♪ host: good morning, it's tuesday, may 27, 2025. a three-our "washington journal" is ahead. we begin with education. donald trump made the elimination of the department of education a top priority. the goal is to empower states when it comes to decision-making. the president targeted higher education on d.e.i. spending on

how student protests are handled. this morning, we are asking if you support or oppose the trump administration's policies when it comes to education. the phone lines for you to call in our split this way. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line for educators, (202) 748-8003. you can send us a text at that number. or you can catch up with us on social media. a very good tuesday morning to you if you want to start calling in now. here's the latest and it comes to the president's concerns particularly about higher education and harvard university. this is the headline from the wall street journal. trump looks to divert cash from harvard to trade schools. that news coming in the form of a memorial day truth post from

donald trump on his social media pages saying, i'm considering taking $3 billion of grant money away from the very anti-semitic harvard, and giving it to trade schools all across our land. what a great investment that would be for the usa, and so badly needed. that was the president yesterday. no further details on that effort. when it comes to the president's concerns about k-12 education, his education secretary linda mcmahon was testifying on capitol hill this week, talking about efforts to cut the department of education. [video clip] sec. mcmahon: thank you for having me to testify on a department on a mission, the final mission, to wind down the department of education responsibly, cut waste, and give education back to parents, state, and educators. with your partnership, the fiscal year 26 budget will take a significant step towards that goal. we seek to shrink the role

bureaucracy, save taxpayer money, and empower states, who best know their local needs to manage education in this country. we reviewed our programs and identified spending that does not fulfill the mandate of trust the american people have placed in president trump. we have reduced the department that was overstaffed i thousands of positions, cut old contracts that were enriching private parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for illegal d.e.i. programs, and now we are putting forward a budget request that reduces department funding by more than 15%. at the same time, we are working to make american education great again. in our conversations with governors, teachers, and parents across the country, we hear calls for accountability and more local control. that is our goal, to give parents access to quality education that their kids deserve, to fix the broken higher education industry that

has misled students into degrees that don't pay off, and create safe learning environments for our students. we are holding institutions to account when they facilitate discriminatory or hostile environments on campus. a level playing field with limitless opportunity is a vision i think we all can share. host: that was linda mcmahon testifying on capitol hill last week. we will show you more from her testimony, but are asking you this morning if you support or oppose the trump administration's education policies. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. educators, we would especially like to hear from you this tuesday morning as we get to the end of the school year, (202) 748-8003. plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic of the trump administration's education policy since the president was

sworn in. more in today's papers. this is the washington. tim rosenberger is a fellow at the manhattan institute. the headline of his peace, president trump's department of education is right to combat racial discrimination. ending d.e.i. policies is a legal imperative, he writes, in both the universities and k-12 context. he says the trump administration's policies are not radical but restores the meaning of nondiscrimination, treating individuals as individuals without regard to race and restores the department of education to its proper role of enforcing civil rights laws rather than facilitating political and social indoctrination posed as learning. that from the pages of today's washington times. i want to hear your thoughts having this discussion in the first hour of the washington journal. lester is up first in alabama. republican, good morning. caller: sorry, i called on the

wrong line. i am democratic. host: what are your thoughts on this topic? caller: jon, this is unbelievable. you have trump cutting everything. education. i mean, america, where are we going? linda mcmahon out of all people, she don't have a clue what she is talking about. education, i guess he wants everybody down like he is. -- dumb like he is. america, we have to be careful the slope we are trying to go with trump. trump is taking us back 100 years. we would not know america after trump leaves office. host: that is lester in alabama this morning talking about the trump administration's education policies. new york, democrat, good morning. caller: can you hear me?

host: i can, stephen, what are your thoughts about the company's rations education policies? caller: they are disastrous and it is a cover to destroy all sorts of programs that help our special ed students, title ix, and other programs to benefit our children. i have a request for c-span and the media. stop saying d.e.i.. that is what they want you to say. say, diversity, equity, and inclusion. who is against diversity? who is against equity? who is against inclusion? they use the acronym d.e.i. to hide the fact that they are destroying all these programs to address the needs of all of these different types of children, faculty, and staff. there are no people who are monolithic. if education is going to work it is going to a have -- it is

going to have to address children who they are, where they are, that means diversity, equity, and inclusion. stop saying d.e.i.. thank you. host: we talking talking the education policies both on the k-12 level and also when it comes to higher education. we plan to talk about both levels, including, again, yesterday donald trump targeted harvard for its grant funding, saying that he is considering moving that funding to trade schools in this country. it is the latest attack on harvard, as the washington post puts it in their headline. their column looks at the history of donald trump and harvard, the battle between harvard and the administration escalated dramatically on april 14 when the administration froze 2.2 billion dollars in federal funding to harvard after the school said that it would not yield to demands to change its admissions and hiring and

governance practices. international students targeted last week. on thursday the department of homeland security terminated harvard's student and exchange visitor certification for allegedly allowing anti-american pro-terrorist foreigners to harass and physically assault individuals on campus. the administrator of the department of homeland security, kristi noem, accused the university of working with the chinese communist party by hosting and training members of the parliament terry group. a federal judge blocking that as of now. but the focus on harvard continues, and donald trump continued on his truth social page yesterday. in addition to the announcement about trade schools and funding, this was his other post. we are still waiting for the foreign student list from harvard so we can determine after a ridiculous expenditure of billions of dollars how many

radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all come should not be back into our country. harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason, he said. the best thing harvard has going for it is they have shopped around and found the absolute best judge for them. have no fear, the government in the end will win. one of two posts focusing on harvard university. , last week when she was testifying on capitol hill linda mcmahon was asked about the administration's crackdown on harvard and other ivy league institutions. this is what she had to say in that exchange. [video clip] sec. mcmahon: we have seen some of the most elite in the country and we took strong and decisive action against those universities that were clearly not protecting jewish students against anti-semitism, where they were anti-semitic, those attacking them.

you have seen students barricaded in the library and others pounding on the glass going death to jews, death to israel, death to the united states. that is unacceptable. we reacted. we are reacted to columbia. this incident happened at: bf. i met with the president of columbia. i've had two conversations with the current president of columbia. we've talked about things we need to do with those universities. we want to be able to be supportive, but those universities, all be they are private, do receive funding. we have leveraged to withhold some of that federal funding or cancel some of the grants, and we will do that, unless it can be proven that these colleges and universities are going to respect all rights and set their policy in place and enforce them. i was complementary to the acting president of columbia,

claire shipman, when i talked to her last week and i said, you reacted just as you said you would to the recent uprising on campus. you are looking at whether or not you have suspended students, are you going to expel them? that is what she is looking at. we have seen that that kind of action can deliver results. host: linda mcmahon testifying on capitol hill last week. if you want to watch the testimony in its entirety you can do so on c-span.org. type linda mcmahon in the search bar at the top of the page. we are asking if you support or oppose the trump administration's education policies. the phone numbers are on your screen. a special line for educators. we will go to that line, kyle, in buffalo, new york. caller: good morning, how are you doing today?

host: doing well, go ahead. caller: a lot of these cuts have already started. probably about a month ago i got an email from one of our local colleges. we usually have law days for inner-city kids funded through whatever type of programs. the funding got cut. the emailed me. they said it was due to d.e.i. cuts for a lot of these programs. in my career technical education department, we were told that our funding for next school year, some of that fell under d.e.i. and that will be cut. i am a republican, but i definitely am against some of these education cuts coming from an area of poverty. people have made it seem like the d.e.i. programs were strictly for african-americans,

and that's not true. if you did the research, people, it covered a vast variety of areas, not just people of color. handicap, different opportunities for low-income people, and it just seems like we are going to be cutting programs that are designed to help people up, especially the youth. i can understand some of the cuts for the adults, but you can't be cutting for our youth. they are already vulnerable, especially coming from poverty. buffalo is one of the poorest cities in the nation. host: you have called them before, correct? caller: i have, many times. host: high school history teacher? caller: business and legal teacher. host: you talk about law day and the program was cut because of d.e.i. components. do you know what that meant? what was the diversity, equity,

and inclusion program, and what is a law day program? caller: it is an invite of some of the public schools to the university here to, you know, show off their law program. it is basically the university of buffalo law school. since i am a legal teacher, in other areas they try to promote the students and encourage them to, you know, come to law school, basically. they show off the program. they will have students talking and then they will have a big spread at the end. i'm assuming that the spread is usually financed through whatever. i did ask questions, but it was told to me that it was due to d.e.i. cuts. i said that's a shame, because the students look forward to it every year. they get to go out and experience a university-type setting. some of the students have never seen that type of setting before. some of their parents don't come from that type of environment. it's always nice to get the kids

out to give them a different perspective on how certain segments of society live, especially when we are trying to promote education. i feel like when we hear about these cuts, it seems like the cuts are going to the very low people who really don't deserve that type of cutting for the programs. i understand we have to make cuts. when you mess with education, you are messing with the kids. i come from -- the kids matter. host: when you say that the cuts are targeting the very lowest, how do you interpret donald trump yesterday saying, i'm going to cut $3 billion that goes to harvard -- and i'm not sure what specific programs he's moving to -- and considering moving into trade schools? caller: i think that the problem is, because of harvard, the

protesting, there was the black president, female, it makes it look as if -- almost as if -- it has something to do with people of color will be cut, but they don't realize that it doesn't just service people of color. they will probably go to columbia and other colleges that didn't really respond to the student protesting, you know. i think that is what gets people in trouble. you protest against the system, especially if the system doesn't agree with your agenda, or idea, or ideology, you are going to get cut. it's almost like you can't say anything right now because you are afraid there will be some repercussions due to the freedom of speech. that is what we have in office right now. i do realize that cuts need to be made, but trade school programs is great. put that money into the high school trades. they have the trade school programs in high school. let's encourage that.

