continues. host: former congressman chris gibson is back at our desk, former republican from new york. since leaving congress, he has written three books, the latest is "the spirit of philadelphia." a call to recover the founding principles. take us back 238 years or so and explain what you mean by "the spirit of philadelphia." guest: we are in a tough time right now. i enjoyed your last segment.

i understand how divided the country is, the consequences of these policies. half the country supporting them, have the country opposing them. i wanted to take a look at what happened. americans are wondering how did we get to this place? i went back to the beginning of our country. i would say to encourage the viewers right now, i believe they were actually facing tougher circumstances when they arrived in philadelphia for the constitutional convention. in this way. they had a difficult problem because they knew the articles of confederation were failing. we were at the time free and independent states, free and independent states. the closest analogy would be like the eu beam and we were like a confederation. we had steak that were coining money, putting tariffs on other states, states that were being lured into trading agreements with other countries. and we had insurrection.

they knew that what they had done with the articles didn't hit the mark. so they had this problem, and why i didn't think it is different. they had to adjust our governmental structure to give it more power. at the same time, they were very ensconced and concerned about overshooting the target. madison talks about this in the federalist papers. they had to create this government that could especially do its part of the social contract but also have it control itself. what they did was genius but i believe they got it right. they had tried. the thing that i want the viewers to appreciate, these were practical people. they tried to solve the problem several times and failed every time including the last one in annapolis in 1786. he didn't throw their hands up. they said we are going to meet in philadelphia. what they did in between is they

studied extensively. everything they could get their hands on. jefferson was in europe. he sent a truckload of books to madison. they write about greece, rome, other attempts to get a republic right. ultimately, what they ended up with, they created what i call the spirit of philadelphia. what they wanted to do was fix the governmental design. they were supposed to fix the articles. articles required a unanimous consent of the state to change. they could never reach unanimous consent. they knew that threshold was too high. they needed a governmental structure that could breed. they wanted -- could breath. this is the constitution they bring forward. arguably the most argumentative part about the constitution was, it required three fourths of the state to ratify it to go into effect.

that was facially unconstitutional to the articles of confederation. really, they were not challenged on that point. the spirit of philadelphia, they brought for this new document. it was philosophically different. perhaps we can get into that today. but the spirit of philadelphia was the breakthrough. first of all, took two weeks to get enough delegates to get a quorum going, but they ended up with the same old arguments. for the first five weeks, it looked like it would be another failed attempt. host: they first met on may 25, here we are on the anniversary. guest: next year, getting ready to celebrate 250 years of the declaration. we are at an inflection point of our country. your last segment have people that support the trump education policies, those that oppose it. i am trying to reach all of those viewers. guest: again -- host: again,

the book "the spirit of philadelphia: a call to recover the founding principles." the subtitle meeting that we lost the principles. when did we lose the principles? guest: these were conscious choices. we started to move away from it. the reason why it was unexpected, they expected to tinker. what happened, the connecticut compromise between large and small states, when they finally got over that hurdle, all of a sudden, the world looked at different. once they agreed to come to a bicameral legislative body, this issue of how to deal with the executive seemed solvable. what i argue is this was the spirit. the viewers, many may have served in the military, private companies -- there is something about us as a species. when we come together and work hard, sometimes we compromise, we create something bigger than ourselves. that is what we did.

that spirit of philadelphia, that is what came as the unexpected gift of the compromise. in the 19th century, first of all, the civil war. the philosophy that we chose, which i argue is common sense realism, essentially focused on two factors. it focused on human nature, individually, who are we as a society, and then given that, what should we do with power? they chose some conscious choices here. they knew they need to had enough in the government to effectuate its side of the social contract. but what they decided is, all of them, a collective body -- there were some naysayers. what they said is, given what we know about human nature, humans are neither all good nor all bad. we are conflicted.

