tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 4, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EDT
alt, delete." obama frompresident last night white house correspondents dinner. we want to get your views from our first 45 minutes on what we would call "beltway culture." maybe events likes last nights dinner highlighted. your thoughts and views on beltway culture. numbers --e information via social media. our facebook page has 25 things posted right now. you can send us e-mail too at
a couple of those thoughts from kathleen parker. we want to get your thoughts on the beltway culture. we are using the themes from last night in her to this. -- we will show you that's from this. the phone mines -- twitter is available to you. and if you want to send us thoughts on facebook you can do so at facebook.com/cspan.
off of facebook, robert wheeler says -- some of the thoughts on the beltway culture, as we are calling it. the phone lines are available to you. edgewater, new jersey on the democrats line, you are first. thank you for having this form available to us. yesterday's event was by far the most real and the best, and here .s why sometimes we tend to look only through our own glass for some.
ofterday we had a variety people who gave honors. they were not only looking at themselves, they were looking at other people. they were saying things that were painfully true but they did it in a lighthearted manner. people tried to live their as that situation played out. we would not only be able to deal with serious issues but lighthearted issues at the same time. i thought it was awesome. there was a lot of truth told left. when using the term "beltway culture," what comes to mind? caller: i think americans feel
closed out of the process. i think a lot of journalists felt closed out in different administrations. now you have this president who actually said -- he made a declaration in 2000 eight, he said he will try to make the most transparent presidency ever. i think everyone, republican, democrat, progressive, is trying to lift that standard. again, your view of beltway culture. --its to my north carolina, plymouth, north carolina, david you are up next. situationu take the nevada -- instead of him
saying, i did wrong, i am going to pay up, they turn it into an event. everything in america is either politicized or used as a means to use violence against one another. we can shoot each other down without any thought about it. our government allows the resources we have available to instead made negative of a positive. kind of bring back down to reality that sometimes we make mistakes. we need to embrace our mistakes and go forward. host: joe off of twitter says this --
roxboro, north carolina, democrats line. here is arnold. somebody had a good time last night. they areay culture, out of touch with the rest of america. you way i was brought up, keep your enemies closer and you keep your friends further away. they can't stand each other. when they had their little press -- or they have the 50th repeal of obamacare. the new benghazi attacks. --y come to the microphone
they must be crazy to get rid of this first black president. i find them to be a bunch of funny people. the president making several jokes. turning to himself and turning to other members of congress. here is a little bit from last night. [video clip] them feeling sorry for speaker of the house, as well. these days the house republicans actually give john boehner a harder time than they give me. which means orange really is the new black. north providence, rhode island, independent line. caller: good morning. i am concerned that the news media is not covering benghazi and irs and c-span is not doing
it to. the program last might was a waste of taxpayer dollars. it's got to stop. if you missed last nights event and you want to see it for yourself, go to our website. a not only can you see the comments from the president and the entertainer joe mchale -- entertainer joel mchale -- feel free to do that. be --irst stop it will first stop will be www.c-span.org. from florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i think the confluence of democratic government and media
is horrible and it is washington by journal's avoidance of the special committee to investigate obama over benghazi. host: we highlighted that. kathy from michigan, democrats line. caller: last time i was in d.c. andmaybe 20 years ago driving through my sister worked in maryland. all i saw was crushing poverty. mainly the african-american population. men who should be working but aren't. hered a very good reporter who had a very tough interview. stepanovebbie accountable last year. people thought he was harsh but i thought he was right on. have fun.ed a gun to
i don't need to party with people who did not have a concept of how the realities of the rest of us live. i think it is shameful. i think they want their picture on the television set. bring their cameras into the community. senator levin about these helicopters from russia are using in afghanistan, it just shows how out of touch he is with how the majority of american people feel. if we are going to be giving people such things like helicopters, why not them be dim helicopters -- be the helicopters we make here. that is kathy from michigan. again, we are talking about the beltway culture. we will show you a bit more from the correspondents dinner last night. other news to tell you about, this one coming out of minnesota, the former transportation committee
from pennsylvania, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a veteran who served in the air force for 10 years. i actually have a claim to .isability i'm looking at 13 years right now. i filed 13 years ago and i haven't gotten it completed yet or anything. yet.'t get any help i just think these peaceful -- these people are wasting so much money on these lavish dinner parties. veterans like myself cannot get a simple claim finished. how would you describe beltway culture? caller: what exactly is beltway culture? host: inside the beltway, how people perceive washington. caller: i don't think it is too
good to say the least. more and more of our taxes are being taken. -- moreamily members and more money being taken away for education for our children to go to college. it is just ridiculous. i think people in washington are more disconnected than ever. host: how would you describe the beltway culture is the topic of our first 45 minutes. on the phone mines -- you can reach out to us on twitter, facebook, and by e-mail. to give us a wrap up of the events yesterday, joining us on a politico reporter who spent a good deal last night reporting on the festivities.
thank you for joining us. how would you wrap it up as far as what you saw yesterday? guest: it was just another celebratory weekend that we with the white house correspondents dinner. it is a weekend with a lot of celebrities. politicians, journalists, everyone mingling last night. that, naked and a dinner at the washington -- and the glamorous series -- that culminated in a dinner at the washington -- as a reporter, how do you feel about the celebrities mingling with politicians and what will you tell others, especially those outside washington dc, about why these things occur? a good question and certainly from an outsider's
perspective it does look like an interesting gathering, something we do not see typically. it is definitely an event that brings together people from a variety of high-profile professions for one night. it certainly is a very interesting cultural moment in washington. fall back intoe their typical roles created the press covers politicians. sometimes it is a bit more adversarial. it is nice to see everyone put that aside and come together with camaraderie. perhaps that should exist aside from this weekend and go on to other weekends in washington. guest: the president said it is
still one night for him to turn the tables on the press. it does capture that back and forth ongoing relationship -- inn the press corps general the political journalists and the politicians recover. this is the president's chance to us a little bit. of it,ainly is one part and ongoing back-and-forth relationship. host: as far as parties and things like that to my they are sponsored by corporations and lots of mediat: outlets and up their own parties. the bloomberg defended the fair is one of -- the vanity fair party is one of the more high-profile ones. the: talk about some of things you found interesting, maybe things we will read about this morning. guest: as always it is
interesting to see how people from such diverse professions -- journalists meeting athletes, for example and celebrities with notysts that people who do necessarily have ties to politics. it is interesting to see who gets starstruck by whom. some people on tv who play journalists are very excited when they meet real life in the west and of course vice versa. euck is aie gl isitical reporter -- glueck a politico reporter. on the democrats line, this is joe. sayer: i would like to
this -- i would like to see in this country -- we forget about what part we belong. let's start working together and create something we can all be proud of. i have a picture from when the president was still in -- let's try to make the united states it better place for all to live. i am 71 years old, i am still kicking. next up is cindy from spring texas, republican line. the problem i have with this is they all have to keep up an image. wese kinds of things, like
saw last night, it encourages that and enhances that. we pay their salaries, these politicians. i hope this is not the case but with benghazi it could very well be that this administration was just so caught up in protecting the image. we, the people, are forgotten unfortunately. host: the reporter we just had on the phone said this event takes place just one weekend per year. is it fair to look at one weekend and kind of build -- caller: i wasn't necessarily referring to this one weekend. areink what happens is they caught up in that all year round. dayee examples of it every where we the people are just for costs and.
it is all about them keeping up their image. host: frank from florida, democrats line. i want to make a comment about last nights party. there are people who cannot afford to make enough money to feed their kids. that looks at a party for the one percent. who in their right mind would vote for republican? they are not going to get a piece of the pie, they want the whole pie. i asked -- i answered my own question. on twitter. condoleezza rice is the focus of the story of some of the papers. writes -- emma
it is two parties coming timeher but at the same they are all in cahoots with one another. they are just taking taxpayer dollars and spending it on extravagant parties and different lifestyles that have nothing to do with working americans. thank you. host: bill from mame, up next on our independent line. i think our founding fathers are spinning in their graves. in dash all all the the additional people we have, the need a different way to bring people to washington. perhaps a lottery of registered voters. host: on twitter --
joel mchale is an actor and entertainer. here is a little bit from his set last night. [video clip] >> it is an honor term be here tonight at the washington hilton. excitement,g with or maybe that is just the bed bugs. i hope you all enjoyed your dinner. the for late-night was grass fed beef, freshly dragged off of the clive and bundy ranch. the stakes are tasty once you pull off the tiny white hoods. bundy, like clive and that the record be shown. harris from connecticut. go ahead. unable the press seems to ask tough questions of politicians, nor are they able to follow-up with challenges to
their answers because they want to appear on the talk shows. john mccain, he appears all the time. viewers get discouraged and ask why they are watching these shows. some of the press just stop and go onto another question. they still won't challenge them because they won't come back on the shows. host: to the larger idea of beltway culture? caller: they know these people personally. the commentators, every one of the talk show hosts know these people personally. they appear in their parties in georgetown, they appear at press conferences. they party with these people. doyou follow them, what they during the weekend -- and it is
a problem. maybe it has always existed. when we turn to the press to look for education we find that it is very difficult. it is a real problem. -- i mention one other thing and i am a republican. the fact is under ronald reagan 256 marines were killed at an embassy. he never followed up on this. it is republicans who are talking about how much they love from a break in and never talk about that. host: jack from blackwood, new jersey on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. the last caller was very emotional. nowlieve the show is reflecting our society, which is totally upside down and inside out. bringing in hollywood, which stands for a lot of the --version -- not the average not what the average person who is raising a family stands for.