i don't know, put it some type of grant for your local community colleges, too. that is who should be getting the money. not these endowed schools. they have alumni's who are filthy rich. i can sorta see that we be you have to be even across the board. host: always appreciate talking to you. you say that you are a republican. did you vote for donald trump any of the three times that he ran for president? caller: i did the first two. the last time i actually voted for cornell west. i couldn't trust her both sides this time around. host: always appreciate talking to you, kyle. richard, minneapolis, republican, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have two things. if trump wants to do something or congress wants to do something, they should repeal that law that says these

students cannot file bankruptcy. bankruptcy should be a fundamental right of everybody. everybody else in the country can file bankruptcy when they are deeply in debt. they are going to be penalized with seven years of bad credit. isn't that punishment enough? the other thing, trump is banning foreign students from harvard and other schools, that is kind of idiotic to me. if we want to influence the world, there is no better way than having foreign students come here, and get indoctrinated into our culture. so, that is what i think. host: where are you on student loan forgiveness? caller: well, the people should be able to file bankruptcy. everybody else can. i think that would foresee some

of the higher education to lower their fees and tuition. people would probably go to, you know, a cheaper college, a smaller college. what is the big deal about harvard? a lot of people are smarter than that. host: thank you for the call. writing in the pages of the washington post about student loan forgiveness. covid is over, it is no longer a massive social phenomenon that can justify emergency measures. we have acted on that logic in almost every area of american life and it is time that the covid era ends for student loans, too. that is what the trump administration is doing by resuming efforts to collect from delinquent borrowers. on may 5, over democratic objections, it began a process that will lead to the garnishing of wages and redirecting tax

refunds to loan service. he says forgiving much or all of the debt, an idea that is popular among progressives and the borrowers themselves, is an alternative to reviving loan payments, but a pause on student loans has already cost taxpayers more than $238 billion in that number would rise more of the government for gave more of the debt. though progressive say that collecting on loans amounts to punishing the working poor. the best evidence suggests that student loan forgiveness tends to benefit people who are doing better than other americans. headline is, trump is right: those student loans need to be repaid. democrat, good morning. caller: how are you doing this morning? a man who had a fake university had to pay $25 million to speak about any university with higher education. i guess it wasn't good enough or harvard so he is holding that thing out there. he said he was going to take $3 billion and give it to other

funds. he is not the congress. the congress gives the money. the republicans say they want to stay out of the business. why does he carry on like other americans are enemies of this country? there is only one enemy. that is the person who does not want to unite behind everybody and make things better. i can't think of one thing that he has done that has helped the country out with this attitude. have a wonderful day and god bless you. host: spence in the mountaineer state. old dominion, mike in loudoun county, educator. what grade do you teach? caller: good morning. high school. biology. host: what are your thoughts on what is happening with the education department and funding? caller: yeah, thank you. before -- i wrote down notes so i did not go all over the place, but here i am. it is important for everyone to understand that, you know, we are all -- everyone is

indoctrinated. everyone is integrated into the culture. you cannot spell culture without cult. everyone is given information that we then use to communicate with each other. you didn't invent the english language. it was given to us. it was given to me. all of it. we are programmed and conditioned to have certain ways of communicating and thinking. when people are going around saying, we have to stop indoctrinating our children, well the people who say that our indoctrinated to say that. i just want to make sure that we have this clear understanding that everything is collaboration. host: in what you teach, what is the indoctrination that you see? caller: ok, well, that is a great question. i'm going outside of what i had

written down to talk to you about. so, in public schools the children are indoctrinated to accept each other. there is a tremendous amount of anti-bullying that has been given to this generation of kids since they were in kindergarten. that is something that is very different from how the teachers who are teaching the children now, probably teachers who are, you know, maybe 25 and above, or 30 years old and above, we weren't given this level of social/emotional learning. host: if that is indoctrination, is it a good thing? caller: sure, exactly. money is neutral. money itself is a neutral

entity. you can either use it to plant a tree or chop down a rain forest. indoctrination in itself can be used to program, because people are programmable, program people to be focused on ensuring that no harm is done to others, or it can be used [indiscernible] host: you are going in and out, so speak more into your phone. i didn't mean to hijack your argument. wrap it up because i have other folks waiting. caller: no doubt, no doubt. i am going under a bridge. we did kind of goa from what i was originally saying -- go off from what i was originally

planning on saying, but it's important for everyone to understand what is happening in public schools right now is going a little bit beyond the acquisition of knowledge because of the existence of the internet. what is happening in schools is students are -- teachers are being trained to ensure that students feel safe. that there are trusted adults in the building that students can come to if they need anything. it is more on the line of preparing the next generation of americans and world members to be open and understanding and accepting of others. that is what is overall collectively happening outside of understanding algebra ii. host: you are saying that if that is all indoctrination, you are good with it? caller: it is everything. if i am trying to learn a

language, i am being indoctrinated with that language. a doctrine is a document. we cannot use that word to say that it's negative. when people go into a religious institution they are being indoctrinated with the religion. when people go into anything they are being given information to be programmed in order to think a certain way and use a specific type of language in order to communicate in that methodology. if indoctrination is what it is, then what is happening in schools is a positive form of indoctrination to teach as many american, future american voters that history is both bloody and bold and we need to understand it so we can better prepare ourselves for the constantly evolving future. i hope that makes sense. host: david in denison, texas,

republican. go ahead. caller: i couldn't take out my phone fast enough after listening to that man talk about social educational learning. it is based off of the work of a marxist who glorified che guevara and castro. he wrote a book, look it up. you will have a hard time reading the introduction. it is one third of the book which tells you how up to send abstract the topic will be -- obtuse and abstract the topic will be. he doesn't address his communist ties until halfway through his part of the book. his work is an outcry -- let me catch my breath. his book is a direct outcry, downstream from the frankfurt school, which was created in

1923 by a group of german-jewish marxists. it caused school to move to columbia university in 1934 to escape hitler. columbia university already had a relationship with this institution in germany. they were going to call it the institute of marxism. as part of marketing, especially with the conflict between communists and fascists in germany where they were, it wouldn't be a good idea. host: i assume you are ok with trying to dismantle, shutdown, the department of education? caller: absolutely, totally. host: are you confident that if the indoctrination is the word that we have been using for a little bit -- are you confident that if that control of programs is shifted more to states and

localities, that if parents have more choice, less indoctrination will happen? you are confident that is true? caller: yes. a couple of small points. in frankfurt school, in 1937, i didn't realize they moved to columbia university in 1934. they had a relationship with columbia university since before that. this is a marxist school. host: i got your point. bring me the 2025 because we are running short on time. caller: they have a fringe that talks about helping kids deal with personal relationships. their major goal is to instill a state of revolutionary consciousness. this is a program in schools and major universities all over the program to have programs, look up the pedagogy of the oppressed, you will find them all over the country. the pedagogy of the oppressed is about teaching the teacher.

they have these programs down to the elementary school level. they teach them a level of revolutionary consciousness under the word activism. how many schools have you heard of over the years that had black lives matter demonstrations and give kids credit for going to these demonstrations. that is what they moved this to. the frankfurt school, in 1937, they created critical theory, which is a marxist school of scholarship -- a point of view of marxism -- host: got your point. that is david in texas. halfway through this first hour of the washington journal asking you simply if you support or oppose the trump administration's education policies. a special line for educators, (202) 748-8003. also looking for your texts on that number. this is from stephen in florida saying, we need trades, people. do we need more social engineering and arts?

