tv Washington Journal 10312021 CSPAN October 31, 2021 7:00am-10:03am EDT
rome at the g20 summit set to conclude today. and monday and tuesday at the summit in scotland. mr. biden is back on the world stage. on issues of climate change, corporate taxation, is the united states back? it is sunday, october 31. welcome to wash in a journal. that is our opening question. in terms of world leadership, is the united states back on the
world stage. for republicans, host: -- (202) 748-8000. for democrats, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 for all others. you can send us a text. we are on facebook. we welcome your post is well on instagram and twitter. happy halloween it. good morning. we will get to your calls and comments momentarily. some of the news coming out of the g20 summit in rome, which we mentioned wraps up today. president biden wrapping up a meeting with the turkish president. is the united states back? the new york times wrote about that earlier this week. america is back.
the world is about to test them. they write: this is the president during that trip in june when he said the united states is back. >> we are going to make it clear, that the united states is back and democracies of the world are standing together to tackle the toughest challenges and the issues that matter most to our future. we are committed to leading with strength, defending our values
and delivering for our people. america is in a better position on national security. we bring together like-minded nations to stand with us. these nations that have shed blood alongside us in defense of our shared values. our partnerships are the key to american advantage in the world and have been. they have made the world safer for all of us. this is how we are going to make the challenges of the day which are changing rapidly. we are going to need it from a position of strength. host: president biden from back in june. he is in rome, wrapping up the g20 summit. is the united states back on the world stage in terms of leadership? (202) 748-8001 for republicans,
(202) 748-8000 four democrats. for others, (202) 748-8002. one of the last meetings will be with the turkish president. from the white house, they say the president met with president erdogan of turkey on the margins of the summit. president biden underscored constructive relations and expand their cooperation and manage disagreements effectively. that was part of the statement from the white house. there should be a news conference later today at the g20. we will keep you updated on our coverage plans for that news conference here on c-span later today. join us from rome from the global insider podcast with politico is ryan. good morning. guest: good morning. host: tell us about the summit
in rome which is wrapping up today. the question for our viewers, is the united states back? how has united states fared in terms of issues resolved of the g20? guest: it's a mixed message. in relative terms, the u.s. is doing better than the way it was perceived under president trump, who was a very disruptive force when it came to international events like this. joe biden is more of a steady hand. if you look into the communicate which we have had the opportunity to do, joe biden gets quite a few wins. the leaders are backing him on issues like anticorruption that exists across borders. they are moving in his direction the way he would like on climate change.
i will have to say is well that it hasn't necessarily been the best summit for small d democrats. they've been upstaged by the authoritarian leaders who chose not to attend in person. if you look at who has stolen the show in terms of political theater, it was really pope francis on friday. then it was clean maxima of the netherlands. it has been prince charles really rallying the troops with urgent climate change messages today. in that sense, biden faded into the background against that messaging and leadership. host: you wrote about the absence of vladimir putin and xi jinping. joe biden has one thing going for him, those two leaders wouldn't be there. you would think that is an opportunity. guest: yes.
it is true the joe biden is one of those people -- he is a people person. when he has the chance to be in the room, he is able to lock eyes on people and win them over with that authenticity. you saw that with president macron. the french are sore about this submarine deal. he said he did not know you had not been informed. that does count for something. they are trying to extract a price. they're not attending the big meeting this afternoon on supply chains and how to make them work at or around the world. that is clearly a slap back over the submarine deal. biden isn't getting his way on everything. onto the specific question of whether america is back or not, congress is further down the supply chain when it comes to
america's global image. they have not backed up the president and what they want to do on climate. that is going to cause grief for biden. the u.s. isn't coming to the party. host: do you talk to any leaders from other countries who express concern about what that issue is in particular? looking down the road to 2022, the biden administration could be out by 2024. publicans could be in control by 2022. guest: it's a repeated message i here when i speak to senior officials. they hedge their bets, especially when it comes to climate issues and the united states.
there is a track record back to the 90's of presidents saying they would do things and congress not backing them up. the war old -- world watches american tv. it can all change again the next time the next election comes around. the european union is looking very hard at a policy approach called strategic autonomy, or they don't want to be dependent on the united states and more. they don't know what kind of america will show up for them anymore. when those alliances are structured around hedging their bets on america, they are not going to work as well as they might have during the cold war. host: give us a preview of what we might hear from the president at the glasgow summit. guest: the world is pointed in the right direction. it has to mobilize private
capital. most governments are sending those signals. they can get the job done. the skeptical note is it takes a lot of cash to make that happen. it takes legislation. it can't all be on their shoulders. he is going to need congress to join the party. host: the podcast is global insider. he is at politico. we appreciate the update this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: we will get to your comments and questions. is the united states back in a position of world leadership? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8002. we will go to david in ohio. caller: thanks for taking my
call. i think america is on its way back. it's not there yet. they are taking some important steps. the opinion of the united states in terms of our allies went down under trump. that's going to help in cooperation with our allies. another thing that is important, i think biden is collecting taxes on the wealthy. trump gave a tax break to the billionaires. trickle down economics doesn't work. you can use the fairly code tax collection to fund public projects. if you and i live in a village of 1000 people and we need to build a bridge across the river, each citizen doesn't build his or her own bridge. we pool our money and build one common ridge.