you follow in wall street, and then you have washington, d.c. -- h is stupidity, egoism the average person is not been heard today. we are in a love of trouble. senator tim kaine from virginia weighing in on prospects of hillary clinton running for president of the united states. the headline from "the washington post" this morning --
there is an interesting story taking a look at the 10th district of virginia. writers of the washington post saying it is one of the most hard-fought contest is coming up in this election year. a swiftly changing population will probably be beyond reach. mounting cynicism about the people who run for office. this focuses on the district but if you want to read that you can select the story in the washington post. barbara from roanoke for genia, democrats line, hello. hello.
people need to take a breath and realize that it is not paid for by the taxpayers, it is paid for by the correspondents i wish they would eliminate all the hollywood and sports celebrities. people need to lighten up. a lot of people are calling in with class envy. anybody who calls in and youlains about that, socialize with your class usually. a lot of people have made it .rom nothing iny socialize with people
their financial class. if he shows up at a dinner they are complaining about taxpayer money. the secret service is going to be with the president. they are on duty 24 hours a day. thinkwhy do you celebrities and sports athletes are distraction? caller: i think it should be an event for the journalist and the president. that should be the focus. it is just distracting. andrea klein said this on twitter --
here is some video from last night's event. tim tebow there. we are using last nights dinner as a means to talk about what we would describe as beltway culture. if you want to give your thoughts, the phone lines are -- our twitter address, @cspanwj. you can send us e-mail at email@example.com/ ohio, independent line. caller: it's just so ofrtbreaking to see how good a time they are having up there. to 2008 i was a truck
driver. i devoted my time to that while taking care of my family. neighbor,elping a falling out of the tree 50 feet. there is no more i can do. i have been fighting for my social security since 2008. they denied me and now they say back to get my social security. it is just heartbreaking, watching them all have a good time. it's just really heartbreaking.
they're all up there worth millions. we are working our butts off. i want you -- i want to invite you to stay after this program for our newsmakers program. senator john hoven of north dakota is cosponsoring -- here's a little bit about what he had to say. [video clip] maryuch pressure is landrieu facing as chair of the committee? >> she is working hard to get additional democrat votes. we have every single republican senator on board. we have 11 democrat senators who signed onto the legislation. more wey be one or two think may vote with us. she is pushing very hard to get some support.
importantvery projects to our country because we need infrastructure as part of our energy development. it is a very important project in louisiana because they have for binaries down there -- have refineries down there that need soil. -- need this oil. host: john ho of and -- john hoeven will be with us. if you want to find that whole conversation, stay tuned for our newsmakers program right after this program at 10:00. suzanne from phoenix, arizona on the independent line. caller: i lived in and worked in d.c. inside the federal government and outside. the hometown newspaper is what is controlling the u.s..
long-term tendency with elected officials and the support groups. a situation they say there are no consequences for actions, there is duplication of effort, there is the contracting system where people are working with thentracts and then there is the lobbying system. all the stuff goes on decade after decade. it is like a world when -- a whirlwind to itself. or the person actually doing a job has no idea that this is sort of like future world except it keeps on repeating. host: i was going to ask how you
-- yourciate with perspective as you have been here in washington. caller: people who show up for a -- i know there are partners in very successful firms. is thatservance to me taxes just keep on going up and not as much return. pay aation in that people lot more in taxes and they are going to pay a lot more in taxes but they are not getting so much return for their taxes. we will hear from frederick in midland, texas. i also vote republican. it's repack -- it bothers me -- i heard joel mchale say
republicans hate black people. i don't understand that. icf can american politicians -- i see african-american politicians -- and the thing about chris christie and the extended seat bill paid only by the -- only in washington can you use that joke and nobody says anything about that. if you said that about some politician that is not part of washington dc, then he is not being pc and they go after him. this whole premise that andington, d.c. african-americans, it is disturbing to me. we have african-americans of all class. it bothers me immensely when i hear jokes like that. at the same time politicians put that out to the pop like that to the public.
-- put that out to the public. we don't need washington decidi ng what we do and who we vote for. thoughts made on twitter this morning, one more from last night's inner -- here's what president obama had to say. [video clip] think i havege to two-and-a-half years left in his office. look is -- everywhere i a reminder that i only hold this job temporarily. it is a long time between now and 2016. hillary had to dodge a flying shoe at a press conference the other day.
i love that picture. here is wendy from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: hello, i watch the correspondents dinner every year. hollywood and politics has been as i haveor as long known. everybody is calling and complaining. that's all i had to say. larger issue of beltway culture, you see us here in washington. i noticed one weekend of the year they focus on this kind of thing. what about the idea of what washington likes? -- what washington is like? caller: they have to vote, they had to get their friends and neighbors out to vote green the people that have the power to
change it can if they want to. say you are above politics. get out there and vote. host: cameron from olympia, washington, good morning. caller: good morning. the program is a great program. i have watched washington journal for 19 years. i really enjoy this program because you get here people talking, not these washington insiders who have canned comments. i would like to thank the gentleman from texas who just , basically saying he doesn't get the black and white issue and it has to do with the government and small government. if that is exactly the way i feel. that is in sharp contrast to the gentleman of north carolina who calls every three days, i don't ever hearing that person call without bringing race into the issue. i really commend that person on -- what i think will solve a lot
of the hostility is that they just don't tell the truth. .e have the first amendment what i think would really help is having the press license -- all journalists need to be licensed like they are with attorneys. if they get complaints and lose their license, i think of journalist relicensed and were activists and brought some sort of bra are and proved -- some sort of bar and proved they are activists, they may get fined and finally lose their license. what about the one percent of government workers? i think they are three percent. they retire at an average age of 58 years old at $62,000 per year. there's a lot of money in that. you guys read during the government shutdown -- our member the percentages of people
in the federal workforce that were temporarily laid off. they get a paid vacation. they love it when the government shuts down. i remember you mentioning 107,000 workers worked for the federal reserve has wine licensing employees. the people travel around the country to wineries. and get paid a pension salary. they probably make $100,000 per year licensing wineries. you hear people calling c-span about this ability. -- about disability. i hope you are going to get better. if you can call washington journal, you can work as a technical support for preventative right out of home. so many people -- support representative right out of home. james from new jersey. i have been working in
washington dc since 2002. i know everybody more or less. i have some good news from inside the beltway. harry reid, bernie sanders, and -- and myself is working on minimum wage for everybody. other things are happening on this network all weekend long, including what is happening on our sister channel partn2 and c-span3, it is of our local content vehicle. you get to see the history and literary life of cities across the united states. ogden,ek focuse is utah.
one of our programs on american strike tv will include a -- include a visit to this site where the golden spike was struck. here is a little bit from that interview. [video clip] apologies about that. not only can you go to our , ifite c-span2 and c-span3 you go to our local content vehicle section on our website you can get that full interview as well. let's take one more call on this topic. eric is on our independent line from california. like to say to all the c-span callers, you all need to mellow out.
apparently i was the one person watching the show last night that -- everybody was having a good time and laughing together. of that ina bit more the beltway maybe people can work together more. people need to have a sense of humor and lightened up. host: that will be the last call. if you want to see the full program go to our website and you can watch all of last night's proceedings. coming up this morning, we are going to take a look at the practices of the national security agency. how should those practices change the echo our next -- change the echo our next guest is from the brookings institution. he will talk about that conversation and what resulted from it. from -- we will hear we will talk about millennial's and their voting habits.
we will take a look at the and how youngrms people are planning to vote on that. we will have that conversation later on. first of all, as we go out this morning, we will get an update from c-span radio. >> looking ahead at the television talk shows, topics the attacks and benghazi and politics. you can hear rebroadcasts of the withams beginning at noon nbc's "meet the press. oh guests include rick perry, kevin johnson, and utah republican congressman jason chaffetz. "this week come to with al franken, kareem abdul-jabbar, and former republican senator rick santorum. at 2:00 it's fox news sunday, andts include kelly ayotte
california democratic congressman adam schiff. cnn's "state of the union," follows at 3 p.m. with ron joe manchin, and eliot engel. -- los angeles mayor eric garcetti, and richard williams, the father of tennis players serena and venus williams. the sunday talk shows begin with nbc's meet the press, 1:00 abc's "this week," 3:00 p.m., ."n's "state of the union listen to all of them on c-span radio at 90.1 fm here in the d c area. across the country, find us on sirius radio. online at c-span.org.
