coming up, we will look at the week ahead on capitol hill and other congressional news with michael schnell. then a discussion on the war on poverty ahead of the 60th anniversary of president lyndon b. johnson's great society speech. joining us will be the president and executive director of the center for law and social policy . c-span's "washington journal." join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. >> on monday, former u.s. commission ointernational religious freedom meer johnny moore will speak about sporting israel and the jewish people.

♪ host: this is "washington journal" for sunday, may 19. lastly, personal attacks the real a committee hearing. the nearly hour-long destruction is the latest event to play out on capitol hill. this morning, we want to hear from you. his stability in congress important? here are the lines. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000.

no, (202) 748-8001. and if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x @cspanwj. it was thursday night when the house oversight accountability hearing happened. here are the headlines from axios. the hearing was beset by chaotic outbursts. the article says the republican controlled hearing to mark up a contempt of congress resolution against attorney general merrick garland on thursday was routinely muted in disorder. why it matters, it is a new normal for the panel that has

transformed from overseeing democracy to hosting pitched partisan battles between some of congress's biggest names. here is some of the hearing from thursday. [video clip] >> the chair recognizes ms. green. >> i would like to announce the democrats on this committee are employing the judge's daughter. >> please tell me what that has to do with merrick garland. >> that is right, he is advising. ok. >> do you know what we are here for? >> i don't think you know what you are here for. >> you are the one talking about -- >> i think your fake eyelashes are messing up. >> order. >> mr. chairman. >> order. order. order, please. we have a point of order. mr. lynch, state your point.

>> i would like to ask the parliamentarian if your conduct here raising money in connection with this hearing is referable to the ethics committee. there is a motion in order to refer your conduct and your abuse. >> it is not a point of order. >> i do have a point of order and i would like to move to take down miss greene's words as absolutely unacceptable. how tear you -- how dare you attack another person. strike your words down. >> girl, baby girl. >> really? >> don't even play. >> baby girl? >> we are going to move and take your words down. >> i second that motion. >> no, no. >> hold on. mr. perry will be recognized. >> i am not apologizing. >> you are not striking your words. >> i am not apologizing.

>> why don't you debate me? >> mr. chairman. >> you are out of order. >> you don't have enough intelligence. >> i moved to strike. >> order. >> that is two requests to strike. host: another headline from axios, dumpster fire hearing about congress's new low. at the bottom of the article, it mentions former house majority leader hoyer, he told axios said he was hearing that is why many members who are retiring. there are some who have stability and have been frustrated by their party and made a determination it is just not worth their time to continue to serve. and also, john duarte from

california sent it has been demoralizing many lawmakers to see all the chaos and notoriety seeking. we would hear first this morning from yolanda in nashville, tennessee, on the yes line. good morning, yolanda. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: i can. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think having stability in congress is incredibly important. i grew up in tennessee, and my neighbor ran for district magistrate. she was not a good person. i think there is so many people watching and children. we set an example by what we do. marc did noti set a good example, and i think we need to be able to be mindful of the

example we are setting. marci took a lot from me when she put me in prison. excuse me. i just want everyone to know that she should not be voted for in the next coming election because marci took so much from me. she is just an ungrateful woman. host: ok. we will go next to lester in oregon calling on the no line. good morning, lester. caller: what is going on in the united states? i have a friend, democrats. i know about the issues going on in congress. the issues that when a democrat is scared to vote for somebody,

for freedom, and they are afraid to wave a flag. they are scared to wave a flag. they are afraid to vote for who they want. the issue is, what happened to america that we can vote for somebody that is very important to our country? i am just very upset because my dad was in normandy, d-day. there was a young girl there who was jewish who sat on his lap and ate a candy bar. my dad bawled. i don't understand what is going on in our country. hatred. it has become communist.

this is what i'm feeling about america. i have been a democrat. i have been an independent. the first time trump ran, i did not know what his deal was. i did not vote for either party at the time. but now i see what he is saying. the law is allowed to do anything for our country. we need to have someone who will protect our country and stop wars. host: ok. we will hear next from doug on the yes line. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: i'm doing well. caller: the congress has to do something about certain people. marjorie taylor greene and the disgrace of ohio jim jordan,

they are destroying the republican party. it is disgusting. this is why i left the party in the first place. between donald trump and those two idiots, i am tired of what they are doing. i mean, we have to have some sense in this country to get back to normalcy. and the best thing to do is to vote all three of them out. thank you very much. host: at thursday's hearing, there was a back and forth between the members. here is more from that hearing after the committee ruled that congresswoman greene personal attacks on congresswoman crockett could be allowed. [video clip] >> mr. chair, point out order. >> ms. crockett? >> i am curious to understand your ruling. if someone on this committee starts talking about somebody's bleach blonde bad built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities correct? >> what now?

>> chairman, i make a motion to strike those words. >> i am trying to find clarification. >> chairman, motion to strike those words. we are not going to do this. you guys earlier literally just -- >> i am standing up. >> order. order. >> i am trying to get a clarification. >> calmed down. -- calm down. >> no because this is one of those. >> you are not recognized. >> can you please calm down? >> don't tell me to calm down. >> you are out of control. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. >> sorry. >> order. host: let's go back to the phones and hear from eric in florida calling on the no line. good morning, eric. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that our

congress has at a history. the house of representatives is the people's house. since the early days, the very early days founding our country, of having fights, huge fights on the congress, riots inside the building, attempted murder. i think somebody was actually murdered in the house many years ago. i have to look it up, but i think i read that somewhere. this is about freedom of speech. marjorie taylor greene is now my favorite person, political officeholder. she can stand up for herself. she did not start that, if you listen to it. someone insinuated she was being frivolous about saying that the lady that her father is prosecuting trump, trying to connect her to marjorie taylor

greene's attempts to show hunter biden's escapades with the point star. she was compared to a point star. so marjorie taylor greene did not do the first insult there. she was defending herself from those people, and it was two on one. two crazy democrats on one republican, and i think the republican -- i am very proud of my republican house member from atlanta. host: eric, do you think members of congress should be held to a higher standard, that that behavior is ok? caller: no. i just said the history of the house goes back a long ways, and this is the way the house has been functioning forever, since

the inception, all through the civil war. you know, this is the way, you know. this is the way it should look. i am very glad it looks that way. i am glad they are trying to work this stuff out however they can work it out if it comes to raising their voices. it is not supposed to be a library. it is supposed to be the people's house where the problems are -- they are getting work done with on the streets there are giant riots all over the place. host: this headline from last year, from last november, fights broke out daily in congress this week. here is some of the legislature's biggest fights in history. the article highlights several of those fights and says that 70, at least that is how many

physical fights broker between 1830 and 1860, a particularly violent period in history as they debated slavery according to a yale historian. and brooklyn, new york, calling on the yes line. good morning, linda. caller: yes, there should be -- i agree, there should be civil liberty in the congress because this is the kind of stuff that divides our nation more so, and we are regressing back prior to the civil war. our representatives, when they do stuff like this, this does not help our country. it is delaying progress in our country and moving forward and making things better when they are so busy fighting among themselves. what happened to ethics? do they not have any ethics accountability where people --

you are there to do a job, not throw mud and stuff like that. it looks bad, and it does not -- people have to look at this. it is going to show just the dividing. a lot of undertone racial division in our country. host: ok, we will hear next from christine in pennsylvania, also on the yes line. good morning, christine. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the craziness in congress. i know it is fascism. i know that it is an attempt to by the gop -- i know it is an attempt by the gop to make our democracy look like it doesn't work. it is an attempt to claim that a

government does not work and then to break it. this is why there have been so many attempts. excuse me. so many attempts at government shutdowns. it is fascism. our gop has changed. last year, if i remember correctly, there were 28 boats that got through the house, that got passed into bills. the two years before that, i think 344 and 366. that is 344 and 366 under nancy pelosi. no wonder they hate her. she got the work done for all americans. she got us 800,000 manufacturing jobs. she got us infrastructure. and now it is chaos. the democrats get the work done for all americans. everyone. they help people.

you know, from $35 insulin and inhalers for medicare to the most new businesses in history to wages going up to inflation almost normal, and the rest of the g7. it is not happening there. host: got your point, christine. we will go on to mike in ohio, who says no. good morning, mike. caller: good morning, ma'am. how are you? host: doing well, thanks. caller: i am calling from ohio, and that is the state of the gerrymandered state of ohio. and the reason i say no, as long as you have a rigged fake court, gerrymandered states, the citizens united law, which provides dark money from all around the world, and then we need to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

that is why we have an ongoing carnival of bad tricks. it is like a disney production wrapped around the twilight. that is why we have all the problems in this country, and world leaders look at this house of representatives like these people are nothing but fools being led around by a you know what. the maga crowd and the proud guy eric from georgia, that is a good one for you. thanks, have a good day. host: the forbes article talked about two fights nearly breaking out in congress. that article from november 15 of 2003. one of those fights, n ear fights, was on a senate hearing on labor education and labor pension committee hearing. it was when senator markwayne mullin fought senator --

challenged senator o'brien to a fight during the hearing. here is that video. [video clip] >> everybody knows this, last time him and i had a back and forth. appreciate your demeanor today but after you left to me you got excited about the keyboard. you tweeted at me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times. let me read what the last one says. it said, greedy ceo who pretends like he is self-made. i wish you were in the truck with me when i was building my plumbing company by myself and my wife was running the office because i sure remember working pretty hard and long hours. pretends like he is self-made. what a clown, fraud. always has been, always will be. quit the tough guy act in these senate hearings. you know where to find me, anyplace, anytime, cowboy. sir, this is a time, this is a

place. if you want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults and finish it here. >> ok, fine, perfect. >> stan you are butt up. >> stand your butt up. >> you are a united states senator. sit down. no, i am sorry. you will have your time. >> can i respond? >> this is a hearing. god knows the american people have enough contempt for congress. >> i don't like you. >> pulled it -- hold it. you have the mic. >> let's do this because i challenged you and i accepted your challenge and you and quiet. >> no, i did not go quiet. you challenged me to a cage match acting like a 12-year-old.