that's democratic socialism. there's nothing evil about it. you have architects, engineers, that's. -- free enterprise. you can fund your large projects by collecting taxes that benefit the public. you have private enterprise so you can have both. there's nothing wrong with it. in the collecting of taxes, you might have an 80-year-old widow who has a hard time paying taxes and you have a wealthy merchant. the wealthy merchant is going to benefit more from the bridge. he should pay more taxes. there's nothing wrong with that. that's just fairness. no more tax breaks for the wealthy. trickle down doesn't work. let's think as a community. thank you. host: let's hear from bill in
massachusetts. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i've got a couple of comments. number one, c-span is supposed to be both sides. every time i see something on c-span, it all leans toward the democrats. every person you get on there is anti-trump. everybody that i here that you bring on is anti-trump. the last remark is how can we be so great around the world when we are firing people when they don't take a shot that they don't want to put in their own body and we surrender to countries that we spent 20 years fighting for. we give them money.
the only people that we are getting along good with in other places around the world is the commonest chinese because they paid off joe biden. bye-bye. host: john on the independent line. is the united states back? caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to disagree with the previous caller. i've watched washington journal for months. you guys do a great job. i think you guys are one of the least biased sources out there. i remember you bringing republican mo brooks on. you talked about joe biden's presidency six months and. i think that's a good balance for the topics you have. when it comes to whether the united states is back, it
depends on the subject. if it's climate change, i could see the argument there. i feel like a lot -- we still have people in afghanistan we haven't taken out yet. in that regard, i think we look weaker. it makes me wonder if we are fully backing that. host: do you think we let our allies, do you think we let them down and disappointed them by the way we withdrew from afghanistan? caller: that's an interesting question. like most people, i hear biden harping on this, most people would agree that the u.s. did need to get out of the middle
east or at least afghanistan. to answer your question, i want to lean toward yes. we did leave people behind. some of those people were translators for the united states. that we weren't able to get them out was a stab in the back to them. host: reporting friday from the washington post, allies not so sure america is back. they write: that is from the washington post. the president spoke about his
initiative, his social spending initiative. these are his comments from the white house. >> it will create millions of jobs, drove the economy, invest in our nation and people. during the climate crisis, it puts us on a path to compete and win the economic competition. it's responsible, it's fully paid for. 17 nobel prize winners in economics of said that will lower the inflationary pressures on the economy. over the next 10 years, it will not add to the deficit at all. it will reduce the deficit. i want to thank my colleagues in the contras -- congress for their leadership. we've spent months working on this.
no one got everything they wanted. that's what compromise is. that's consensus. that's what i ran on. i have long said compromise is the only way to get big things done in a democracy. i know it's hard. i know how deeply feel about the things they fight for. this includes investments in our people. any single element would fundamentally be viewed as a change in america. host: president biden ahead of the g 20 summit in rome. that is wrapping up today. look for a news conference from world leaders. one of the agreements is the tax agreement with the headline from the wall street journal. g20 backs tax overhaul. the deal gives governments more
tax revenue by reducing avoidance. is the united states back? let's hear from phyllis in kansas city. caller: i really don't leave -- i think what we got now and what we will have is a dictatorship. it's saying that come over and break our laws. we will give you $450,000 for each person. it's going to cost $1 billion. why couldn't they give each american household which would be 350 million. why can't they give them a
million dollars and let them get there businesses and hotels and everything back to running. host: let's hear from margaret in kansas. good morning. caller: i would like to do a shout out to phyllis. we are not back better. we are back or worse. as far as joe biden being dictator, i don't think he's running the white house. as far as his european travels, it's an embarrassment. every time he opens his mouth, it's an embarrassment. as far as build back better, we have so many illegals moving into our country. it seems like the only thing being built back better is illegals coming into our country. american citizens are being screwed. take a look at the prices.
look at the prices. as far as i'm concerned, start with texas and let them pump the oil for the country. there are so many other things i could say. american knows. this is terrible. host: we are asking you, is america back in a world leadership position. joe biden wrapping up the g20 conference. joseph in boston on the independent line. good morning. caller: is america back? i don't think so. look at all the great things president trump accomplished. he was talking to erdogan in
turkey, a very important ally. he was talking to kim jong-un. it's like making gumbo. you've got to put some soul into it. i support president biden because he's the president. i don't think he has the charisma, that president trump had. russia developed weapons that go faster than light. you need something better with a diplomatic feeling to make america back. i support the rebuild america plan. hopefully president trump will run again.