"sundays's newest book at eight," a collection of interviews with top storytellers. of holding theid gun. when we went to the first battle and we fought, it does something to you. it's a very difficult in the beginning. after time went on it became easy. it became normalized, this world. you is what happens when normalized the situation so you can live through it. if you don't you actually died. voices.f 41 unique c-span's "sundays at eight," now available at your favorite bookseller. "washington journal"
continues. host: joining us now is stuart lor from the brookings institution. he is the author of a recent essay called "the big scoop here: welcome. chirico -- scoop "the big scoop." welcome. this is the ultimate securitynational story. when it came up i was fascinated with it from the start. when brookings asked me to write this essay i thought it was a great opportunity. i have to admit it was a little humbling. this is the most common. , most difficult, most technical stuff i ever tried to understand. i would like to think i am pretty good at understanding stuff like that. the technology is mind-boggling. the law is incredibly
complicated. there's still a lot i don't understand but i hope i understand enough to have written a general introduction for the general reader. you: one of the things talked about was this was introduced to us in mass by edward snowden. guest: edward snowden is what the story has been about or his revelations are what the story has been about. it had is hard to believe it has been almost a year since his leaks started. it has rocked the entire intelligence establishment, it has rocked the security establishment. .e is a hero, he is a traitor this essay doesn't try to tell you so much whether he is a hero or traitor, it tries to look into the consequence of what he has disclosed and how that bears on the future and whether nsa programs are something we should be afraid of or overprotected by whor be protected by? host:
are these people, what are you looking to get from them? guest: i was fortunate to get these four. looking through the eyes of these four might be a good way to get into technical things where they can skip a lot of the translation. senator dianne feinstein is chair of the senate intelligence committee and a great defender of the nsa. she is critical sometimes but by and large a great defender on one hand. and in the greatest attractor is senator ron wyden of oregon, who was also on the intelligence committee. jule brenner, a former nsa inspector general and highly respected commentator and analyst. jamil jaffer is a leading aclu
lawyer. these people are all very impressive. they disagree fundamentally about many things but it is hard not to respect each of them when you listen to them. what they say the nsa and its practices are still needed? they think a lot of the practices are unconstitutional or dangerous or bad for our privacy or not helpful to national security. jule brenner and senator feinstein would disagree on all of those points. host: as far as your conversation with them -- when you take a look at specific programs what did you talk about and what are the concerns he -- what are the concerns? leaked aowden has
hundred programs at least. the ones that generated the most controversy is the metadata program, where the nsa has been secretly collecting the phone records of basically all americans all the time. it turns out not quite all. they are missing the cell phone records. the idea is they are not listening to your phone calls but their computers no everybody you are calling. who you are calling, when you are calling, where you roughly were when you talked to them. when they for that is have a call: from someone they think is a foreign terrorist, then they want to know everyone
i'm talking to, everyone i have been talking to to see if i am part of a terrorist network to see if some of those connections might connect to other terrorists and they may be able to break a plot early on. that has been hugely controversial because it has been pointed out by the civil libertarian that if the governor -- the government abuses these powers they can learn a great deal about us that we might not want publicly known. are defenders who say it is very well controlled, it has been authorized and supervised by the president, the executive branch, by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and by the congress with the oversight committee -- with the intelligence committee doing oversight. the argument goes back and forth on that. that program is being reduced somewhat. program involves
eavesdropping on foreign internet communications and internet phone calls. that is a massive program where most of the eavesdropping is on foreigners. traditionally there has been no legal restrictions on that. when they are talking to americans it gets very complicated. the nsa wants to know if a foreign intelligence target is plotting with -- plotting something with americans. there are lots of concern that has potential of invading privacy. one thing that is pretty clear, nsa -- no hint of a violation of law along the -- of those lines have come up in decades. is always that
tug-of-war between preserving liberty and privacy and things like that but also maintaining the need of the nsa to get information for security purposes. there has always been a tug-of-war with that. these dropping type spying, that is becoming more and more of an important part of our defense network. with an operation like al qaeda, it is very difficult to get human agents inside. we probably don't have anybody inside al qaeda working for the cia. we have people in russia probably doing that. people in china. it is very difficult to penetrate my -- penetrate these operations. rich taylor joining us to talk about his latest piece.
we provide a link to it if you want to read it yourself. if you want asking questions, the phone lines -- you can also send us a tweet and send this e-mail. that address is firstname.lastname@example.org. how willing were these four to talk to you? they were all very willing. i have a little help getting senator feinstein from a colleague in brookings who knows her. . they are all very busy people. they want to get their side of the public argument will hurt. i was grateful to all of them. it is worth hearing.
i'm sure some of it is overkill. i'm sure a lot of it doesn't if you wantsecurity to find the needle in the haystack and need to have the holes -- the whole haystack. not protect our national security. but the logic you need it in the way it is protecting our national security. there is excess. they often push the envelope of what their legal powers are and the courts slap them down. i think the thing that is most indisputable is the nsa defenders -- with the nsa
defenders as there is way too much secrecy. many years ago the nsa stood for "no such agency," because you didn't even -- you weren't even supposed to know it existed. there is probably no important reason that needed to be public. it would've diminished its effectiveness if we knew about it erie it if the government had ite it known years ago, would not have created such a sensation. they made themselves vulnerable. i think this creates misleading fears. they made themselves vulnerable. i think that is why they agreed upon that. ofthe topic of volume
information is one of those things that is talked about. >> it is enormous. the volume is mind-boggling. nobody can understand it. thattaken this information would be as much as everything in the library of congress every few seconds. it is hard for the mind to understand. that is why the civil libertarians are suspicious and want to make sure that they are writing herd on the government. this is what they have to do, some people will say. the people who are trying to are doing everything they can to escape our surveillance and the way we have to counter that is by massive surveillance. the first caller is from stillwater oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. two-part -- a statement
and then the question. i was watching tv. there was a program about the nsa. peopleere four or five on the podium. a small crowd of people that range from 22 to 82. audience was asking questions. it was about the nsa and snowden and several other topics. askinge questions were did not please the people on the podium, they turned the microsoft. it -- mike's off. it was disturbing. it bothered me immensely that they were disrespecting the elderly people. all the people in the podium were in their
early 30's and younger. the disrespect that they showed blatantly turned my stomach. what do you think phoneshe ability to tap like the nsa, shouldn't they go to a court or judge? panel thata civilian oks it or does not ok at. guest: to some extent that happens already. by theave to be approved foreign surveillance court. they have said you have to stop doing x until you come in to compliance with the rules that we have written.
what doesn't happen in every case, and this is controversial, when they get to the point of listening in on your phone calls, they are not listening to your phone calls in many cases. the computer is not recording them. they are looking at your phone records through their computers. they are not looking at them with human eyes. they are trying to figure out who might be up to no good. to get a specific approval from a judge. i have talked about this with a friend who is a federal judge. with thene a judge entire national security apparatus telling him that people will die, i think we have more protections against abuse than you might think from reading the headlines over the last year.
court. the pfizer in 1978.eated it was amended a few times. they are all federal judges that are doing a lot of federal cases. this is an extra assignment. they are appointed i john roberts. usually one judge at a time hears cases. to see iftion was there was enough to indicate that he is a foreign spy and get award to listen to his phone calls. technology has mushroomed ahead. they've gotten much broader functions and more policy and legal issues to decide. there is an appeals court. there have not been many appeals yet. host: this is the independent
line. good morning. caller: i think a lot of the younger people have got to realize that this is a nonpartisan issue. like louieople cruz or these geniuses putting down dianne feinstein saying that she is making emotional responses to issues. it this lady has seen people shot in her office for crying out loud. i would not trust any person more with state secrets then i am feinstein. she knows both sides of the issue. agreeablealways an thing. intelligence and
has existedligence since the nation's inception. guest: for sure. it goes way back to george washington. he had his spies. senator feinstein, i agree with you. she is an admirable public servant. i was impressed with her when i was talking. she is somewhat emotional about it. there is no reason not to be. she is not irrational. she cares the plea about national security. she said some things that impressed me about how she came to have that. she is a little to remember pearl harbor. she is the oldest member of the united states senate now. she lived in the marina area of san francisco. submarines going under the golden gate. herremembers blackouts and father being an air raid warden.
9/11 made a big impression on her. sure members the sound as she was watching on tv of bodies than you and onto the canopy after they jumped out of the towers. she is engaged in national security. colleague who agrees -- disagrees with her. they are both moderate to liberal democrats. --agrees emphatically disagrees with her emphatically about the usefulness of the dangers. is of the fascinating things you can have people who are andrable public servants they can violently disagree about an issue like this. it is difficult and complicated. it depends on basic instinct. host: do they talk about how those differences will affect
legislation? guest: what tends to happen is they get paralyzed. it is hard to change anything. one of the things about the phone records program which is the most controversy oh is it goes away in about a year if congress does not reenact it. that is very hard. to after -- who ever has change something in congress as a burden these days. the president is compromising with critics in congress is looking ahead. they are afraid they will lose a lot of capabilities because of the sunset unless they can get congress to reenact it. host: jim is in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: i decided to ask about uses of the data. he seemed sure that that is not happening.
we are dealing with an administration that is proven agencies to punish enemies. who gave him this warm fuzzy he has. probably from senator feinstein. she loves the government so much. she probably told him it is ok and not worry about it. , but sohe has said that have the republicans in congress. even the strongest critics of the nsa, and there are many critics of the nsa that are conservative republicans and tea are extremelyhey suspicious of government surveillance. interesting thing,
people in the center are the people who are the biggest offenders of the nsa. you are thinking of the irs issue. you have a lot of republicans complaining that the government is up to no good. nsa, i have not heard any republicans in saying that they are you have that reassurance. there've been no reported thedents since decades ago, 70's, since the government abuse these powers for political reason. redundant built-in safeguard. you have a congressional intelligence committee.