sometimes we are amazing, selfless, other times aggressive, self-serving. they said the best thing we can do is decentralize power to the extent we can, and then we need to separate power and keep a transparent and checked. we believe, the founders, think this is the best way republican last. we come forward with that, and how did it go? generally well with one major exception. the civil war. the system worked as designed. why is it they had trouble solving the issue of slavery? well, it is a flawed assumption. they thought they had put it on a path toward extinction. look at federalist 42. madison says -- she doesn't use the word genius, but he says we figured it out. when we banned the international slave trade, it will die out. we can move forward as a people. when that didn't happen, what

did the system do? it launched us into the industrial age, put us on a path to become a global superpower. but whenever we had political conflict, the system works toward compromise. what do we see? the missouri compromise of 1820, the kansas nebraska act, a series of legislative actions. the system worked, produced a product. host: this system that you argue was working, what happened to it 100 years ago, what changed in the political philosophy of this country? guest: immediately what happens is, because we had a flawed assumption with regard to a first order moral question, the question of slavery, we were not able to peacefully resolve it. we fight this war over states rights, over slavery. in the second inaugural address, lincoln says, we are going to

bind up the wounds of the nation with malice toward none. he had a vision, plan to bring us back under common sense realism, having answered the first moral question. of course, he was murdered. so many casualties of that war, including the philosophy that works so well for us. by the 19th century, new ideas are in the either, in the world -- the ether, in the world. woodrow wilson was one of the first in our country to get a doctorate, phd from johns hopkins, political science at the time. in his dissertation, wilson argues the founders got it exactly wrong. we don't have to decentralize. we don't have two separate power. what we really should do is come forward with centralization, and allow us to move toward ideal

circumstances. not optimal but ideal. when he becomes a college president, he is working on the german idealism. when he is president -- host: what is german idealism? guest: it's a very dense topic, but particularly when we are talking about today, the idea that the state -- broadly defined -- can perfect man. although he would say he was taken out of context, he said the state is what the man created. the state in the march of god in the world. from where he was standing home he didn't have everything that we have gone through in the last 200 years. we know what happens in the 20th century. there is this movement toward greater bureaucracy, centralization. wilson is among those believers. what you see in the first world

war, we have price controls, espionage and sedition acts. there were a number of initiatives, including the creation of bureaucracy to control. there is an undertow after he leaves. ultimately what happens over the last 100 plus years, regardless of party, even though there is some pushback. rankin has a different vision. but the thing about president nixon, he said we are all keynesians now. he created the epa. there was largely a consensus. the founders themselves said the system needs to be malleable, but this book is ultimately about ideas and their consequences. host: a quick march through about two hundred 40 years of american philosophy. guest: guest: it is in the book. host: i want to invite viewers

to call in to join the conversation. phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. with the philosophy come history we just went through, what are the suggestions that you make at the end of the book, what can we do to recover the founding principles? guest: the first thing is to recognize the moment we are in. i just explained the beginning. it was not nefarious, by the way. wilson really believed in what he was doing, believed it was best for our country. today, there are those who criticize president trump. he is centralizing so much power, transforming the political landscape. he is a highly consequential president in that regard. it's important to note that history didn't start in 2015 or 2017.

he is actually moving to the front of the formation of something that started long ago. where are we today? the book explains how we got president trump and the phenomenon of this populist moment we are in. it is widespread disaffection, alienation, disappointment with institutions and their leaders. look at the choices in 2024 philosophically. certainly ideology and platform. we will get into that. but philosophically, you had a choice between progressivism, which is a form of idealism, which believes in centralizing power as a principal regarding power. remember what i said about the founders. they were looking at human nature. progressives see humans as good and want to centralize power because you can achieve idealistic outcomes. the populist don't have a strong position on power from a principled perspective. if power is being accumulated to