we need world peace. president trump has the right idea. thanks for taking my call. host: this is politico on the outcome of the g20 meeting. this is the headline. they write: on the issue of global leadership, senator of wyoming on the senate floor criticized the president on energy leadership. >> here we are today with the
president off to scotland. he will be there for halloween and people around the country will be suffering the nightmare of high energy costs. let -- we were a nation of energy wealth. this president and this administration has changed it. we are a nation of energy weakness. we are now dependent upon others for energy. the american people wouldn't believe that we are using more energy, more oil from russia then we are from alaska. that's what this president has brought to this country. a jackpot for vladimir putin. energy workers out of work.
home. it's a disgrace. host: back to your calls, is the united states back? michael, good morning. michael in new york. caller: hello? we are back better. as far as c-span is concerned, you guys are fair and balanced. i disagree with those collars that say you are not. i just want to get that on the table. as far as building back better, our economy has to come back. we have to tax the highly wealthy and corporations and not give tax breaks like the trump administration did. they handed huge tax cuts and corporations gave us greed by
reasoning -- raising prices. we are experiencing higher inflation. it's called hyperinflation. it's all because of corporate greed. it will fund this program that will bring america back further. people just don't see the tree for the woods on this. do your research. budgets matter. i appreciate it. host: next is jim in fort lauderdale. go ahead. caller: good morning. we are back. we are back being stupid. joe biden just stabbed the aluminum industry in the back. our factory workers are going to be up against cheap imports which are from china going through europe. trump flashed that out for us. trump said it pretty good.
the democrats think we need our allies with these tariffs. go to europe and see how many fords and cadillac to see driving around. he stabbed the oil and gas industry in the back. that's why we have heil -- hi oil prices. the inflation is because of all of the band-aids the democrats are put on production. it has created backlogs. that's why the prices are going up. we are back. we are back being stupid. if you give everything away, that's what's going on. host: the independent line in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning.
history and book authors, what a wonderful blessing we have you and we continue to have the support. we are here in virginia, a group of women who are part of a coalition of educators, doctors, judges, pharmacists, lawyers who have been together for 40 years. we are bridging the gap because we have come through and america that is back. america represents people. the ideal that we were formed on is about people. people having the capacity and the faith and hope and charity to give itself an uplift. this is a sunday morning. we are bridging in virginia an
example that. virginia represents one of the oldest states in the country. james back jasper jamestown. we have that story. now, virginia has been the seat of the confederacy, bridging the gap where we have a diverse virginia. a coalition that is educated, which is creative, innovative. also, it is racially diverse. i'm not sure which virginia or which america we are talking about. listening to these people who have not given themselves the fullness of their capacity, talking about a man and a woman who was at the baseball series last night, that had to lie
about invitation. that's trivial. we don't have time to waste. we have work to do. we have elders to care for. wehave a country that has to be modernized, so we can have value in our work, in our labor. we also have c-span, which we can hear -- host: thanks for that. we are focusing on the worldly chair part of the united states. we will talk a little later on about the governor's race in virginia in particular in the 9:00 hour this morning. this is a wall street columnist's -- he writes that mr. biden was scheduled to depart thursday for what was supposed to be a triumphant appearance at the annual u.n. climate summit in scotland. delaware senator chris coons
wins for faint praise by telling fox news he will not show up empty-handed. he says the and leslie hyped you a meeting is a shell of its original goals. nonattendees include xi jinping of china, the world's biggest polluter. let's hear from ohio, republican line. is the united states back? caller: no, the united states is not back. this is the biggest joke, what is going on. who do you think will pay for all this? this is the biggest mess this country has ever seen. why do you think trump got out of it? it is scary to think the united states is going to pay for this. he is a joke, the biggest joke in this country ever. host: tucker, georgia, jim. caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. i think america is and isn't back at the same time. we are a world leader in terms of our military and all of that, but, in terms of our moral standing, i mean, the way we left afghanis -- the way we left there. there was a time when we left iraqis in the lurch as well. the fact that we have been in all of these undeclared wars is a massive, in my understanding, a massive failure of our congress. they will not declare a war, so they leave it up to the president to do a police action, i gasper that is the first
thing. second thing is i think the republican party is really not doing america any favors at all, the way that they will not support this infrastructure bill. i mean, that is really, really important, and these republicans just will not do anything. and the way mitch mcconnell is like we are just not going to support that debt ceiling -- i mean, that is ridiculous. there is that sense as well. and also, the other thing republicans do, they are like, well, only democracy is good -- and that is even a misnomer. i think what they really mean is capitalism is all that is good. they do not understand that socialism is not stalli --
stalin's communism. the communism under stalin is reprehensible, but that is not the same thing as the socialism that people like bernie sanders are about. it is really unfortunate that the republicans, they just want to hold that partyline. it is really, really unfortunate. in that sense, i think america has significant challenges. but in terms of our military, i think they do a fantastic job, but they are undercut by congress, who will not declare a war. host: this is the reporting of cnn at the g20 summit, president biden meeting with the turkish president. in his meeting with president erdogan, the white house says biden reaffirmed a defense partnership and also noted concerns over turkey's possession of a russian missile system. biden emphasized the importance
of a strong democratic institution and respect for human rights. we mentioned this earlier -- xi jinping. they write that as president and prime minister's met in rome, china's leaders xi jinping was not x-rated to be among them, nor is he excited this week in glasgow, where china's commitment to curbing carbon emissions is seen as crucial. he has yet to meet president biden in person and seems unlikely to at any time soon. mr. xi has not left china in 21 months and counting. the ostensible reason for his lack of travel is covid-19, although officials have not said so. it is also a calculation that has reinforced a deeper shift into china's foreign and domestic policy. china no longer feels the need to cooperate, or at least be seen cooperating, with the united states and its allies on anything other than its own