there is always the potential for abuse. i don't make we have seen any evidence of a reality of that kind of abuse. host: what about a go up between that would represent the public? guest: that is been a good idea. comes in and says the zone need and the arguments for. court produces counter arguments. they don't have anybody in from the civil liberties side or from the tech companies. i think they have convinced even need morethat we advocacy from the other side inside the fisa court. out -- anthony is from new
york. caller: thank you for this opportunity. from my understanding and for read, itom what i have seems as though the patriot act have made legalized what they were doing all along. the nsa is not new to this game. they have been spying on us for a long time. what is the ultimate problem? is true that the arabs hate us for our freedoms? is this all about israel? is this the settlement that is causing all these problems? thatr: my perspective is no, it is not about israel. that is part of the national
security seen. it people can disagree about whether or not we are to pro-israel. that is that with the nsa is doing. they are not spying on americans either. it's computers are collecting our phone records. they are reading some internet e-mail. they are not probably reading yours or mine. they go into these things looking for a needle in a haystack for foreign terrorists. i think they are good about trying to limit the activities to that. i don't dismiss civil libertarians objections that this is a great potential for abuse. i don't think it has happened yet. host: you look at law enforcement requests. clearly hastates more requests. talk about the technology companies.
what is their role? guest: they have a huge role. all of them. their role has changed over time. depends on them for a lot of the information that it gets. they get the information from subpoenasving secret for orders from surveillance courts saying that you have to give all of your records to the nsa. the tech companies have been following orders. the revelations of their roles out ofing the nsa, not the kindness of their heart but under pressure, this is created problems for them overseas. they are lashing back. they're becoming critics of the nsa because they would've put distance between themselves and the nsa to avoid offending their customers overseas. host: clifton is in florida on
the line for independence. caller: this is a great topic. , if yous came out reflect there is no way we are the only country in the world the takes data from their citizens. i am not condoning it or agree with it. women and yournd dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. for the amount of data they collect, they want to build huge building out west. it is like a gold prospector. you have to go through all of the silt and rock to get the gold. when was the nsa created and why?
could we use the nsa to go after people taking our identities? created in nsa was 1952 by president truman. it was a cold war spying organization. it grew out of a long history of electronic eavesdropping the government was involved in the fourth civil war. telegraphs were intercepted. japanese code during the world wars. the chicago tribune leads that we broke their code. that could've done a lot of damage. turns out the japanese government did not read the chicago tribune. there is a long history to it. said, we thing you
have more controls are intelligence than any other country in the world. every country in the world spies as much as it can. a lot of them spy on their own citizens without restraint. the main thing distinguishes the nsa, they have enormous technological capacities. they are able to do it more effectively and in a more sweeping wave in france and they do. there is a piece in wired magazine. the nsa is building the guest spy center. you can find that at the wired website. guest: it is in utah. the picture was in the newspaper. it is gigantic.
there is a lot of stuff to store. host: one of the things referenced in your piece, in this day and age what does it mean to live under the fourth amendment? guest: there is a lot more strain on the fourth amendment than there was before. electronic eavesdropping did not exist. they are worried about old-fashioned eavesdropping. the britishof breaking into people's homes. all of this electronic stuff is new. , wiretapping0's was not covered by the fourth amendment all. this has been a new piece of development.
they need a war to use drop. that is still the law. on supreme court has said the phone record program, this was in 1972, the numbers you call which are kept in the database of the phone company, they are not private. they're not private information. they're the phone companies information and the government is entitled to get them all. that decision is going to be reconsidered at some point. this is because of the advancements in technology. that made the assemblage of phone records a much larger intrusion. the big snoop is what it is called. there it is on our website. you can find it at the brookings
website. this is john on the independent-minded pennsylvania. caller: i have a couple of quick comments that i want to make. the main thing that concerns me, generation has been raised with computers and cell phones. as you see with the benghazi --, you have government agencies watching its own citizens. how many terrorists have been caught since 9/11. is it worth it? the amount of everything collected and the invasion of privacy.
everything that is being picked up on, we will be 50 and have whole profiles on us. a lot of us 25 years from now, i want to know what your comments were on that. guest: very good question. to the people that i spoke with, they would agree with you. they would say it is not worth it. they would say that some of the programs are not worth it. where the rubber meets the road on this, this is privacy dangerous, how much national security protection are we getting out of this program or that program? unless the government can show that it is preventing terrorists from killing americans as they claim, unless they can claim that which is not easy to prove,
maybe we should cut this back. the phone records program is being cut back somewhat because the evidence that that toticular program has led and directing terrorist events. the evidence is pretty thin. they have not been able to show a lot. they say that it helps. they say that it might have stopped 9/11. program, the evidence is very strong. contributed to interrupting and preventing terrorist lots. i think the answer to the question is data fine points. this is very hard for a nonexpert to dig into. host: this is darrell in detroit, michigan. caller: good morning.
mr. taylor seems to be drinking the kool-aid of the nsa. when we make a phone call, it starts off in detroit michigan. egyptht go to france or or anywhere. is it not true that once it leaves this country, all these void?tions are that is not exactly true. it is to the government can intercept foreign conversations.
they can intercept those. there is no legal restriction on those. when it is an american and they know it is an american on an international line, the restrictions start to kick in. they have to show a specific american suspect that of terrorist activities. if we were calling our daughters in a foreign country to wish them a happy birthday, it would be illegal for the nsa to eavesdrop on a conversation unless they can show that it was terrorist activity. host: what do you think the president's leadership in this? guest: i am sympathetic. it is very difficult. he is taken a lot of flak.
his popularity has suffered because of it. here is what i like about his leadership on this. he comes into this as a civil libertarian. while in congress, he was a suspicious of spying. he criticized the bush administration for all the things they were doing a national security. charge ofone is in protecting us against foreign threats. that makes a person think very differently than a person thought of four. he has been thinking differently than he thought before. inside his head, there is a clash between his civil libertarian principles and what he has learned as president. he knows more than anyone alive about the nature of the threats
and the dangers. he is the president of the united states. i like it we have a president who does not come to this as a knee-jerk national security guy. because of his exposure to the facts is supportive generally of the national security establishment. host: what about the presses 'role? guest: it is been very mixed. it is healthy to know some things that we did not know. it is healthy if you know about the phone records program. it is not healthy that we know about a lot of the things. them, the russians learn them and al qaeda learns them. iran learns them. snowden and his journalistic collaborators spilled all sorts of secrets that are welcome to
all of the above. some critics of the press on say if you wanted to help vladimir putin, you couldn't do better than to do what snowden and his journalists did. the impact has been largely to help the russians and other enemies of the west. there is something to that. there has been a lot of sensationalism. and the pulitzer prize awards went to people whose stories were misleading. post ont big washington said that the nsa to the computers inside the tech companies. that's false.
they do not have direct access. the washington post never created it -- printed a correction. they get a lot of information from tech companies. they don't have a connection. sensationalized stories such as when they said there were thousands of nsa violations every year. three quarters of the violations they were talking about were matters where the nsa was following a foreign suspects phone calls. then he arrived in the united states. they don't know when he gets to the united states. they were when they learned after the fact this guy is in the united states now, we have to stop listening. there have been a lot of problems. host: we will take one more
call. this is jim from georgia. caller: a couple of things. i have an i.t. background. because of that, there are sources that are extensive about individuals. they track all of your credit card purchases. by day i don't mean the government. i mean corporations. the concept of privacy is history at this point. the thing i find amusing is when snowden disclosed the information that he disclosed. i can't evaluate, i don't know enough about it. i don't know if it damaged us or didn't.
i found eric holder complaining about snowden raking his contract with the government. holder has lied to congress in testimony. manager who takes the fifth amendment in congress. i think there is a double standard. there is a lack of accountability. sure with the color means unless i missed something. i am not aware that eric holder admitted that he lied to congress. there are many things the internet companies know about us. the amount of private data about us is gigantic. helpedokings people who
dress up my article for publication, they have a line going down left side. readingthat you are this on your macbook pro. you seem to be in this area. it dramatizes inside the article what the private companies are learned by all the time. host: if you want to read that, it is "the big snoop." is at thelor brookings institute. thank you for your time. at thegoing to talk number of young people expected to vote in the midterm elections. that ratey shows that is about 23%. on, what do you know about
china's military strength? we'll be joined by a former defense official. we will talk about that topic is washington journal continues right after this. ♪ >> it became these incredible successes. the firstid they , they had aolders radical newspaper. they spoke to 6000 people. they were celebrities. they had headlines with just their names. they were very famous. the family kept threatening them with blackmail.
the mother started this ridiculous court trial. husband that victoria's wanted to put her in an insane asylum and killer. the press went wild. they wrote about this very trashy family. the sisters of been trying very hard to hide a let. they were inventing and reinventing themselves. they were not the least bit educated. anything that would help them, they moved forward. they were willing to wreck their whole lives just to get back in the fold. >> barbara mcpherson says to victoria and sisters change the course of women's rights and
american history. this is tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> there is more, in people's lives. more families are broken it should not be broken. i am talking about good families that can't hold because of the stress of life and holding a job. up and down world can put a strain on people. even the addictions that is so is not like it is today. all this is contribute to my story being the american story. , luismer gang member rodriguez will take your questions starting at noon on c-span two.
