give to a lot of groups but they like our reports because we research every vote. we research what they said in the paper. we interview them and talk to them about their views on different issues. some people view that as a drilling. we try to make it more comfortable for them. we try to find out what makes them tick. to make surepoll they can win if they decide to run. host: how much money do you plan to spend? guest: it will depend on how well -- we do on fundraising. we spent 50 million on policy pac ons goal would be
to be north of that. somewhere between 50 million and a $70 million. not all of that is on races. we try to promote the right bills in congress. , at: you put out a recent ad club for growth ad against presidential candidate beto o'rourke. i want to show. it begins with a comparison of the beto o'rourke with president obama. [video clip] >> obama went on to become the first african-american editor of the law review. breaking barriers. oneo'rourke crashed into while driving drunk and then flee the scene to avoid accountability. his charges were dropped. as people of color languish behind bars for far less.
pattern ofa lifelong a sense of entitlement? o'rourkeves say beto drips with white male privilege. the type of self-involved behavior a woman or person of color could never get away with. especially after losing an election. but with a charmed life like his, you can never really lose. that is why beto o'rourke is running for president -- because he can. david mcintosh critical of that ad, saying there is plenty to criticize about beto o'rourke's politics, but by focusing on his gender, race and privilege, the club for growth ad takes the focus off his character, action and idea. left's passions reinforces them. guest: let me back up and then i
will talk about your point. this is the third area and we plan to be engaged in and that is evaluating the different presidential candidates. i think most likely president trump not have a primary so it will mostly be on the democratic side. we know beto o'rourke's record because last election, we were engaged -- the texas senate race and knew his record. i would say the most striking thing about that, we try to portray in that ad, that he is not who he portrays himself as. he says i am a man for the people. but his record on city council and his time in congress was representing special interests. on city council, beto o'rourke worked hard to use eminent take away a poor hispanic neighborhood, condemn it and have the city turn it over to his father-in-law to build a shopping center.
that looks like a self interests character issue to us. the journal did not like the way we portrayed that. our decision was we would talk to democrats in this ad. we will not be talking to republicans. we are holding him to their standard. host: which democrats? guest: we ran the ad in iowa. it would be democratic primary voters. are you playing white identity politics with that at? guest: we are holding him to his own standard. supporterst o'rourke refer to them as the white barack obama. that is how they want to portray him. at his core, he is a very different than barack obama. we are holding beto to his
standard and sing he really is not. host: who else in this 2020 democrats show -- democratic presidential field are you looking at. guest: we don't have any current plans for that. what we did do was some polling early on in the battleground states in january. everybody talks about the group but it is a blue wall, wisconsin, michigan, ohio and pennsylvania. in the southern tier, you have georgia, florida, maybe north carolina and arizona are states that will be close in the next presidential election. and then we put in texas, because we knew beto was likely to run. what we founded texas is if he is the nominee, it is a tie between a beto o'rourke and donald trump. that is a big problem for any republican who is running for
president, and certainly president trump. we took all of that information, realized beto was a serious candidate. he raised a ton of money. we also looked at elizabeth warren, joe biden, bernie sanders, kamala harris, who we think is a serious candidate, and we tested, how would they do in a race early on among people who do them? knowsr somebody who somebody or not will give you a very different result in polling. we look at the segments where president trump and kamala harris were known. how did that work? trump beats her in our poll but it is a competitive race. i would say that is true with all of the candidates. that gave us an idea -- these are serious people who will be running, let's start looking at the record. we have a research arm looking
at their past votes, their past statements and lining it up on economic issues. those are still being worked on. at some point, we will release that to the public so people can have that information. diane in kansas, a republican. caller: good morning. , and as younsas imagine, we will have a open senate seat in the next election. i would like to make a recommendation. she has no idea i'm doing this. her name is a julia lind. she is a senator for district nine and kansas. and has conservative quite a good record and experience with regard to economic issues. i would like to put in a plug for julia for you to look at her. i don't even know if she is interested, but she is worth a look. the second thing is, with regard
to the presidential election, i think our vice president is a very good man and i respect him greatly, but i don't think he is going to be presidential after president trump is gone. i would like to see him step to be thenikki haley president's running mate in 2020. i am just throwing that out there. i think it would be a strong ticket. that is my comment, thank you. i have written down julia lind so we can look at her record and see if she is interested in running. thank you for that. it is information like that that helps us from people outside of washington. i hired three scouts to travel around the country try to find people nobody else has heard of but would be good senators and
congresswomen and congressmen. let me pick up your second point. i have to disclose i am a very good friend of mike pence. we are both from indiana and he ran after i did, served in congress. with due respect, i would disagree with you. i think he would make a great president someday. politically,asons, that i think president trump is a likely to keep mike pence, is the moreadversary to ideological philosophical conservative wing of the republican party. you probably remember in the primaries, he was leery about president trump, they did not know what his record would be. they are now supportive because they like the tax cuts, deregulation and his supreme court picks. mike pence is the person he will lean on to talk with those people, gather their ideas, gather their support.
he is a key part of the ticket. he is a strong man with great character that i think would make a great president. thatsagree a little bit on , but knowing him well, i hope your viewers will at least take it from somebody who does know him that he would be a great president. host: victor in illinois on our for democrats. hello, victor. good morning, is this a victor? caller: i am from massachusetts. host: ok, go ahead. what is your name? caller: mary. i have called before. i am just wondering, beto o'rourke in your ad, you were talking about drunk driving. wouldn't people like you be more interested on his views on global warming and oil drilling?
i don't know if this is of any interest to you, but i like the governor of colorado and, i am sorry, i can't represent. he was on this program. -- i can't remember his name. he sounded like a confident privateho runs his own business. it is a small business, not private business. stateame governor of the and he is still on the young side rather than the older side. i thought he sounded like a good candidate. i don't know enough about a beto o'rourke. i would think you would be talking about beto o'rourke's views on business and oil drilling and his views on global warming, rather than whether he
drove drunk or something like that. guest: thank you, mary. let's start with a beto o'rourke. you raise a very good question. one, his views on using eminent domain and property rights we don't like and try to incorporate that into the ad. on his relationship and a support for the oil industry, that is something we like about his record, particularly when he was on city council and a new member of congress. he was supportive of the oil industry and we think a free private sector market there is really good for the country and the economy. we can't really tell where he is on global warming because i don't think, based on his record, he would want to eliminate all carbon-based fuels, for some of the people who care a great deal about global warming do. he said he has for global warming and i don't know where he is that on the new green
deal. i would suspect he is more in our direction on those issues, coming from texas. partre right, that will be of the research we put out on it. because of that business experience, we think another governor would be a better president in terms of making sure the economy does not veer far to the left in ways that would endanger job growth and wealth creation in the country. i think you are asking the right question, where are they going to come out on some of these issues about the future for economic growth, prosperity for all americans? some of the others have veered pretty far to the left and embracing the new green deal, which is more than just about the environment, though pretty radical on the environmental issues.
it also includes government takeover of health care, free supporteducation, wage for people even if they are not working. self-described as a socialist blueprint for the country. host: for our viewers, if you are interested on finding out where candidates stand, there is ontheissues.org to find out how people have voted. gwen in alabama. caller: good morning. i feel as though the republican party is threatened by beto o'rourke. there was this reverent right thing that brought out. everything they tried to do to demean barack obama but it did not work.
i am sick of this socialist label. you just try to do it by placing it on the democratic party. intelligent wack woman, i don't fall for this con job. you are ridiculous. unintelligent -- i am an intelligent black woman. president trump is running this country into the ground. look at what he did to senator mccain. how can you keep going along with stuff like this? you republicans have lost all dignity and characters and morals. goodbye and have a blessed day. respect, i due disagree about the socialist label. bernie sanders has always run on the socialist party ticket.