>> excuse me. >> i will say -- >> senator mullin, i have the mic. any questions on economic issues , go for it. we are not here to talk about physical abuse. >> i want to expose this slug to who he is. >> do not point at me. that is disrespectful. >> i don't care if i am disrespecting you. >> i don't care at all. >> hold it. hold it, please. please. this is a -- excuse me. this is a hearing to discuss economic issues. all right? if you have questions for mr. o'brien or anybody else on what he has said, go for it, but we are not here to talk about fights or anything else. host: let's hear from kathryn in new york. she is calling on the yes line. good morning, catherine. caller: good morning.

good morning. i did see that on c-span line when it was happening. i could not believe it. what is going on? what is going on in our congress and house and senate? what is happening? why is everybody so angry at each other? where did this all start? i don't care, democrat, republican, independent. i would not do this in my own family. we are divided because of all of this. it just does not make sense anymore. everyone, come to a middle ground here. find out what the anger is. what is everybody so angry about? host: do you have any thoughts on what is causing the decline incivility or worsening? caller: you know, i want c-span, fox, msn, cbs, everybody so i can be informed. i read times, newsweek, and it is all different. everything is different.

everybody is holding their ground to what they believe is right. this is not reagan's republicans anymore. this is a whole brand-new game that is being played out. these are maga republicans and they are angry. trump gets on the stage and he is so angry. where is the anger from? my brother is angry because trump is so angry. you don't like trump, you don't like me. my big brother. i never saw this in my family dynamics before, and it is only getting worse. guys, think about this. stop what you are doing. i don't know how to fix this. i don't think anybody knows how to fix this. what happened in congress? it was just talking back and forth to each other. it was all personal, calling each other names. this has to stop. host: a pole from georgetown university, the institute of politics and public service, last september talking

about civility fod that 94% of voters agree tha respect for each other is thfirst step having a government that works. 89% of voters agree that civility is the language of respect. let's hear next from matt. he is calling from dallas on the yes line. good morning, matt. caller: yes, good morning. thank you. this is a great question. the first thing that came to my mind is i think too many of our leaders because of platforms like x and facebook and so on are more concerned with celebrity over civility. some of these people have learned it is more profitable to be outrageous. it is more profitable to embarrass your colleagues at a

house oversight committee hearing or embarrass your colleagues on the house floor or as we heard even in the senate, which is supposed to be the world's most -- body. they learned outrageous cells, outrage gets you clicks, outrage gets you donations. unfortunately we need to get back to a time when colleagues talked to each other in a room, negotiated bills, negotiated resolutions. instead, they want to go on their favorite platform and embarrass each other because it gives them clicks. it gets them noticed, and that needs to stop. host: ok. like you for your comments. we will go to rick from birmingham, alabama, on the unsure line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well, thanks. caller: i just want to correct the guy from florida that called earlier that said marjorie taylor greene did not start it.

that is the problem with this whole situation. i don't know what he was seeing. i don't know what he heard, but it is obvious she started the whole deal because she attacked the ladies personal appearance, and you cannot do that. i don't have any problem with congress debating the situation in the house, having a vigorous debate about a topic, but when you start attacking someone's personal appearance, you cross the line, and she got that from trump because he does in every day. i don't know what he was saying, but it infuriates me because this guy basically told a lie. nobody corrected him. marjorie taylor greene was the person that started this whole melee. host: during the hearing, the chair representative comer called for a five-minute

recess at one point to come back from order. when they came back from that, the representative from colorado said this about the incident. >> first i just want to apologize to the american people. i don't think this is the best use of our time when we are squabbling. it is one thing to have fun and laugh as members of congress and try to find humor or some sort of lightheartedness in what we are doing, but when things get as heated as they have, it is unfortunately an embarrassment on our body as a whole, and so i just want to personally apologize to the american people for that. host: let's hear next from john calling from new jersey on the yes line, good morning, john. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call, and thanks for "washington journal," and thanks. would not get to speak to them or listen to them another way. i think it is calculated.

i think marjorie taylor greene's behavior is calculated because she believes it will get votes. it will motivate people to come to her support and get votes at the ballot box. anger might be a good motivation to go out and vote and put her back in office. i think if i compare this to a bunch of surgeons trying to figure out how to do an operation on me and they broke into a fight like that arguing how to cure my illness, i would be appalled. it is a ridiculous way to treat my health. it is a ridiculous way to treat the health of the country. thank you. host: mark in albany, new york and also calling on the yes line. the morning, mark. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i think you had one lady who was asking, why the decline

incivility? and you nailed it. we can all fix this tomorrow. growing up in the 1970's and 1980's, there was something in each household. you could not touch it. you could not see it. but you knew it was there. and that was respect. and we started losing that. and now we have a culture of disrespect. our generations of kids have learned disrespect, and they have taken it out on the streets. and i have seen it more and more and more. we just have to put more respect, mutual respect into our own lives and apply it every day. respect is the key to a civil society, and we can start tomorrow and fix this. and that is all i have to say. host: marshall in tennessee calling on the unsure line, good morning, marshall. caller: hey, how are you doing

this morning? host: doing well, thanks. caller: i believe civility is number one. but there comes a point in time when you see the actions, not just the words come over the actions of another person and it becomes so dangerous and threatening to your way of life where you have to put civility down and you have to act for your life. i feel like right now we are at that point in america. i believe that 2020 election was a silent coup. that is my own thought. but when you look at things in hindsight and you see how everything happened with covid coming in right during the presidential election primaries, with all the laws that were changed by election officials, not by governments for the votes

, and then you see the un-civility of a certain party in this country who has no problem calling you a nazi, calling you a racist, going into your streets, and if you don't comply and you don't capitulate with them, they will burn down your towns, peacefully protesting. you have the house of representatives, the leaders who stood up in incivility and in respect ripped up the speech of the president of the united states. so i mean when you have that type of action taken against half of the country where they are trying to take the presidential candidate off the ballot, where they are trying to jail him, maybe not even made up charges, but they are frivolous charges that were never even brought by the doj until it was

time for him to run for president. so once again, i believe in being civil. but when you have, right now, over 10 million people in this country, we don't know who they are or where they are, and we have a presidential election coming up, you can almost rest assured that there is going to be violence in the streets perpetrated in the name of peace and justice. host: let's hear from dee in minnesota calling on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to ask you if you have the clip from the taiwan, where they physically broke out in a fight yesterday or the day before. do you have that? host: i do not have that. caller: ok, you guys might want to look that up. and that is currently happening in another country.

first of all, respect is a two-way street. i believe the gentleman before me talked about nancy pelosi ripping up the state of the union. now these are all women that are fighting here. everybody says we need more women in congress. but evidently, nobody seems to control their emotions. so i say no, forget it. nancy pelosi took that house, and she reigned with a fist. nobody, nobody went against her. because that is what they do. they control. so i say once it is all out there, when one party starts it, the other party gets back what they give. i don't understand. i know -- i would like to know if all of these people watch these hearings because a clip now is sensationalism.

you guys make everything drama that does not have to be drama .it just has to be , he said this, she said this, but they all interrupt each other. they all do it. don't blame republicans here. there was another side of the aisle. and i have one question. did you guys just hire a new guy from cnn to run your program? host: c-span just hired a new ceo for the entirety of c-span, not specifically for "washington journal." caller: but he came from cnn. am i correct? host: you are correct. caller: ok. are you going to move to the cnn mantra now? host: no, it is not going to have any effect on our programming, and we appreciate your call. we will go next to brian in dayton, ohio, calling on the yes line. hi, brian.

caller: hello. hi. how are you? host: doing well, thanks. caller: what i think is this, when they air these things, talking about what is going on in congress is good because you are hearing about it, but when they are airing this and these people are using curse words and 211 types of things, and if we are trying to listen to it to find out what is going on in our congress and the kids are in the house and they see that, it needs to be reformed. they should not let them get away with that. so they air it and it is just childish behavior is what i'm talking about here. it is just not good for anybody. these people are supposed to be representing. we voted them in. they are supposed to be representing and they are going on talking about somebody's body and cursing and one person will say something and two people will get back at them. if our kids see this, it is not civility at all, so that makes

kids think they can do that in school, that they can snap like that. they are acting like children, and it is quite embarrassing really when they act that way. i don't understand why we air it and sometimes we make it into the drama that it really is, the sensationalism it really is. why do we show that? when sanders says, hey, stop, stop, and they don't stop, stop the airing of a. that is what they should do because they are acting like kids in there.let's hear host: -- host: let's hear from. in fort lauderdale, florida, on the unsure line. caller: wow. ok, the only thing i am unsure -- there should be civility, but in this case, i don't mind because you have a few like marjorie taylor greene who can

just sit there and say whatever they want because they are just putting on a show for themselves . who watches the hearings? nobody. c-span nerds like me, they are the ones that watch the hearings. you will not find any maga people watching those hearings and that is why they put on the show. i don't mind because this is what will knock them right out of the house, and the performance that the republicans put on going to new york to support trump, that was great. if you think they look good now, they will look even better in brighton adds over the summer -- biden ads over the summer. our nuts in this country. this is what you have nuts in there like you have. you will get rid of a lot of them and that is why republicans are leaving. host: let's hear from frank in florida calling on the no line. good morning, frank. caller: i think i hit the wrong

button. i was going to say yes. host: ok. caller: the reason i think we are having problems with this congress and stuff, 80% of these people are attorneys or in a lower profession. this is why this government is so screwed up. they run the country they make the laws, and it is just total chaos, and it is all because of the attorneys. i really don't have much else to say other than that. thank you for your time. host: gina in virginia calling on the yes line. good morning, gina. caller: good morning. i believe civility in congress is important. most of the leaders in congress right now were involved in the insurrection attempt. and none of them have been charged. and i think that gave them power to act even more insane.

of all the talent and all the people trump has helping him, that insurrection should have been successful, but evidently, you know, i am glad it wasn't. but i am just saying he had all the talent in the whole country. he had all the civilians. behind him, and it did not work. trump lost an election before and insurrection, but didn't he lose again after? i think we can use a lame president this time. everybody will vote down ballott. i would say blue. let trump tie his hands. period. so we can get past this part of our history because it hurts really bad.

host: she mentioned congressional leadership. speaker mike johnson spoke to abc news, and he gave his reaction to that thursday hearing. here is what he said. [video clip] >> it was not a good look for congress, and we all i think need to control the emotions better and get the job done. that is what we are trying to do here. i think decorum in the house is an important tradition to maintain. we will talk about that. hakeem jeffries needs to do the same on the democrat side. we have to show trust, and the people's trust in the institution, and we work on that every day. host: let's hear from kurt and mount union, pennsylvania, calling on the unsure line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, tammy? host: doing well, thanks. caller: civility. at some point, isn't civility --

at some point, civility exposes to believers. if you want someone advocating for you, you want someone who truly believes in your cause, at some point, civility is abandoned when you have true believers. so instability is absolutely -- so un-civility is absolutely necessary at some point because you have to move the dial one way or another. host: do you think there is un-civility happening right now, what you are seeing, would you define that as uncivil? caller: no, actually it isn't. you have little jabs made back and forth, which like i said, that has to be done. there is always animosity towards a counter viewpoint. that animosity boils up and comes forward. you cannot move forward until that is vented and allowed to be shown. the forefathers saw that.

they had duels and killed each other over un-civility, but that is the way we move forward. you have to be allowed to vent that. it has to come out. it has to be show. that shows that as someone who is a true believer that they get to that point. host: let's hear from josie in pennsylvania. she is calling on the yes line. good morning, josie. caller: good morning. recently, i attended a local school board meeting where the subject was bullying, and it amazed me that as the adults around her people were discussing bullying, they participated, knowing many of them, they can participate in discussions about the current politics and become very uncivil and bully. when i am listening to the gentleman who spoke before me, he seems to think it is all

right, and mike johnson coming out and saying those words of glibness of how they are working on being more civil in the house of representatives is not quite true. when the gentleman goes to new york and stands outside the courthouse for a man who is on trial for defrauding people of money and mike johnson is giving support to an insurrection against the constitution of the united states, for him to stand there and glibly talk, but he has the chance -- but he got the chance to say what he wants to say. civility is important. maybe they need to write the general papers, the writings of their were heated discussions about civility was extremely important to the founding fathers to get their point

across, and yes, alexander hamilton had a due and yes, someone diedl, yes, that is quite true. andrew jackson had to defend his wife's honor, but those were the exceptions, not the rule. for civility to take place is to have a just discussion and to come to a conclusion that both sides can live with. this idea that we have debased ourselves, and we are electing these people to put on the circus for us. people who come out and say he tells it like it is are ridiculous because we want people to say things. it is important. it has always been important. when we debase ourselves, we debase our institutions. thank you. host: just a quick programming note for you.

in about 15 minutes, president biden is going to be delivering the commencement address at morehouse college. you can watch that at 9:00 online at c-span.org or on the c-span now app. let's go to elvira in pennsylvania. she is calling on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i believe civility ended when nancy pelosi tore up those sheets of paper behind trump's back. and also when hillary called the republicans deplorable. i am 92 years old. i have been a democrat all my life, but yesterday i became a deplorable. thank you for taking my call. host: in beverly hills, california, calling on the yes line, good morning. caller: hi, good morning.