"washington journal" continues. joins us. della volpe we are talking about a survey they take of young people. they are known as the millennial's. welcome. hear that term a lot. how do we define it? guest: that is a great question. they are young people born between 1980 and 2000. they represent about 25% of america. this is the largest generation in the history of america. you take a lot of surveys about them. 20% is the number that comes up. tell us about that and what it means. guest: this is the lowest expected turnout we have tracked since the survey began.
this is our 25th survey. we started in 2000. we did 50,000 interviews. what we are seeing is that why three percent of people between 18 and 29 will definitely vote. that is down 11 points. currently, it is tracking lower than the turnout expected in 2010. voting. they would be was 25.5%. turnout it was lower than it was in the last midterm election. host: is there a wide behind the numbers? guest: we are not surprised. after seeing several cycles of participation, each of
those cycles we saw higher turnout among young people. since 2010, we've seen a slow and steady lack of interest in almost everything related to politics and voting. i think there is a growing d.c.nnect with washington, host: would you ask about the president, 32% say they trust say theident and 47% military and 36% goes to the supreme court. guest: this is a series of questions we have.
these questions are meant to be timeless in terms of president obama specifically. people's opinions are filtered through whoever opens -- occupies the oval office. we see record low numbers in the survey. every single one of the institutions measured are tested -- trusted less than 50% of the time. -- presidency is down seven percent. every single institution we have measured is below 50%. >> is this for a specific reason? or is it the nature of the millennial's themselves? i think the nature of millennial's is to be optimistic
still. it want to make a difference. 2008. a record turnout in we have seen a lot of people disappointed that the campaign did not extend and the good feeling of the campaign did not extend into washington. problems could not just be spoken about it solved. we see a disconnect because young people wanted to make a difference. they want to be engaged and empowered by the administration and democrats and republicans. -- results we see is because there've not been engaged as much they prefer to be. i think more young people are involved in committee service than vote. it is not about and apathy toward the country. it is a cynicism toward politics. host: the amount of people
voting is tony three percent. -- 23%. guest: what we looked at is among the 23%, who are the 23%? thiswe analyze that, survey included 3000 interviews. it is a large database. the people who voted for romney in 2012 more likely to vote in the midterm election. who say they are conservative or more likely to .ote men more likely to vote than women. it looks more like a republican
constituency than a democratic constituency based on the polling and data that we just wrapped up a few weeks ago. the first time you've seen that trend? guest: it is the first time. i'm not too surprised. republicans did not do as well as they would've liked in 2012. 2014.re excited about there is still a lot of time between now and october and november. we will see if the democrat constituencies can get fired up. host: we talked about the trust factor among millennial's. you may have questions about the
voting habits of young people. if you want to call, we have divided the lines differently. for you who are 18 to 29. . you can make your thoughts known on twitter. you can also tell us by e-mail. question, do millennial's even know about politics? think if you ask hillary clinton that question. millennial's changed the world. three times as many young people voted as ever before. for obama.d
to one. he won that caucus. without win that caucus, he would not be president today. they do know about politics and they care deeply. they want to be engaged in the future. our first call is from indiana. joe, good morning. i think millennial's need to be exposed to politics. the republicans have a habit of attacking what they can't think to change. i think that appeals to the junk people. they don't know politics. i think it is easy to have a bad guy. if they are told over and over that president obama is a bad
listen to this fairytale. they have got a villain. they have somebody to hate. i think it needs more exposure. they need to do some analytical thinking. there is certainly plenty of ways for young people to be engaged in politics. major focus of our institute. we want to break down the barriers between washington dc and young people. there are more opportunities every single day. the caller makes a good point. young people today are not that likely to think that anything with elected offices honorable. 70% of young americans believe committee service is an
honorable thing to do. less than one third think the same thing about politics. there is a major disconnect. being more connected would be beneficial for everybody. host: this is michael. caller: good morning. if you forget about the past, you can't fix where you're going in the future. the republicans get on that quick. they want us to forget about the past. i think that is a strong point in terms of the millennial's. we could actually see that from
the data. the younger people who are not connected to obama in 2008 have a different view of obama and the democratic party. the president's core constituency our young people who are older than 24. the 25 to 29-year-old segment of , we see aation cleavage. they remain relatively supportive rather than the 18 to 24 euros. they were not part of the campaign. look they necessarily are less likely to support the democratic party. james from twitter puts this, not this morning. he said hope has turned to hopelessness. when the economy?
how much is that shaping their politics? guest: it shapes its tremendous amount. they came of age not with the movement and the hope of the 2008 campaign. and came of age in 2009 2010. the recession took a tremendous toll on young people. that is been a significant factor in shaping their political attitudes. ofsee that in a broad issues. issues ofth inequality in income. the young people agree that income gap is growing deeper and
greater during their lifetime. a series of questions we used to understand the economy through the lens of young people, we looked at student that. a significant number of people think that is a big problem. driving thelly political attitudes of this generation. host: jim is in las vegas. caller: good morning. i think they are right to be cynical. the uptick during the obama , the campaign looked for young people to carry them. undocumented
citizens, that is the new prized demographic. the young people are being tossed over. block would beng the new immigrants. you can see that about the dream act. i think what i want to an important element of the obama campaign in 2000 and was young people. in order for him to of one that i married against senator clinton, he needed to expand the electorate. the campaign had known that people care deeply about their country. as long as they felt empowered, there participation increased.
that movement was in from the ground up. it was from the top down as well. they may be cynical. they may not participate to the degree to which some people to, it is them largest generation ever. we have more young people participating just by sheer numbers than senior citizens over the last couple of campaigns. they are a force to be reckoned with. host: does this say anything about the outreach that both parties have done to these potential voters? guest: one of the things i am most interested in looking into is the degree to which the outrage can be translated and mobilization can be translated from the obama campaign infrastructure to other campaigns.
we certainly see the obama toward amoving away -- hillary campaign. we can see similar movement on the right with rand paul. time will tell. we will see how much they can be mobilized. the obama campaign did it better than anybody else. you can see that in the turnout numbers that were targeted by his campaign and the ones that were not. your own poll says hillary clinton shows a 50 pursue -- 52% favorability. that is after what happened in new jersey. aftermatht is in the in new jersey. to favorability was a two
one negative. tor warmly, it changed negative. we will see if things settle down for him and he is able to reposition himself with young people. is that 52%. she has a 10% gender gap. joining us is john della volpe. we are looking at voting habits of young people and their perception of politics. we are asking people to call him . this is adam from pennsylvania. it morning. caller: good morning.
i would like for you to elaborate a little bit on my generation being very civil libertarian. you touched on it a little but. left comeand the together on many issues in my generation. you are looking as just the obama election. i was raised in the bush years. bush was a huge warmonger. if you just look at his policies , he tore the country apart. we can persevere and change things. realizing that this is an change anything.
that has not brought us anything that we wanted on the civil libertarian side. host: did you vote for president obama? caller: i did not. i was very dismayed the first time around. i'm a traditional herd-party candidate. guest: a supporter, but he is a good student of art survey. in terms of the growth of the libertarianism, a couple of things are worth noting. one is the idea of privacy. there are some issues that were able to ring democrats and republicans together. one is school choice and the
idea that young people believe that education would be better if parents could choose what school they send their kids to in terms of public schools. is they arehing aligned on issues of privacy and internet freedom. control overe their own private information. found overwhelming numbers, seven out of 10 young people believe that in a case of national security, they want their information private. adam is on track with what he mentions. on the other issue, between trust and the presidency between the bush administration and the obama administration, something that was worth noting, we have a
lot of data among knowledge students. 11, 50% ofmber college students trusted president bush and his administration all the time or most the time. six years later as the war became less popular, the level of trust was in the low 30's. that is the same number it is today. increase after the 2008 campaign. right now we are back to the low point we were even compared to the bush years. obama has always said that it is going to take more than his election to change things. -- young people need to stop being lazy. cant: i think young people
do more. i don't want to be an apologist for young people. the message that i hear when i travel across the country and this, moreveys like young people want to participate in government than actually are participating. they don't know how. sometimes the to be asked. it is hard to go into many high schools or churches or other kinds of communities across the country and find young people who are not participating in some way. i don't think they are lazy. i think they want to do more and it is incumbent on republicans thedemocrats to tap into opportunity they have to have young people vote for them and be part of the administration and solving problems to make our community and country better. host: does that counteract these cynical tendencies?