he embraces it. president,run for they do not run away from it. there is a large movement in the democratic party. on president trump, what we look at are the results of his policy. i will defend the tax cuts. i think they have increased prosperity and a growth in the country and helped people get higher wages. you look at the deregulation he has put into place, that has unleashed a lot of growth among small businesses that create jobs for people. i like his supreme court justices. he picked two men that will stick to the constitution and not use the court as a super legislature. there is a lot of good things that president trump has done for the country. we look at the results of what
his policies bring to us. host: when you look at these , wherend these match ups is the president weak and on what issues? that votersoncern have in these battleground everybody, we pulled everybody, the concern that was expressed in january is more related to his style. they wish he would stop tweeting. concernthat has been a that, interestingly, since the state of the union, he has recognized that and shifted his communication style because of that. there is a still an occasional tweet but it is much more systematic in putting his message out there. we will see if voters have
become more comfortable with that. do you agree with his remarks about senator mccain and do you think that type of rhetoric from him could hurt his chances in the 2020 election? mccain, i wastor curious why it even came up. i did not understand the reasoning for it being interjected into the national debate again. the club has looked at this economic record a long time ago and did not think he was that much of a progrowth conservative. the country paid tribute to him because he is a war hero and makeshat is make -- that people wonder why the president is critical of him now that he has passed away and we honored him. do i think it will affect the election? no.
i think it will go away and not be a factor. host: maryland, independent. caller: good morning. just liketnam veteran senator john mccain was and one of the things i have a tremendous amount of respect for , every president we have ever had, whether republican or democrat, who fought in combat and war and had a deep appreciation for morals. communism, fascism, socialism and british colonialism fail because each of those practice what adolf hitler said, tell a lie and keep repeating it until people believe it. you build your foundation on a lie and that is what is going on right now. this republican thing, appealing to the right-wing people, and
failed those failed isms because people could not tell the truth. that is what is going to destroy this capitalist country. capitalism and democracy is a great thing, but this right-wing is putting people down, that at the same thing hitler's did in germany, that is the same thing stalin did in russia. guest: thank you for your service to the country. i sincerely mean that and i appreciate you and honestly your uncles served in world war ii and korea and had the same legacy. it is a great legacy for our country and i know young people will learn from that. let me first to say, i agree with you that we need freedom
and truth to prevail against those different isms. i view the club differently than you and that is to speak the truth when the discourse in washington and sup being almost orwellian, for you say things that are the opposite of what is going on. in all of these spending fights, the most recent one where we had the shutdown of the government, we were against the bill not because of what it said or did about the awol being built on the border of mexico, we were against it because it was mortgaging the future of people because of all of the adding up over the years, more than $1 trillion in debt. that.ew groups talk about we try to put that at the forefront of the debate and discussion. it is those issues we are focusing on and then regrade the candidates based on how they would do in those debates. host: republican line.
caller: good morning. beto, he has a dwi and fits right in with the democrats. said therris's father parents are rolling in the grave. bernie sanders is going after guns, saying look at how impressive the new zealand lady -- lady is. we can build trains across the ocean with these idiots. getting rid of a fossil fuels would make us weaker. name your one that would come over. cuba would probably overthrow us without industry. are we going to borrow some metal and build some tanks? a very- this is
dangerous -- going after the second amendment is very dangerous. that they willut talk to the parents, resuscitate a baby and then have a discussion on what? murdering a born child. that is no longer a third term abortion. that is called murder. if you don't drop your baby off at a hospital or firehouse, they will go to jail. obviously he agrees with socialism tag. and ask look at polls people about socialism, what do you find? guest: i think you are right. i think the new green deal and that economic model is very dangerous for the future of the country and the fact that many of us are front and center in the public debate about an acceptable alternative set off
alarm bells with us, as it should with you and voters around the country. your question is a good one. what do they mean by socialism and what do voters think they mean? betweena difference voters who are 35 and older -- i call them millenials -- and that is really 35 or younger. those who lived through the cold war with russia, through korea and vietnam and some world war ii, remember their parents having to do that. realize that those ideas and national can lead to socialism, which is what the germans had. it can lead to communist socialism, which is what the russians had, and are very oppressive to people and devastating to economies and prosperity. younger people do not have that in their living memory. the ones who studied history know about it that way. asy view the current economy
not having provided the american dream they were told they would get when they were growing up. afterf that is the result 2008 with the collapse of the financial markets and the dramatic slowdown in hiring. young people were particularly impacted them. they could not get jobs with they finished college. they were told if you work hard and do well in college you will do well in getting a job and live the american dream. you will succeed. suddenly, reality hit and that was not possible. one of our complaints against barack obama was his administration was content for a slow recovery from that what the younger millenials took away from that is, maybe capitalism is not working. i have an answer to them on that, but let me share what i think they are sent. maybe it is not working so we try something different.
socialism, they think of as a northern up european economy, which is essentially managed capitalism. they are comfortable with it. social media sounds good to them so maybe socialism as an economic model id similar. what we are realizing -- roughly 52% of younger people prefer socialism over capitalism or free markets. free markets, they like better than capitalism, the idea of freedom is still important to them. my answer to them is we have not had a real free market robust economy because we have increasingly try to manage more of it. the health care system has been taken over by the government for regulations and subsidies. there was an attempt to control the internet through the regulation and net neutrality, essentially. president trump has reversed that slightly. say,ld urge millenials to
is there more opportunity for you now, where we are getting back toward a real free market, market,modified free that is what robbed them of the american dream. there is a lot of work to be done to bust through the discourse on that to really help people understand what the choices are. david in georgia is next. caller: good morning. david, i hate to do this to you but i saw you on morning joe and i watched the republicans rip you apart. i would like to go through a few of the points you made this morning about how wages are getting better. that is a joke. minimum wage is still seven dollars and change and there are many people doing it. from the people that you represent who don't even have a
clue what causes an abortion. you keep attacking the women. i watched the first piece of legislation go through trump's agenda and it looked like the broke back mountain bunch when senator perdue came up there with a walker to raise his hand to attack a bunch of women. you are an attack dog. you get paid for it, that is simple. i apologize, david, but that is what you are. that is what your buddy said on morning joe. c-span, do you remember what newt gingrich did to you all? that is what these people are doing. and we have to sit here and watch it? can you address that in your programming, please? host: what do you mean? caller: newt gingrich got on the air with a c spohn for hour after hour after hour at night
on the congress, calling it open session. he got to stand there and spout for hours. host: let me clarify. the cameras in the house and senate are controlled by the house and senate. we take the feed from that and our mission has been to let all of you see what washington does here. part of that is gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house and senate floor. house for 40ed the years. cameras andtrol the who gets to speak and for how long they speak. that is all controlled by the house and senate. let me clarify a couple things. the club for growth does not take any position on issues like abortion or even second amendment, what are called social issues.
ofstick simply to questions economic growth and limited government. , david, yoummend get a recently published report from the economic advisors, these are economists that work for the president but they are, basically, limited by statistics and facts about the economy. working then in a long time. wages on average have got up around the country, significantly. that has not been happening for more than 10 years. check that out. the council of economic advisers'report that was published a few weeks ago is showing that policies in place right now are making for middle america, average americans, their life better, their future with more prospect. that i think is what really matters in all of this.
what is going to happen to a family in america that is working hard, they beat both husband and wife are working, maybe one is to support the family. they are trying to get ahead, maybe save a little money and send a child to college. those are a lot easier to do now than they were two or three years ago. david mcintosh, club for growth president and former congressman, we thank you for the conversation. can learn more if growth.org.clubfor when we come back, we are going to open up the phone lines. later, we will talk to vanderbilt university dr. book,an metzl on his new dying for whiteness. -- "dying of whiteness". ♪
>> we are happy to announce the winners of this year's c-span video documentary competition. they answer the question, what does it mean to be american? we received nearly 3000 entries from 48 students and more than 6000 students. congratulations to all our winners. our first price middle school winners are from eastern middle school in silver spring, maryland. america runs on fast food. >> the fast food industry includes companies like burger king and kfc. fast food has and will impact our society in so many more ways than we realize. it is part of what makes us america. least first price highest goes to students from winter
park high school in winter park, ,lorida for comfortably numb honoring america's right for a free press. >> we realized being an american is about so much more than national pride. it is about freedoms that allow the country to -- amidst media controversies, we forget the important role the journalism place. >> the first price high school central winners are students inm urbandale high school urbandale, iowa, for fighting for a better tomorrow. is theyou know it anniversary of a supreme court case that was a landmark case in 1969 that brought first amendment rights to students? bandsstudents were arm that led to their suspension.