engineering and arts are the graduates with crippling debt, no job, and no future. this is another ste saying that education has been on a steady decline ever since the government declared that they are here to help. now 's in the toilet. yes of a change is needed and thank god for common sense. catherine is saying, what education policies? the only thing i've been seeing his states wanting to put bibles and teach religion in school which i oppose. lawrence says i support it, it is time to change our public education. school choice is the way to go. i should be able to use my education tax dollars to make sure they are getting the best education possible. we have course want to hear your calls. charles in los angeles is a democrat. good morning. caller: very good morning. i taught woodshop and metal shop for 30 years in a junior high school and high school.

wh it wasen -- when it was done away with the school deteriorated. i don't care if the kids were going to college or just going to graduate and get a trade, the department of education did away with it. it took them about four months to dismantle all of the shops. i think that a lot of people out there took these shop classes to learn skills and see what they wanted to do. really, i think, being in education 36 years, and the last six years being in the classroom, we miss the shops. we started setting up continuation schools where kids are refusing to come to high school, mostly high school, and they are still in operation, and doing away with the shops. the education philosophy was, nobody

right. we have to get our children

educated. we are not doing well with the world of education in this country and we have not for a long time. we will be joined today by the woman who i chose because she is an extra ordinary person and hopefully she will be our last secretary of education, linda mcmahon. linda. thank you. thank you very much. that is another interesting segment. it is an interesting opening, but it is true. it has been amazing how popular this has been. i tell people this is what i'm doing today and they say, it is about time. everybody says it. republicans and democrats have said it and they are all saying it. host: that is president trump from on march 20. it is just after 7:30 this morning. we are asking you if you oppose the trump administration's efforts when it comes to

education policies. special line for educators or former educators. mary is on that line in somerset, ohio. when and what did you teach? caller: i taught pre-columbian history and natural history for all grades. i worked at a very old native american site. and ohio historical society. host: what are your thoughts on eliminating the department of education, on donald trump and his clashes with institutions of higher education? caller: i am firmly against it. it leads to authoritarian control. i do agree with the gentleman who spoke earlier about indoctrination. there is more than one way to

indoctrinate. we have in the past had segregation, which is another form of indoctrination. good education for some people, bad education for others. i can give you a perfect example . when i was at a 10,000-year-old -- i was describing to the school group -- often it was fourth-graders. about the place and how the native americans used the material to make their weapons and sharp instruments and things. and i told them we called the group -- because the first mound that was excavated was on cloud hopewell's property. that is not a proper name for the people who are here.

native american people have their own names, such as for the ancient ones. one of the little girls raised her hand and said, i know another name for native americans, which kind of excited me, that this person was so interested. i asked her to please tell me and she said he then -- heathen. that is why we need to have some form of education that is inclusive and encourages people to want to know about other people and other times and learn from the history that has been here before them. that is all i have to say. host: what was your response to that little girl? caller: i said that that was a general term and it applied to many people, probably, and that i would like to specifically

speak about the native people at this time. host: how many years did you do that in ohio? caller: around 10 years. i have a masters degree in environmental science, so i was doing natural science and pre-columbian history because i am also half native american and -- yes. host: tony is next out of brooklyn, new york, independent. go ahead. caller: i have been an avid listener of c-span for decades and you do an especially great job. but i have been -- because of my profession, i have a ton of free time, so i have been going to college for the past 47 years,

if you can believe that. host: what does one do in college for 47 years? caller: i have taken everything. i have lived all over this country, from back in brooklyn where i started. i have lived in the deep south and the southwest and northern california. i have taken college classes from the ivy league, from columbia to stanford to phoenix community college, where a third of the students were native americans like the woman was talking about. i learned a lot from them. but i take everything. i have taken everything from auto mechanics to philosophy and everything in between. i am a stock trader, so it only takes me about an hour a day to work here and work like

activities, i call it. it is really great. i have learned so much and as far as the students go, the one thing that i have noticed is these young adults that i'm around now, who are right now -- i just finished up a semester at a manhattan community college, a block from ground zero, and i go to brooklyn college also. the younger -- these young people today are really smart. they are way more sophisticated than i was when i was an 18 year old in 1978. going to college. they are definitely much more worldly.

they are much more open minded. they definitely see the world, i think -- they have 100 times more common sense than my generation. host: so the kids are ok? they are doing all right? caller: i think they are ok. i think they -- the only bad thing i think -- i think they are kind of depressed because basically this country is sort of an empire and it is kind of falling down on their heads, but they get it. do understand? host: that they can see it coming? caller: they see it coming, but i will say this. last semester, little clique of friends, they were from israel,

bangladesh, new york city, china, from the middle east and russia and all over the world and they can handle the reality, i think, of looking around, whereas my generation -- i am 65. it was like raised on america is great. we are a force for good around the world and all this stuff. and i think that is not the way -- it was not close to reality. host: as somebody who has been in college as long as you have been attending classes, what do you make of this new poll out on higher education issues? they write an increasing portion of u.s. adults say they have

little or no confidence in higher education. as a result, americans are now equally divided among those with a great deal or a lot of confidence in higher education, 36%, those who say they have some confidence, 32%, and those who have little or no confidence, 32% of americans say that. when gallup first measured in 2015, 57% had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in just 10% said they had little or no confidence in our education, just 10 years ago. caller: there is a disconnect with people. i am a middle-aged guy. i got friends all over the country of all different ages. there is an anti-intellectualism that has been going on in america for a long time.

no doubt. i think that is accurate. i do not think it is the reality and i will say this. the greatest comparative advantage that the united states has is our colleges, including -- i have attended these community colleges in four cities, where the kids are taking -- they get a two year degree and hvac or to be a dental hygienist or some sort of mechanic or some technical thing and they get a job -- they enter college at 18. by the time they are 20, they can make a really good living doing hvac, so that is on the lower social economic strata. i have also attended -- i will

just throw it out there. i studied at columbia university decades ago and i went back there for these protests a year ago. host: you were on the campus? caller: i technically was not on the campus. i was with my daughters and their friends, who attend -- who had -- some of them still had their ids. they had graduated in the past 10 years. they will not allow -- it was really tight. you could not -- you cannot get on that campus without an id. but the protests were outside. it was vicious. against the peaceful protesters. i am telling you, i have been to protests all over the world. this was as brutal as i have ever seen and it is not what the media portrayed out there. i have lived in neighborhoods

that had tons of ultra-orthodox jewish folks who were protesting against the -- israeli war. these guys are anti-zionist. they are pro-jewish. they are wearing all the signs. and they have to be protected by the police. i am talking completely protected from the protesters that were for the israelis and then there were church groups and i was with a bunch of younger people who -- my daughters ages and it was brutal and the people that i trust that were on that campus for the will protest said the kids were not. nobody was threatening.

kids at columbia university are not going up to kids and threatening to beat them up. that is just a bunch of malarkey. and i literally saw with my own eyes there was thousands of people with -- waving israeli flags and american flags. they looked like me. they were middle-aged folks from the new york area and they were surrounding, outside the campus, surrounding us, surrounding the hasidic jews. they were throwing food at us. what they said to us i cannot -- i will not repeat it. it is the ugliest thing i have heard people saying to another human being and the police were just standing there. there were thousands of policeman. it is new york city. and they did not do anything. host: that is tony in brooklyn,

new york. just about 10 minutes left to get a few more colors in them. mark is in maryland, republican. caller: that last caller, 47 years spent in college and i guess he must be in his 60's now it is still going to protests. so i absolutely agree with trump getting rid of the department of education. that last caller is a good example of why we need to get rid of the department of education. our test scores have been consistently going down since the depression of education was put in place in 1979 or 1980. something else that hardly anyone ever mentions is that the curriculum in schools since 1980, particularly when it comes to world history in american history, has all emanated from one book by a guy called the

people's history of america. and whether students had that book in front of them or not, all the curriculum of american history has flowed from that book since 1980 and he was a self-proclaimed marxist who hated america. he is the guy who turned christopher columbus into -- we used to call columbus a hero. we now call him a genocidal maniac and that is because of the lies of howard's and -- howard zinn. i have heard people refer to american indians as native americans this morning. this idea that we need to hold all cultures as if they are of equal value is very ridiculous. the teacher called in a few calls back who was upset because of the term a girl used for some american indian group. the fact of the matter is all

cultures are not created equal. if they were, no one would ever immigrate, would they? i think we need to go back to actually teaching kids instead of indoctrinating them. host: on your point about howard zinn "a people's history of united states," have you read it? caller: i have read that garbage. i have also read the communist manifesto and i have read a lot of garbage so i can figure out where our country is going. host: where do you think we are going? caller: right into the dumpster, unfortunately. because we have teachers -- the biggest group that donates to the democrat party is the teachers union. and there is a reason why they are against school choice. they do not want people of lower socioeconomic status to be able

to send their kids to a better school. the teachers union does not want competition. competition would actually require some substance, some actual learning. the teachers are more interested in indoctrinating. host: do you have kids? where do they go to school? caller: they went to public school, but they also read books when they got home. i went -- spent my years in public and private school both and i can tell you that even when i was in school in the 1980's, they were already changing around american history. most of the historians in our country are progressives and they have done a good job of rewriting a lot of our history. host: did your kids go to college? caller: a couple of them did. host: where did they go? caller: community college.