i think it will. young people did not know how to get involved with campaigns until somebody knocked on their door and said what you spend 15 minutes with us and participate in this kind of activity? they did. then their friends and started to do it and that was a movement that we saw in 2008 with the obama campaign. for many years that people tell us they want more information of how they can be involved. they are cynical about politics and who could blame them? they still think this is the only land that they are firmly with that has the opportunity for everyone. they want to participate. that is why they are so upset and disappointed. they want to do more, but it needs to be a two-way street. host: how much does your experience tell you about how much they get a political five
from their parents? think that is incredibly important. meeting with interacting with somebody at a young age is a significant predictor of how likely they will be involved in the future. it does not need to put a candidate for the presidency or senate. even a member of the city council or local mayor, having a positive experience with an elected official or somebody in government when they are in high school is a significant predictor of whether or not they will be involved in the future. host: here is jim from new jersey. go ahead. caller: i would like to say most of us millennials are discouraged from politics already understand
it is a two-party system organized to systematically divide and conquer people. i think a lot of us would like to fill for third parties. but many of us feel our votes will not count. a few of us to muster up the courage to vote despite the fact it is a two-party system. we vote for libertarians or greens. in almost a way of maintaining hope that maybe the rest of the country will come around and we will wake up to the fact that nothing will change until some of these fringe candidates or the select few democrats or republicans cut from the cloth of dennis kucinich or rand puaul will ever
get elected. host: any current candidates that fit that mold for you? paul, his name alone will carry him far in politics. does, ier of what he think there is some crack in his spiel. besides that, there are not too many. gary johnson was a third party candidate for the previous election for the presidency. that is who i voted for. there are not many. until there are are third-party candidates who can get some money behind them, whether from some billionaire or another, i don't think many of us will -- those of us that don't vote will
muster up the courage to vote. host: thank you. mr. della volpe. jim raises a good point. if it is going to happen, it is more likely to happen with a newer group of millennials coming into the system today. to 24ality of 18 --year-olds align with neither party. they indicate they are more aligned with independents generally more than democrats or republicans. if you look at the exit polling from the last virginia governor's election, 18 to 24 -year-olds voted for the republican. 24 to 29-year-olds voted for the democrat. the reason they voted republican is because you have a strong libertarian candidate who
siphoned off a lot of votes. i think the caller is onto something. one of the most important findings we have seen over the last couple surveys is a deepening cleavage between the younger and older millennials. there could be some opportunity for a third-party candidate, probably from the libertarian side, to tap into that potential movement we see. femalesat percentage of are hispanic or african-american? talk about the breakdowns. guest: the overall survey concluded 3058 interviews conducted between march 22 and april 4. there's a margin of error of less than 2%. the subgroups we surveyed are representative of the u.s. census-based population. i don't know every number off the top of my head. but that means slightly more interviews were conducted with
females than males. close to 54% female. close to 20% of young americans are hispanic or latino. same thing with our survey. 14% are african american or black. up of the races such as asian, etc. every survey we conduct is interviews,or 3000 always a national representative sample. host: as far as president obama is concerned, 48% approval rating. that was 41% five months ago. it shows the breakdown of the approval rating. anyar as the 47%, indication of why you saw an upshot from 41%? guest: that is a solid increase
over a couple of months. was taken at one of the lowest point of his presidency. that was taken several weeks shutdown government and during the launch of healthcare.gov when it was not working so well. time.s a moment in a six-point increase is worth noting. we saw democrats and republicans in congress members moving up but not by the six points the president moved up. still below 50%. a year ago, it was 52%. we will see where that moves. african-americans have stayed steady. since 2009, 8oll out of 10 african-americans and young blacks view him favorably. whites have viewed him
unfavorably during almost every poll since 2010. the real predictor of whether the president will be plus or -50% has been a volatile group of hispanic latinos. sometimes they are as high as 70 paid sometimes they have been as low as a few percent. they are one of the drivers of his overall approval ratings. host: we will hear from brad in michigan. caller: jimmy carter turned me into a lifelong republican when i was 24. i have not been politically active. i was young, starting my life. with what ied thought were more important things with my life. as the years went on, i realized democrats and republicans are a big mafia both sides. you're either democrat or republican. they basically fight amongst themselves.
barack obama, during the second term of any president i have seen, people get sick of them and their party. now it is happening for him. had beenhe start he the first african-american president is going away. they are starting to call him out on some things he has tried. i don't trust the man because he has lied so many times i have seen. i think these young people are starting to come to the same conclusion i did over the years. they are waking up. people don't trust politicians. host: thanks, brad. guest: i want to correct something i said earlier. hispanics have never been below 52% in terms of the overall approval of the president. i think i misspoke a moment ago. regarding jimmy carter making him a republican, it was ronald
reagan who likely made him a republican. i guess the question is who is the ronald reagan of this generation for millennials today. people may or may not approve of barack obama. but we have seen john mccain was not able to tap into this generation. mitt romney did slightly better but still lost in the 2012 reelection. the question is not just about obama. it has to be about somebody else, whoever that is. time will tell i suppose. host: this is henry from pargo, parkville, maryland. go ahead. caller: i think a lot of my generation were historically liberal. younger generations want to try out new things.
you see a lot of younger generations going into libertarians or progressives or something like that. you don't see a lot of the hard party liners in my generation. i would disagree with have a lot of independents in our generation. i know your study picked that up. i think a lot of us will say we are independent when we are not. we hold to 99% of the values. we just want -- don't want to say we hold with a certain party. that is sort of a stigma a lot of people don't like -- young people don't like where they make a decision for a certain clinical party -- political party before it has come around. one of the other things that drives down millennials participating in politics is a lot of millennials have a lot of debt. i hear these people saying we should be more i have --active and stuff at that. a lot of millennials have two
jobs. it takes a lot of money to , to just apartment basically lift. and we have all the student debt. host: thanks. upon whatill touch henry closed with. that is kind of the work ethic. i think that is a misnomer. there are very few people -- who doeople i talk to not work. they often volunteer to say they work a couple of different jobs. it is difficult for them to save the money and pay off the debt from education and save money for the first apartment or house, etc.. there was an interesting statistic from our last survey. we conduct 2000 interviews. we have a statistically significant sample of folks in college and community college.
87% of people in community college in the last survey said they were there because of their financial situation. they would have preferred to go to a four-year college. however, they could not because of the financial situation. they had to go to a two-year college because it cost less money or they had to work. the idea of student debt is the overarching issue that democrats and republicans and independents in this generation. that is something democrat and republican candidates would be wise to think about to communicate with this generation if they want to have a relationship with the moving forward. host: you talk about the social media platforms those you surveyed subscribed to. facebook being the leading one at 87%. it goes down. what does this mean as far as politics, especially a young person's politics?
guest: the reason we ask these questions is because the playing field moves quickly in terms of identify and communicate with young people. we know traditional advertising is less effective every day. telephone surveys are less effective talking to this generation. it is important to know where they are spending time and how they are communicating. we found a couple of things. one is facebook, twitter, interest are platforms where young people spend a lot of time. partisanhem have more leanings than others. a couple of things to note from the social media series of questions. students, we see a significant uptick, not just the use but the passion around twitter.
we ask an open-ended question with a can talk about any piece of technology or website. we are asking people what is the one app website you could not live without. high school students were as likely to see twitter as facebook. we thought that was interesting. that was the first time we picked up a finding like that. over 80% of people registered on facebook. democrats and republicans were essentially the same. mblrter, google plus, and were platforms where democrats were more likely to participate. pinterest seemed more likely to attract republicans than democrats. even on social networks we saw partisan differences. host: here is robert from connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am going to make a brief.
not blamele, i do them for not getting involved in politics because they are being targeted. they don't have jobs. they have wicked loans and debts. this red and blue, people have to understand both parties are controlled by a foreign lobby known as aipac. look at who funds these people. host: mr. della volpe, you can address that if you wish. guest: i think i am good. host: does a young person's political plus if you change over time? -- political leaning change over time? guest: time will tell.
political scientists will say thetend to maintain position you had when you were 18. for first vote is important preferences in the future. we see some shifting. vote inrations tend to the same manner as they age through the process. i don't think millennials will always vote for democrats, but they will likely have a democratic preference moving forward. ift is a significant concern you're a republican. a significant opportunity for democrats if you can encourage them to continue to participate. host: you can find the survey online at the harvard website. we have included a link on our website.
john della volpe, thank you for your time. in our last segment, we take a look at china. you heard stories about china's rising economic strength. our next guest is on to talk about china's military strength. to give you input on the sunday shows, we will your c-span radio. >> coming up, topics include race relations in the united states, the attack on the consulate in benghazi, and politics. of the hear rebroadcasts programs on c-span radio beginning with "meet the press." guests include but harry -- rick and jasonin johnson, chaffetz. week"0 eastern, "this with al franken, kareem -- kareem abdul-jabbar, and rick santorum.
includes sunday" guests adam schiff. "state of the union" follows at 3:00 with ron johnson and joe manchin and eliot engel. "face the nation" with lindsay graham, mayor eric garcetti, and richard williams, the father of serena and venus williams. a sunday network t.v. talk shows are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. rebroadcasts of the shows begin at noon with "meet the press." you can listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area, xm
app,lite radio, the free or online at www.c-span.org. >> do you find it curious nasa did not skip a line for you to say? >> in retrospect, they might have wished they would have. the late julian sher who handled nasa relations with the outside world was adamant headquarters never put words in the mouth of their people. not just astronauts but anybody. they let people speak for themselves. they made it known what the party line was and what the nasa position was. but beyond that, to my knowledge, they never controlled
the public statements of others. and -- stresses his -- 2001 the historian discusses his 2001 interview with neil armstrong this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. cliff,oining us is roger the former assistant for strategy development at the office of the defense secretary. he served from 1999 until 2001. he is a senior fellow for the atlantic council. welcome. title, givee former the audience a sense of what you did. guest: i work for the assistant strategy.defense for the job of our office was to help develop the long-term
ofense strategy in terms what types of forces the u.s. military out to be developing, engagement with foreign partners, overseas deployments, and those sorts of things. host: was there a region of the world you focused on? guest: i mainly focused on the asia-pacific region. because aring it on headline to our attention. here it is. could you give a sense of what you think about the headline as far as the flexing and why we are so concerned about china? guest: i thought it was an interesting headline. what they described was the usual menu of options available in response to certain types of actions by other countries. i am not sure if it was a reporter looking for an angle it wastory or whether someone in the administration trying to say we have this menu
of options, everything is on the table, we are well-positioned to respond to anything. host: as far as the exercises, what goes on? guest: we have our normal land exercises land a year or two in advance. like amething comes up couple months ago when china announced a zone over the east china sea and the u.s. directed the b-52's to fly through that to demonstrate to china it could not unilaterally impose rules on the rest of the world in that region. host: in essence, china laying claim to this portion of the sea? guest: it is an interesting question. air defense identification zone's are common throughout the world. the united states has one that surrounds all of north america. japan has one as well.