from palmer high school in colorado springs, colorado also for winners. the most important ideals implement it in america's government is that every man is represented. this is what makes us american, of voting, the concept that everyone is affected by government gets a say in government. ofthe grand prize winners $5,000 are from north texas. called what iteo means to be american. >> it is one of the most unique in the world. the greatest thing about the issue of corruption in the united states is that citizens are vocally doing it. areost cases, people willing to recognize loss even when politicians don't. $15-span has given out
million over the years. the top 21 running entries will air on c-span in april and you can watch every student documentary online. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. c-span's newest book, the president's, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. it provides insight into 44 american presidents by stories
gathered through interviews with noted historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders. the challenges they faced and legacies they left behind. itlished by public affairs, will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your copy on hardcover or e-book today at c spohn debt org/the presidents. washington journal continues. host: the phone lines are open. we will get your thoughts on debates happening in washington today. to let you know about the different events happening in washington, we will begin at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span2 about an all day conversation about the impact of pro-israeli groups on u.s. policy. that is on c-span2. group of3 at 9:30, a
health experts and policymakers from the brookings institution are discussing approaches to eliminate those a surprise out of network medical bills. that conversation is happening on c-span3. you can listen with the free c-span radio app or watch on c-span.org. of a:30, live coverage conversation about the u.s. postal service and e-commerce. how does the u.s. postal service continue and thrive in this age of e-commerce? that conversation happening on c-span at 12:30 a.m. eastern time. we want to get your thoughts this morning on the debates happening in washington. hearing onyou are the news and reading in newspapers, as well.
some of the headlines for you this morning in the paper, here is want to share with you about the v.a.. the washington post, the veterans affairs agency gearing up to shift health care to the private sector. veteran affairs secretary is moving quickly to roll out new rules by june that would expand access to private care, especially for veterans in rural or congested areas, if they have a 30 minute drive to get primary care. as many as half of the 7 million veterans seen at the v.a. could receive their care elsewhere. it includes up to $3.2 billion and new spending for private sector spending. that is a story to watch. also, the wall street journal, a house committee will investigate white house officials email use. while the house oversight committee said it has obtained evidence that white house officials, including jared
kushner and i ivanka trump, personal email accounts and messaging apps appear to violate laws violating records. whatsapp encrypted medication. the committee will be investigating that. yesterday,on president trump signed an executive order tying several research and grants to protection of the first amendment. here's what he had to say. [video clip] spacesch codes and safe and trigger warnings these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose a total conformity and shut down the voices of great young americans like those here today. all of that changes starting right now. we are dealing with billions of dollars. [applause]
>> taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-first amendment institutions and that is exactly what they are -- anti-first amendment in a verse of these that want to taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech. [applause] host: free speech on college campuses, the v.a., all of those are on the table. we want to talk to the mayor of milwaukee. we want to talk about milwaukee hosting the 2020 democratic national convention. us how a city has to go about peak considered to host a convention. we are very thankful to the democratic national committee. i feel as though i have just run a marathon to get to the starting line because now we
will do an ironman competition as we move toward 2020. we had lots of people who were involved in this from hotel operators to people who do outreach in the community, to political activists. we wanted to make the case that this is important for the democrats to be here. one of the most compelling arguments we had is this will be the first time democrats will hold their national convention in the midwest in a city other than chicago cents they were in st. louis in 1916. it makes a lot of sense for them to be here. it is a battleground state. inhad a great resurgence error elections in the fall with tony verse and josh cole and tammy baldwin leading the ticket. we have a lot of positive momentum here. we have a brand-new arena, that helps. there are many people here who
want this to happen. it will be the first time a major party will hold a political convention in the city of milwaukee and the first time in the state of wisconsin. it is a big deal and we are excited. host: who did you have to convince? >> obviously members of the democratic national committee, led by tom perez. he is the ultimate decision-maker. dozenad well over a people who travel to milwaukee last summer and it was very fortunate, the timing was great, because they came here to tour the arena and it occurred less than 48 hours after the ribbon-cutting for the new arena. i think it helps to have a state-of-the-art arena that was so new, so clean, so beautiful. i think the question was whether we could hold 50,000 people. the timing was fortunate. the visit occurred less than 48
hours before the arrival of 150,000 harley-davidson enthusiasts. facility, wegreat are used to having big parties in the summertime. the summertime is when milwaukee, wisconsin just blossoms. we would not be making this bid if this convention was in february. in july, that is when people want to be in wisconsin, they want to be in milwaukee because the weather is so nice and there is a so much going on. we are excited at the city. it is a very critical election and i think the democrats have a real opportunity to capture a lot of these midwestern states they lost in 2016. we are going to be a great host. we are honored to have them. host: what did you tell the democratic national committee about the costs and impact on the city? what will it be and how is it paid for? expected toall, we have an economic impact in the
neighborhood of $200 million. we will have a lot of volunteers. i am looking for 12,000 of my closest friends to step forward and volunteered to help. it will have an incredibly positive impact on the city. what it will demonstrate is this is a city that is fighting back. it is a city that is a microcosm of the nation. if you look at not just milwaukee but the state of wisconsin, and that is evidenced by the state -- in fact we are a purple state in terms of politics. this is a place where democrats need to be. frankly, i am sure republicans will be here, as well. this will be a battleground state. tot: what will people going the convention see? >> we will have people from the east coast, from the west coast, from the gulf coast. i will eagerly welcome them all to america's fresh coast.
i think a lot of people who not familiar with this part of the country, the great lakes is a depository for a huge percentage of the worlds's freshwater supply. we are proud. our history, our environmental concerns, errant recreation is all based on the great lakes and water. a lot of water related things. it is a friendly city. not surprisingly, there are a lot of taverns in milwaukee. we have a strong beer heritage. laverne & shirley don't work anymore. the city has changed. ,e are home of miller and coors and we have a lot of craft beer, as well. i think people will be pleasantly surprised. they will be like, wow, i did not expect that. host: you talked about running the ironman after you just finish this marathon. tell our viewers what you and the city have to do to prepare for convention. >> obviously there are a lot of
security concerns and there will be a lot of police officers, not just from the milwaukee area, but from around the state. there will be traffic reconfiguration. we will have lots of banners and things to let people know that they are welcome. a lot of work, a lot of work is going into obtaining venues because, as you know, in these political conventions, there is a lot of activity in the arena, itself, but there are many caucuses, there are many parties, there are many meetings in venues outside of that. we have been working throughout the milwaukee area to secure those facilities, to make sure people have places to go to have their caucuses and meetings. we have been working with a lot of restaurant tours, a lot of hotel operators, a lot of venue operators. my chief of staff choked a couple weeks ago that he felt he was working for hotel.com because a lot of this is making sure we have the facilities for
people. we are very confident -- this is a very big deal for our community. it is the first time in the history of the city, you know we will be excited and we want to show off what we have. host: mayor barrett, congratulation to you and everyone else in milwaukee. thank you for your time. >> thank you, we are looking forward to seeing you. host: c-span will of course be there. we will speak with the dnc onirman tom perez, that airs sunday. now to your cause. louisiana, independent. good morning. what is on your mind? onler: i would like to speak the privatization of the v.a. it is not going to work because when you turn 65, you go on medicaid v.a.