terms. still, his recent absence from the global stage has complicated china's ambition to position itself as an alternative to making leadership, and it has coincided with, some say contribute to, sharp deterioration in the country's relations with much of the rest of the world. the alabama senator criticized -- [video clip] >> the far left cheers for mandates, hyper regulation, and massive taxes. they sneer at your freedoms and are triggered by the american flag and our constitutional rights. there way is not the way to combat china. it is the way to become china. we all know china wants to overtake the united states as a superpower, but what makes the united states a superpower is not just our economic and
military might. we are a superpower for what our military is fighting to defend and to protect -- our freedoms and our values and the american spirit of innovation and ingenuity, of hard work and grit. these values pose a direct threat to communist china. they are why china wants to surpass our country as the world's number one superpower. we need leadership that protects our national security and our economic security. it is the only way to combat the aggression that the biden administration's weakness has invited. host: here is the real clear politics average of job approval numbers for the president, president biden. 42.4 percent disapprove, 51.9%, the latest from real clear
politics. illinois up next, mike on the independent line. asking this morning is the united states back? caller: if you hear the rhetoric, we are. if you look at the facts, we are not. we have container ships lined up to china. you can walk to china on container ships. you have blinken testifying to get ready for 50 million refugees. we have farmers in wisconsin, dairy farmers, 7000 a year closing down, not a word said. they are watching our track record in afghanistan by how we left over there. first, we defunded afghani fighters that we trained, 300,000 k then we gave the bases to the taliban and instead of to the fighters that we trained. then we have china in the room at camp david, also with the taliban, and now we are giving up the basis to china in
afghanistan. and iran will open up for safe passage for taliban to go to turkey with our equipment to fight turkey. this is all planned, showing it is a single party system, and two parties are a veil. biden and trump both have the same handlers. you can tell biden is not doing anything to investigate what happened. it is just going away. the world is laughing at us, how we are taking care of our business, and you can tell by the world stage, as we were on the stage, biden was way off in the corner. host: let's hear from rick in charlotte, north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. good morning, good morning.
they have a saying -- my people will perish because of the lack of truth. i am an american citizen. unfortunately, i am of a darker complexion. what hurts me -- my white brothers and sisters. the republican party. we love you all, but americans have been fed lies. been misled for the last 30 years. and the republican party is misleading 50% of our good brothers and sisters in a direction of destroying this
country. it is so sad. when every republican can put down their religious values and tell me someone -- unfortunately, i know you love donald trump, but if you listen to fox news, right-wing media every day -- i listened to fox news -- host: how do you think your views of u.s. domestic policy, how do you think it affects us on the world stage? caller: we missed the boat. we are the leaders of the world. we are not understanding that we are all connected to this planet. we must work with the chinese. trump come in and turned chinese people into enemies. we are trading with china. they are making things, making things better for our lives, but now, somehow -- if you watch fox
news, listen to fox news, they talk about everything but what is the truth. that is why the european nations are starting to say there is something wrong with america. and we cannot -- if you put fox news on, and if you listen to right-wing media, every democrat is someone that hates america. we love this country. host: this is from politico -- biden's domestic woes could cost him on the world stage. it is biden's second major trip overseas as president p of the first in june included multiple summits in europe. biden and his aides were welcomed following trump's more disengaged approach, but looming in the background is biden's difficulty in pushing for a
massive social and climate spending bill. it is just the latest example of america's increasingly polarized politics. they worry foreign officials wonder if the united states will not be a reliable partner in the long term for other countries. let's hear from barbara on the independent line in essex, maryland. caller: good morning, c-span. i think you guys are doing an excellent job. as far as our current president, i think he is doing a great job. the work that is being done and his cabinet members, they are working hard to make sure that we succeed. as far as china is concerned, i have nothing against china, and people need to realize that we owe china $1.1 trillion. we have borrowed from numerous countries. if we have to do business with china in order to pay off that
debt, we have to pay off that that. we are supposed to pay off that that. people need to stop being negative about our president, and that includes trump. they need to stop being negative about our current president. they need to stop being negative about our military personnel and our police. you're talking about a few bad apples that come into the news media, whereas you have millions and millions of people fighting for the rights of others, millions and millions of people who are working to make a living , millions and millions of people who are going to college to be successful. that is all i have to say. stop being negative, america. we need to start being positive. we need to start moving forward. we need to build back better. host: thanks. to our republican line, april. caller: hello. i do not know exactly what you
mean by building back at her, because we were doing great for four years. everything has fallen apart in less than 10 months. people are crossing the border -- 1.7 million people? and that is a small number. those other people we know about -- host: specifically, on the world stage, where do you think the united states stands? caller: we are looked at like a joke. nobody is taking us seriously. that is wide china and russia are not even at the g20, which is a joke itself. host: this is france 24, one of their headlines reporting on the g20. "hey, joe," leaders josh around at the summit. the pandemic kept us apart, as it it did all our citizens, said
the italian prime minister. france 24 writes that tempers could have easily freight. ahead of the summit, french president emmanuel macron had a serious fall out over the u.s. with a submarine deal and with the u.k. over fishing rights. but boris johnson showed a mock combative for stuff as he showed up late for the group picture. leaders were joined by medics, firefighters, and other front-line workers who save lives during the coronavirus pandemic. there is some of that gathering for the photo as of yesterday. jonathan in canton, ohio is next up on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. america is fine. america is all right. i think people who are being able to be put in places of position like the president, the