president obama, that is not a good thing, because he could be working against the faux community. i think about populism, it is focused on the community. if government is being used to be helpful to the folk community, that's a good thing. i lean heavily on walter russell mead, populism, but the thing about the trump movement, you had americans that were totally turned off by what was going on. they looked at him and said maybe he can fix all of this. your choices were progressivism on one hand and populism on the other. what i'm arguing to all the viewers -- and you had both sides on the last segment. i am trying to reach everyone. let's take a step back and look at history and philosophy and the consequences of the choices we have made. i could find no example in history where a people and a

nation, centralize power, especially into one person, and it never worked out well. could have been. but if it does, it would be the first time in human history. you look at the product. these deficits right now, we cannot sustain them. there are all kinds of historical examples, the roman empire, great britain. if you spend beyond your means and keep doing it, you cannot survive in that political state. the founders understood that, too. that is probably enough for now. let's hear from some of the collars. i would love to get into education because the founders -- jefferson and adams disagreed about a lot. what they agreed on was common sense realism. on the same page with regard to human nature and what it meant for power. they also believed we would never survive if our citizens were not educated, informed, and engaged.

they are all three different. educated, informed, and engaged. that means classical education. a broad temperament that is influenced by a broad education. host: chris gibson is our guest. author since his time leaving congress, three books. the latest, "the spirit of philadelphia." also served at professor at williams college, president of siena college, before your time in congress, time in the military. taking your calls this morning on the washington journal. peter is first in washington, d.c. independent peer good morning. caller: good morning. quick question for congressman gibson. in your book, you argue for limits on the executive branch in favor of a return to the constitutionally prescribed role of both the federal legislature and state level government. guest: absolutely. caller: is this approach to

government still viable when modern politics is so fast-moving and policy issues feel so acute? quick example. i have deep sympathy with your expressed views on the war powers. realistically, how effectively could our 535 congress members and senators reach consensus in a true moment of national crisis? host: you have read the book? caller: yes, sir. i'm a big fan of congressman gibson's. i have followed his career for some time. host: do you work on capitol hill? guest: i do not -- caller: i do not. i work for the foreign policy institute. guest: you can tell the way that he constructed the question, that is, in essence, one of the preeminent questions. my answer would be yes.

i was at a conference at stanford about two months ago. i had a very thoughtful colleague of mine from hillsdale college. he asked the same question. can we come in this information age -- i don't know it to be true, but my read of history i believe it can. the founders, it's amazing how much they grappled with. the decline of the roman empire, they had read all about the great republics. these were principles that they believed stood the test of time about us, about who we are. that is why i call it the realism. that come from the scottish enlightenment. more specifically to the point,

what we are intending to do here is recognize the fact that the founders said we would have three coequal branches. they did but pride of place. the legislative body. they knew that we needed a magistrate, needed a leader. but they also expected the other branches to check each other throughout. i believe today in 2025 we can still do this. but we have to do as a people -- and i have a chapter on this called we, the people. it is a recognition that we owned some of this, too. we have to look at our expectations, great country and a good country. there is a difference. what we have to do is hold our representatives to account. and then, in issues where we cannot reach consensus at the national level, we need to push that back down to the states

until such time that we can have persuasion enough to do legislation at the national level. these principles will work if we use them again. host: page 125 of your book, you write the founders understood this form of government that they were created would not work without an educated, informed, and engaged electorate. the founders recognized this required the widespread promotion of broad liberal education aims at cultivating virtuous citizens capable of critical thinking. cultivated in this way, citizens would safeguard their freedoms and come as active voters, would serve as a check against fanciful government proposals and actions. are we those people that they envisioned? guest: there is so much disaffection right now. as humans, we are also emotional. so this is intensely personal for us. it makes it difficult. this is part of what a conflicted human nature is.