us, are refusing to accept the doctors. you can only go to a doctor the v.a. approves. to see a dermatologist, because they no longer have one of the hospital, we have to drive 120 miles one way to lafayette. they are sending people to houston. we no longer have an emergency room. this privatization is not working. ,he young people do not know they go off v.a. when they turn 65. we can't get any service. we are driving further, we are old. they told me it would be six months to get an appointment. i thought they said i could get an appointment much faster. it is not true. i wish you all would have more on this topic and these people that are getting special
attention to get up there and tell their story, it is not happening to the common veteran in this area. on immigration, take a look at the different headlines in the papers about the number of people trying to migrate into the country. the washington times, ice releasing 1000 illegal immigrant family members per day. sets record for arrests of undocumented immigrants with no criminal record. the wall street journal, u.s. deportations arise but remained below in obama era. washington post, democrats struggled to address border apprehensions as they seek to counter trump on immigration. elk city, kansas, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for ticking my call. about,u are just talking
we have to get the wall built. you can see the immigrants coming under the wall yesterday. lined up, get arrested and now they are here. we have to get the security improved. will congress please get together and pass a some immigration laws that will stop the magnet of letting these people come in and then stay. if they would just stay home and apply, we could probably use them. we can't have them coming in illegally. they have to come in legally. they are great people, there is no harder working people than hispanic people. they are great people, catholics, good god loving people, but they have to come in the right way. thereason i called plus president signing the free-speech bill. we have got to get fairness on our college campuses. college campuses today are no more than congress read --
communist reeducation camps. you cannot say i am a conservative. cannot say even though i am a democrat, i am pro-life. the people just attack you. they tear you to pieces on college campuses for that. we have to be able to say what attacking theit institutions of our society, including the presidency. me, appearsump, to to be doing a fantastic job on the economy and looks to me like russia, russia, russia turned out to be a dream. columbus, ohio, independent. caller: hello. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say i because you had him on i am originally from michigan 1940's we used to
take a round trip to milwaukee and that was a wonderful time. all of this baloney about socialist economy, these guys don't know what a communist is. look at what stalin did. socialist, because if , you would say you are not a socialist. we have to get more people interested in what i had for over 40 years -- profit sharing. him to do a program on profit sharing, which i had for over 40 years. update on the north carolina race from the wall street journal. to ao over race is off testy start. the do over election from north
carolina's ninth congressional district start is off to a contentious start with accusations of misconduct and the threat of a lawsuit in the first week of the campaign. there is a long road ahead in the district that was nullified because of fraud allegations. 10 candidates will face off in a primary and winner will face a dan mccready in the fall. the district that includes suburban charlotte, gave president trump 54% of the vote in 2016. the general election is voted a tossup. texas, au are next in republican. what is on your mind? caller: hello. host: hello. caller: yes. host: go ahead, jerry. caller: i think trump has done better than any president in united states. i think he has proven to be the best president in the united states, ever. host: why do you say that? fact, and has, for a
the best president. unemployment is a lower and everything else. yesterday, the president announced on twitter that the u.s. should recognize the israel authority. after that tweet was sent outcome the same time, mike pompeo was in israel meeting with benjamin netanyahu's -- here is what the prime minister said about the president's decision. >> i am so excited. we are so excited to have you here this evening. -- president trump has just made history. i called him.
i thanked him on behalf of the people of israel. he did it again. jerusalemrecognized as israel's capital at the embassy. then he reimposed sanctions. now he did something of equal historic importance. he recognized israel's sovereignty over the golan heights, and he did so at a time when iran is trying to use syria as a platform to attack and destroy israel. the message that president trump has given the world is that america stands by israel. we are celebrating purim, when 2,500 years ago other percentians led by haman tried to destroy the jewish people. they threatened them. oday, 2,500 years later, again
persians are trying to destroy the jewish people and the jewish state. they're going to fail again. we are deeply grateful for the u.s. support. we are deeply grateful for the unbelievable and unmatchable support for our security and our right to defend ourselves and everything that you do on behalf of israel and for the state of israel in so many forms. host: how new zealand has reacted to the mosque shootings is dominating the headlines this morning. gun curb to follow model of australia. the prime minister saying they would buy back guns and also moving with support from the other parties, conservatives and others, to ban certain guns in that country as well. the knock times on new zealand has this front page story, that
the sharing and spreading on social media of materials depicting extreme violence and terrorism is also against the law in new zealand has others could be prosecuted for sharing of that video in that country. and also this in "the new york times" this morning. the n.r.a. in new zealand is different from america's. the new zealand organization, which has no formal connection to the n.r.a. in the united states, is the country's governing body for the sport of long range target shooting. it does not engage in the sort of political lobbying for which the america group has built such a fierce reputation. so those stories for you to consider and think about in the papers this morning. we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will talk with vanderbilt university's dr. jonathan metzl about his new book, "dying of whiteness." it looks at racial resentment and its impact on public health.
>> get to know the freshman members of the 115th congress monday on "washington journal." learn more about the most diverse group of lawmakers in history. >> i am real. i am authentic. i am not going to be a polished politician. >> i am a small-town lawyer from lexington. >> i served in afghanistan. >> mcdonald's franchisee for 22 years. >> i have a fascination with this idea of finding the answers to questions that nobody else could find. >> i have been a physician for all my professional life. >> my dad is a lifelong republican who has never voted for a democrat until he voted for me. >> watch "washington journal" monday morning. join the discussion. the 30th anniversary of the exxon valdez oil spill. remembering president george h.w. bush and the inventor of
the world wide web, all this weekend on american history tv. saturday starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern, three programs marking the 30th anniversary of exxon valdez oil spill. the second largest in the u.s. >> captain of the ship got on the radio and called the coast guard immediately, and he said, we are -- evidently we are leaking some oil. he said on the radio that he was going to try to rock the boat and get off the reef and proceed, which was a terrifying possibility. the ship was so badly damaged, there is a good chance it would have sunk. >> sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, former secretary of state james baker remembers his long-time friend, president george h.w. bush. >> i was privileged to serve as his secretary of state for four years, and i was extraordinarily
fortunate to serve a wonderful friend and a beautiful human being as we all know, but to serve as estate to a president who understood ha he had to defend me and protect me even when i was wrong. >> and at 9:00, on the 30th anniversary of the world wide web, a conversation with its inventor, computer scientist tim burners lee. >> climate change and the pieces of the puzzle in different people's brains, but they're connected on the internet. a an the web be a place -- place where whenever i have an idea i can easily put it into the web and as i wander around the space looking at other people's ideas, i can pick them out and take them together. you are picking that, well, i
have been picking this. >> watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york this morning is dr. jonathan metzl, the author of this new book, "dying of whiteness," how the politics of racial resentment is killing america's heartland. dr. metzl, what prompted you to write this book? guest: good morning and thank you for having me. i myself am obviously a white midwesterner and i grew up in a town, kansas city, missouri, that when i grew up had a long history of people working together across political divides. some people i grew up with were pro-guns, some people were anti-guns, blue, red. we all figured out a way to make it work. what i saw over the course of my growing up was there were particular politics that ended up fracturing people and setting them against each other. neighbors who used to agree and
work together on things ended up being divided in particular ways, and the story that i tell in the book is basically how states like kansas, missouri, and tennessee, where i live now, end up being fractured because of racializing messages that end up not being very good for anyone. the central argument of the book is that the politics that claim to make white america great again end up making the lives even of working class white supporters harder and in many cases shorter. host: what do you mean by whiteness? guest: that's a great question. in the book, i am not talking about whiteness as a biological category or even as an identity. what i track in the book is the ways that particular policies that are based in a kind of anti-government, pro-gun, anti-affordable care act ideology end up working their way into the health policies of particular states. what i tell in the book is the story of how the origins of many
of those policies are based in concerns, for example, that immigrants or minorities are taking away benefits that should be due white americans. so really what i am trying to tell is the story of how the policies -- the health policies that come to power in these states are based in these concerns about racial change. host: how prevalent do you think this racial resentment is in our country? guest: i interviewed hundreds of people over eight years of research for my book, and i will say that there is a tremendous variety of opinion. i am not saying there is any one thing called whiteness and everybody who is white ascribes to it. what i show is that positions that were once fringe positions politically speaking, this idea that we would have massive tax cuts that would undermine roads, bridges and schools in kansas, or the ways that we would overturn even the most basic gun legislation in missouri, these