just a quick point. you know, instead of who caused it or who started it, let's be real about this and not say it was nancy pelosi because character is just character. i just want to point out that all of this blaming on the democrats, just a reminder you need to fact-check yourselves that donald trump has been involved in thousands and thousands of lawsuits and legal payments his entire professional life going all the way back to the 1970's. 4000. with his former employees, contractors, federal government primarily because he does not choose or want to pay them. when you think about it, are

these cases the democrats' fault? are the democrats responsible for all of those thousands of cases all of these years? or is this who the man is and this is how he rolls? the whole system is against this man when he has that track record. it is not a corrupt doj. it is not a corrupt fbi. it is not a corrupt media. it is not a corrupt democrats. it is not a corrupt state and federal da's and prosecutors. it is not corrupt juries. it is this man. it is who he is. and it is how he rolls. google, fact-check it before you begin to think about what you are saying or what side you are

taking, not that you have to take a side. be on the right side. host: let's hear from audrey in washington, d.c. she is calling on the unsure line. good morning, audrey. caller: good morning. yes, i am unsure because i think when it comes to the people and the leaders are fighting for the people, when the policy is all about the people, you do not need civility. when it comes to fighting for your interest, i think civility should be considered. for example, the chairman james comer set up the rules that these are the words that can be used on the floor.

marjorie taylor greene followed that rule, and the leader was unable to strike the words down. so these leaders just use us as pa turn uswns, -- pawns, turn us against each other, democrats, republicans, and we the people keep supporting them. we need to realize the policies, the reason this started was not because of the people. it was because congress, the leaders, wanted to defend a criminal. i have never seen a situation where the leaders in congress would go all the way to defend criminals. they don't do it for the people. why do it for the experts? host: another hearing back in

november was also an oversight and accountability committee hearing. the chair james comer got into a heated spat during the hearing with florida congressman michalski. here is that video. [video clip] >> this company, which i financially disclosed, has properties. ok. it manages over 1000 acres of land for hunting purposes. it owns different property. i am one of the largest landowners in my home area. ok. i went to a bank and borrowed money and i bought that land. i did not get wires from romania, china. my family does not get wires, ok? never loaned my brother money. don't have an llc. but you and mr. trust fund continued to -- >> reclaiming my time.

>> no, i will not give you your time back. you are just going around in all of this stuff. >> mr. chairman, hold on. we are not on time. you have gone on and said the president did something illegal. the american public about why should they believe you? why should they believe you? is there a different rule for the president? why should they believe what you are saying, mr. chairman? why? you go on fox news and say loans and heels are used to evade taxes. we have no idea. what is that? >> you have already been proven a liar. >> who has proven me a liar, you? >> yes. go to my hometown. there is a camera crew today -- crew there today.

>> i think this has gotten under your skin. i think there are questions and perhaps you should sit in a deposition. >> we can go over apple llc with hunter biden and joe biden. >> mr. chairman, i make a point of order that we should return to regular order for the benefit of the others. >> the ranking member makes a good point. host: that was represented jared moskowitz there after the hearing after chair jones -- james comer tweeted about him. let's go back to the phones and hear from rocky in sacramento , california, calling on the yes line. morning, rocky. caller: good morning. how are you? host: great, thanks. caller: so i really have a lot

of perception in terms of the variances. so i say i am for, not unsure. definitely not against. however, when that comes down to it, what does one word mean to everybody when it comes to being for or against or neutral? you know, if there were some magic potion for anybody who is neutral to be against, i am sure the gop would be going for it. host: let's hear from daniel in california. he is calling on the unsure line. good morning, daniel.

caller: hi. good morning. thank you for being there. i am calling on the unsure line because i am not sure how the country goes forward from where we are at. when, you know -- to me, civility starts at the top. when people are trying to throw president trump and president biden's son and/or biden into jail for the remainder of their life, i don't know how civility can come down from that. what i am saying is that, you know, president biden is desperate to get reelected. he wants to protect his son and himself. and trump is trying to protect

himself from jail for the rest of his life. to me, until we stop doing that, i don't see a way forward. host: let's hear from james in somerville, new jersey. he is calling on the yes line. good morning, james. caller: good morning. i name is james. i am from new jersey. i am on the yes position mostly because i look at this from a historical perspective. what dan said before essentially i respect because it does start from the top down on civility. former leaders in the executive branch. the past two presidents have been way past their expiration date in terms of age, and there is no strong leadership in the executive branch and we need strong leadership to trickle down to congress and unify. ultimately, fdr, who was a unifying leader use go, that is

a perfect representation of unifying, passionate leadership that we need in congress, and we have j.d. vance threatening to accost someone until bernie sanders quelled that are. a perfect example of what we don't need right now, divisiveness and putting each other against each other. it is not maga versus democrats or democrats versus republicans or white versus black forget it is us versus the problem. it is us versus the situation at hand of the government is not working for us. the government is putting on theatrics and the politics of theatrics to turn us against each other, and we need to realize that is not what we are. the nation belongs on teamwork and coming together and wreak -- and recognizing our differences. thank you. host: james, you will probably be interested in our next

segment. we will be joined by an author and historian and we will talk about the history of presidential leadership. we will go next to jerry in massachusetts calling on the yes line. good morning, jerry. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well, thanks. caller: everything is all stirred up about everything. it seems like there is a lot going on. civility is necessary. it is mandatory in meetings and business. you can have strong opinions. you can have things you are gung ho for, and even un-civility can cause some problems. you step out of the office, you take a deep breath, and you continue going on and carrying on. if you don't work together, you can't get anywhere. you can't do that without some type of civility. there is an issue here that has been overlooked. the 14th amendment was issued

and congress was involved in this after the civil war. they were supposed to remove anybody that was involved with insurrection. they did not do that. they were supposed to stop people that were taking the oath of office because of insurrection, anyone that was involved with it. maga people should not be involved in congress because they did not want that to be 20 down from within, and that is what is happening now. they are causing problems. look at the republican deal they had. they had a border patrol thing that was going to be done. a guy that is not even the president, with the insurrection, he was involved in it and was the one that caused them to turn it down. it was all republicans. he had all he wanted, more than anything, and he turned it down. how can you think and look at it

and see he was not involved in something that was torn down? that is what is happening. it is because the house was involved with it. it is crazy. host: that does it for our first hour of the program. still ahead this morngwe are going to be talking with two authors. first, we are going to be talking with lawyer and historian talmage boston. he will discuss his book "how the best did it: leadership lessons from our top presidents." and later, we will be speaking with dmitri alperovitch. he will be talking about his book "world on the brink: how america can beat china in the race in the 21st century." we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span

networks, the house and senate are in session. the house will take up legislation clarifying the exchange commission and the commodity futures trading commission's ability to regulate digital assets in cryptocurrency. the senate will take a revote on a bipartisan board security bill that was blocked earlier this year. antony blinken will testify before two congressional committees to discuss his departments proposed 2025 budget and the state of american democracy and global instability. tuesday before the senate foreign relations committee and then on wednesday before the house foreign affairs commite. jean blanc and jonathan holloway give an account for the anti-semitic protests on our campuses before the house education and the workforce committee. friday, live coverage of the three-day libertarian party convention.

friday's speakers include robert f. kennedy, jr. and saturday's speakers include donald trump. watch live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. you can watch live or on demand any time, your unfiltered view of government. c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here are some highlights of key moments. >> this is a symbol. in this war, we stand, we fight and we will win because we are united. ukraine, america and the entire green wall. [applause]

[applause] >> c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is lawyer and historian, talmage boston. he's the author of "how the best did it, leadership of our top president." why don't you start by telling us why you wrote the book. what did you want to share? guest: most of us have a general awareness of our greatest presidents. i don't think enough people have gone deep on exactly what it was that caused them to be so successful. that was the purpose of the book. the target audience is anybody

who is or aspires to be a leader or if you are already a leader, a better leader. these are specific lessons from history that can be applied to anybody in any field, whether you are running a company, a law firm, media, studio, these lessons are timeless and apply across the board. host: you are a lawyer by trade and have written now this is your fifth book. your earlier books were focused on baseball. how did you get into writing about presidential history? guest: my first two books were about baseball. when i finished the second one, i realized i wrote everything i truly cared about. my third book was legal and might last 2 -- my last two were presidential history. my mother got me presidential trading cards, where i remembered the presidents in

order and when they serve. abraham lincoln, the great hero. abraham lincoln, migrate hero. i've been a student of presidential history my whole life. that has been my sole focus in terms of what i have written about and read. host: the book looks at eight different presidents. how did you pick those eight? guest: my choice for my eight greatest presidents comes largely from the c-span presidential ranking poll. the last two poles, 2017 and 2021, the top nine have been exactly the same. lincoln, one, washington, two. fdr, three. theater roosevelt, four. eisenhower, five. truman, six. jefferson, seven. kennedy, eight. reagan, nine. i think truman is overrated and reagan is underrated. truman got us into korea and had

no idea how to get us out. he was ineffective in dealing with mccarthyism. he gets a lot of credit for bringing an end to world war ii. i think it was a no-brainer. there was no way we were not going to drop the bombs. the best thing that happened to harry truman was dave and mcculloch wrote a biography about him. i'm satisfied with my choice of the eight. closely tied to the c-span pole. guest: the most -- host: the most recent one done in 2021. it is done every time there is a change in administration. it was done in 2021, 2017, 2009. why are those presidents often so widely regarded? guest: i think in large part because throughout their presidencies, they abided by these leadership traits that

cause them to be so successful. for the most part, in all respects, like washington and lincoln, who were one and two, the consummate integrity, credibility. all of these presidents were extremely effective communicators. there is a wonderful historical record of each of them. it is readily accessible as to how they went about their lives and their presidencies to make them so worthy of emulation and study. these things don't change over time. host: we are talking with talmage boston about his book, how the best did it, leadership lessons from our top president. he will take your calls. you can start calling in now. mcgrath, your line is -- democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002.

abraham lincoln, how to be the most successful, and esteemed -- leader imaginable. let's look at this quote from your book. before the start of his first term in march 11, lincoln famously shows a -- chose a team of rivals for his cabinet. some of whom opposed him at the republican convti in 1860. despite being initially discret,- disrespected by new york senator william skewered, who he chose as secretary of state. the secretary of the treasury and edwin stanton, his secretary of war,inln refused to take their slights personally and csehem in his cabinet, believing he would need theirkills to lead the country during his presidency, which he

knew fm the start would be tempestuous. he explained his decision. these were the strongest men and i had no right to deprive the country of their services. what happened? guest: what happened, it didn't take long for william seward and edward stanton, it didn't take long for them to realize he is the smartest guy in the room and head and shoulders above the rest of us. not only in terms of his wisdom, brilliance and emotional intelligence. just every aspect of the way he interacted with them, mutual respect, earned their respect very promptly. the one exception was salmon chase, who never could get beyond his own ego and was consistently undermining lincoln. he considered running against him for the 1864 election and dropped out.