senate -- it should be mandatory that they take diversity training. the point of use and what is coming out and how critical it is, how they are disparaging against each other -- when there is confusion, nothing can work right. if they start trying to do better with each other, even americans -- have some diversity training. the one side view is not correct for our democracy. the one-sided view -- when he is taking it to the extreme level, the people calling in, i would appreciate if they would at least address that and then talk about what is going on in america. for them not to address what trump has done and what he brought to the forefront in america, it is interesting people are stuck on this kind of stuff. like they want everybody to take the shot, i think everyone in
america should have diversity training. host: cedric in richmond, texas. good morning, republican line. caller: as an african-american, a black republican, it just carriages me when i hear black democrats constantly down talking america. america is a great country. i am not a fan of joe biden. i voted for joe biden because i am not a fan of trump. the problem is joe biden is not an honest individual. he believes in open borders but is not saying it. he is currently causing friction among american saying this race is against that race, and it is not true. there are more african-american communities in america than any other country, but instead the democratic party's constant lay talking about how terrible this country is. america is not perfect, but we are still a shining star.
we are still a palace on the hill. america can constantly strive. but first, we have to stop blaming each other and work together to make this country a better place. i love america and still believe america is the place for entrepreneurship and freedom come and that is the most important thing in this country. host: to jerry, also on the republican line, this time in chicago. caller: thank you, c-span. i am totally with the previous caller. when trump was in, the economy was great. we were highest in energy, employment. the border was well taken care of. our taxes were lower. gas was much lower. biden is ruining this country. i cannot see why people cannot see that. china is communist. we have trouble on the ports, with the border. they want to start paying people
$450,000 to be immigrants -- he is destroying everything. he does not even know where he is at or what day it is. he is not running this country good. he does not know anything about business. he has not done anything in 47 years he has been in politics. and i think he is doing a horrible job. host: a florida congressman, a war veteran, spoke on the house floor during the debate ahead of the bill passed to present gold medals to american servicemembers in afghanistan. this is the comments on the floor the house earlier this year. [video clip] >> the fact is, we could give everyone of them 1000 gold medals, and it would not represent 1/1000th of what we owe what they have given in defense of this country. this gold medal is not about that. it is about what we owe to the
living. this gold medal is a result of america's leaders being weak. that is why we are awarding this gold medal. we owe our fighters strength. we owe them that the wood never be intimidated, that we would never back up, that we would never retreat, that we never surrender. and, as leaders, if we can't promised that to our fighters, then we owe it to them to never ask to lead. host: ryan mast -- brian mast of florida. a story in the washington post -- trump seeks to block nearly 800 pages -- the president trying to withhold nearly 800 pages of documents from the house select committee investigating the january 6
insurrection. according to a court filing, in the filing, the national archives and administrations director outlined the specific documents trump is seeking tell block from the select committee, which months ago order trump to provide records of all his activities on january 6. a bipartisan panel is investigating a pro-trump mob that ended up with five deaths and some 140 members of law enforcement injured. according to a sworn declaration from the director of the white house liaison division at nara, former president trump is trying to assert executive privilege over 46 pages of records from the files a former chief of staff mark meadows, former senior advisor stephen miller, former deputy counsel patrick philbin, and brian to guzman, the former director of white
house information services. next up, charles, democrats line. is the united states back, on world leadership, on the world stage? caller: i will say one thing. every young man and young woman who finish high school should know trade, electricity, baking -- every year, you have thousands of young men and women ready to be hired. you would stop school dropouts. you have got to go back to that. when they come out of high school, they should know a trade. you will find out that will stop a lot of america's problems. stop a lot of the drug problem's and the jails. you get a g.e.d., you get paroled faster. you get time credit. host: we have time for a few
more calls for your thoughts on america's leadership -- is the united states back? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. our coverage this week on the c-span networks includes of course the house and senate monday. coming in monday, the house on c-span, the senate on c-span two paid also coming up, supreme court coverage. the supreme court will hear two oral arguments on the texas abortion law, the first a challenge brought by a group by health providers, the second a case from the department of justice. watch that at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2, online on c-span.org, and our new video app on c-span now. and wednesday, homeland officials testify on the efforts to counter domestic terrorism
live at 9:30 eastern on c-span 3, also online and on the c-span now app. in our coverage includes the testimonies of dr. anthony fauci and dr. rochelle walensky. the senate health committee will be asking questions about the administration's covid-19 response, coming up live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3 thursday, and again online and on the c-span now app. on covid-19, the vaccine in particular, reporting of npr -- parents should be patient about getting covid vaccines for their kids, the white house says. they write that, within minutes of the food and drug administration's decision friday, to authorize the lower dose pfizer biontech vaccine, teams began packing up the vaccines to be shipped. the vials are being shipped with dry ice and are loading them
onto special shipping containers. but a top white house official is cautioning parents should not be a -- should not expect to get their children vaccinated the very next day if the cdc recommends the vaccine, as expected tuesday. patience could be needed as a could take several days before the shots are readily available. back to your calls. vancouver, washington, this is sam on the independent line. caller: yes, i am calling about this so-called build back better. i am an african-american man, 74, soon will be 75 years of age. i am very disgusted in some of my black brothers and sisters. the democratic party have made fools out of the blacks for as long as i could remember, at least 50 some years. i do not understand why these people cannot see that we are not doing better. the gas is higher.