they did not go to any of these schools, i can assure you. one other thing, i do not think -- in a constitutional sense, there are 23 things the federal government is supposed to be doing. education is not one of them. i do not think we should put a penny into any schools. i do not think the government has any business trying to educate people. a cholera while ago said they are concerned there is going to be indoctrination in schools by getting rid of the department of education. the opposite is true. we need to get government out of school. it has no business there. host: that is mark in maryland. this is in george -- georgia, independent. caller: the understanding i would like to put out there is based on the fact that the educational system throughout

history has always been an institution of indoctrination. the foundation -- children are taught what to think, not how to think. an example would be, as even a question to you -- will be the name of the mathematical system that we use in our everyday lives? i have talked to people who have phd's and did not know. now the indoctrination part is most people would know the name of a mathematical system that they do not even use. the name of the mathematical system that we use to build the pyramid's is the arabic numeral system. so education -- the progress of homo sapiens from one level to another is a journey.

i remember when i was in university, the head of the university department said that people of african descent were not capable of higher mathematics. host: how long ago was this? caller: 1972. so the indoctrination affects every aspect of our society, so the indoctrination before trump and after trump is basically the same. people are not taught what they really need. when we teach american history, we do not teach that the native americans, who went to war or were ward upon by the colonists, there were instances where their blankets were sprayed in smallpox. there is no treaty that has been

fully complied with. the education of religion is basically the christian religion and this is where trump comes in. there was a time in european history where they could -- considered at the dark ages, where any information on progress within science or advancement was found against. you could have been killed. now, in trump's issue, there have been statistics that said most college educated people would have a tendency not to vote for him, so trump's behavior in attacking all aspect of the social order that were against him -- he has been attacking. host: time for maybe one more call. this is in maryland, a former educator. what subject and grade level? caller: middle school history

and math. host: what are your thoughts about donald trump's education policies? caller: very quickly, a couple calls back my gentlemen called and lives not far from me. his began statement was that not all cultures are created equally or deserved to be treated equally. it is that type of thinking that we have in the white house that is controlling our policy. the minute that we decide to take one group of people and prefer them over another group of people simply because of the region of the world where they are born, that is problematic thinking. it is an offshoot of imperialism and so forth and so on. you complain that on howard zinn or observation of history. that is how it is. to answer your question, i think

it is a concerted effort by the gop to essentially remove the ability to have critical thinking from our students. i saw it as a teacher and teaching for years. i am in maryland, which is a relatively progressive state, so we have a bit of autonomy in terms of -- i guess every state has a. i guess every state has a bit of autonomy in terms of what they teach but when you remove essential bodies were education, say we need to have certain standards across the country in terms of what we teach and how we teach, i get it, each state has their own personal history that their citizens and students need to learn and what have you. but when you start changing facts to opinion-based factoids, you lead to a deficit.

thinking and intelligence capacity of our country. we are going to have kids now who don't know proper history. we have this world movement right now, but it is really big here in the united states, but these flat earth people who are saying the earth is flat. it is ridiculous. we have arguments against verifiable, provable facts. the department of education should have been monitoring those things to make sure to say , look, florida, texas, any other place, there was no personal benefit of slavery to human beings. by the way, these are offshoots

of what happened. if kids feel guilty behind that because you found out that your great, great grandpa was an in slaver -- enslaver, and that is where your families money came from, that is something that you should have a conversation about. but to say that we are going to not teach it, tell lies about it, put it in the closet, that does not help anyone, anywhere. host: stick around, plenty more to talk about this morning. a little later, we are joined by larry sabado, director for the center of politics from the university of virginia. we will look at the lay of the land 18 months ahead of the midterm elections. first, former republican chris gibson talks about his new book, "the spirit of philadelphia." stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪

>> shop at c-snsp.org, c-span's online store during a memorial to aalgoing on now. save 15% sign one on everything from approval to do accessories to bobbleheads, puzzles, and more. there is something for every c-span fan. to scan the coder sit c-spanshop.org during our memorial day sale going on right now. there are many ways to listen to c-span radio at anywhere. in the washington, d.c. area, listen on 90.1 fm, use our free c-span app, or go online at c-span radio, serious xm radio channel 455, or on your smart

speaker by saying play c-span radio. listen to house and senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events. and with fast-paced reports and live interviews and analysis of the day, catch washington today, weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. listen to c-span programs on c-span radio, anytime, anywhere. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> order. >> in a nation divided, a rare moment of unity. this fall, c-span presents, cease fire. in a town where partisan fighting prevails, one table, two leaders, one goal. to find common ground.

this fall, cease fire, on the network that doesn't take sides. only on c-span. >> washington journal 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. write the founders understoodyou this form of government that ere created would not work

without an educated, inford, and engaged electorate. the founders recognized this required the widesprd promotion of broad liberal educatn ms at cultivating virtuous citizens capable of cric 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 crash, 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 author, former congressman chris gibson. always appreciate your time. guest: good to be with you. best wishes to all the viewers out there. host: next, we are joined by larry sabado, center for politics from the university of virginia. we will talk about the lay of the land as the party prepare for gubernatorial elections this fall, midterm elections next year. stick around. we will be right back. ♪

>> i happened to listen to him. he was on c-span1. that is a big upgrade, right? >> i have read about them in history books. i have seen the c-span footage. >> if it is a really good idea, presented in public view on c-span. >> every time i viewed c-span or tiktok or anything, there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of people watching. >> i went home after the speech and i turned on c-span. >> i was on c-span just this week. >> to the american people, now is the time to tune into c-span. >> they had something come at $2.50 a gallon. i saw the television, in between watching my great friends on c-span. >> c-span is televising this right now live, so we are not just speaking to los angeles, we

are speaking to the country. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers to guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these point of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> washington journal continues. host: c-span viewers know larry sabado, the founder of sabat o's crystal ball. 18 month before the midterm elections, what would you say is the most important pole number,

metric that the savvy political viewer should pay attention to to get a sense of what direction the midterms may be going? guest: john, the most important number or word that you used was 18 months away. my answer is don't pay much attention to anything. there are so many opportunities for change, for one side or the other, both sides. it is pointless. all you can do is look at history and say, well, historically, the income it white house party has lost x number of seats. the average is around 26 or so. but we are in a new era of very intense partisanship. while it is certainly possible it will be 26 or higher, it is more likely than not that it will be under that, whichever party wins. we are having a lot of close elections. the senate is much more likely to be variable because you only

have a third of the state selecting a senator. sometimes a little more if you have vacant seats. interim appointees. that is really all you can say. we can talk about in the boulder oasis, but that could change tomorrow, too. host: how does one run a crystal ball in this new era that we are in? how do you try to know what is the important story to pay attention to it, and what is just noise? guest: we are covered by our motto. he who ends up living by the crystal ball ends up beating glass. anyone who claim to have a crystal ball has either eaten a lot of glass or is lying. we try to assess what we know about the present. we look at some of the trends that are developing while always knowing they can change, and there is plenty of time for that. even if there is a certain standard by labor day day of the

actual election year. again, 18 months away. we look at everything. the economy usually matters more than anything else. that is why the democrats, more than anything else, did not win. immigration would be a close second. we will look at where the economy is then, too. we will know how the tariff things shook out, i guess. keeps changing. you never know, tomorrow could bring resolution. of course, foreign policy. god forbid we are involved in a foreign war. it happens a lot if you look at american history. so far, so good. and scandal used to matter. it was the third item on the agenda. it is pretty obvious that scandal makes very little difference anymore. host: we mentioned poll numbers

and metrics at the start of the conversation. this is one that came out last week from the associated press. the headlines, democrats are deeply pessimistic about the future of their party, according to a new ap poll. how surprising is that right now, post midterm election? is that the norm of a party that just lost the white house, lost the senate, republicans maintain control of the house? should we be surprised with that finding? guest: no, they control nothing. of course they would be depressed. there is no opportunity to get control until 18 months from now. i suppose you would say that democrats have influence on some votes, although not the current discussion about the big, beautiful bill. that is reconciliation, only takes a simple majority, vice presidential vote counts.