were once fringe positions and they worked their way into statehouses. so the story i tell is the ways in which these once fringe positions work their way into power in states and then become frameworks for the trump administration's approach to national politics. and so while i don't think that this is a prevalent position for everybody in the country, i do think it's important because these politics of racial resentment are setting policies that impact people's health across the country. host: you write in the book, racism matters most to help what is underlying resentment and anxiety shape larger policies and benefits public health. i state this in part because many of the middle and lower income white americans i met were not expressly or implicitly racist. race does no come up in many of our conversations. are you saying or not saying that this is racism? what is it when people are talking to you and they disagree
with the policy by explaining that they don't like it because it could go to others -- how is that not racism? guest: certainly what you just described is racism. i have no problem with that. over the course of my research, i did talk to a number of people who voiced opinions exactly like you just said. i will never forget when i was doing a focus group in tennessee and i was speaking with medically ill working class white men and they had the potential in the affordable care act of benefiting greatly from the policies that were about to come down the pike. it would have helped them pay for prescriptions, routine office visits, get better medical care, and people in that group told me i don't want my tax dollars going to pay for what they said were mexicans and welfare queens, even if those policies might benefit me. so certainly in the book i recount some of those conversations. but more broadly, i also say
that there were many people who didn't have those opinions, but they also suffered from the consequences not because of their own racism or not racism, i don't know what is in anybody's heart, but because they lived in a state where politics that were based in this racial resentment ended up impacting health policy and the data i show in the book is alarming. in other words, i show dramatic declines in white life expectancy in states that adopt particular policies that are based in this dynamic. host: explain some of those. guest: sure. well, i will start with tennessee. so if you live in tennessee, tennessee is a state that really needed help with health insurance, so what i do is i track the story of what were the consequences of the state of tennessee basically rejecting the affordable care act? they didn't create a health care marketplace. they blocked the medicare expansion that was going to be related to that, and i just
asked the question, what were the consequences? it turned out there is a state right next door to tennessee, kentucky, that did adopt the affordable care act, and so i just tracked the different health trajectories in the two states and it turned out not expanding and not creating marketplaces cost every white citizen of the state about three weeks of life when we crunched the data. so a pretty remarkable exchange for a particular political position in relation to people in kentucky. i did the same thing with missouri and i did the same thing with tennessee. really what i am showing is that when our public policies are based in not just concerns for public health but also concerns about, as i call it, racial resentment, that ultimately everybody's health suffers, including working-class white supporters. host: you write on this, the african-american men largely supported the a.c.a. because the legislation potentially helped everybody and because they felt
that anything would be an improvement over tennessee's crumbling health care system, but many white men, like trevor mentioned in the introduction of the book, was the willingness to die rather than embrace a law that gave minority or immigrant persons access to care even if it helped them as well. you also looked at gun sledge slayings. what did you find? guest: i looked at missouri's gun legislation, a before and after story about what happened when missouri started significantly relaxing its regulations on how easy it was to buy a gun and carry a gun in public. this started happening around 2007 with a series of pieces of legislation, and really what i track in the book are on one hand many -- particularly working class white americans who are strug gun owners celebrated what they found to be their new found liberties, but if you look at the health perspective, what you see are rising rates of morbidity and
mortality, as doctors call it, injury and death, that resulted because there were so many guns in people's homes and in their cars. it turned out that people who were suffering the most from these injuries weren't gangbangers, as the n.r.a. would call it, it was actually the highest rates of gun death were white men in rural areas, who were seeing increased rates of gun suicide. so here again is a story about politics that was supposed to create liberation and greatness and it did probably for some people, but the facts were ultimately damaging to the health of the very people who they claim to support. host: let me get statistics from your book on this. between 2008 and 20124, the missouri gun homicide rate rose to 47% higher than the national average. rates of gun death by suicide, partner violences, and accidental shooting soared as well. deaths gun deaths topped by motor vehicle accidents for
the first time in history. let's get the call. charlotte from north carolina, good morning to you. caller: good morning. you talk about welfare queens -- everybody in america food stamps and checks in america because they can't be engaged. what would you do if you couldn't feed your children? him, all white people living day by day -- host: caller, you a little difficult to understand because there is an echo there. dr. metzl, i think she was
talking about this misnomer that the composition of welfare recipients is the majority african-american and the numbers say otherwise. guest: that's right. i am in complete sympathy with the caller and forgive me if i wasn't more clear about that. what i was doing was replaying what people were telling me, which was this common myth that if they bought into a health care system that all of their money would be drained away by these stereotypes of lazy people and welfare queens was one of those stereotypes. i can't tell you enough how false i find that depiction. health insurance works when the most people possible buy into a particular system, and what we see from the data and the data i show in the book is that everybody's health improves. so in a way, the argument i make in the book was that these particular stereotypes on one hand were what let many working-class people who i spoke with reject health care, that probably would have benefited
them. this fantasy that there were people at the bottom below them who were draining away resources, but it wasn't true and in part also in the states that i was interviewing people, these were majority white states very often, so it really was mostly white americans who were going to be the beneficiaries of health care. so just again i apologize if i didn't state that clearly. i agree, it's a dangerous stereotype. but sadly a very effective one. host: newport, tennessee, anthony. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i was in the military. i lived in long island, opened up my own business in north carolina. i was the very first one to open up a spanish video. i was even in tv. if you are from new york, puerto rico, if you go to florida, there are cubans. if you go to north carolina, the
people that were running my store were from peru. -- about 1/4 of the earth speaks spanish. was need to start -- when i in the service, i was in the vietnam war. everybody was known by his last name. it wasn't, hey, black jim. it wasn't black tony. it wasn't white tony. it was just, hey, tony. host: anthony, what is your point? caller: the point is that -- they quit using to describe people the color of their skin or the language they use. host: ok, dr. metzl. guest: this country is great because of its complexity and
diversity, and in the book i use a lot of research to show that actually societies where the most number of people have the best opportunities to improve their lot in life end up being the healthiest societies, societies where there is not just multiple people at every income level who can rise up, the promise of that, but also society is where there are multiple histories, multiple points of view in conversations. and so i think i understand the caller in saying that diversity is an important thing but if not that's the point i make in the book. in a way there is a fantasy that we can build a bunch of walls, walls everywhere seemingly now, and change the ways that diversity happens and certainly immigration policy is not something i talk about a great deal in the book, but this idea that basically we can preserve something in this country and really what i think we should be preserving in this country is the idea that we have really
made many people from many different parts of the world and many different backgrounds realize the american dream and that's what made us great in the first place. host: dr. metzl, who or what is to blame for this racial resentment? guest: part of the story i tell is that there are long histories and i think liberal people like myself -- i am more of a centrist, but we are kind of slow to realize, when donald trump for example started talking about guns and anti-immigration and anti-government, those issues were not invented yesterday. so part of the story i tell in the book is about the 200-year history of guns and health care and tax reform in the country, just to provide a little bit of context and tell people that gosh, there is a long history. there is a very long history here, and the other part of the book is that i feel like these historical tensions and stereotypes are being quite consciously manipulated by advertisers, politicians,
twitter, etc., and the reason i say that is because i met so many good people over the course of my research who i just wanted to say if we put everybody in a room, we can figure out some of these hard problems. but i came to appreciate the power of these polarizing factors that end up dividing us in this country and make us think that there is no way we will ever be able to agree about such important existential issues. host: rachel in texas, good morning to you. caller: hello. trump has this thing about saying that he has created more jobs, and i fact checked that several times and they give credit to obama. but when he says that he has done more for black people than any other president, that means that everybody job that was created was given to blacks. about guns, they want to tell you that liberals are against guns, but that means that only republicans shoot people.