when roger became supreme court justice, lincoln named him a supreme court justice. he never took the bait. the way he acted was matched by the way he treated the union generals. george mcclellan was in charge of the war. a distinguished west point grad but it didn't take long for him to realize he's not real good at war because he didn't want to engage in battles. lincoln knew it was going to have to be a hard war. he goes to the library of congress and read about military strategy and implements a war game plan and picks ulysses s grant. even though he had never been to west point, he had less than one year of formal schooling, he devises a plan that wins the war. host: overall, the chapter is

about being the most esteemed leader imaginable. tie that together. how does history remember that? guest: my book contains a total of 24 leadership traits across these eight presidents. an average of three per president. i can make an argument that lincoln could have all 24 traits. he's head and shoulders above all of the other presidents. lincoln is head and shoulders above every other leader in world history. and so, he was a strategist, he knew how to handle people. he was an unbelievably eloquent speaker in the gettysburg address and the first inaugural address had the quote better angels of our nature. you have this strategist to organize the war effort, the highest moralist who could bring about the end of slavery and be

prepared to bring the country back together when unfortunately he was assassinated. these were the most difficult years of our history. 700,000 to 800,000 people were killed. millions were wounded. to be a leader in that kind of situation is unique in american history and at every juncture, lincoln found a way to move it forward and bring about the desired result. host: that is, according to c-span's presidential historian survey, every year that we have done it, lincoln has come in at number one, head and shoulders across the board. let's hear from our audience. clarence is calling from miami, florida on the independent line. good morning, clarence. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask mr. boston about eisenhower since he is one of the eight presidents in your book. i find the suez canal crisis in

1956 so interesting because you have an american president who fought alongside britain and france in world war ii, going against britain and france. can you speak to why eisenhower opposed the anglo-french israeli invasion of egypt? and can you speak to the reaction among the american people since it isn't that far off from world war ii? world war ii was just over 10 years ago. was there any blowback to ike standing up against britain and france and standing up against his own secretary of state? can you speak to that? guest: eisenhower stepped up in the suez crisis because he had told the leaders of england and france not to do it for fear of fight engaging in that type of aggression, they would trigger an onslaught from the soviet union and thereby disrupt every

aspect of what was going on in the middle east as well as disrupt the balance of power in the cold war. the last thing eisenhower wanted was world war iii or anything that might instigate world war iii. that's why he took such strong action. because of the way he responded, getting the united nations to expose sachem's -- sanctions, denying the country's request for oil and denying the request to provide dollars to stabilize the british pound, soon there was a cease-fire. eisenhower brought up all the pounds and told the british prime minister if he did not get the troops out of the suez, he would drive the pound down to

zero. an incredible example of playing hardball when somebody goes directly against your wishes. within a nano second, the troops have left the suez. people understood you have to do what it takes to avoid world war iii. you have to show that we are the strongest nation in the world and therefore we get to make decisions. and when eisenhower was the former supreme allied commander -- who was the former supreme allied commander and he takes on someone who has frequently -- flagrantly violated what it takes to preserve world order, for the most part people were understanding. it's a good idea when you are pursuing international action to get the approval from the united nations. and of course, he had gone that by getting the sanctions. eisenhower was a master organizer. working with him in organization during world war ii and throughout his presidency. he also knew how to play

hardball in order to achieve quick results. he did not want that situation to be prolonged and therefore more complicated. deal with it quickly, achieve the desired results and move on. host: let's hear from patrick in falls church, virginia, calling on the democrats line. good morning, patrick. caller: hello. i would like to know will history look at what's going on now in our country compared to germany in the late 1920's, early 1930's, because the comparisons are there. thank you. guest: when we talk about now, i assume you are talking about the 2024 presidential campaign and our current president and our most recent former president, president trump and biden. we are in a unique situation.

never before has 70% of the american people said we don't want either one of these guys. never before from my perspective , particularly during my lifetime have we had recent presidents who are so devoid of the leadership traits i write about in my book. my great hope and, to your question in terms of what was going on in germany in the 1920's and 1930's, my great hope is that the american courts will continue to enforce the rule of law and that our congress will find ways to be more and more responsive to what the american people need on so many fronts. this is a time when, although presidents have enormous power, in particular in recent years with the way they use executive orders, i don't think either of these presidents has the

respect. you see the high disapproval ratings. and there was such a mediocre level of leadership which led of course to hitler's rise, i don't expect that to happen. i'm hoping that whoever wins this election in november, that somehow whoever it turns out to be, the country will survive and that four years from now, we will have a new wave of younger leaders with greater leadership traits, greater skills to lead the country in a higher and different direction. that is the story of american history. we haven't had one great president after another after another. it hasn't happened. there are gaps in between the great presidents. we just have to rely on the rule of law and rely on our courts and rely on congress, rely on the balance of power in the hopes that nothing would lead to a situation like germany had in the 1930's and 1940's,

hitler's reign of terror which created world war ii. host: you have ro about how past presidents would look at today. -- written about how presidents would look at today. talk about that. guest: if these presidents came back in 2024, what would they say to us? george washington would say you think today is tough? what about in my day when we were starting a brand-new country? our economy was broken and we didn't know how to start it. we had all of these brand-new institutions on how government was going to work and a brand-new constitution. we had won a war of independence against a world power. i'm sure in his own eyes, it was

majorly stuff and what we have now with political polarization and anger between the parties, he would regard it as minor-league stuff. thomas jefferson after john adams presidency, congress passed a law that anybody who criticized president adams or the federalist policy could be imprisoned by exercising their first amendment rights. he broke down those laws. if he's here today and sees that level of polarization he would say look, stop complaining about it. inc. of what you can do to break down these -- think of what you can do to break down these walls today. listen to other points of view, engage in civil discourse. be mutually respectful. it's amazing how it works both ways. once you start showing respect. i would go through all eight presidents and go through where

they were coming from during their lives, particularly during their presidency and they have thoughts that would still be timeless. here is reagan, the internal optimist. as easy as it is to be pessimistic today, don't ever lose your optimism. don't ever lose your belief in american exceptionalism. we can come back and we will come back as reagan did after the disastrous jimmy carter presidency. we couldn't get out of iran. national malaise. that's what we have right now. along came reagan and within four years, he revived the economy and restored american self confidence. well on his way to winning the cold war. thank goodness gorbachev came in , which solidified the progress and led to the end of the cold war. you can look at the presidents and it's not hard to say hell,

they would feel strongly about what we need to do today and it sure would be wise for all of us to not only think about that but open our eyes to believe that we have every reason to believe the future will be bright. host: let's hear from brady, calling from gaithersburg, maryland on the independent line. good morning, brady. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is a subject that i have thought about for a long time because i grew up in the 1970's, broadcasting radio. and president reagan, two things that i think changed everything in this country, starting with reagan, when he got rid of the fairness doctrine. up until that point in time, everyone in broadcasting was required to have balance.

you had to present both sides of any controversial issue. he got rid of the fairness doctrine and created a situation where everyone has their own truth. now, -- i do watch fox and i watch fox because of what they say but also what they don't say. i go to cnn to find out what they say versus what they don't say. but in a divided country where everyone has their own truth, that i think is the worst possible danger to the country. host: do you have a question for talmage? caller: yes. how do we get to a point where people are allowed to make decisions based on a common truth versus having this new civil war -- new world civil war where everybody is fighting diligently on their side without any sense of understanding the other side? how do we get there?

guest: i think everybody needs to take responsibility for figuring out where the truth is. i don't think there is anything, for the most part, with some notable exceptions, in terms of absolute truth. there are different slants that are well justified, based on everything that we know, that is in support of conflicting beliefs and, in terms of the way the networks operate for the most part, this is obviously not true of c-span, which does a great job of being neutral, but so many of the networks, it's all about money. they want to attract the advertisers. the advertisers have political persuasions. they are targeting their products to a certain segment of the population and that's why you have one network that is extreme right and another that is extreme left. and you don't have balance in the middle. with each new generation, we

have higher educational achievements. we read more, we think more and we hear more. i don't know if we listen more but we certainly hear more. it's up to each of us to figure out with these conflicting viewpoints where do i think the truth really is? and to find the truth, you have to listen to the conflicting viewpoints. you have to weigh the evidence on both sides. and that is the process. we don't have walter cronkite saying here is the news tonight, america. you can believe every word that comes out of my mouth. it's not that way anymore. i don't think that's necessarily bad. i don't like partial news. i like complete news. you make a good point. one network brings out all kinds of facts. the other network ignores and vice versa. when that's going on, you can draw the conclusion that this is not an impartial, fair and

balanced perspective. that's our job as citizens to evaluate the different media sources and come to, in our own minds, what we regard as a happy medium truth that would allow us to make decisions. i think your decision calls to mind that's why 70% of the people don't know who to vote for in this election. the networks on both sides are so slanted -- have so slanted their perspectives on the two presumptive nominees that it is hard to evaluate a complete truth on either one of them. that's the choice that americans are going to have to make and it's not an easy choice. but a more proactive approach to forming opinions is where we are now. host: another chapter looked at president theodore roosevelt. he came across as number four in all four of our presidential historian surveys. your chapter on him, how to use

information, expand one's domain of power and the revolution out of conflict. here is an excerpt. the four theodore roosevelt enred the oval office in 1901, no president had ever attempted to settle a national labor strike, break up a monopoly and ken integrated effort to preserve nature, apply law equally to be rich and the working poor or assert america's poweov world order. hedvanced these in many instances, despite them being in conflict with the leaders of his republican party. the reason his predecessors failed to pursue this was because of the perception that congress, not the president should be the instrument for moving the needle in pursuing the nation's priorities. if congress fails to make something happen, it was not supposed to happen. talk about his approach.

guest: theodore roosevelt was probably our highest iq president. he read more books than any president, had a photographic memory. he wrote more books. he could see for the most part our federal government was not working effectively and it was not addressing many of the issues that needed to be addressed. so, if he had followed his predecessors and the conventional wisdom, we would be stuck in the status quo. roosevelt, a progressive republican, said i don't like the status quo. i think needs -- things need to be done to make america better. that took a certain measure of courage. theodore roosevelt was a highly courageous leader. whether we are talking about the roughriders and the spanish-american war, wherever he was, he was courageous. for example, one year into his presidency, we have this national coal strike. the coal miners are on strike and they have ongoing conversations with the coal company owners. they are making no progress.

winter is approaching. half the country will freeze to death unless somebody finds a way to solve this coal strike. even though no president had ever participated in trying to solve a leverage dispute before, theodore roosevelt jumped in and brought the two sides together, did what great mediators do, brainstorm possible areas where they can find common ground on which to move forward. he finally got them to agree to arbitration and they agreed to be bound by the results. strike is over, nobody freezes to death. that is just one example. the trust and monopoly that had been going on were causing the rich to get a whole lot richer and everyone else to fall farther and farther down. he said this isn't right. he used the sherman act to pursue these monopolies. we all know what he did to expand the national parks.