in my own life, i have an emotional reaction to something, and i asked myself, is that the right thing to do in this moment? may be delayed of the decision if i can until i can think it through. we have to recognize that we are out of balance. when i say out of balance, what do i mean by that? there is an extensive section in the book on this. regardless of party, we are now, rather than having a balance between the individual and the obligations we have two others, we are all for the former, the individual. i don't want to live in a country that doesn't find the individual of the highest value. that is one of the things that we are most proud of. we value individuals and our rights. but our social contract had rights, responsibilities. rather than having primacy of individual obligation to others, the founders saw a balance.

celebration of the individual but the obligation we have to others. we are also out of balance between the now and the future. the founders envisioned both. we only live in the now. the now is important. but what is the american dream? two things basically. you have the right to self determine. you are in control of your potential. what else is the american dream? i want my family to be in a stronger position than i was. we always believed that. that is why throughout the years when you talk about when this changed, the election of 1896 was hotly contested. neither candidate said i have an idea, we are going to spend $2 trillion more than what we bring in. nobody would have done that. it is beyond the pale, because they knew if they did that, that

would adversely affect their children and future generations. this is the balance between the now and the future. we are out of balance between the material and the spiritual. that is why in the book i talk about the angsting. there is a book called "the anxious generation." just how much young people are suffering from anxiety and depression. it is a lot of factors. the point is, yes, we are material. we have a physical dimension, intellect. but we also have a spirit. if you don't nurture the spirit, we will end up where we are at this moment. it is getting the blend right between the physical, intellectual, and spiritual. being out of balance is where we are today. you talk to people that are for or against trump.

some that are against him are surprised about what is happening now, but they believe they have nothing in common with progressives. my read of history is actually what they agree upon, both people for and against trump, they believe we should centralize power, for different reasons. the people supporting truck, he is the only one who can fix it. the people that are against trump, they don't want him to have that power but generally believe in that principal. that is the moment we are in. i think we need to take a step back and look at history and philosophy and say what are the consequences of choices and where are we today? host: bob is waiting in texas. republican line. you are on with former republican congressman chris gibson. caller: i consider it a gift of god. i thank congressman gibson for the enthusiasm in his book and his questions.

getting back to principles and to education, i know that the first sentence of u.s. law in 1776, they only had two principles of which they declared and won independence from england, and those were the laws of nature, creation, the laws of god, the bible. william blackstone, who wrote his first volume 11 years before the declaration, the most quoted man by our founders. his most quoted quote was no human loss should be suffered to contradict these. we have to get back to the first sentence of u.s. law, get back to creation and the bible. any laws that contradict those are no law at all. here in texas, we had over 9000

bills that were submitted this session. i guarantee you that 99% of them violate those precepts that no human laws should contradict creation in the bible. host: congressman gibson. guest: a few things on this. one, this is a book about history and philosophy. the intersection of history and philosophy and the consequences of public policy. unfortunately today, a lot of the conversation about religion and faith is not historically based. there are those who say the founders explicitly formed a secular nation and therefore they didn't want god. host: separation of church and state. guest: that is a misconception. the issue, the challenge is, maybe some of the viewers have watched "the chosen."

one of the challenges you see in that is which part of the bible? we are living in the new testament when watching "the chosen," but the old testament was about judgment. some would say harsh, but living in a certain way. jesus comes and says i am here for the sinners, looking to bring mercy. i strongly recommend this series. i am bring it up in this context to say, the founders, this was an issue about them. how it became an issue is curious. james madison was dealing with a legacy in virginia about whether or not the taxpayers should pay for pastors and the maintenance of church. they were. madison said we have to get out of this business. now that we are breaking from england.