food is higher. transportation. everything is worse now than it was a couple years ago. but you have several blacks who call up and all you're doing fine, we are doing great. i have people of my own family -- well, biden will give $1400. this was a year ago. $1400 is nothing when your cost of living goes up by $2800. and a lot of people, they just cannot seem to understand it. this guy we have got as president now -- i did not vote for him. i voted for donald trump. i do not care whether the man is nice spoken and all that stuff, i would rather have a nasty talking guy, as they like to claim, that will do good things for the country. i do not care about his personal life or whether people like him or not, i like what he did for
the country. the young blacks, hispanics, the asians -- everybody had better jobs, better pay. now, all of a sudden, you have a lot of morons out here, all the about i do not like him. who cares whether you like him or not. as i used to say when i was working, i would always tell my employer, do not like me, like my work. i wouldn't give a damn if you hated me, as long as you like the job i did. host: up next, democrats line. caller: yes, i do not believe america is better off. i am opposed to the bills being proposed at this point. i feel like president biden has failed on every spectrum, that
america is now falling deeper and deeper into debt under him. we are economically and morally broke at this point. host: make sure you mute your set when you call in. the new york times on one of the agreements coming out of the g20 meeting -- biden finds raising corporate taxes easier abroad. president biden and other world leaders endorsed a landmark global agreements editing that seeks to block large corporations from shifting profits and jobs across borders to avoid taxes. it is a showcase win for a president who has found raising corporate tax rates and easier sell with other countries than with his own party in congress. the announcement in the opening session of the group of 20 summit park the world's most aggressive attempt yet to stop opportunistic companies like apple and bristol-myers squibb from sheltering profits in
so-called tax savings, where tax rates are low and corporations often maintain little physical presence beyond official headquarters. it is a deal years in the making him a push over the line by the sustained efforts of mr. biden's treasury department, even as the president's plans to raise taxes in the united states for new social policy and climate change programs have fallen short of his promises. the revenue expected from the international pact is now critical to mr. biden's domestic agenda, and unexcited outcome for president who has presented himself more as a dealmaker at home rather than abroad. let's hear from robin on the independent line from charlotte, north carolina. caller: thank you for having me. i am robin, 23, out of charlotte, north america. i believe america is not back. if anything, we are regressing at a faster rate. when trump was in office, the focus was on schools, religious institutions, the rebuilding of
american infrastructure. now that biden is in office, it is now more focused on vaccinations and pushing the agenda, whatever agenda they want to pass. it is often confusing. i think, instead of everybody trying to focus on where we need to be going as far as china, we need to really focus on how do we build back the country focusing on god and school and education. we are too much of an emotional cancel culture nation now instead of being the pioneers for success. i just really feel like america needs to sit back and just go wh y, like why am i in this situation? because i vote how i feel, and policies are never about emotion. host: flora in ohio, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: make sure you mute your volume and then go on with your
comments. caller: hi, my name is flora. i work part-time to offset social security, along with my husband. what we have found, along with the people not returning back to work, the people who are working or working themselves to death, even though we are only working part-time, you have to do twice as much work, because there is nobody else to do it. i went to leave in the evening i couldn't because there was nobody to take my place. i am just wondering what are we going to do to change the income for people who are still out there working? host: let's hear from frank, maryland, on the independent line. is the united states back, our opening question this morning. caller: i do not think so. we still have an awful lot more of allies in afghanistan. it will get cold. i think it puts us in position
where, if we go abroad to try to help people and work with local populations, there is a major trust deficit after the withdrawal in afghanistan. we are still tracking just 200 of my colleagues and their immediate family, and they are on the run. host: how are you doing that? caller: i am in touch with my former interpreters who came to the united states on the siv program about 14 years ago, and of course, they are still in touch with people who guarded our outpost and people who worked with the coalition. it is a tough time for them and america seems to have forgotten, but i do not think our foreign policy in the medium to long term will be as effective if we do not look out for our allies abroad. host: thanks for that. this is from the atlanta journal-constitution. trump attends wonderful game 4 of world series in atlanta, a game that saw the braves win with two late homeruns, going up
3-1 over the houston astros. after the break here on "washington journal," we'll dig more into the international reaction on climate issues as the u.n. climate summit kicks off in scotland. that conversation with author anatol lieven. later, we will be joined by uva's center for politics' larry sabato on their virginia gubernatorial race and what it could portend for the 2022 congressional races and the 2024 campaign as well. ♪ ♪ >> when frenchman the marquis de lafayette was 19, he came to america and was frank -- probably made a major general.