but they control nothing. as you said, they don't control the white house, all the appointees of the white house that run loads of things beyond what we see in the headlines each day. they don't control the house of representatives, don't control the u.s. senate, and i certainly don't control the supreme court. there is plenty of reason for them to be depressed. although, i would remind you that mash was completely wrong, when they said suicide is completely painless. it is very painful. you have to keep on living and fight. host: larry sabato is joining us this morning. always have to take your questions or comments, questions. phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. as the phone lines light up, there are gubernatorial races taking place this year in your

home state of virginia and new jersey. how much should folks outside of the garden state and the commonwealth be paying attention to those races? guest: outside? somewhat. they are the first major indicators of how voters are reacting to the incumbent presidential administration, but also their incumbent governors. new jersey has a democratic governor, phil murphy. virginia has a republican governor, glenn youngkin. president, probably first. virginia and new jersey usually elect the nominee of the party not in the white house. but it is not an iron rule. there have been one exception in virginia from 1997 to the present. one out of all of those elections. we change governors every four years. you cannot run again after another term intercedes. in new jersey, it is not as absolute as virginia, but it is

still a major indicator. sure, you pay attention to it, but i will say, it will be a whole year until the third of the senate, all of the house, loads of governorships across the country are elected. how much can happen in a day anymore? i have great sympathy for people that have legitimate jobs. i don't. i have fun, i follow politics. that is what i do for a living, and i cannot even keep up with everything going on. it is tough for the average person to do. they focus on building when voting comes near. a lot of the early voting starts in late september, early october. we have a longer election period that we use to. but it is still ages away, even by november, when new jersey and virginia elect new governors. host: by then, if this big, beautiful bill and surpassing,

is it ancient history? these debates happening now, do any of them resonate in november of next year? guest: they resonate in that you'll see certain excerpts and political ads on both sides, whatever makes the other party look horrible, defining the big, beautiful bill. as i say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i don't think it is a bill. this was a mistake that the biden administration and other administrations have made. they assume people are following all of this and know what is in these giant bills, and care about it. maybe they care if they knew what was in it, but you cannot just pass a bill and plop it down and say, see what we did? you have to sell it, daily, hourly. and it is a lot of trouble. but that is how you win elections and campaigns.

democrats really are not that good at it. the one that was, bill clinton. he used to sell, even if it was a minor bill or program, he would sell it as if it were the new deal. that was smart politically. somehow, democrats have either forgotten how to do it, they don't prioritize it. maybe that is one reason why their party identifiers are so depressed. host: who is the democrats' best salesman right now? guest: i would have to think about that. the best salesman. it is not any of the former presidents, all due respect to them. it is just pointless to have them do it. look at the legislative leaders. i am sure they do a fine job in their caucus, schumer in the senate, jeffries in the house.

but they are not even recognized by a large majority of americans. they may recognize the name a little bit. they cannot match up the name with the person. i always remind people, polls showed about one third of americans cannot find great britain on a map of the world. my god, it is an island. it is pretty easy to find what they cannot find it. they don't care about it. they should care about it. that is just the way it is. i don't think you will change people, as much as we try to emphasize civic education, which is what we do at the uva center for politics. as you know, as a proud alumnus of the university of virginia. host: plenty of calls for you. joining us this morning on the washington journal, roger is in

caller: good morning. i want to make a comparison between -- of trump asking for the list of international students and taking the $2 billion from harvard because they will not give him the international list. probably ask for the cryptocurrency dinner list, he's refusing to give that list. on two occasions we asked for a list of dinners, private dinners he had. he has refused. secondly, what is the endgame of the trump regime? thank you. host: a couple of questions for you, professor. guest: i wish i knew the answer. the endgame they will have to talk about. whether you are pro-trump or anti-trump, you have an opinion. what we know is what they are doing.

let's focus on disclosure because that was the major part of the question. absolutely, the whole list of crypto millionaires and billionaires should be released. this is so unprecedented to do things like this. it is not just the $200 million to $400 million for the pleasure of the jumbo jet being given to trump, the u.s. government i guess and then the trump library for his personal use after he leaves office. all of this should be disclosed. it is totally unprecedented. someone calculated an estimate for all the gifts given to prior presidents before trump. they did not come close to equaling the price of this one jumbo jet. in the crypto billionaires -- look, his family is enriching itself. trump is enriching himself. he did some of the first-term buddies breaking all records in this term.

-- but he is breaking all records in this term. i hope nobody approves of it. it has conflict of interest written all over it and i recommend and wonderful article in the new yorker. you will be by guide as you read it -- bug-eyed as you read it when a tiny group of incredibly wealthy people are controlling a great deal, not just of the wealth but the decisions made. even more so than usual. they have always been influential but not to this degree. as far as harvard is concerned, i spent my entire career -- i'm in my 70's -- started in my 20's -- in higher education. hi support harvard. i know that is a shock. harvard individually has contributed so much to the country. forget about the politics for a moment. i don't approve of the antisemitism that is there. i don't know all the details of

it. i sure recognize the tremendous advances made in science and medicine because of the research done at harvard. and at other universities. this is not something to be played with. it is not a play toy for any politician or administration. i feel strongly about that. i have a bias having spent my life in higher education. host: evan has a new book next week with a great title, "the hams in the haves yachts: dispatches on the ultrarich." june 3 is the publishing date. we will cover it on book tv. larry sabato with us this morning. david in your home state of virginia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, dr. sabato . you went to high school with my sister in the early 1970's. she's retired from traveling all

over the world. i wonder when you will retire. [laughter] two more questions. is it safe to say that bias in the media and then getting it wrong the last several cycles is because of their bias? houthi think is going to win the governors mansion and house -- the virginia house and senate? host: professor sabato, i hope you don't retire anytime soon but go ahead. guest: there are loads of people rooting for my retirement. we will see. i will stay as long as i enjoy it. i have enjoyed it always and i will stay as long as my health permits it. i'm envious of this dominant's sister -- donovan's -- gentlemen's sister. i don't recognize the voice because it is not his sister's. i have 13 years of catholic education and it was a tough 13 years. corporal punishment was in in

the 1950's and 1960's. i learned a lot. i was afraid like everybody else and that's cool but it worked. i got a wonderful grounding in catholic education and i salute them. i will always be grateful to them. there were a lot of questions. host: media bias and who will win the governor and house of delegates in virginia? guest: media bias answer, yes. let me go to the virginia governor. i don't mean to take it lightly. there are so many biases in so many places in different directions. this is a very different environment since i'm guessing this gentleman's age. he's not that far away from me. as a result he remembers when we had 3 -- really two national networks. pbs had not been created. abc was not coming together.

you had cbs and nbc with a half an hour of news as of 1962 for cbs. 1962. before then, 15 minutes of news on television. you have the same anchors and the same tiny number of reporters, all white male -- not that there is anything wrong with that. i think we accomplished a lot. same perspectives. pretty much in the same order. the stories were in the same order. that is what we had, plus newspapers. we already morning newspaper and afternoon newspaper. those newspapers are mainly gone, i'm sorry to say, or they are on online and that the different environment. now you have social media full of misinformation and disinformation. some intentional and some unintentional. you also have media organizations from every conceivable point of view. so there are a lot of problems

with today's media. i go back so far, and i will bet you do too that you can see we are in a better place except for the disinformation then we were many decades ago. let's look on the bright side. always look on the bright side of life. host: who is to win in virginia? guest: i already forgot the second question. host: that's why i'm here. guest: that's what they used to encourage my retirement. i would go with the historical average, the democrats are more likely to win than republicans because trump is in the white house and republicans are in control of everything. there are controversies that build up. virginia has become a light blue state, not a darkly state. -- dark blue state with purple edges to it. it can still go the other way. you start from that premise.