china has not previously extended these zones. they announced the zone not covering the entire periphery, but this one check -- section of the east china sea. air defense zones are common throughout the world. appeared to have significance as it extended over a set of islands in dispute between china and japan. host: what does it say that they and its, about china military strength? that hasis is an issue achieved new salience the last couple of years dating back to 2012 when the japanese thesement was concerned islands controlled by japan would be sold by the private owner to the governor of the tokyo prefecture, who was well known as a right-wing nationalist. there was concern about what would happen to those islands if
they were in the hands of this governor. the japanese government chose to buy them itself. an attempt by as japan to solidify its claim over the islands. that is the origin of the current dispute. host: as far as our response is concerned, the story says possible strategies include arrange and display of flights near china, aircraft carriers in coastal waters, and more. guest: i think this is meant to let the chinese know that if you do things, we have things we can do. none of these are intended to be pescatore or provoke confrontation -- escalate tort -- escalatory or provoke confrontation. it is just to say if you want to assert your military power, we
have plenty of errors in our quiver. host: do we know how strong china's military power is? guest: that is an interesting question. military power is complicated. you cannot boil it down to a single number or measure. people in the u.s. defense department study it carefully. i think the assessment would be china's military power is increasing, but there are a number of significant weaknesses that remain highly problematic for the chinese military. host: such as? guest: a couple of things i would highlight. one is their organization and culture. they still have a soviet style top-down military organization. that is not well-suited to the types of military operations nations like to conduct today where you need a lot of initiative at the frontline level on the part of individual commanders.
there are questions about logistics capabilities. they have shortcomings in training and quality of personnel as well. host: our guest is roger cliff of the atlantic council here to talk about china's military and u.s. sponsors -- responses. we have numbers for democrats, independents.nd you can send us tweets and e-mail. roger cliff, talk about spending. how much does china spent on its military? guest: i think the most recent offense budget is about $150 billion. the u.s. budget is over $500 billion. they still only spend less than 1/3 of what the u.s. spends on military. we believe there are parts of china's defense spending not included in the official budget.
if you added those, they would increase by another 30%. its overall defense spending is nowhere close to that of the u.s. this is what i am talking about when i say it is hard to boil down military capability to a single number. the defense budget is not a good measure of the capabilities of the military. china has a more simple military problem than the u.s. u.s. has worldwide military commitments. china is focused on its own backyard, the asia-pacific region, so it is able to concentrate its development of military capabilities on those specific problems. it has not invested huge amount of money -- amounts of money and long-range -- and long-range assets like aircraft carriers. they have one now, but that is something they have been working on slowly. they don't have heavy bombers that can fly around the world like we do. they don't have huge fleets of
refueling aircraft and those sorts of assets. has: president obama announced working towards a change in asian strategy. is there a connection between china's response as of late and that interest in asia the united states is taking? guest: the pivot to asia predates the recent actions by china. the pivot, now called the rebalance, was announced in late 2011. more recent actions out of china, there have been things brewing in the region for some time. the most recent things going on have not stimulated the pivot, but certainly reinforced the sense in washington this is something important we need to follow through on, that we cannot announce and walk away from and focus our attention on something else. host: william is from florida on
the republican line. go ahead. caller: i apologize. i am shifting the subject. my dad in 1991 started a plant. there is another one in north florida. they make it nighters -- igniters and simulators for the soldiers. era, we strained to keep it going. we had a few contracts. most of the igniters set-off larger explosives. host: how does this relate to china? we want to keep on topic. caller: these companies are struggling again. guest: this does relate to china in my opinion because with the sequestration and flattening of
the u.s. defense budget, the defense department has made a lot of cuts in recent years to things like training because of fiscal constraints. the chinese military budget continues to go up by quite a bit every year. although there is a certain amount of weirdness in the u.s. for the wars that have been going on in the middle east, we need to maintain the capabilities to deter china trade one way to do that is by making sure we have the advantage in the quality of training, one of our key advantages. a viewer asks if we are underestimating china like we did japan. guest: that is a good question. it depends on who you ask. some think we are overestimating china like we did the soviet union during the cold war. other people argue we may be underestimating them.
i think the important thing is to not lurch in one direction or another too rapidly. we need to maintain a strong military regardless of the threats at any given time so if things change, we are prepared to respond. iowa on the republican line. carmella, go ahead. caller: i understand about china and their military. the problem is in the united states, the president is cutting back on our military to save money with pensions. i know from personal experience and a lot of other people, they are in their 16 years and being denied reenlistment because of this. these people have gotten awards from the places they have been stationed about the exemplary jobs they have been doing.
how do you explain how we will keep good people in the military when we have our president who wants to save money on pensions? we have no draft. these people want to be in the military. guest: this gets to the point i was talking about earlier. from 2001 when i was in the 9/11 terroriste attacks occurred up until a weple of years ago, experienced unprecedented growth of our defense budget from about $300 billion a year to over $700 billion. with the wars in iraq and afghanistan going down, the defense budget is flattening out. we have had sequestration. we need a meaner and meaner military. that is going to mean cuts in the number of personnel. if we could have a robust military like we had in the
past, congress has to fund that. been congress has not authorizing ever-increasing defense budgets, we need to figure out how to spend the money best. we need to take care of our veterans and active-duty service people. overall, size of the military is going to have to come down. people will have to be laid off and go back to civilian life. types of manpower and members are we talking about in terms of u.s. involvement? guest: that is a good question. it is very much under debate. i have my own opinion. the defense department made marginal adjustments. in general, i think people would region isia-pacific
in air and maritime region where the air force and navy will be more important. that was bearing the brunt of the burden in the middle east. as much as we appreciate the contribution of the u.s. army and their brave soldiers, we are going to need to reduce the size of the army. i think that is well recognized. where i might part from other people is i think we need to also shift more resources. we are making a small shift of resources from the atlantic to the pacific. but i think we need to make a bigger shift of resources field awe are trying to new generation of weapons systems that are too expensive to buy at current funding levels if we maintain the size of the forces. the only way to afford these new
weapons systems is to further reduce the size of the army, navy, and air force. mike is from germantown, maryland, on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is a fascinating topic. there are so many aspects to this. we spend more on our defense than china, but a dollar goes much longer -- a much longer way in china. china can wreck our economy any time they want to. they just have to sell the treasury bonds. the idea of going to war with china is ludicrous. are we going to borrow money from china to fight them? this is insanity. we can invade small countries in the middle east and we cannot even when those wars -- win those wars. this is insanity here. guest: i don't disagree with you about the insanity part. economicy the
interdependence between china and the u.s. is a double-edged sword. china is more dependent on the u.s., particularly as an export them., than we are to many people have likened the situation to be in economic equivalent of mutual assured destruction. we are talking about the economic consequences of a war between china and the u.s. it would be devastating for both economies. we cannot count on potential adversaries being perfectly rational in all instances. there may be cases where chinese leadership would feel it had no choice but to use force because their hold on power was under threat. i hope we never have a war. i believe the best way to prevent such a war is to make sure we have the military capabilities to prevail in
overwhelming fashion should one occur. host: what does it mean to you when you see headlines like we saw this week about china to overtake the u.s. economy? guest: i am not a u.s. economist. there was an interesting article that cannot the next day in the "washington post" saying let's get a grip on ourselves. just because the chinese economy made by certain measures be greater than the u.s. economy does not necessarily translate into china being a richer or more powerful country. you have to remember china has over four times the population of the united states. on a per capita basis, china remains a developing country. how youortantly, translate that economic power into actual power and influence in the global arena. a saw in the case of japan
country that was the second largest economy in the world. yet from the japanese perspective, that did not translate into a commensurate amount of influence. i think china is struggling with the same thing. they are now the second largest economy in the world. maybe they will surpass the u.s., but that does not mean they will be the most influential country in the world anytime soon. host: when i read about china's policies, i hear the word "containment" of china connected to it. what do you think about that? guest: the idea goes back to the cold war when we were faced with a soviet threat. in the early years of the cold war, the soviet union was trying to expand influence beyond the countries it occupied at the end of world war ii. they wanted to spread control to the rest of europe and other parts of the world. we had a policy to try to contain the soviet union, basically keep their influence
at the areas it had already reached. this is not really applicable to china for a variety of reasons. the eastern bloc was largely self-contained economically. the u.s. and china are highly interdependent economically. we cannot try to contain china in the same way we did the soviet union because we are so economically interdependent with them. china is not an expansionist power. these territorial disputes are largely over uninhabited islands. they are important for symbolic and emotional reasons to the people in the region. , with thes not china exception of the island aof taiwan as one exception where the chinese believe there are
other people who should be under the control, but it is not like the cold war and soviet union. host: you brought up the soviet union. a viewer asks if china and russia will ever become allies against the u.s. a story says they will hold joint naval exercises. given our current situation with russia, how do you put those together? guest: i have trouble seeing china and russia becoming allies. there is a lot of mutual suspicion. the chinese don't trust the russians. the russians don't trust the chinese. but they do have a common interest. that is opposing the west and democracy in general. lost in nothing to be terms of their interest by creating the impression they are cooperating militarily, holding joint exercises, and that sort of thing to have the effect of perhaps intimidating countries in the region. host: these have been done before as far as russia and
china are concerned. guest: they are not unprecedented. they have been cooperating since the end of the cold war beginning with russian sales of weapons systems to china. defense industries have improved, they have stopped buying complete systems from the russia. but they are still acquiring key technologies. the russians have a lot to teach them about military operations as well. host: our guest is roger cliff. the next call is from chad in georgia. caller: i have a question about the strength of the chinese military with respect to their population size. also, the chances of a real groundwork should be more limited today because of nuclear technology. am i correct? guest: i agree with you on both points. you talk about the strength of the chinese military relative to its population size. china has the world's largest standing army. but much of that army is
deployed along china's in her borders -- inner borders with countries of central asia, russia, north korea, india. forget about the size of china's population. just counting the number of soldiers is a bad way of assessing military capability. china has no trouble with a population of over one billion providing plenty of able bodies to fill out the military. but they are looking at further reducing the size because having that many people in the military does not generally contribute to their overall military power. it is your ability to move those people around, how well trained they are, what types of weapons systems they possess, and so on.