the american revolutionary war was underway. a politico author has written hundreds of pages on the story of lafayette called "hero of two worlds." it includes an account of his return to the united states where he was celebrated in each of the 24 states in 1824. lafayette was 67. >> history podcaster mike duncan on this week's episode of booknotes+. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. this week on the c-span networks, monday, president biden is in glasgow, scotland for cop26. the supreme court will hear two oral arguments concerning the x's abortion law. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span
2. and at 11:00 eastern, the court will hear the united states v. texas. then camping 2022 races. -- and the virginia governor's race between former governor terry mcauliffe and republican glenn young can -- glenn youngkin. wednesday at nine efflandt a.m. eastern on c-span, countering domestic terrorism with testimony by lead officials from homeland security and the fbi before the house intelligence committee. thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, live on c-span 3, covid-19 and the next steps in the response, with testimony from cdc direct air rochelle walensky and national institute of allergy and infectious diseases director dr. anthony fauci before the senate health committee.
friday, the memorial service for retired army general and former secretary of state colin powell, live from the washington national cathedral. watch this week on the c-span networks. or watch our full networks -- coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app. head to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ ♪
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us next is author and scholar anatol lieven, helping us to take a look at the upcoming climate summit in glasgow, summit -- glascow, scotland. he is the author of "climate change and the nationstate." welcome to "washington journal." guest: hello. host: you make your case in your book and in a number of articles about climate change being the greatest national security threat, at least to the united states. how did writing your book further prove to you that climate change is indeed the world's greatest national security threat? host: -- guest: it was a conclusion at came to fairly slowly, but i was
convinced, looking at the evidence, that what climate change is already doing to the united states, and what risks doing in the future, really dwarves the threat on which our security establishments are concentrated. that is in three ways. first is what it is already doing to ordinary people in the united states. heat waves, wildfires, flooding. after all, in the end, national security is about defending the lives, the interests, the health of our citizens, right? american citizens, russians, chinese, english, too. it is not, ultimately, about theoretical interests on the world stage. they are present. but ultimately, it has to be about people and their lives, in this case american people. and these things are happening already. unless we can act to limit
climate change, every scientific prediction and analysis says that these erect effects will get worse. now, for generations to come, they will be containable within the united states itself because of the wealth and power of the united states and because the united states is in a relatively positive position compared to other countries in the world. but, already, within a generation from now, other very large, very important countries in the world, which are much more vulnerable to climate change, will be coming out of the kind of stress which may destroy states and organized societies, not just because they are more vulnerable to high temperatures, are already suffering from high temperatures, they are vulnerable to water shortages because they are underwater stress, but also because you have a range of weak and
dysfunctional states who are already suffering social and ethnic conflicts. if you add climate change to that, and the pentagon itself noted that climate change is a force multiplier in that view, you will see breakdowns, including in society, which will generate huge waves of migration to the united states and europe. we know what a reaction against that can do to our political system. host: and in the containable category -- you mentioned that word -- do you believe that is happening now, containable in terms of migration at the u.s. southern border to the wildfires and storms happening? speaking just about the united states. guest: they are containable in the sense they will not destroy america as a state. but we know -- we can see in front of our eyes how migration
and fears of migration contribute to polarization and political radicalization within america and europe. after all, another key point of national security is to defend the integrity of our liberal democratic political systems. host: there was a piece written a couple weeks ago in defense one. the name of the piece is "climate change: america's greatest security threat." he writes that the question is not whether climate change is a bigger or smaller national security threat than russia or china, it is how climate change amplifies the threats that the united states faces. would you agree? guest: only to an extent, because i think it does, as i said in terms of state failure, extremism, migration. but i do not think climate change increases the threat from china and russia. take the arctic. a lot of stuff coming out of the american and european security establishments talked about the
melting of the arctic as somehow increasing russian security threats. that is not what it is about. the melting of the arctic threatens tipping points and feedback loops. the melting of the arctic ice, sea levels rise, risking runaway climate change. if climate change goes from two degrees to three to four to five, then you have an existential threat to modern civilization in general and the united states in particular. if that happens over a relatively short space of time -- and are indications it has happened so quickly on such occasions in the distant pass, no organized state will be able to withstand the results are that would be the destruction of our society. for heaven sake, russian warships being able to move around more easily in the arctic is really not a threat that compares to that.