just saying, looking around, what needs to be better in this country? and is congress doing anything about it? no. i'm the president of the united states, i'm going to move forward. all these presidents are very concerned about their place in history. when historians look back, what are they going to say this president did? and theodore roosevelt had quite a record. the fact he is ranked fourth in a situation where there was not a war, there was not a great depression, all of these things that cause presidential stature to rise, he didn't have any of that and yet he is ranked number four. also keep in mind, the youngest president we ever had. he became president at age 42 after mckinley was killed. to do all of this at that young age and he left the white house when he was 50 years old. 30 years younger than president biden is now, it is just a

testimony to his incredible achievements. in expanding the presidency in very positive ways. host: a question on x. it says just curious, how many served in the military? guest: washington did, jefferson did. lincoln served in the militia but never saw combat. theodore roosevelt served in the military. franklin roosevelt was the assistant secretary of the navy during world war i. of course, eisenhower was the supreme allied commander. kennedy in pt 109. reagan served in the military. his role in the military was to make military films airing world war ii. with the exception of jefferson and arguably lincoln, they all served in the military. host: you looked at, there is 24

traits. what were some of the most common leadership traits that kept coming up with these eight? guest: i didn't want to repeat any traits. i didn't want the reader to read about washington's in keg ready -- integrity in chapter one and lincoln's integrity in chapter three because it would be talking about the same thing. it's good to have high integrity and high credibility. many of them have high levels of integrity. in terms of three -- in terms of common traits, they were all great persuaders. some of the more great persuaders because they were great orders. others were great because one-on-one or in small groups, that's where they used their personality and firepower to bring about desired results. number one, great persuaders. number two, they all had self-awareness. which means they knew their

strengths and they knew their weaknesses. they were always thinking how can i use my strengths and in the areas where they were weak, they bring in people who were strong to make sure that wasn't going to be a problem. that is incredibly important for a leader to know, to be self-aware and know his strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly. third and finally, all eight of them were direct in their -- directing their efforts in the middle way. the 70% who don't know who to vote for. they were never thinking what can i say that will satisfy the extreme right or the extreme left? that's no way to lead. you have to identify where the people are. in order to do that, you have to have a high awareness of public sentiment in all components of society. you do that as franklin roosevelt did. you have constant press conferences where you are not

afraid of any questions that are going to be asked. you stay on top of the public opinion polls. you travel the country and you don't just talk, you listen. in roosevelt's case, he sends eleanor all over the country. she comes back. here's what people in arizona are thinking, here's what people in michigan are thinking. there is always formation gathering context and the state of mind, so that when he decides where things needs to go -- need to go, he has the public sentiment agreeing with him on where things need to go. that chapter on roosevelt and how he went about moving public sentiment from isolationism in the 1930's toward being ready, willing and able to fight world war ii, knowing that if they didn't, hitler's would take over the world, is a master -- hitler would take over the

world, is a master class in world organization. host: let's hear from lori, calling on the democrats line. good morning. caller: i was wondering about the situation in chile in 1973. it has a lot of similarities to what we are watching in the united states today. i was wondering what your guest thought about comparing those two situations. and i would like to say something else now that i was listening to him speak about leaders and how it is important for them to be able to recognize their weaknesses and their strengths and to listen to people that are better at certain things and not just do what you feel like doing because that's what you are used to doing. that characteristic in donald trump sort of put us in harm's way and danger.

guest: that was during nixon's presidency, nixon is not one of my eight presidents in large part because of watergate. i don't hold myself as an expert on what happened in chile on 1973 to the extent there was a revolution. i think there will be a new revolution in the event that donald trump wins a second term. i sure hope not. i hope we can rely on people to pursue litigation in courts of law and abide by the rule of law and that we can rely on congress to do what it takes to prevent that. i certainly think that one of donald trump's weaknesses is an inability to listen to others. in his first term, he had some people in his cabinet and around him who were solid, high integrity people. people like jim matus, bill barr

, rex tillerson. they fell by the wayside. the concern is in the second term, he will be surrounded by sycophants. the opposite of a team of rivals. it's very disturbing. as i said at the outset of this program, that's one of the many reasons i am concerned about the next four years, regardless of which of these prospective nominees wins in november. host: you mentioned the president's weaknesses. you looked at flaws that these presidents also had. why is it important to recognize those as well? guest: kin burns described his process and all of the documentary he makes with all of the famous people. you have to acknowledge the flaws because of the emotional archaeology. my friend mark, who is a former head of the lbj library and head

of the lbj foundation and a wonderful presidential biographer, mark said you can't put these guys on pedestals. you have to have a section in each chapter that identifies their flaws. so, i do. it makes them more human and it makes any potential leader say he wasn't perfect but he did great things because he used these leadership traits. that's what i should try to do. i'm not perfect, none of us are perfect, obviously. i think it's important as we are trying to understand and apply these lessons from history, say ing the great things done by people -- were done by people who were like me in many respect. they weren't perfect but they rose to take the country in a better direction and a higher place. i agree with ken burns. let's not pain a false

picture that somebody is flawless in every respect. then you would say that's not like me, i could never do that. they have the same flaws that each of us does. host: let's hear from ben, calling on the independent line. good morning, ben. caller: good morning. thank you very much for c-span. it's a great topic and i would like to ask the guest a question . he mentions the performance of jimmy carter and how bad things were then and then he said and that's what we have now. i would like to remind him that what we have now is we have an economy that has full employment. we have a stock market that is -- has just set a record. and that's good for people who have been saving money and put money aside for a 401(k).

we don't have any guidelines. i find it a little bit awkward to make that comparison. but maybe he has an answer for that. guest: i do. we have a national malaise and that's what i said about carter. obviously, when both of these candidates have high, high disapproval ratings, people can agree or disagree on the state of the economy or on the rate of inflation or on people's capacity to buy with their paychecks what they used to be able to buy with their paychecks. we can recognize that as an important factor. we look at the state of the border and all that has happened in the last 3.5 years. we look at an inability to remind the nation of our exceptionalism. i wasn't talking about the

specifics of the economy and carter then. i was talking about the national mindset and how people feel about their country. that's what we need, somebody with a spirit of optimism who is going to get us out of this psychological ditch of feeling like there is not enough good going on in america. reagan famously, in his debate against carter, looked in the camera and said ask yourself, are you better off now than you were four years ago? i suspect that will be the question that gets asked in the 2024 debate. i don't think anyone is saying i'm a whole lot better off now than i was four years ago, economically. that's the basis for my making the comparison. host: let's go to scott in ithaca, new york. good morning, scott. caller: good morning.

the difference between a sentinel event and a flaw is huge. it's a chasm. a sentinel event like roosevelt turning away jews from nazi germany, it should knock him off that list. sentinel events just matter -- do matter. that's my comment. guest: obviously, franklin roosevelt, he was not a great advocate for the jews during world war ii. he interred the japanese americans after pearl harbor. and it is a free country. if you want to disagree with me, that's fine. as i said in the outset of this program, the country's 150 leading historians have ranked

roosevelt number three, behind lincoln and washington. for the reasons i cover in that book in terms of what he did to raise the american spirit out of the depths of the great depression and then what he did to leave the united states toward ultimate victory in world war ii and stop hitler's and the way -- he had four elections. in each of them, he got over 80% of the electoral vote. the american people were totally behind him. and so, that's the reason why he has the ranking, the well-deserved ranking that he has and that because he had flaws, he had a blind spot toward the jews. he had a blind spot toward japanese americans, that does not necessarily take away from -- it does take away but not hugely compared to all of the great things he did for the american people. host: your chapter on franklin d

roosevelt, how to stare down adversity and command public sentiment. you talk about it here but here is an excerpt. no one before him fully explored where public sentiment appeared to bn in any given moment as h by listening to the many diverse positions that existed amongongressman and senators. be they progressive, republican, independent, democrat, northern democrat or anywhere else. -- anyone else. roosevelt's most disrupve antagonists were some of his ow democrats during his first two term fdrame a full-service rmation clearinghouse. he used his spongelike memory to get details of what various factions were thinking while firing what he should do and say to mesh with most americans in theide.

together, they face the greatest economic crisis in american history. when you look at that, how does him looking at public opinion ultimately affect the decisions that he made? guest: i just mentioned, four times, he received over 80% of the electoral vote. he had a substantial number of american people behind him. why? because he knew what they were thinking and what they wanted. he didn't always agree but he found ways as a great orator as well as in his fireside chats of getting people to rethink what they want. rethink what their priorities are, luring them in the direction they need to go in order to get them out of the depressed mindset during the

great depression or get them to recognize that we will have to get involved in this war or else hitler's is going to take over the world. he didn't do it in one speech, it was a steady line of communication and that's what great presidents do. they are always focused on what the people are thinking. they are focused on how often they communicate with them in press conferences, where the hard questions get asked. and that's a common trait. nobody was afraid of what the people wanted. nobody was afraid of answering the tough questions. host: we have about 15 minutes left in our discussion with talmage boston. let's hear next from brian in minnesota, calling on the republican line. good morning morning, brian. caller: good morning. my question is, you were talking about trump not listening to tillerson and bill barr.

maybe they weren't listening to trump. maybe they are just globalist and trump is not. he had a different agenda. that's why he sent them packing. that's my question. thank you. guest: all right. as between president donald trump compared to bill barr and rex tillerson, i think history will recognize that there is a clear difference in how they went about their business. i don't think the issue was that those men who served in his administration didn't listen to him. they were very aware of what he was saying and in many cases, they knew that what he was wanting to say and do was incomplete conflict with the constitution, with laws. with the way the country needed

to be led. that's what led them to resign or to confront him because -- which led to his firing -- they're firing. look at mike pence. you think he wasn't listening to trump? no. he was trying to abide by the constitution. that is not an issue. there is no respective history book on the trump presidency thus far that has suggested they were not listening to him. they were listening to every word and they drew conclusions that this is not either legal or thoughtful or what's in america's best interest. and so, you can look at those people's record. their moral compass, their achievements, their history of credibility and integrity and, they stand up just fine. that's not an issue.

host: your book isn't just a look back at history, you wanted it to be used in present day. talk about the personal application you included in each chapter. guest: the target audience for the book is somebody who is or aspires to be a better leader. in each chapter, i cover an average of three leadership traits per president. and after i cover what the president's flaws were, i then have a series of questions for the reader to ask himself or herself. how am i doing in building a consensus? how am i doing in inspiring optimism in my organization? how am i doing in setting up an organization that works like a well oiled machine? i want there to be an interactive aspect to anyone who reads my book so that, in fact, these lessons from history will be applied. if you don't stop and think about how these traits might be

applied for someone to become a better leader, you've missed the point of the book. i didn't write this book to entertain people. i wrote this book so people could think about american history and the things that have happened, why they happened and how they can be applied to whatever a person is trying to do to lead his or her organization in a better direction. that's why ask the questions in the end, to require the person to stop and ask how can i apply this to what i'm doing? host: let's hear ledi, calling from florida. caller: i had a question about the fairness act. when we had cronkite, they didn't give their opinions. i think opinions should be taken out of the questions.

i want to know why he thinks ronald reagan was such a good president when he introduced drugs, crack cocaine in the black community. you have plenty good moral white people which if we didn't have, -- that's just a question. ronald reagan wasn't a good president to me. guest: you are certainly entitled to your opinion. ronald reagan was the right president for most people. when he ran for his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states. in terms of the news, you are right. walter cronkite, they didn't give their opinions. i wasn't saying they shouldn't give opinions. i was saying in today's media,

they do. it's our response ability to take the opinions out, figure out what's true and find our own opinions. in terms of reagan introducing crack cocaine in the black community, with all due respect, that is nonsense. he had nothing to do with that. why reagan is regarded as being a great president, he brought an end to the cold war. he revived the economy, he restored american self-confidence. that's why he won 49 out of 50 states. what franklin roosevelt was to the first half of the 20th century, reagan was to the second half. what fdr was to liberals, ronald reagan was too conservative. that's why ronald reagan was a great president. host: let's hear from mike in indiana, calling on the independent line. morning. caller: good morning.