it is interesting what happened. they had a religious toleration bill. madison flipped on a key principle based on his experiences in virginia. he learned, the anglicans, the church of england, wanted to keep going in that direction. but there were multiple factions. initially he disagreed with one of the philosophers who said the best way is to have a whole bunch of factions. they will cancel each other out and check themselves. that was actually contra to the council of the wise. madison says, i will be darned, maybe hume is onto something. the multiple factions outvoted the people that wanted to keep paying. the largest thing was that he wanted religious freedom. when the left says they wanted to keep god out, that is not

true. the founders deeply believed in god, wanted to be reverent in that way. jefferson was not in any one of the particular denominations. john adams literally says, when he writes to jefferson, i know you love the french. just explain how 20 million atheists are going to be able to govern themselves. he believes you need a core set of values to make a republic work. so it is conflicted. the point is, we were not trying to keep god out, but we were trying to set up a constitutional system that we were to through with. one last point on education. i listen to your last segment before i came on. i appreciated the gentleman who came on and said culture matters. he said the reality is we are dealing with indoctrination, made some comments about howard zinn. with regard to the trump

administration's view on education, i think the record is a little mixed. but i have to say that the arc of what they are trying to do, to teach history in a way that is constructive, so that we recognize we have challenges, but we are a good nation. we are basically a good force in the world. think about it, wewon world war ii, saved the earth from passage in. then we dedicated 5% of our gross domestic product to rebuild those nations. so we are a good nation with laws, no question about that. the one place where i did disagree with the caller -- and i thought he was well communicating, had important points. i'm a believer in american exceptionalism. the first term of the trump administration published a paper

called the 1776 project. i like it a lot. i like it so much, i have no problem debating it. in my class, i have students reading both. 1619 project, and the 1776 project, along with all the founding documents, what the founders were influenced by. then we read secondary sources. i assigned both howard zinn and bill mcclay. the previous caller talked about howard zinn. bill mcclay writes a book called "land of hope." i believe it was pretty balanced. but i was not there to indoctrinate my students. i wanted them to make their own call. i am not for banning books. if you feel strongly about 1776 project, you should not be afraid. what i did insist upon was a debate.

in the book, i explain, i insist upon a debate. a lot of academia today is of the left. i think it is important there is a balance of that. host: less than 10 minutes left. the book is called "the spirit of philadelphia." will, virginia beach, independent. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. sounds like a very interesting book. planning on adding it to my summer reading list. i do want to preface the statement by agreeing with the concept, certainly, faiths of all kind will almost inevitably bring their ideas into policy and legislative derivation, creation. but certainly shouldn't be the source exclusively. aside from that, i wanted to point out an idea where i come

from, a scientific viewpoint. when you create something like a chemical, it requires a catalyst, reaction, and in that process of creation, you create a target of some kind. however, there is always a byproduct, something that is not part of the target. that consequence, unfortunately, can be very toxic sometimes, sometimes deadly. i'm times it can be benign. there creation of an idea, policy, legislation, there is inevitably going to be some sort of aspect of it that is not the point of the creation of that policy. i just wanted to see if there was any idea from that that can be derived, in context to your writing. guest: exactly. madison actually addresses this point when he is arguing for the constitution.

he says that among all the things they considered, they were trying to figure out how to deal with faction. i mentioned moments ago when his experience was in virginia. he saw it could be a good thing. but we just considered, just basically banning it, the idea of factions. he said the cure would be worse than the disease. so he is getting into this enterprise that you are talking about, you have to think about ideas and their consequences. consequences can be good or bad. you couldn't be more right. the founders had this dilemma. they knew the articles were failing. it was failing because there was not enough energy in the national government. i went through all of that earlier in the segment. they understood. they were trying to get it right. it wasn't about some idea of progress, which is 19th century

german idealism, it was a classical idea from antiquity, getting it right. recognizing that you are going to create externalities. the question is, do you have a system that can be malleable to deal with those? what i call in the book, optimal decisions, not ideal. one last thing, thank you for your commitment to read the book. what i want to do is to get all americans engaged. it's a renewal of citizenship. here is what i would love to do. when you finish reading the book, perhaps you inspire some of your neighbors to read it, as well. maybe get together for a book club. the first session with an introduction, section one. this is about philosophy and history. section two can be the second subject with your colleagues. the third session would be the third section and the