i wouldn't say it's the same for new jersey, by the way. new jersey could end up being very competitive, as it was four years ago one when the republican nearly ousted the democratic governor. it looks likely to be the same republican nominee. that would be unusual. i'm not predicting. he would be interesting if the republicans took over new jersey and the democrats took over virginia. that is one of the possible outcomes. the house of delegates will probably go the way of the gubernatorial election. the other two statewide positions, lieutenant governor and attorney general often are just coattail elections depending on who was winning the governorship. i don't want to oversimplify without the way it's been recently in virginia. host: from virginia and new jersey to the empire state, a headline on the front page of the new york times. son of harlem who ascended to 23

term pillar of the house, the obituary for charlie rangel. which should be yours no? -- viewers know? guest: a korean war veteran and metaled appropriate. -- medaled oprah really. i start there. he was a very constructive congressman for a long time. he was one of the founders of the congressional black caucus in 1970 what. -- 1971. he was in for 46 years. charlie rangel and others on the opposite of term limits. he had a lot of ethics questions in the final years of his service. i mean a lot. there were so many pieces to it i can't even remember all of

them. he survived it. he did not survive as chairman of ways and means, partly because the democrats lost control in 2010 in the house of representatives. he managed to get reelected. he retired on his own accord in 2016. it was a long distinguished career and parts of it were undistinguished. that probably applies to all of us, whatever we do. host: the new york times -- the wall street journal obituary delves into some of those issues you refer to to spark your memory. this was after he becomes chairman of ways and means in 2007. his leadership short-lived. he solicited donations on congressional letterhead to public service center named after him at city college in new york. they sent him on several trips to the caribbean and a sponsorship found to have violated house rules.

they go through some of the history. the headline on the wall street journal obituary. longtime harlan congressman was a powerbroker and a veteran -- harlem. there are hundreds of hours of him on the house floor in the c-span video library. probably thousands of hours if i'm guessing correctly. go ahead. guest: one insertion on charlie rangel and this is more general. here's what happens with congressman and how they get in trouble and get involved in financial scandals like the one you just mentioned and conflicts of interest. they often call before their committees the wealthiest, most powerful people in the country. they are the ones grilling them. they are in charge of the hearings. then they look at what they consider their puny salary and it is quite small given the have to run two households. they say, huh? i should be doing much better.

maybe i don't make as much is this guy over here who runs a company x but i should be paid more. i'm the one in charge. once they accept that premise, it justifies a lot of what they do. this applies to congressman from both parties. if you say it's only one party, you are really partisan. look at history. that is the origin of a lot of the scandal in congress. there are loads of very wealthy people that get elected to the house and senate. for them, the congressional salary is barely a rounding error on their 1040s. they are not subject to that. there are some middle income and even a few below middle income representatives in congress. i'm just explaining white happens and why people are always saying they are all corrupt. they aren't but you hear a lot about the corruption. host: 15 minutes left with larry

sabato. frank out of utah, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, larry. pleasure to talk to you. i'm a true independent. i don't like either party. what drove me away from the republicans was trump's first election when he illuminated that whole field, the last man standing on the republican side with john casey. he would have made an excellent president. on the other side, the democrats, you had bernie and hilary slugging it out. they had another guy, martin o'malley. he would have made an excellent president. either one of those guys would have been fantastic. we would not be in the mess we are in today. i cannot stand trump. i was very disappointed in biden . he should have been eliminated

much sooner. it makes it hard for an independent. you have to vote for one of the major parties. it's all a numbers game. as disappointed as i am with the democrats, i have to go with them because i cannot stand trump and all his minions he's got in there and what they are doing to the country. when you are stuck in deep red utah, everything is 100% maga in you tana. -- utah now. i would like your opinion on what the democrats could possibly do to gain a little bit of ground, because on the republican side they have all these -- they show up on c-span all the time. they are president trump saying he will make the country so fantastic. the democrats are just kind of wondering around out there trying to find something to run

with. it is very disheartening. i don't know what's going to happen. i hope we are not stuck with maga trumpism forever but it looks that way now. host: let's give larry sabato a chance to respond. guest: i think the gentleman follows politics closely and has a well thought out point of view. he said it himself. you have to vote for one of the two major parties. you don't have to but you are just not going to elect a vast majority of elections anybody outside the democratic-republican spectrum. given that an americans' practicality, they end up doing just that even if they are not pleased with either candidate and they don't like the candidate they are voting for. they consider him or her better than the other person running. that's life. we all make compromises like that in all sectors of life. look, personally, i would like

to see, given the diversity that exists in america with every perspective you can think of and every ethnic group imaginable and all the rest of it, we are one of the most diverse countries on the face of the earth, if not the most diverse country. as a result, in order to keep the country together, what i think is important -- i hope everybody out there agrees, despite our differences we want to stay together -- the best thing the party can do is give us a choice but also to stay in the mainstream. for the republicans to nominate a moderate conservative candidate and the democrats to nominate moderate liberal candidates. somewhat say they both ought to nominate moderate. let's get real about choice. if we can stay in the mainstream and have a choice it is reasonable., we will not chang -- reasonable, we will not

change everything in a day or week or year. that would be ideal. now let's get real. it is not happening because so few people relatively participation party primaries and caucuses when the candidates are being nominated for president, senate, house and the rest. the people who tended to participate are a bit more extreme. they are closer to the right end of the spectrum or the left end of the spectrum. that is how we get so many voters saying this to me, how did we end up with these two turkeys? we ended up with the people you think are turkeys because you probably did not participate in the nominating process. that is part of citizenship, t oo. we have so few obligations left as american citizens.

no draft, no public service required, no anything compared to other societies. you have to pay taxes. i don't want to get into that but one of the most important obligations, one of the few left is paying attention, learning the basics, the fundamentals of who is running for what and why, and then voting. not just in november but in the party of your choice or one of the primaries. maybe getting out and volunteering and going door-to-door, but that is extra. most voters don't pay enough attention. sorry, you don't. host: i want to follow up on frank's comment that biden should have gotten out sooner. . i want your take on these 2020 for recap books that have come out -- 2024 recap books

that have come out. how trump beat the odds and the wildest campaign in history. there's another one coming up, how trump retook the white house and democrats lost america. what is your take on these books? guest: he left out the most important one which is coming up in july entitled, "campaign of chaos." host: who is the author? guest: the center for politics team. my whole team. i'm in there just because my family buys a lot of books. all i can tell you is i agree he should not have run again. i didn't know how much of a decline he had been in because he was so isolated. i live in charlottesville almost all of what i saw biden was on tv like everybody else. you could see him shuffling to marine one and shuffling out of

the room where he read the teleprompter. it was pretty obvious this was not the vigorous joe biden of earlier years. who among us who is 81 or 82 is going to be all that vigorous compared to they work when they were young? he did a terrible disservice to the country and the party. in a real sense he turned the presidency back over to donald trump. obviously, democrats -- that was the one thing they did not want to happen. let's not ignore plenty of good things he did while he was president. thank god he did not tweet. there are good things you can say about anybody in office but that was a terrible mistake and had democrats had the opportunity to have an open presidency, plus he promised over and over he was going to be a transitional president. i listened to him. he promised over and over he would be a transitional

president. the transition did not mean eight years, that's for sure. democrats would have had a long primary process. probably 20 people running, feeding each other up. -- beating each other up but they might have picked the candidate who might've one and set of vice president harris who did the best she could with the tiny number of days she had from the point in the summer when biden finally accepted reality after the worst debate performance in american history. finally got out. it was too late to put a real campaign together. i'm sorry. he has good things to praise and to talk about in the historical record but he is bearing a terrible burden. democrats are right to complain and hold him responsible for

this. host: "campaign of chaos" is the book. guest: i have heard it is great. host: july 24 i believe is the publication date. guest: somewhere around there. they don't tell me exact dates anymore. host: just in time for the holidays. guest: it is too late for july 4, but labor day will be coming up. people should be giving gifts that labor day. i made that up. host: the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i want to go back a bit about when you spoke on the best democrat president was bill clinton. i have to disagree with that. when you first think of bill clinton, you think of monica lubinski. --lewinski. i think obama was the best president. you think about them capturing bin laden. why doesn't anybody talk but that?

george bush was in office for how long looking for bin laden? obama comes right in, no war, goes over there and get the job done. i disagree with bill clinton being the best democratic president. i don't know why people don't like to give obama his dues for some reason. it's always been like this on tv shows. nobody wants to give him his dues. host: professor sabato? guest: i did not say bill clinton was the best democratic president. he was the best at selling things. the proof is your favorite, barack obama, who called bill clinton the explainer in chief. he recruited bill clinton to be the explainer in chief for his 2012 reelection campaign. obama is very professorial.

a very good trait. something everyone should try to emulate. he is professorial, which mean he goes on and on and on. he has footnotes to his speeches. you can do that. clinton was much better at getting to the point and using language middle-class americans could identify with. that is what i meant. that if biden had had the clinton ability to explain or even have recruited blue -- bill clinton, maybe didn't want to do it, i don't know, but biden did a terrible job that during his administration. at least in the final couple of years. that is what i meant. i understand totally about bin laden. there's a wonderful new documentary on netflix which i watched over the memorial day weekend about the capture of bin

laden. traces it although it back to 9/11. i was fascinated. i thought i knew the story but i didn't. there was a lot that was new to me. i would recommend it to you. i apologize to c-span. maybe you can get that eventually and show it. host: five minutes left with larry sabato. sam in new jersey, republican. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me on. one thing as a republican, i feel like republicans have a hard time articulating. the democrats are morally right but in practice wrong. take taxes. 100% people that are poor and people that deserve the money and need the money, at the end of the day that is charity. it should be forced where it should not be forced. it should be by decision and you should give the charity even though it is the right thing to do.