they go about religion and tell people that do not vote republican do not believe in god. hat's just as crazy as the others. crazy.-- that's just i am tired of hearing this crazy talk that they think the american people out there divide us and cause more hate than i've ever seen in my life. we need somebody in there and i don't care what party it's from, this country needs to be healed from all this b.s. that's been put out there. i just hope and pray that they get someone in there that can rule this country instead of divide us like this man has done. host: ok, rachel. what do you think? guest: i think i agree actually. i don't want to say who or who shouldn't be president, but i would agree that the undercurrents of racial resentment that were stirring
beneath the surface for a long time really seem to have been blown into full view right now, and those are -- i think we have seen an example in new zealand of a very strong response to basically say not just here is what we may or may not do about gun policy, but here is how we as a nation respond to militant white supremacist aggression, and so in that sense i feel like there always will be a diversity of opinions in a particular country, but right now i agree with the caller that these positions are being blown into full view and in a way what that feels like is as i was saying before, this then becomes impossible, right, it feels like it's impossible to ever heal these racial wounds. i don't know -- i could argue many sides of that, but i would also say it's important to note that beneath the tension and the passion and the ideology, there also are particular policies, so
all the policies i talk about in the book end up creating much more racial division. so i think part of this issue isn't just healing what is in people's hearts. that needs to happen. it's also creating more equitable policies that level the playing field for everyone. host: john in tampa, florida. your question or comment for dr. metzl. guest: yes, sir, as a physician you should understand the differential diagnostic conditions to what you think with respect to management algorithms, this resentment, racism, is a spinoff of a major pathology of the fact that trillions and trillions of dollars have been shifted from the middle class and poor over time into the hands of china and a few very wealthy people in this country, relatively few, of course, trillions. that's like a thousand billion because of the supreme court ruling that equated the big
money in political campaigns to freedom of speech, the reagan tax cuts, 70% to 30%, the top marginal rates with no strings attached. of course, nafta signed by bill clinton. he signed off on giving china most favored nation status. bill clinton signing off in 1999 of the repeal of the post-great depression era, remedial act of glass-steagall being taken away which caused the great recession. all of this has drained trillions of dollars from the middle class and the poor, and of course racial resentment is morbidities, the ruination of this country. that's the physiology. hank you, sir. guest: i would love to talk history with you sometime. it was so interesting for for
example, i would talk to people in kansas and they would complain that the kansas i grew up in, we had always top 10 public schools, roads, bridges, parks, infrastructure, and then there were massive tax cuts across the state that drained that kind of money, drained money from every -- highway safety funds, the public school system which was so great. it took all that money and it gave it to the top 1% of families and wage earners in the state. people i talked to who were working class people said gosh, kansas was so awesome, look things are falling apart, and their complaints were always -- this is really the problem i am trying to address. they would say too much money is going to minority districts or one story i heard was minorities are using all our tax dollars to buy party buses. i called the district, and they laughed at me, but what i kept wanting to say is actually no,
the money was taken and it's being put up the economic hierarchy. people are benefiting but it's not the people below you, it's the people above you. this has been an issue for a long time. i think possibly this is where progressivism tries to intervene, to say there are financial interests that join people across socioeconomic class and if people ever united, we could address it. i agree with you that money is being drained away from the middle and lower working class. that's part of what i am trying to address in the book. but i also make the point -- i can't say this clearly enough -- that when you tie this to racial ideology or racial resentment that what happens is it becomes harder for people to see what is really happening, which is that they're being financially and biologically manipulated in ways that benefit particular people but they're being told that the people below them are the problem. host: your book and what you are talking about reminds me of this
piece written in 2014 by a billionaire. he wrote that the pitch forks are coming for us plutocrats, warping that the wealthier -- warning that the wailtier americans nieded to do -- wealthier americans needed to do something or america would come together against them. thinking about that what you just said, why doesn't that happen that americans across different races, different political ideologies, come together? guest: this has been a debate in our country for about a century. there was a black philosopher who wrote a famous book about reconstruction after the civil war, and he basically said why is it that white working class people and newly freed black slaves don't join together to demand more concessions from the elite? the answer i come up with was
there was a tricky system where ite working people were told that they had this wage they were paid because they were white and that made them better than black people at the same economic level. so that debate about how can people align together across socioeconomic class is one that has flummoxed people, even du bois said i don't understand why we are clinging to this outdated idea of race when people's economic interests could be so better served by joining together. certainly we have seen that kind of history come and go, so part of the answer is that these racial scripts that people are told end up making them feel in some ways better or worse based on ideology but in terms of economics they're completely counterintuitive and disruptive in many ways. so partially there is a very long history of this. i think it's just been inflamed
recently and the other point is that i personally feel, having done research for this book, that conservative voters who are working class really don't demand enough of their politicians in terms of creating policies that might better their own lives, in other words, i think they can surely say we are republican and we support whoever, but we want better roads, bridges and schools and health care. host: let's go to rusty who has been waiting in colorado. good morning to you. guest: good morning. doctor, do you know the path of less resistance is? guest: do you want to put it in context? of course, please. caller: it can be used in many ways. i want to change my comment that i was previously going to mention and i want to refer back to your statement about kansas and the roads and bridges and
the departments there. doctor, i don't understand how you can attribute the moneys from the local and state departments being taken and given to the federal departments as a -- connecting that to a elitism. filing or an if you can, please, can you tell me how you make these or toations to the racial an elite status or white privilege. i think all those connections are reaching more and not using the path of least resistance. you are yourself inflaming those divisions.
guest: i take that comment seriously and i appreciate it. the reason i wrote this book was i have seen us do better as a country and i have seen us do better as white americans in terms of creating more equitable societies that aren't inflamed by this fear of other people. now, i do think there are several very important points in that question that i think i would be happy to address. in terms of kansas, the tax cuts in kansas, part of the revolt against the tax cuts in kansas was because kansas basically was doing what the g.o.p. tax bill did in 2016, which was to cut moneys from the higher income wage earners, and i don't have it time to go into all the finance now except i would urge people to read the book to say that the claims i make about kansas really are the same claims that people in support of the tax cuts were making at the time, but i do think the caller makes a very important point
that not every issue i talk about here is overtly about race. like guns, for example, people own guns for many reasons that have nothing to do with race whatsoever. they have to do with history and hunting and family tradition, feelings of security. the same thing with schools. people want schools for a bunch of different reasons. so part of the story i tell in the book are the surprising and often invisible ways that american history tells us about how particular issues become racialized even if it's not exactly obvious. i will give you one example, which is that guns, for example, in the states that i track them, have a long history of rights only being afforded to white americans, so for about 200 years in many of these states, african-american people were not allowed to carry guns in public and so this idea of who gets to carry a gun, even if we have changed the laws right now, there are long hifts that tap into that.