hand, i would not say compared to the size of the country they have a small military. i would not look at it that way either. they have a large military. but a much smaller core of that is truly modern and capable. host: this is michael asking you to comment on the rise of china's space program. guest: this has been an area of growing concern. starting in 2007, china got everybody's attention when they tested an anti-satellite weapon against one of their own satellites that died. it was dead in orbit around the earth. they destroyed it in a relatively high orbit. it sent millions of pieces of debris into orbit. there was concern about the
possibility of damaging other satellites that are still working and belong to other countries. this raises the issue of space war. both the u.s. and china have the ability to destroy each other's satellites. the united states with its missile defense systems are capable of reaching into space and destroying satellites in relatively low orbit. we demonstrated that ourselves in 2010. but china also sees the u.s. military space capability as being a key enabler of our modern military way of war. they are looking for ways to counter it. i think both countries need to have a dialogue on this subject. more broadly, i think the world. it's -- needs to develop a clear norms saying to store and --
destroying things in space should be against the laws of war. there is the potential to affect the livelihoods of the populations of the combatants and people throughout the world and should be banned. host: the next call is on the independent line. caller: can you expand on china's weakness. the rampant corruption, environmental problems, the population uprisings all over the place, and the fact they are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. guest: you hit on a bunch of those weaknesses already. i was in china last month. i can tell you the air it is terrible -- i can tell you the air there is terrible. people in china are starting to complain not just about the air and watery: --
quality, but the rampant unconstrained development going on. you travel around the countryside. everywhere you go, the land is being torn up to put in a new housing development. but morebroadly, -- broadly, the chinese economy has a number of serious structural weaknesses. i'm not an economist but follow economic matters. they are reaching the limits of the growth model they have been pursuing up to now. the government recognizes that. last november, they announced reforms intended to open up the economy and reignite economic growth. whether or not they will be able to do that is unclear. i am pessimistic. andeconomy and environment corruption and all of those things are intertwined with each other. they are not independent problems. they're part of a single endemic
problem that is the result of the authoritarian political system. host: what about the perception of the u.s.? as far as how china views us? have: the people of china mixed feelings about america. general.est in the united states is a symbol of the west were generally. they many things about the u.s.. they fear us. they think we are trying to prevent china from resuming what they see as its rightful place in the world. much a mixed and ambivalent attitude they have towards the u.s. when it comes to other countries like japan, they are much less ambivalent. they have quite negative feelings towards the people of japan right now.
that is a matter of great concern to me. from this is mark connecticut on the independent line for roger cliff. caller: a number of years ago, the chinese military forced down a u.s. intelligence gathering airplane. if u.s. air force did not have procedures in place, i'm sure the chinese would've gotten everything they could have off the plane. china has a soviet style doctrine model as opposed to the u.s. with a slightly different one where there is more initiative displayed at the field level. political -- what are the potential political and military ramifications if a chinese captain decided to fire on a u.s. ship or airplane? thank you. guest: that is a great question.
one of the concerns we have had. had china walking their fire control radars onto a japanese destroyer and helicopter. this was considered a threatening gesture. i was in japan recently. they said the soviets used to do this to us all the time. it is not unprecedented. controltion is how much that is kept under. how well do they understand the international norms. the chinese have indicated they are willing to start talking about those things. they seem to have a poor understanding of the rules of the road, especially on the high seas. part of the problem is they differ with most countries on what the high seas are. they consider their economic zone to be an extension of their
territorial waters. the view of the united states and most other countries is this is the high seas and you are allowed to do anything you want except extract economic resources. having an accidental clash directed from beijing or an individual commander's view of what was acceptable, that would provoke a serious crisis. i don't think it would necessarily result in a war. wars happen when one or the other side, the top leadership wants a war. things like that can be a pretext for some type of that theaction leadership was planning on doing and waiting for the right opportunity. host: james from north carolina on the democrats line. caller: i am curious about your perception of the chinese people. we saw tnm and square in the
late 1980's. the communist party is 70 million strong. how worried is the communist party about another revolution? is that a possibility at all? guest: that is an interesting question. from 1986 until 1989 -- 1988. when the protest happened in 1989, i was not surprised. i saw it coming. i had been in china two years. i saw the level of anger. maybe i have been outside of china too long. i have not lived there since that time, although i visit regularly. i have trouble seeing how a popular uprising could occur. on the other hand, the chinese communist party is intensely worried about this. anytime the slightest thing happens, they are all over it whether it is a protest over a chemical plant or something like
that. they move immediately to quash the protest and arrest the try to buy offn the rest of the population concessions. the chinese communist party is worried about this. think it goes back to how successful they will be dealing with the problems coming to ahead in terms of the environment, the economic slowdown. if they are able to manage that, i think people will continue to accept the rule of the communist party. if the economy comes to a crashing halt and the environmental problems worsen, your going to see a much higher level of unrest. about noten i worry just what the government might do internally but also externally because they are so concerned about their hold on power. anything that could be perceived as a threat to china's power or prestige from the outside would force them to react in an overly
strong way to maintain legitimacy at home. democrats,ine for the line for republicans, and for independents. here is marie from minnesota on the democrats line. for giving usyou this about china. you seem to be really smart. i want to thank you for enlightening me. i did not understand people over there were as peaceful as they are. i have known a lot of people from china. i think they are nice people. i think the united states could take a lesson and not be so adversarial around the world. i know chinese people are very polite. i want to thank you for enlightening me. thank you. hannibal from
missouri, republican line. i want to follow-up on his thought that china is not desirous of having any kind of war but territorially trying to protect themselves. i have seen the chinese operate around the world. their strategy is to infiltrate with foot soldiers going into countries and being able to live in those countries and spread their wings. in many countries around the world, building stadiums for free and performance art centers, these types of things. bringing in a lot of english teachers to speak them only once so they could dominate -- to speak the language so they could dominate. they can encroach and do what
they have to do. i'm not saying to spread communism but to be spreading their strength. that is my take on it. i don't think they want war with us, but i feel they have a strategy of subtlety in how they are moving quietly and intensely for the things i just mentioned. guest: i think i can agree with both of the last two cal lers. people are fundamentally the same around the world. we want the same things. the difference comes in how we are ruled. the chinese government has taken the approach of trying to spread its power and influence around .he world the things you described do not strike me as different from things the u.s. has done in the past. i think there is a difference because the u.s. system has always been founded on democracy and human rights.
the chinese have no interest in spreading those things. they are merely trying to spread their own economic and political influence around the world. at the same time, that does not mean we should ascribe sinister motives to every chinese person. even people working at the behest of the government, they are just trying to do their jobs. .t is an authoritarian system i think we can live in peace with china and hope we will. it is a system that is fundamentally at odds with hours -- ours. i hope to see china evolve to a more democratic political system. host: the editors of the "new york times" highlight some things that occurred on the recent trip the president took.
they say it improved relations with malaysia. they say it demonstrates involves more than a military hedge against china. guest: this is something the administration has been at pains to emphasize. the rebalance policy is not just about military forces. you look at the military muscle movements, they have been relatively minor. a few more global hops to guam and some things already in the works. we were already planning on shifting more assets to the pacific. agreemention trade referred to is called the transpacific partnership. this is a big deal in my opinion. this was hugely liberalized trade in the asia-pacific region.
it would be a huge boost to the economies of the countries in the region and to the u.s. as well. perhaps most importantly to japan. japan has been in economic stasis for 20 years. the current prime minister is trying to restart the economy. being able to get this transpacific partnership would be a huge boost to japan. i would emphasize that is the most important u.s. ally in the region. host: walter on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: i'm curious about the base sale in california, the naval base in california. guest: i think you are referring to the palm beach naval base sold to a chinese state-owned shipping company. there have been concerns raised about that. i am not an expert on this sale.
there are people in the government who are very vigilant. i have talked to them about the types of acquisitions china makes in terms of american companies whose technology they are trying to acquire and just the locations. if the chinese want to buy a facility that overlooks a u.s. military base, the answer is usually no, you may not. all of these things are looked at carefully. i will not say every decision made is correct. but it is something the u.s. government is vigilant about. host: roger cliff with the atlantic council, thanks for your time. coming up tomorrow, we will talk with nathan gonzales about the 2014 elections. we will focus also on gubernatorial elections during another segment. kautter will talk about tax breaks for large companies
as part of our regular series. we come your way tomorrow at 7:00 taking a look at those segments, the news, and your phone calls. have a great day. we will see you tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, "newsmakers" with senator john holden. then, testimony with air force general on duty during the benghazi attack. followed by senate floor speeches from senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham. >> joining