i've been saying we didn't owe the money, the national debt or federal government didn't spend the money that they spend now. if we had a president that would say tomorrow, we are going to spend exactly what we take in, we are going to cut the government by 20%, they are willing to cut social security by 24, when it runs out. but they are not willing to take a cut. guest: virtually everybody who runs for president, even republican presidents in recent years have pledged a valance budget and to cut the deficit yet none of them have accomplished that. in their priority, the priority is always to revive the economy

which, does succeed in deficit spending, growing the economy. this debt that you pointed out keeps piling up with no end in sight and with ultimately disastrous consequences ahead. no president wants to bring the economy down to where it's worse than it has ever been, which cutting it when he percent would do. you have reagan, a bush 41, a bush 43 and a trump who all make statements about balanced budgets and cutting deficits and yet none of them did it. they realize how important it was to keep the economy growing. same with the democrats. they have had excessive spending. nobody can figure out how to cut out -- the real issue is nobody is going to cut social security. nobody is going to cut things that people depend on and so,

because of that situation, the deficit keeps growing. at some point, out of necessity, some resident will have to face it. it's going to be a tough choice and it will have a huge impact, a negative impact on the economy and it's what we will have to do to deal with the deficit. everybody keeps kicking the can down the road because you don't get reelected if the economy is failing. host: did you identify any lesser-known traits that led to these presidents success? guest: well, there are certainly lesser-known traits that all of them have. i mentioned lincoln had 21 lesser-known traits that are covered in the book that i didn't put in the lincoln chapter. for the most part, with some exceptions, jefferson had some issues with slavery and sally hemmings and fathering children.

kennedy had some issues with serial philandering. reagan had an issue, reluctance to pay attention to the important details, which cost iran-contra to spend -- caused iran-contra to spin out of control. they all have their flaws and lesser good traits. i don't think any of them were responsible for the success the way the traits i have identified in the books were. as you said at the outset, my vocation for the last 46 years is a practicing lawyer. my advocate should is writing -- my avocation is writing about history. i sent this to not one but two of the top biographers of each of these presidents and i said did i say anything wrong? did i miss anything?

do you agree with my conclusions and i got feedback from all of them. these are bullets or prizewinners and finalists -- pullets are prizewinners -- pulitzer prize winners and finalists. the conclusions i have drawn, i have full confidence in because they have been fully vetted i the countries leading presidential historians. host: we have time for one more call. let's note to bob in atlanta, calling on the republican -- go to bob in atlanta, calling on the republican line. caller: i appreciate your program. this is one of the most learned people you have on your program in a long time. i appreciate the presidency has named and since he is so up on things, i want to ask him if he has read this current novel i read about nuclear war by annie jacobson, has he read that book? guest: i have not.

i'm sure it's a great novel. thus far, since 1945, presidents have done what it took and made good decisions to avoid nuclear war. we can certainly hope that that trend continues. because, as somebody said, once you get involved in delivering nuclear well pins -- weapons and creating a nuclear war, that will be the last war. that will be the end of the earth. our presidents have realized you can posture and use the threat of nuclear war all you want but once you start dropping nuclear bombs, the game is over. the strength of the nuclear war will wipe us out. we can hope that whoever our presidents are will do what it takes to avoid that. because that will be the end.

host: did you come across anything surprising in your research while you are writing this? guest: i didn't realize that thomas jefferson only gave two speeches during his eight-year presidency. they were his inaugural addresses. jefferson knew he was not a great public speaker. he was a brilliant writer. we know that from the declaration of independence. he was a brilliant networker and up close and personal persuader. that was something i didn't fully appreciate. i didn't fully appreciate the power of kennedy's eloquence. not only did he give these eloquent speeches that i remember in his in oracle -- inaugural address, he said ask not what you can do -- what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. he turned the tide of world sentiment toward america. his speech year later on the space race, we had a man on the

moon by the end of the decade. his advocacy for civil rights and reminding the american people that this was not a political issue anymore, it was a moral issue. these are the things that leap off the page. that is the idea behind the book. we have a vague recollection of this stuff but we forget what it was like in real time and the influence that it had in real time. americans around the country looked at things differently and better. host: how the best did it, leadership lessons from our top presidents is available now. talmage boston, thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: up next, we will be joined by another author. dimitri will talk about his book, world on the brink. how america can beat china in the race for the 21st century. we will be right back. ♪

♪ >> tonight on q&a, the president emeritus of the university of maryland baltimore county and author of the resilient university talks about the role of college presidents, protests over the war in gaza, and political involvement in higher education. >> people think education is where we have expertise because we graduated from high school and college. there is something called expertise in education and we need to respect and ask questions and make suggestions. never should people have the kind of influence that sayyou have to do what i tell you to do.

>> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. a fox news host talks about the relationship between president theodore roosevelt and educator booker t. washington. then a theologian argues love, healing, and hope must be used to dismantle a false gospel that promotes white christian nationalism. he is interviewed by a daily beast columnist.

watch book tv every weekend or watch online anytime. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online sure -- store. browse through home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is dmitri alperovitch, author of the new book "world on the brink." welcome. why don't you start by telling us why you wrote the book? what was your goal? >> i started writing the book

right after the invasion of ukraine by vladimir putin. i predicted that invasion months before it occurred. as i was looking at the impact of the war and causes of it, i was concerned the same dynamics were playing out in the other part of the world and another conflict would be more devastating. luckily, we still have time to try to prevent this, which we did not with ukraine. that was the attempt to write this book to raise alarm bells about the coming war that we could hopefully prevent. host: explain why taiwan matters. guest: a lot people have a simplistic view of taiwan, that it is this powerhouse of chip manufacturing, which is the case. our digital economy is reliant on trips. about 40% of the foundational chips, but beyond chips taiwan

has always mattered to united states. in the 1960's -- before the dawn of the age of computing. taiwan is at the anchor point of that chain that keeps china contained within the pacific. china sees themselves surrounded by u.s. naval bases from the korean peninsula to japanese islands and facilities for the first time in 30 years, establishing bases. taiwan is at the cornerstone of the island chain. if china is able to take taiwan, it will be able to kick the u.s. out of the asian pacific and dominate the region. host: your book starts with a hypothetical attack on taiwan. this is how the chapter ends.

e fice of the director of national intelligence hadlso long warned that chinese cyber attacks would almost certainly be launched against america's energy and transportation infrastructure. this was a conflict that would be felt in everyorr of the u.s. economy. then the w a risk of nuclear exchange andherobability of which was hard to estimate what ulbe dismissed -- could not be dismissed. this was no limited conflict or even large-scale war. it was -- the niol security adviser thought this would be the president and america dide to defend taiwan war with china would be unlike anything the country had experienced since world war two. how do we avoid that from happening? guest: first, i believe we are in a cold war with china. that has similarities with the first world war, with the

diplomatic sphere and -- all being impacted. we have an arms race going on here in china right now is trying to build up a nuclear arsenal, going from 300 warheads to over a thousand by the end of the decade. we have an economic war. and we have this regional flashpoint of taiwan that is similar to what westmoreland was to us in the 1950's and 60's and we almost went to war with the soviet union to prevent them from invading west berlin, but the key thing is twofold. one is to deter the invasion of taiwan like we deterred the invasion of west berlin through military strength and increased economic leverage. i think decoupling is impossible with china. it is too big and

counterproductive because you have no leverage over them if you decouple. what we need to do is engage in entanglement. there is a symmetry of dependence wherehina becomes more dependent on us and we beco more -- less dependent on them. we want to make sure that china is not producing tir own ships but buying chips from us. in the area of critical minerals quit lithium, nickel, the things we need to build green energy and other components for our digital economy, we want to make sure we are processing those elements in from the countries as opposed to relying on china, where 90% of the stuff get processed today. host: we are talking with dmitri alperovitch, a cybersecurity expert. if you have a question for him, you can start calling in now. the lines are, democrat, (202)

748-8000. republican, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. you were talking about decoupling. let's talk about strategic ambiguity. what is the u.s. role when it comes to those two countries? guest: we have this one china policy that the u.s. -- it is not a recognition that taiwan is part of china. it acknowledges the position of chinese people that taiwan belongs to them but does not agree with that. the u.s. position for 45 years, since 1979, has been one of the status quo, that we are not recognizing taiwan's and dependence but allowing it to function as its own state where we have informal relations and are against any forceful unification with china and that is something that is ingrained

in our taiwan relations act that demands the president provide military aid to taiwan in the form of military sales to make sure it is not occupied by china. host: how has the current administration and previous administrations walked that line? guest: president biden has said, when asked by the press, if you would defend taiwan, he said yes. every time he says he asked about the white house walks back, saying we are still biting by our one china policy, but if it was once were twice you could think that was a mistake. four times seems intentional and it is an interesting way to signal our support to the region and to china that they will face a dilemma of potentially fighting the united states, should they move on taiwan without changing policy. host: how would you define our

current relationship with china and taiwan? guest: with china, we are in a cold war. until we do that, we are not going to be able to prioritize the key decisions we need to make in this competition. by saying this is a strategic competition where we want to compete in some areas and cooperate in others, it makes it difficult for us to prioritize which one wins over the competition or cooperation in the most support a point is you do not actually have a partner in china. china on a slew of issues have not in willing to help us at all. and have been demanding to be paid for any cooperation that they might offer on any of these issues. that is not a productive relationship. host: you talked about the one

china policy and the taiwan relations act. there is also confusion over what that says. what does it say and what does it not say about the u.s. role in helping defend taiwan if it were to be attacked? guest: we do not have a legal or policy equipment to defend taiwan. that is something that will be to fit -- decided by the president, but we have a policy of helping taiwan in terms of providing military arms to make sure they cannot be occupied by china and we have been doing that since 1979. host: you talk in the book about weapon sales to taiwan. we have sold them about $30 billion of weapons. you talk about how many of them have not been delivered, but how to our weapon sales to them impact the u.s.'s one china

policy? guest: this has been our policy to sell them weapons since 1979. the one china policy does not mean we recognize that china owns taiwan. it is simply for the preservation of the status quo. we believe the best way to preserve the status quo is making sure taiwan remains strong and able to defend itself. host: how does china feel about the weapon sales? guest: it has always opposed them. host: we will talk first with lee in miami, florida, calling on the independent line. caller: the question i have is one of economics. so much of what we purchase -- what consumers purchase is manufactured in china, electronic equipment, all types of things.

household goods and so forth. how do we get out of that rut, which seems to be benefiting consumers because it makes things more cost-effective? and start manufacturing more in united states without adversely affecting the consumer whereby things would just be more expensive? guest: you cannot fully decouple from china. the number one import we have is actually toys. as much as it would be nice to manufacture toys in united states, it is not a critical good. if it continues to be manufactured in china, that is fine. that does not impact national security. when it comes to things like critical minerals, we want to make sure we have independence. it does not mean -- not everything will be economical, but as long as it is going to

mexico or indonesia or vietnam, that is better for us than if it is coming from china. host: let's hear from jane in louisiana on the democrats line. caller: earlier, one of my questions was answered. it had to do with the one china policy. why has this not been updated considering the importance of taiwan? and since we have some any troops in the philippines, japan , korea -- why did we take the troops out of taiwan? guest: this was a decision by president carter and his

national security advisor in 1979 to undo the recognition of taiwan for the first two decades of china's existence. we recognized the republic of china, not mainland china. in 1979, it was reversed and we pulled troops out of taiwan and opened the relationship with china. i do not think it is a good idea to undo it. that would be a redline for china and may trigger war. the policy of any cutie should hold, but we should make sure that the status quo is ing to be preserved. unless they go by force, there is no way they are going to take this island. no one on taiwan is supportive of unification. 7% once unification with china, and it is not clear what they actually mean by unification because for the longest time they wanted unification but meant they would take over the mainland themselves.

so there is no support for that. host: let's hear from kevin in wisconsin on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to table the idea of an industrial policy for the united states. certainly china has had an industrial policy for decades to promote their competitiveness and their strength across a number of sectors. as the u.s. have a plan or policy to address or counter the chinese industrial policy? guest: great question. we are beginning to resume our industrial policy that we had during the first cold war. semi conductors was industrial policy because much of the early customers were the defense industrial base and our space program.