-- histories that tap into that. i agree with the caller that the racial histories are very different in each state and in each issue and i try to take that seriously but i also think you expect really discount the centrality of race that i tell. host: on kansas and tax laws i will read one part from your book. brownback signed -- referring to the former governor -- signed a controversial school finance bill, which created tax breaks for corporations that donated to private scholarship funds, allowed public school districts to hire unlicensed teachers for science and math classes, cut support for at-risk students, and made it easier for schools to fire experienced tichers. h.b. 25006 further defunded government by supplementing these changes with significant cuts to property taxes. what was the result of this, dr. metzl? guest: the result was really an evisceration of what had been a shining star in kansas. kansas had a remarkable public
school system. people in the state were very proud of not just the public schools but the -- what those public schools afforded people, the children were graduating and leading these terrific careers because they were coming out as highly educated members of the work force. the kansas that i grew up in was always in the top 10 in public schools. what you see over time are two important dynamics even in the four or five years after these tax cuts take place. number one, you see rapidly declining fourth and eighth grade reading and science proficiencies. students' performance on national tests starts to fall considerably from its high perch down to the middle 40's, and that also goes hand in hand with increasing high school dropout rates. the minute you start cutting teachers and increasing classrooms and cutting support systems, what happens is that students in kansas start to drop out of school in really record
numbers. unfortunately, there is a lot of data that correlates dropping out of high school with a shortened life expectancy, poor health outcomes later in life. i am not inventing that. i am referencing it. so in that sense what i argue is that so many students dropping out of high school as a result of these tax cuts end up influencing people's health and the health of the state more broadly. i should also add about kansas, the reason i talk about kansas, we were talking about race before. there is the long history of the brown versus board of education case in kansas. a lot of people i talked with supported the tax cuts in schools because they thought they were going to go to minority districts and they were surprised when their own kids' schools were getting cut. the other important point is kansas is in an important state because centrist republicans and democrats decided to get together to say enough is enough and they actually over the course of my research banded
together to pass a tax increase that would help money go back to the schools. so i see kansas as quite a hopeful story about what might happen. host: let's go to alaska. sarah is watching there. thanks for calling in. go ahead with your question. caller: it's been a real education listening to your callers. i wanted to ask you, dr. metzl, are you aware of some of the laws that didn't get into your state until mashe about the mid 1950's and that this all goes back to ancient egypt as well. it's called eugene icks. what eugenics was. indiana leading the way in 1907 for with 30 states following suit and there were 48 states at that point, let alone alaska and hawaii, but what it was was a group of very wealthy doctors
and lawyers who wanted to create, just like hitler did in world war ii, the great white race, but it's not one-sided. the dark side, where people of color long before we did, because it was done in ancient egypt. but the problem is, there are a lot of medical problems today that the government is expected to pay for in the way of medicare, medicaid and stuff like that, for poor people, that are the direct result of those one. enics, i being i was born smack-dab in the -- didn't hityday your state until later on. host: sarah, what is your point? guest: my point is, my uncle put
it very well. there are enough pieces of the pie game blame for everybody to have a whole pie. the interest being what it is today in compounding daily interest, everybody gets 100 pies. they need to quit looking at the pretty little package and look inside the box and see what is really inside that box. you can't judge by color. you can't -- that's what civil rights was all about. that's what our constitution is all about. i hear a lot of people arguing, but they don't know the constitution as they fought and died for it. host: dr. metzl. guest: i actually -- the last book i wrote goes deeply into the history of eugenics and the ways in which the arguments lay the foundation for a lot of arguments that ended up showing up later in nazi germany. i think there is an important history of eugenics in this
country. the bigger question i might glean from that comment -- there were many important moving parts -- was this question of not just about -- eugenics is this racial science but i think there is a bigger question of whose life is expendable? in other words, whose life is worthy of our protecting and whose life is seen as just grist for the mill that we can kind of throw away? what i found so surprising in doing my research was that, again, i -- because i am a midwesterner and because i was doing research over the course of this book, i understand why people have profound emotional resonances towards politics that say that they're going to make their lives better. i watched the appeal of president trump across the midwest and in many ways he was speaking to many people's concerns and lived experiences, but the point i want to make again is that if you look at the
actual policies that dictate about where government spends its money, about what health care system there is, things like that, that the actual policies are based in the assumption that working-class people's lives are expendable. that's why the data in the book that i have tracks actually worsening health outcomes and shortened life expectancies as a result of the policies that were supposed to make people's lives great. so i can't for the life of me understand why people can't be republican or democrat or whatever and still demand that the structures that surround their lives and the money that they pay into the system improves their lives and their communities. that's kind of the conflicted point right now and something that makes as little sense to me now as probably eugenics did to people at the time. host: what are the solutions? guest: well, i think one important solution i get asked a lot because i wrote this book, what is it going to take to
change trump voters' minds? i don't like that question, because i don't think it's my job to change anybody's mind and i think it's an illusion for people to think like gosh, when people see these policies, they're going to wake up. i think a big part of the solution has to be that working class people, conservative people, start to demand more material benefits from the politicians and the policies that they're supporting. in other words, people who should be able to say yeah, i am republican, but i also want policies that give me better health care or give me better schools or give me better roads. so part of this is organic. it's not about somebody from the outside changing somebody's mind. it's to tell people you have the right to ask more from the system that you are living in and buying into, and the other big point of the research i did shows, i think, that there are particular ways that we need to be talking to white working class people and thinking about listening to them, listening to their concerns.
i learned a great deal by going into gun country and asking people what guns meant in their lives. so not just to jump in at the policy level but actually -- i think there is an important lesson here for many of the democratic candidates, to really pay attention to people's language and think about ways we might offer solutions to people's problems rather than dictating. host: we will go to tampa, florida. good morning to you. guest: good morning. how are you? i just wanted to make a comment. the very wealthy for a very long time have been using race or anything else to keep the masses from uniting, whether it's to give them a bigger wage or whatever, but the question is hy is it so easy for them to have -- especially the white working class, give away their -- i am not
articulating this the way i want to, but trump is a symptom of a vast bigger problem that i don't think it should be about, you no he -- you know, how they don't benefit from racism. it's the morality. it's the soul of our country that's as issue here. i think if we could talk more to that and that people should not ve that up, your values, and turn to hate. that's really what i think would solve the problem and why we do that in the country and we have been doing it for centuries. i don't understand that. guest: it's a lovely question. thank you so much for that. i wondered the same thing -- i wonder that all the time, and i wondered it over the course of the eight years that i wrote this book. there is so much greatness in this country. there are so many ways in which tie into of whiteness
whiteness can also be incredibly generous, incriddably caring and brave. there are white working class people who i know and grew up with and not just working class, who are incredibly communal and powerful and think that the position that we hold as the majority population in this country right now forces us to take better care of people who are in need or forces us to be more equitable and fair. part of my frustration in writing this book is that this particular moment in our history is the worst angels of whiteness that have seemed to have co-opted the narrative. i personally agree and feel frustrated because i want to say we need to have a reckoning about what whiteness may or may not mean in this country but to do so we need to wrestle away this narrative that we define
whiteness by the fear that minorities and immigrants are going to take stuff that's ours. instead i think we can be much more generous and caring and i really do agree with you that that's the way forward. so in the conclusion of the book, i show some examples of the ways in which there are many models of what it means to be white in this country and there are ones that are not being elected to office in many cases in many of these states right now, but that i think offer us a guide forward if we are willing to take it. i just want to say one other point about that which is again to say that diverse and equitable societies end up being better for everybody. they rise everybody's boats. people have better health outcomes, better education outcols, so the things we are doing right now are could it so destructive and i hope we can change course. host: denise in olympia, washington. guest: hello. host: good morning. guest: good morning.