i think someone has to finally say i paid thousands of dollars of taxes this past year. i don't own a property or rent. i didn't get any tax deductions from a charity giving. as a religious person, i gave more than 10% of my money to personal charities out of my own will. if someone gives her own money to charity, it should automatically count for any social taxes to be deducted. that way we should get people to give charity on their own and help people in their community in a personal way, which would either create that in the taxes for people or do it your own personal way. i'm giving thousands of dollars a year personally to charity. i'm also paying for everything for people to get on their medicaid and who knows what. that is what i think.

host: larry sabato chris gibson, -- larry sabato, thoughts on charitable giving? guest: congratulations to this gentleman for tithing. everyone who's upper-middle-class and beyond should do something similar, maybe upper-middle-class who have kids in college. colleges are charging large amounts of money these days. there are millions and millions of americans who can afford and should tithe. a lot of them do. you think of warren buffett. he is super rich but he will give it all away. there are other billionaires doing that. there are some very selfish and greedy wealthy people. i would refer you to evan's article and book. they should be made to feel guilty and shamed and to doing it.

people say that is terrible. i don't think it is terrible at all. i think shame makes people do things they should have done anyway. i am pro shame. i have tenure. i can't be fired so i can be pro-shame. all i can say is, the fact you are doing it, whether you get a tax benefit or not, that should be a reward in and of itself and i'm sure it is. you can be proud of your record there. navy you are example and coming on this c-span show will encourage other people to do the same thing. it is important. no matter what government does at the federal, state, local level, there are so many unmet needs that are legitimate. people cannot help their health problems. some of them just cannot pay the money for the prescriptions or the doctor visits and the

tremendously expensive tests that are miracles, yes, but all of us can and should help. i salute this, and i think it's a great note on which to end. that is upbeat. you were so depressing during much of the session. host: i have one more for you in the final 90 seconds. we always ask with your experience at the center for politics, we spent the first hour of the show talking about education and higher education. are you optimistic about the kids today? guest: the older generation always says the world is going to hell. often at their alma mater they say my institution started going downhill the day after i graduated. that is really what they are saying. it's ridiculous. i have been teaching since my early to mid 20's.

i am so grateful for having had contact with 25,000 plus students i personally had in the classroom or advising or whatever. they are fantastic. the vast majority of them have ideals on all sides of the spectrum. they are left, right, everything between. they really want to accomplish something with their lives. yes, they want to build a personal life that is rewarding but they are going to contribute and they are contributing in major ways to the health of this country and the world. i am very proud of them. i think the whole country should be. they should be criticizing them a lot less and helping them a lot more. host: i know the students at the university of virginia appreciate you. we always do when you come on the washington journal. we will talk to you again down the road. guest: look forward to it.

host: 9:30 on the east coast. we have 30 minute left. more phone calls. it is open forum. any public policy or political issue you want to talk about. we will get to those calls right after the break. ♪ >> this show and c-span is one of the few places left in america where you have the left and right coming together to talk and argue. you guys do a great service and that. >> i love c-span2. that's why i'm here today. >> sometimes i get to do fun things like go on c-span. >> c-span is one of the few places americans can still go. >> c-span has such a distinguished and honorable and important mandate and mission in this country. >> i love this show. this is my favorite show to doable shows. i get to hear with the american

people care about. >> the american people have access to the government in ways they did not before the cable provided c-span. >> this is one of the last places where people are actually having conversations. even people who disagree. >> you can have a television network that can try to be objective. >> thank you c-span for all you do. >> that's why the program is so valuable. it does bring people together. dissenting voices are heard in hard questions are asked and people have to answer them. >> get c-span wherever you are with c-span now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your

fingertips. cast a latest episodes of washington journal, find scheduling information for c-span's tv and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. the c-span now app is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> shop at c-spanshop.org, c-span's online store during our memorial day sale. save 50% on everything from apparel and accessories to drink where, bobbleheads, puzzles and more. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code or visit c-spanshop.org during our memorial day sale going on right now. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you.

listen to best selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others making things happen. book notes plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversation that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. and on a website, c-span.org/ podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: here's where we are on capitol hill. the house and senate are away for the memorial day break. the senate will be in briefly for a pro forma session which should not take more than a couple of minutes. that's at 1:15 p.m. eastern time today. expecting an antechamber when those pro forma sessions happen. here's what else is happening on

the networks today. king charles is speaking at the opening of the canadian parliament. we will be airing that speech here on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span now video app. that's at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the invitation is becoming at the invitation of canadian prime minister mark carney. the king expected outline the government's agenda as the head of state in canada, which is a member of the british commonwealth. again, live coverage here on c-span. 2: p.m. today, the future of financial services regulation. that's being host by the brookings institution in d.c. christie gdsmith romero is joining the discussion there. c-span, c-span.org, c-span now at 2:00 p.m. eastern. also at 2:00 on c-span2, a discussion on transatlantic policy in the end of pacific --

indo-pacific hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. c-span2, c-span.org and their free c-span now video app. with that in the 25 minutes left in the program it is open forum. any public policy or political issue you want to talk about. democrats, republicans, independents, the phone lines around the screen. barbara, good morning. caller: how are you? host: what is on your mind? caller: i was wondering about the harvard thing that trump of the administration is trying to punish harvard. for antisemitism. just keep cutting up things that don't even apply to that for a punishment. what i found out this morning, my husband said his son did get accepted harvard -- didn't get accepted harvard. that's right.

he did not get accepted harvard. are you kidding me? host: for a history of donald trump and harvard, you might want to go to the washington post today. they run through what's been happening over the previous weeks and months. pushing for change: trump escalates his attacks on harvard. angie aureliana is the writer on the story. robert in fort mill, south carolina. republican. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk -- can you hearing? -- hear me? host: i can't. . caller: i want to talk about trump and linda mcmahon cutting education. i'm a teacher. we watch the washington journal a lot of mornings. i teach government. it feels like so much misinformed viewers are saying

that the administration wants to cut help for kids and minorities. they don't like this. i don't think it is true. for years our school system across the board have been suffering. our local scores are like 15% reading and math at the eighth grade level. this a bulging education has to do -- abolishing education is trying to get that back in line and make better education systems. i don't think the administration is intentionally targeting disabled kids and minorities. i hear caller after caller say that. i wanted to make that point. host: in your experience how much indirection have you had as a teacher with the department of education? how much does the doe impact your experience as a teacher? caller: did very little.

-- it is very little. i teach at a private school. i taught at the public schools in atlanta. from my understanding that apartment of education covers a lot of money for professional education services, which is very needed and very important. we are talking about putting it closer to the schools and states, not eliminating it. at the federal level it should not have big sweeping educational initiatives and programs. the way maine does things, alaska does things, the way we do things it is all different. we have a different history. that is a beautiful thing about our system. i don't think the department of education being reduced will hurt. it will help. these listeners, especially democrat listeners with research that. host: jesse in newport news, virginia. democrat. caller: good morning.

i would like to speak on the fact of our government and our president administration. how this all came about. from my perspective, an african-american male, male, 73 years old, i speak on history. if we go always back to george washington up until now. who i have seen over these years has been in charge, had power is an ethnic group of people who -- the guess that was on that was speaking as a high educator, i wonder why people like himself who was a high educater and

know what's going on in the country and known for years because he teaches it that have not run for president to see the change in this country from a person who knows to do the right thing. host: you want larry sabato to run for president? caller: of course. yes, i would like for people like him who know because he's a high educator any know-how the country is ran, take from the poor and give to the rich. he knows a lot about government because he teaches it. a person like that hopefully could run the country better than any of the presidents we have had from george washington clear up to now. bill clinton, barack obama, george bush and all these men who i think were good president.