the gps system was built with u.s. taxpayer dollars, so we have done industrial policy in the past. we are starting to do it again in semi conductors. we passed the chips and science act. we will see how that plays out. if it fails, that will be the end of the industrial policy for some time, so we have to make sure we get it right. host: president biden announced a series of tariffs on chinese products. how does that factor in? guest: i believe to win the cold war with china we have to win the competition for critical areas. they are the manufacturing of new technologies using biological chemistry, space technology, and green technology as we transition to solar, wind, nuclear, and electric vehicles on the like. we want to make sure we are not

dependent on china for those critical energy supplies. we are winning in the first three. we are losing badly in for last. chinese electric vehicles are cheaper and better than most others. they are the leading manufacturer in batteries and solar. much of it has been because of subsidies and ability to gauge in dumping across the world but also in their intellectual property. i have spent 15 years in cybersecurity combating chinese espionage. they have innovated because it helps you to innovate if you steal. the tariffs are important to china to even the playing field to encouraged mastic production and innovation because of the chinese continue to dump on our markets we will never succeed. host: when it comes to semi conductors and aluminum, where are we in terms of reliance on china? how much are we getting from

them? guest: we have managed to reduce china's ability. there are three company -- companies that manufacture some of the most advanced equip into the world has ever seen, the united states, the netherlands, and japan. we have been able to bring a coalition of them together to prevent the selling of so-called advanced chips. however, we have not stopped the sale of equipment you need for manufacturing foundational chips, which are more important. if you think about your phone, that phone has about 170 chips inside of it. only three of those are advanced, the processor, the modem. but everything else, the wi-fi, the battery, those are

foundational chips and china is trying to accelerate their path to reducing this chips and dump them on our market and try to drive everyone else out of existence, which has been their playbook across numerous sectors and has been 100% successful for them. we need tariffs in these industries to try to sustain our own industries. host: have you mention you are one of the first national security experts to predict russia? -- to predict russia's invasion uaine? from the book, oneig think that russia's failure t conquer ukraine and the wi-rging consuees it has suffered as a result wld give president she -- president xi pause. we cannot rely on such wishful thinki ane. for one, the chinese have an arrogant attitude toward russia

and escape abilities in every area, economic power, domestic rical control, mastering of advanced technologies, proliferation of domestic titans of industry. china has bypassed the russian federation. it is t stretch to imagine that xi looks at putin's failures and assumes he and his own military would you better. where russia is weak and easily bullied by the west, china is too strong and powerful to be confronted in the same way. so if china were when china were to go after taiwan, how could that look and how would it be potentially similar to what happened in ukraine? guest: i believe the conflicts of the causes -- causes of the conflicts are similar.

putin believes that ukraine longs to russia. taiwan has never belonged to china in the full sense of the word because no one that fully controlled china ever fully controlled taiwan throughout history. they believe it is their destiny to take these regions and they believe in the importance of those regions from security and geographic perspectives. ukraine has often been a pathway to invasion of russia,hether napoleon or even hitler's in 1939 -- 1941. and for taiwan it is a critical point of containment of china. most important lane, those men are driven by egos. they do not just want to take those countries. they want to get credit. putin wants to go down in the history books as a great leader that unified the so-called

russian lands. xi wants to go down to someone greater than mao. for taiwan, the most dangerous period is likely 2028 through 2032. xi will be up for reelection in 2027, very likely to win it as he has consolidated his control. once he does that and gets past the election in 2027, his hand basically gets freed in 2028 and he will be up for another election. then he may be looking at the twilight of his own life. if he wants to a cobbler it under his own control of the chinese system, that is probably the time to do so. how it might unfold, we write

about a real sick scenario of how the invasion might take place. a lot people have this view that invasion of taiwan would be a repeat of normandy, landing boats landing on the shores in sort of a saving private ryan needed in. taiwan will be one of the most complicated military operations every to be conducted in history. i believe the only way to succeed for the chinese is to take major infrastructure through an airborne assault, particularly the port of taipei that the taiwanese just built in 2012, so 12 years ago it not exist. and that port faces china and has significant capability and capacity to unload massive amounts of troops that you would then let out on the highways around taiwan to capture key

population bases but also right next to the port is the opening to a river that leads into the city, so if you use these high-powered boats, you can quote within 15 minutes, offload a battalion of chinese marines into the heart of the city of taipei and capture or try to capture key government installations, particularly the presidential palace and ministry of national defense and try to decapitate the government. so this path of being able to capture the port to offload vehicles cut tanks cut logistics to capture this island, plus the assault of boats down the river and potentially an attempt to capture the city and international airports to bring in heavy transport into the

country, that is the most likely way that china would go about capturing this island. host: in the foreword, this scenario is not just president putin's timeline but you talk about distractions, that we are maybe not paying enough attention to what is happening now. what are some of those distractions and are we paying enough attention? guest: we are trying to do it all. when it comes to military, we still have the strongest military in the world. the chinese do not come close to our give abilities, but that is a spreadsheet-based analysis and spreadsheets do not go to war, as is often said. in the taiwan strait, the chinese are closer to parity with us, which is not the same as having the greatest military. if we were to fight china in the land of goshen or latin america

or africa, we would be them handily. but that is not the reality of the threat we are facing. what we need to do is make sure we focus and prioritize avoiding the conflict. i believe if we do not deter, the result is catastrophic war or a decline of american power at the end of the american century. we have to do everything in our power to make sure we focus on this. it is not me not do anything else around the world. it does not mean we do not support ukraine but it means we prioritize this conflict above all else and look at this new cold war in the same way we look at the first one, which is everything we do around the world is going to be looked at through that lens. does it hurt our ability to confront china and contained them or help? host: this question coming in

fr x. host:china paying attentn to our resolve in ukraine and will it affect the future of taiwan? guest: with regards to affecting the conflict in taiwan, xi is going to go against taiwan based on the capabilities he will face , whether it is our own, australians, the japanese. what happens halfway around the world in a land war in europe i do not think is going to affect his calculus a lot, but when it comes to ukraine they are not in a good position. they have been fighting a war of attrition since april 2022, since they won the battle of kyiv. now it is about who is going to hold out the longest. i do not think the russians have significant offensive capabilities to advance much further unless we stop supporting ukraine and providing them with ammunition. then it is likely that ukraine

will fall, but if that does not happen this conflict lasts a long time. in some ways, it is already been going for 10 years, when putin captured crime era -- crimea. it may go on for another 10. host: another question from x. what would you say is the most significant economic policy for future markets we should be pursuing? guest: we need to invest in our own innovation in the semi conductor space and green energy , and terms of encouraging investment but also in defending it against china, particularly in the cyber domain and against overcapacity and stumping on our markets. we have to punish chinese companies that have benefited from this intellectual property. i called it back in 2011 the world's greatest theft of

intellectual property in history. we have to make sure company's that have benefited from that are sanctioned by the u.s. government and not able to reap the benefits of that. host: we talked about president putin and president xi. president putin was not in -- was in china this week. how does it factor into what we are seeing and what will eventually play out? guest: people talk about russia and china being allies. they are not allies. to the extent that it is selling them technology is, it is doing so from a transactional perspective, that it benefits from it. so his remark will to see the summit because putin has brought virtually his entire cabinet with him to china.

when they announced the results of the summit, the number one item on the agenda was reinforcement of the friendship and number two was the establishment of a zone to protect tigers and leopards that both countries have. i'm all for protecting tigers and leopards, but i hardly believe it is the most important issue in the russia-china relationship. putin came in with huge expectations and got potentially very little. we do not know what was done in secret, but the fact that even publicly he cannot claim much credit on the economic front or one of the things he really wanted, this new pipeline to supply gas that he can no longer sell to europe to china, the chinese are resisting that, so he could not announce that as a win. host: this question comes from

joseph of nortcalina. what is china' goal? do they really want control of the nations of the world or just untold wealth? guest: they want to be the world's greatest superpower. i know that. that has been their objective since day one. they have been the world's greatest superpower for much of human history. they were the most populous, powerful, richest. it is only the last few hundred years that we see the europeans and americans surpass them because of the industrial revolution, so they see that as them reemerging, the rejuvenation of the chinese nation, and assuming the rightful place as the world's greatest superpower that is not a world i want to live in, because that means american decline commit less prosperity for us, huge impacts around national security and something

we should fight at all costs. host: oliver is calling on the independent line. caller: the united states made a big mistake trying to save money by closing two big bases we had in the philippines, clark air force base and a naval base. and we had the troops right there but they closed the bases. getting back to ukraine, has putin caught up 1.2 million recruits recently? guest: on the philippines, we did not have much choice because they were asking for us to leave after the end of the cold war, but the most import and thing is that we are back now and they are allowing us to use a number of bases again facing the taiwan strait, a very strategic point for us, so better late than never. but those bases would be important to us, should conflict

arise and in deterring conflict, which is what we want to do. russia calls up conscripts to its military every year. this is something that is not unusual. most of those are not being sent to fight in ukraine. some are. for the most part, they stay in russia. so far, russians have been able to mobilize voluntarily about 30,000 men every month because they are able to recruit them from low income villages around the country, from minorities where they are able to provide them a lot of money and significant benefits, should they pass. in many of these places, you do not have much of a choice economically. there are not a lot of jobs available. host: let's hear from florida on the independent line. caller: good morning and thanks

to c-span for considering this issue very important. i read a book called the end of the world which i hope c-span will have. he talks about the consequences of the 30 policy in china, of the one child policy that now there is going to come a turning point where the population will start to decline. there will be more old people to take care of and so i want to ask the author, has he addressed this in his book? if he did not, will he address it now? what about this population decline? they do not have enough people to recruit into their military now and so on. how is that going to affect the united states relationship with china? guest: i do talk about demographics in the book. the decline has begun. they have been losing population steadily.

however, this is a long term fuse, so you're not seeing much of an economic impact from that demographics decline because they still have a huge number of rural population, men and women migrating into cities and contributing to productivity growth. you will see that taper off in the 20 30's and 20 40's. we should not overestimate its importance. it is projected that china would go from 1.4 billion people today to about 550 million people by the end of the century, still larger than the 300 and 30 million people we have today, so the idea they would have no people for their military is not the case. russia has been in it my graphics decline for 30 years. they are still able to mobilize men to fight in ukraine. i agree demographics are important for long-term for

china. it is not necessarily going to make them less of a threat based on population numbers alone. host: let's hear from rick in new york on the democrats line. caller: thanks to c-span. i love your show. it is a blessing to our country. i would like to ask your guest with the -- our house gop being in love with russia as much as it is, fighting against ukraine supplies and support, how much just china benefit from gop policies? guest: china has been the one bipartisan issue. when you look at the legislation we have been able to pass, like the current aid package in ukraine, much of it was able to

garner votes from both sides because of his anti-china position. with the chips act, it was labeled as a way to catch up to china and prevent them from dominating the sector. with the aid package, not only where there $60 billion for ukraine but there were billions of dollars for taiwan and the u.s. military and our own buildup in the into pacific, so i think if there's one commonality between the parties now, it is on china policy because both sides appreciate that we are in a cold war even if many are not willing to say so. host: you are a national security and cyber security expert. tell us about your background and what you were working on now. guest: i have been focused on cyber security. i founded a successful cybersecurity company and i have

been spending the last few years of my life in the cyber arena battling china. back in 2010, it was a big change for me personally because i lead an investigation that ended up being called operation aurora, the first time the public realize china was hacking into companies all over this country, stealing intellectual property and trade secrets for the benefit of domestic industry. the last four years have been focused on the broader national security challenges, whether it is russia or china, and doing a lot of work in ukraine to help them with their strategy, but a lot of time being spent now on chinese issues here and i have a think tank, a nonprofit think tank. host: with that background, i want your opinion on this story in the wall street journal this morning. the u.s. fears undersea cables

are vulnerable to espionage from chinese repair ships. it seems like everything is a vulnerable these days. how do we prepare against these hacks and potential threats from china? guest: we are vulnerable. we are not going to stop every attack. we have to focus on resiliency. right now, the u.s. government talks about a threat affiliated with the chinese government, doing something different from what they have traditionally done. traditionally, they have hacked into private companies and store data to help domestic industry. now they are hacking into companies and organizations that have no valuable data. it is electric utilities in the region or western coast of the united states, facilities where you are not focused on espionage. you are focused on potential disruption in the event of conflict.