the chairman: good morning. i am here in washington. -- caller: good morning. i am here in washington. i was so shocked with my relatives. they live about 20 miles away from me, and one time at a reunion, one of my relatives told me about the mexican immigrants that he didn't want any more of them. it just shocked me so much because we all grew up the same way. respecting up everybody. and the laws. and one of these days they're this was alize that always coming, that they were going to have to change their ways and i would like to see them change their ways, and they're not doing it. ost: denise, what do you think
made this person feel that way? was there something in his life or her life? what happened that you think formed that opinion? caller: what happened was in the state of washington in their area, they grew up with logging. then it was all everybody white, everybody this and that. then when i realized that things were going to change and they didn't realize that, and i think people just need to realize that things are changing and you need to accommodate yourself to that. host: dr. metzl? guest: i can't emphasize enough the power of the narrative that create the kind of anxieties that the caller was describing. i interviewed people in missouri, 400 miles away from ferguson, who were rushing out to buy guns because they wanted to defend themselves from
protesters. this narrative that people are going to come and take what's yours, they're going to take your jobs, unfortunately i feel like it's something that's being whipped up and being are being in some ways manipulated about those fears. i don't discount the fact that people are worried about their jobs. they're worried about protecting themselves and their families. but i think without responsible leadership that tries to say, look, we are all going to be fine or maybe we are not, but we will take charge, that i think what is happening is these particular kinds of anxieties are being fomented so much, this idea that somebody will rush across the border and take your job or take your big screen tv or take whatever, and so in a way it plays to people's worst concerns and fears. the other issue, as we were saying before, is that we just haven't had many open conversations about whiteness in this country, and so it turns out a lot of people felt differently about it than maybe
we expected. host: james, kansas city, missouri. hi, james. caller: good morning. good morning, dr. metzl. i think my contribution here is to offer maybe we need race neutral language. i think this station is perpetuating a difference. when we use the terms as we use it's t seems to be -- perpetuating the problem. but we did this with gender neutral language. it was 50 years, but it helped bridge the divide between male and female, the way we perceive that. so as far as racial goes, i think we need to watch our language a little more carefully. thank you. guest: hi, kansas city. hi, everybody back home. i would definitely say that language is very important. i think the issue that comes up
a lot of times is that i think a lot of times people assume that when we talk about race or culture or diversity, we are talking about minority and immigrants. but we are not talking about white americans, and so there is a kind of long history in academia, for example, that looks at this notion that whiteness -- whiteness as invisible. when we talk about race, we are usually -- the assumption very often is that we are not talking about white america. we are talking about everybody else, so it's an interesting concept, but i would say that part of what we might need also is a more developed language to talk about what it means to be white in this country, talk more about it, not less about it. part of the story i tell in the book is that, again, everybody wasn't talking about race that i spoke with, so race plays out in issues. ce underlies anxieties about race, underlie stories about
guns, about government, all these factors, urban versus rural divide. i think part of the issue is we need better language, i agree with that, but we also need to think a little bit about how race influences politics and public policy in ways we can address more head on. host: alan in indiana. you are on with dr. metzl. caller: thank you, good morning. happy birthday to c-span. i have been watching you for 39 years. never change your hairstyle, love it. at i want to bring up i am a minority. i know what it's like to be not in total control. i went to a very diverse high school, but we had first and second generation europeans which are different whites. across the city, you had whites from the south, different people.
understand how whites felt they were in control. laura ingram on the show was very upset she thought the changing demographics where you see all white people on the farms. i understand that. i get that, but i would like to think there are people like this oung man named christian piccolini. he helps young white men transition from being neo-nazis into mainstream culture. i know he had his funds cut by trump. i am a fan of trump as waking up america. people are reading the constitution. they're voting, getting involved, becoming aware. i think he is going to make america great, not like he thought he did, but i would -- i am not -- forgive me, i am not being facetious. we have a lot of programs that help people rise up to improve
their life, be educated. but we don't have a department that would help the 1% of whites who feel threatened to educate them, the realization that it's good for all america if we all rise up and pay more in taxes for the 1%. you have better roads, infrastructure, your schools, less crime. it helps us all. you won't make $100 million. you just make $10 million. host: alan, let's take your point. guest: i love this point. so i love this point actually. i think that people are waking up. i agree with that. i myself am a second generation american. high dad is a holocaust survivor from europe. people come to this country from many different ways. i agree that's important to note. i also agree that many of the
programs that help us deal with these issues are being underfunded and undercut right now. so again i think that there is a moment right now where we can look forward and say, gosh, is this the particular country that we want or what can we do to take it back? in that sense, i think there was a lot in that call that i agree with. the other point i want to make one more time is that we did these focus groups around the affordable care act. we did focus groups with african-american and white men in different configurations and basically asked them what do you feel about health care reform? the really interesting we found when we talked to african-american men across the board is they kept saying we are for health care reform because it will improve everybody's health. everybody will benefit. society benefits. they would make arguments again and again that if we invest in everybody's health care, it's better for society because there are fewer drains on emergency rooms, there is fewer
communicable diseases. so there was a sense in the african-american respondents that we talked to, it wasn't just about them or their group. it was basically saying investing here will help everybody's health. unfortunately the flip side was in certain of the white groups that we did, it was much more about what is somebody going to take from me? so these tensions are so deep and part of the point i am trying to make is that they're so deep they affect people's decisions about their own health and well-being. host: brian in virginia, hi, brian. caller: hi, good morning. just a couple comments. first, there seems to be this growing narrative that white americans seem to be the enemy today, that they're racist. look at how many media outlets are reporting articles about this growing number of white supremacists supporting the president. it's very discouraging. to your point about issues
related to health care, guns and welfare, many people that i talk to really kind of come down and see these as fiscal issues but they're being politicized as issues white versus black and that 40% of the working population ultimately aren't paying into the tax system. look at our schools. they're terrible. our infrastructure is falling apart. so what is the solution? pay more taxes to improve those things. so the middle class, the working class, the people who 25% of my paycheck goes to taxes, are seeing the big picture in that the ultimate solution is for somebody to pay more and it's not going to be the 40% plus that aren't paying already. my last comment is -- host: brian, who should it be, then, that pays more? guest: that was going to be my question also. caller: personally, i believe
everybody should pay something. if you have no stake in the game, then the game is rigged. there should be something that everybody pays. again, not a black and white issue, but you know, the lower class receives more benefits. look at public schools. for example, e.s.l. type programs and so forth. but my last comment was you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. so when i hear comments about mexicans or this or that, the reality is we pay people to sit at home to collect a check and the people that don't want to work, they get money. but we have people coming across the border that want to work, that are willing to work to better their lives and better their families. again, you cannot pay for both. the american tax dollars can't afford it and it will bankrupt this country. that's all.
thank you very much. guest: this is basically the argument that i wrestle with in the book. this is kind of why i wrote the book. let me just say to the caller's first point, i am in no way making the claim that everybody is racist. i don't think that whiteness is under attack. i think whiteness is doing pretty well right now, and so i am very clear to say that i do not know what is in anybody's heart. i am not trying to make an argument that people are racist, but the logic really is where i think we would disagree. for example, my research took me to kansas where the state was doing pretty well in terms of many indicators of health, education, infrastructure, and then this huge tax cut, it didn't cut away what the lower income people were paying into the system. it cut away what people who at the top 1% of wage earners were paying into the system and the entire infrastructure fell apart and the benefits to that were
really being seen at the top end of the economic structure, not at the bottom end. really it's an open question. do you want to look up? do you want to look down? i think there is an open debate right now about investment, and there was one part of that call that i agree with, which is i think when people buy into the system, we are better off. i don't think i would agree about who the ultimate beneficiaries are right now in terms of >> let's hear from chris, in massachusetts. it sounds like you're calling the people of tennessee essentially racist. why not go to baltimore, chicago and detroit, which have been run by democrats for decades and look at the abysmal state of affairs in those cities?
greta: we are running out of time. so let's make that point. talk about urban policy. believe me, i am under no illusion that, even if you take the urban policy out of it that led to dire conditions in many cities, even the problems that many white populations are facing that i talk about are the result of prior democratic administrations. so in the way am i trying to say this is just a republican issue. i do not think that. what i think is that the way we are addressing these problems are making the problems worse we are making health care and health policy worse. we are making infrastructure worse. part of my point is not the origin story. i give you a very long list of policies that were made worse by democrats, but the point is we are taking these historical
announcer: coming up, the information technology and innovation foundation posted a discussion on the u.s. postal service. that will be live from capitol hill right here on c-span. congress is in recess this week. house speaker pelosi has announced next week the house will vote on an override of the president's veto of the resolution terminating his declaration. that vote is scheduled for tuesday. you can see it live on c-span. when the senate is back in session, senators will debate on judicial nominations. later they will consider a resolution of support for the green new deal. when the senate returns, live coverage on c-span2. >> once tv was through giant 1979 as -- and then in
network rolled out a new idea, but viewers would decides -- decide what was important. c-span open the doors for all to see, bringing you content from congress and beyond trade in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing, but c-span is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage is funded as a public service by your cable provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind. announcer: andrew yang is running for the democratic nomination for president. he traveled to new hampshire earlier for a conversation with the former r