but the government is not only the president. there's a government running the country. it is by one ethnic group of people. i'll say it honestly. the white people. i call it the white man. the way people. it's always been that way. what we are getting now is a repeat of history. of how they started in the beginning and now they can't come to fix it at all. host: catherine in hewitt, new jersey. independent. caller: good morning, john. i have a quick comment, request. i want to follow up on the caller talking about charitable giving and how that should be a deduction. as an independent and someone who works in the ministry, i want to remind viewers that a lot of people who receive

assistance in this country also work, yet they are the working poor. they do contribute. they contribute to social security and unemployment. they do contribute from their paychecks into those funds. it's not always necessarily a hand in this situation. a lot of people are working as hard as they can and are making a contribution for others. also i have a request. i want to follow up on something important mr. sabato said, especially being from new jersey and coming up on the primary here. i realize as an independent whether i like it or not i'm going to have to declare and run in this particular primary. my graduate school background is in political science. host: explain. to new jersey you have to declare a party to be able to vote in the primary? caller: in the primary, yes. my understanding is since we

have had early voting you can actually declare by going to the polls doing early voting in whichever way you vote you are declaring in that moment. in my case i will go back to my town home and get the application to sign up as an independent. i'm a true independent. i constantly have conversations with people in my circle who say to me, well, we don't have a choice. these are the two candidates we have. well, did you vote in the primary? if you do not vote in the primary, you cannot say that is the only choice we have. primaries make a difference. i would be very excited if you guys did something very specific about primaries and the importance of primaries as we creep up on another primary. letting viewers know that down the road when we complain about

who we have an office because we are not happy with that, what a difference primaries make. host: catherine, we certainly cover primary days in a lot of these. a lot of segments talk about not just the general election but the primaries. we will keep doing that this cycle for you and hope you watched on the road. this is steve in cincinnati, ohio. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment about how the process of education has changed today. when i was in high school and college i wanted to write a paper. i had to go to the library, do research, find different books on the topic, write the paper myself. today students can look up almost any topic under the sun on the internet and get a detailed explanation. the whole process of education has changed. host: because you don't have to

work as hard for it, it is not as rewarding? caller: yeah. we had to -- we were like the depository of knowledge once we learned it. now the internet knows everything. host: do you have kids or grandkids? caller: excuse me? host: do you have kids or grandkids? caller: no, i don't. host: just your thoughts on what's happening with higher education right now. we spent the first hour talking about the trump policies on higher education in k-12. what is your thought on that? caller: i'm inclined to agree with him. we need to move more toward an emphasis on trades and education and away from this emphasis on everybody going to college. host: that was donald trump's truth social post yesterday,

taking money that would have gone to harvard and syndicate to treat schools. no further details on how that would happen yet. targeted at something like $3 billion in his post yesterday. 15 minutes left an open forum. your phone calls. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. roger in new mexico, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is that the democrats don't seem to have a process for change. the republicans found a way to change with trump. many, many millions of citizens voted for that. they made the change. the democrats don't seem to understand they need to make significant changes. i think one of the things they could do is make a change in the

financial campaigns donations. i think they want the people to see that the trump is so bad they will vote for the democrats the next time and we are just exchanging one set of billionaires for another set of billionaires who seem to be running the country. i would like to see a financial campaign change that would be appropriate and help the election of good people that could run the country. host: that is roger in the land of enchantment. to the land of lincoln, brenda, independent. caller: yes. i called about education in america today. i think throughout my lifetime and many others we have been

educated on the history of western civilization. it is about time public school started thinking about eastern civilizations. asia, india, china of course. we start to appreciate the eastern civilizations much more than we do. it may help the whole world situation in general. host: are you saying that because the world is becoming more interconnected? caller: of course. why not? united states needs to understand asian people more. they have a great history. much longer than ours. why are we narrowed to just the history of europe? and america? it should be more than that. why not start considering expanding public education to 14 years instead of 12? we are wealthy enough to be able

to afford to give a good education to all of our students. for a longer time than 12 years. host: this is gary in tampa, florida. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: we are placing way too much emphasis on going to college. you have the young people who will not do well in that system but are really bright, hard-working people that would do well for themselves and for the country to learn a trade. try finding a car mechanic, plumber, electrician. these people are valuable to our society. we are not giving them sufficient attention and representation. host: that is gary in florida. jim from saginaw, michigan. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i would like everybody to be aware of the election truth alliance. they are doing evaluations of the last election. hello? host: how did you get to know this group and who are they/ -- they/ ? caller: electiontruthalliance.org. they are checking out the anomalies in the last election in all the seven swing states. they are finding anomalies that does not look good. it looks like the election was stolen by elon musk and his boys. host: you don't believe donald trump won in 2024? caller: no. i think they cheated. they are going to try to audit all the seven swing states where

he won. host: how did you -- caller: there were anomalies just enough or they did not do a recount. host: how did you feel in 2020 one republican said they did not believe joe biden won that election? caller: right. i think trump is using that as cover so that they could cheat in this election. host: that is jim in saginaw, michigan. speaking of president trump, memorial day, he was at arlington national cemetery across the potomac river in washington, d.c. doing what presidents often do and traditionally have done, pay tribute to fallen servicemembers, goldstar families. here's a little bit of what president trump had to say yesterday. [video]

pres. trump: every gold star family fights about along after the victory. today we lift you up and hold you high. thank you, thank you, thank you for giving america the brightest light in your lives. it is what you have done. we will never, ever forget our fallen heroes. we will never forget our debt to you. this memorial day is especially significant as we commemorate 250 years since the first american patriots fell in the field of battle. two and a half centuries ago at lexington green, concorde bridge, bunker hill, brave minutemen and humble farm boys became the first to give their lives for a nation that did not yet have a name. with their deaths men like john browne, 23, samuel hadley, 28,

and avner holzer, 21, ignited the flame of liberty that now lies the inspires -- and inspires everybody -- lights and inspires everybody in the world. those young men could never have known with their sacrifice would mean to us. we certainly know what we owe to them. their valor gave us the freest, greatest and most noble republic ever to exist on the face of the earth. a republic that i am fixing after a long and hard for years. -- four years. [applause] who would let that happen? people pouring through our borders unchecked. people doing things that are indescribable and not for today to discuss.

but the republic that is no doing so very well -- we are doing so very well right now considering the circumstances and we will be record-setting better with time. we will do better than we've ever done as a nation. better than ever before. i promise you that. host: president trump yesterday from arlington national cemetery. you can watch the full remarks at c-span.org. that is one of the memorial day stories from here in washington yesterday. this is the front page of the metro section of today's washington post. america's story, has told by a rock star and a 100-year-old veteran. here's the first couple of graphs. harold howe urban in the same dress jacket he wore after liberating a concentration camp gave the man next to him and headed to inspection on monday morning.

"he sticks his tongue out," is the question he asked before he met gene simmons on memorial day. "not really my music. i like being crosby and lawrence welk." simmons, no makeup on, did not show his tongue when he met mr. urban. he stuck his hand out and held his hand for a long beat, thanking the 100-year-old world war ii veteran and purple heart recipient for his part in the iconic rocker's history. simmons' mother was held in that concentration camp. they rode together on a sparkling red and white and blue float through the nation's capital for the 20th annual memorial day parade that afternoon, bonded by a war story. the story goes on from there. it's in today's washington post. time for one or two more phone calls this morning. ron in garfield, new jersey.

democrat. caller: how are you doing? i want to say that this president is quite insane. i think he should be impeached. host: anything else? caller: i think jasmine crockett is one of the brightest people we have and should run for president. host: that is ron in garfield, new jersey. our last caller in today's washington journal. i reminder this morning on some of the programming happening today on the c-span networks. c-span2, 1:15 p.m. eastern, a brief pro forma session. 11:00 a.m. eastern today here on c-span we will be showing king charles's speech to the opening of the canadian parliament. that is 11:00 a.m. eastern.

at 2:00 p.m. eastern, your choices. on c-span, i meeting on e future of financial services regulation. on c-span2, policy discussion on the indopacific region -- indo- pacific region. we were back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 p.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime have a great tuesday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] ♪ >> coming up, king charles observed her delivering a speech at the opening of the canadian parliament. he will outline his government's

agenda as the head of state in canada which is a member of the british commonwealth, former colony. the speech begins at 11:00 eastern. shortly, we will join live coverage leading up to the speech from ottawa. coverage getting underway soon i'm here on c-span. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed. fast, rival -- reliable internet connection is somebody that nobody can live without. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, alo with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. morning to you if you want to start calling in now. here's the latest and it comes to the president's concerns

particularly about higher education and harvard university. this is the headline from the wall street journal. trump looks to divert cash from harvard to trade schools. that news coming in the form of a memorial day truth post from donald trump on his social media pages saying, i'm considering taking $3 billion of grant money away from the very anti-semitic harvard, and giving it to trade schools all across our land. what a great investment that would be for the usa, and so badly needed. that was the president yesterday. no further details on that effort. when it comes to the president's concerns about k-12 education, his education secretary linda mcmahon was testifying on capitol hill this week, talking about efforts to cut the department of education. [video clip] sec. mcmahon: thank you for having me to testify on a department on a mission, the final mission, to wind down the department ofca