that is a different threat and we have to make sure we are more resilient to these attacks in the cyber domain and outside of cyber. one way to be more resilient is not just focusing on shoring up your networks but also having plenty of bottled water in case of disruptions in supply, that you have generators if there are disruptions with electricity. so focusing on resiliency helps across a range of threats, man-made and natural disasters. host: we are heading into the 2024 presidential election and there's talk of ai and deepfakes. what impact could those have on the election? are we ready? guest: there will be deepfakes. there will be misinformation. there has been miss information since we started holding elections. i have seen election

interference from russia over the years. the reality is that its impact is overestimated on the american public. i find it hard to believe there are many people in this country who have not made up their mind about supporting one candidate or the other in this november election. i do not think that disinformation is going to land. host: let's hear from glenn in brooklyn, new york on the democrats line. caller: thank you for having me on the broadcast. i have a question. does china have a purposeful policy of flooding mexico with raw materials to make sentinel so that americans destroy ourselves from within our country? or is this just a wide conspiracy theory? guest: i'm not sure if it is an intentional policy by china to

flood precursors for making chemicals into our country but they are not doing a lot to stop it. they are an enormous part of this problem. they manufacture most of these precursors. they have not labeled most of them as controlled substances to allow their regulation. the fact that they have not yet speaks volumes about their intentions. host: let's hear from diane in kansas on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i called into c-span on the same topic about three times, with regard to the chinese have a monopoly over control of our pharmaceutical drugs. i am speaking of active ingredients, not something the united states has done. they have, over the years, taken

over control of the manufacture of pharmaceutical active ingredients which were made by many big, worldwide drug companies. what i'm concerned about is, if they cut off our distribution, it would be catastrophic. i know that donald trump can't when he was president, looked into this situation and looked at someplace in puerto rico and possibly taking control of the situation. do you know if anything has come of that? are there any plans? it is like the chips. we need these pharmaceutical drugs. guest: that is a great question. the u.s. house select committee on the chinese communist party, this i partisan committee set up in this congress, is looking at

this issue carefully. it is an area of concern. they are the country that can manufacturer these precursors. india and south africa are big ones. we need to make sure china does not have leverage over us. again, for deterrence of the invasion of taiwan and winning the broader cold war, it is vital that we have leverage over china and that they have less leverage over us. it is technologies that i mentioned but also areas like pharmaceuticals. host: let's go to jay on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you. about national security and sovereignty and concern for sovereignty of the united states , there is this huge pandemic treaty being shoved through rather quietly. it is of great concern and of

course the borders being open. are these guerrilla forces coming into our country? the things the technology is allowing this consolidation that is beyond the intent of our constitution and national interest. guest: the borders an interesting issue because we now have not just people from latin america coming across the border but every month about 4000 chinese nationals are coming across the border. many of them are looking for a way to improve their lives and the economy in china is not doing well, but you can imagine a number of them are likely officers of chinese intelligence trying to infiltrate into this country. we have had an enormous amount of chinese espionage in the economic sphere and national security sphere over the last 30, 40 years. it is only growing in cyber

demand and traditional espionage. but it is continuing to proliferate. host: you talked about what an attack on taiwan could look like . countering china also an being clear with our friends the message should be simple. americans cannot be expected to fight for taiwan's freedom if taiwan will not itself. the truth is taiwan historically has not been all that seou about his own defense. it has long fallen prey. -- to the idea that economically to china will evt conflict and if that feels the u.s. will rush into its rescue. part of the strategy has been investment in the development of semi-conductors, which rests on the ideth china will not invade taiwan lg as it is reliant on the island's ships.

the trouble with the strategy is that taiwan itself has undermined it by assisting in the development o china's semi conductor industry, eating the reduction of mainline resistance and as the rising tensions show that the chips mighte e primary reason china today covewan. taiwanese seat serious about investing in his military capabilities, learning and incorporating the hard-won lessons of ukraine's battle against russia. as tiny as taiwan may seem, it stands a chance of repelling a chinese invasion with the right preparation. how does it prepare? guest: it needs to invest in antiship missiles and prevent the chinese fleet for being able to cross the taiwan straight,

particularly capturing the ports and airfields. the reality is that right now taiwan is increasing his military spending. but a distinct eclipsed by chinese military spending by a huge number but they are not spending on the right things. when i was in taiwan last year, the president announced a major military industrial project, the building of the first indigenous submarine. there are two small problems. first, the taiwan straight is to max out -- shallow to put a submarine in, so the concept is murky. it is built with the best of 1960's technology, which the taiwanese were able to buy. they have spent almost $2 billion building the submarine. those will not help them in

defense of the island. taiwan has mountainous terrain. they will not have tank battles like ukraine, so they need to make sure they can prevent the capture of ports, these expensive projects that may not need them. host: we have a lot of global obligations. are there other countries that could come to taiwan's aid or support them? guest: if the u.s. does not support taiwan, no one else will. no one is going to confront china without us. if we are income it likely the australians and japanese will fight alongside us. they view taiwan and strategic to their interests. with our help, they stand a chance of victory. without our help, they will not. the philippines have been moving

forcefully to confront china. they have their own problems in the south china sea, but that is a less certain proposition. host: let's hear from joe in florida. caller: i have a question from this gentleman who is 44 years old but made a statement that he has been studying these affairs for 50 years. guest: 15. caller: yet he says he has been studying for 50 years. you cannot study unless you are born. host: did you hear what he said? guest: 15, not 50. caller: i could swear i heard 50. i could swear. host: do you have a question? caller: i read it back and i can hear it again. you can plant yourself. host: do you have a question? caller: no, i just want to make

sure. host: we will go to chicago, independent line. caller: i do not know if i'm calling on the right c-span channel. i just want to give his impression on what george bush did in giving our companies tax breaks and taking all the jobs to china, which might be why they are so wealthy. doing the same thing again in indiana, giving them a tax break to keep them in indiana and they still moved out of the united states, down to latin america. i do not know why the republicans think they can make america great when they are making china great. i do not know if you have a response to that. host: i think there is no question that for the last 45 years under democratic and republican administrations we have not been focused on confronting china.

we have been focused on providing them with intellectual-property. in the 1970's and 1980's, we were selling them military equipment that they reverse engineered to build their own capabilities. we only stopped that after 1989. even in the 1990's, we were providing them with space technologies to help build up their aerospace sector. we let them into the wto and made them much richer and more powerful, so many in ministrations until recently have been enabling china's rise, thinking we would all benefit. we have benefited economically, but we have lost a lot of national security ground. host: the second part of your book focuses on what you call a game plan for victory. walk us through what some of that looks like.

guest: it starts with defending and deterring the invasion of taiwan. the goldilocks solution is that we managed to avoid conflict and china never moves on taiwan. that is what we should strive for. if china fights for taiwan and wins or loses, it will be a disaster for the united states because war with china is almost unimaginable. we have never fought a nuclear power before. the fact -- the chance that it stays conventional -- we do not know what that might be. the chance that it would stay constrained to that region i think is also small because in any scenario of a fight in the pacific we will probably half to strike the chinese maryland -- mainland, potentially naval facilities. if we do that, they will strike us to mastic late with ballistic missiles, hopefully conventional, but you cannot predict that.

we have to avoid this were at all costs. if china moves on taiwan and they take taiwan, it will likely lead to the end of american superpowers. it will lead to china's resurgence and their global influence around the world. i do not necessarily believe china will move on to occupy and invade other countries as some people say. i think in 1945 it would have been difficult for us to invade japan. but you do not need to invade these countries to bully them and have influence over them. just look at what happens with russia's neighbors, where they are fully within russia's sphere of influence because they have no choice, because they live next to a large power that can bully them around economically and militarily and diplomatically. that will be asia if china is able to escape that containment

and force the u.s. out of that region. in asia -- asia will have almost 50% of world gdp soon. it is an incredible platform to expand influence not just in that region but globally. host: let's hear from mark in south carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to congratulate c-span for inviting an intelligent person. what an outstanding conversation we are having. it feels like watching a charlie rose show i used to watch. unfortunately, we do not have that anymore. i want to thank him for this wonderful book, which i'm planning to read. i want to thank c-span for inviting mr. boston. excellent conversations. i hope these two guests will come back again. keep up the good work. thank you for what you are doing.

host: you have said the u.s. is already in a cold war with china. is that our best case scenario? is there a chance we can de-escalate from where we are now? guest: the alternative to a cold war is a hot war, so i believe it is a better alternative. i would rather fight a cold war than a hot war. we know how to fight cold war's. we have done it. we have the advantages. one of the other points of the book -- it is actually an optimistic book because it argues we have the advantages. we have the greatest economy. china will never catch up with us unless something dramatic happens. they are smaller in terms of economic power and they have reached a so-called middle income trap. you reach about $10,000 per capita, economic growth stagnates. you have seen it in korea.

china is facing the same proposition, before even the demographics. their real growth is likely about 2.5 percent, about the same as ours, and they are 25% smaller. we have the world's greatest military and alliances, our alliances with japan and australia, the philippines. we have the world's greatest innovation. we have enormous advantages. if we do not squander them, we can win this war. that is something we should be striving for. host: "world on the brink" is on sale now. dmitri alperovitch, thank you for joining us today. that is it for today's show.

we appreciate everyone who joined us for a conversation and our guest who joined us. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. enjoy the rest of your sunday. ♪ announcer: c-span's washington journal, a live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from washington, d.c. and across the country. coming up monday morning, we will look at the week ahead on capitol hill and other congressional news with the hill's michael schnell. then a discussion on the war on poverty ahead of the 60th anniversary of president lyndon b. johnson's great society

speech. joining us will be the president and executive director for the center of law and social policy, and the american enterprise institute. washington journal, join in on the conversation live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. up next, president writing gives the commencement address at morehouse college. then fda see chair martin gruenberg testifies on deep-seated workplace culture issues at the agency at an oversight hearing before the house financial services committee. later, house speaker mike johnson delivers a tribute to fallen police officers during a prayer vigil on capitol hill. ngress returns this week for legislative business and votes, thnal work week before the memorial day break. the senate returns tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern.

senators to vote on ju nominations for u.s. district and circuit courts. later in the week, chuck schumer plans edule a procedural revote on i bipartisan b security bill blocked this the house is back on tuesday at noon eastern. lawmakers will consider bipartisan legislation dir the justice department's inspector general duct inspections of all federal prisons, and make recommendations to congress to y problems. later, ember's legislative character -- and thedity futures trading commission role in regulating digital assets and crrrency. watch live coverage ofhe house on c-span, the senate on c two, and a reminder that you can watcof our congressional coverage with the free c-span now video app, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> carte