conclusion. you get through all of that, reach out to me. i have a website, the spirit of philadelphia.com. you can contact me. i will zoom with your group. i will take questions, interact with you. what i would love to see is across this great country that we would, swords down, say where have we been? what were the reasons behind the initial choices that we made, which were not perfect. we had slavery.. obviously a huge error. why did they do what they did? we have walked away from some of that. what has been the consequence? i am hoping we can get a real revitalization in our citizenship to consider these things. i give a series of reforms, but

you have to get to the end of the book. host: joanna in germantown, maryland. democrat. caller: there are two things going on now. i actually agree with a lot of what you are saying and i intend to order your book as soon as i'm done on the phone. two things that are going on now that go against everything you are talking about. the first is the death of expertise and expert. this administration is banning experts in their field, whether it is science, education, medicine, health, national security, they are being banished. what happens when you do that and there is no expertise anymore, it destabilizes the country, destabilizes the society. i'm going to be honest about this here. you have a group of congresspeople on the republican side that are so afraid of being primaried, the exchange of

ideas, debate, they are not bold enough to do anything but get along. they will sell their integrity and honor to stay in office. i think that is not what the founders were all about. i would like you to address those two things, please. host: final two and a half minutes. guest: joanna, thank you for the sentiments. i will make the same offer to you that i did to will. when you are done reading it, if you can find other folks in your neighborhood, regardless of ideology, if you read the book and do these sessions come i'm willing to have these conversations. to your point about expertise, here is the reality. we are living in a moment where americans across the partisan landscape -- remember this movement, in some ways, trying to get in front of bernie sanders. the system is rigged, you cannot

trust these institutions. a lot of that actually started with left-wing populism. trump gets out in front of it, moves in this direction. it didn't come out of nowhere. the fact of the matter is, the wall street americans looked at the experts. they knew so much about finance, how does this happen? you look at the wars that are seem to be endless and pointless for many. even now with education, they look at the fact that we pay so much for it, we don't seem to be doing well with regard to standards across the world, and people think that it is moved against some of our culture. on both ends of the ideological spectrum, who do we trust now? obviously, we need knowledge. we cannot live as a species without knowledge. i want to affirm your point that we need to get back in the space were expertise matters. but let's recognize that we are

a public formed on constitutional and democratic principles. half the country is really concerned and moving in that direction. the last thing on congress being afraid. this is where you can make a difference. they are like anybody else. i was a member. nobody wants to lose. they are thinking the best way to win is to hug trump. i am talking about you, will, bob, who seems to have conservative sentiments like me, if it woman reaches out to their executives and says that representatives and says we understand there is widespread disaffection, but we don't believe we should centralize power. we shouldn't spend beyond our means. i think there is happening right now. there is a burgeoning split in the right wing know about these deficits. you will see it in the senate. i would say don't lose faith, joanna, bob, the conservative,

will, the independent from virginia. we are a republic, we can change, but we have to get involved in this. look at all those dimensions of balance and ask those hard questions. how are we doing on that? i look forward to hear your reactions to the book. host: before you go, you have been a college professor, served in the u.s. army, member of congress, author now. what job have you found --not most enjoyable, but fulfilling? guest: i get this question a lot. i would say soldier. i thought about it one day. i was a working-class kid. nobody had gone to college and my family. they were all working-class irish democrats. i was the first republican in my family. remember thinking, only 12,000 people in history of our country that sat where i sat. it was an enormous privilege.

frustrating, too, if i'm being candid. i love academia, in the classroom. i don't love grading. on a scale of one to 10, being a representative was probably a seven. professor, seven or eight. being a soldier, nine on an average day, 10 on many days, eight or less on hard days, like in combat. the thing about being a soldier, it doesn't matter your background of any kind. we are therefore the team. i have a section on that because i think it is encouraging for the country to see that section. host: the book again is "the spirit of philadelphia: a call to recover the founding principles." the auhello everybody and lc