host: in your book, "climate change and the nation state," you argue that nationalism is a way for countries to address climate change. you write that successful state action to limit carbon emissions needs not just state action but consistent action over a long period of time. this is something that democracies find hard to achieve. the united states is the worst offender, with efforts being halted by elections of 2000 and 2016. looking ahead, how important is it for the united states to take a world leadership role in this issue? guest: i think it is very important. i think the prestige of countries, the influence of countries in the decade and generations to come will depend heavily on their performance in this. if the united states is seen to
fail, despite the fact that it is so much richer on a per capita basis than china or india, then that will be a real blow to american moral leadership in the world. host: is it part of your belief that the united states has not fully graphs, at least won the political argument, broadly amongst the population? is that part of the reason we have not been able to act in this country? guest: i think that is right. that is one reason why i tried to make this appeal to civic nationalism -- or patriotism. for me, that is the same thing. not ethnic nationalism here that would be disastrous. because, somehow, those of us who really believe that climate change is a mortal threat need to be able to appeal not just to people already more or less convinced but to the unconvinced among conservative, moderate conservative voters.
it seems to me that showing them how climate change -- of course it is a threat to humanity in general, but it is also a threat to the future of the united states itself. that is one way to do that. the other reason i advocate this appeal to nationalism or patriotism is, of course, a key problem with climate change is you are asking present generations to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations. the worst effects of climate change will not kick in within our lifetimes. and of course, if you are really concerned with the future of your nation, then the question of generations is not important. i always point out the motto of the great seal of the united states is let's -- for a foreseeable timetable
will not be able to do that if we fail to control climate change. host: the american president, joe biden, will be in the u.k. for the glascow summit -- glasgo w some beginning tomorrow. what does the world need to hear, what do american citizens need to hear from that summit regarding climate change? guest: they need to hear that it is a threat to humanity, that it is a threat to the united states, which will become worse and worse, and if we fail to control it, it will eventually become existential. they need to hear that america has to take the lead on this and cooperate with other countries. i think what they also need to hear is that, as i've said -- you cannot send your president out into the world on this critical issue with, behind him, he paralyzed political party, a paralyzed establishment.
if you recognize it is an important issue, then the american government needs your support. host: but notably absent at the glasgow summa is china and russia. xi jinping will not be there. vladimir putin will not be there either. guest: neither will modi. in a sense, why should they? biden was hoping to go there with his climate change and reconstruction package agreed, but as we have seen, there has been no agreement. clearly, if america cannot agree with this at home, that it is very difficult for america to encourage other countries, which of course are facing as much or even bigger economic problems than the united states. it is very hard to persuade them that they should turn up and make what are, in the end, much bigger sacrifices per capita. host: author and scholar anatol
lieven with us. we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents and all others (202) 748-8002. just a brief bullet points of the $555 billion bill back better plan, some of the climate provisions in the plan include extending tax credits to boost renewable power, expanding credits for the purchase of electric vehicles, adding rebates to encourage investments in home efficiency, and helping to find communities building resilience to climate change impacts. also finding and creating a civilian climate corps. all of this, this summit, happening at a time when the west, and the rest of the world, are seemingly in an energy -- not crisis, if you will, but
increasingly needing more energy and more fossil fuel energy. guest: yes, well, i must say, as an interim measure, and interim could well be two or three generations to come, a strong advocate of nuclear power. not because i like it in itself and not because i think it is a long-term solution, but i think it is crazy, as german greens and others have advocated and indicated, to get rid of nuclear power before renewables are fully in place and fully developed. and, you know, we have seen, in part, the results of this in the energy shortage in europe and also in california. so we need to adopt every measure, every available technology in the struggle to limit climate change. host: talk to us about the parameters of this summit, what the plan is in trying to reduce global temperatures and the
reality of where we are now. guest: sorry, the plan is -- host: what is the glasgow summa trying to accomplish in terms of reducing global temperatures? guest: well, the original purpose of it was to try to nail down governments to specific, more specific policies, what they are actually going to implement, in order to fulfill the promises they made at the paris agreement five years ago, because i'm afraid all too many governments, in whole or in part, made these promises. like the germans, amongst others, they have failed to adequately live up to them. like the australians, who very belatedly -- the australian government has signed up to a program to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, i think, but
that plan is totally without detail. i hope glasgow -- and certainly the british government is making a fairly determined push for this -- will lead to some more concrete measures. but, of course, they have been great disappointments. india and china refused to make more commitments. biden's plan is still up in the air. i have a nasty feeling that, in the end, most of the progress will come in europe and will not really be sufficient even there, because one has laggards, like the germans, let alone the pols. host: so this goes back to your argument about a nationalism approach, that states solve their global warming, climate change issues as much as they can themselves, correct? guest: yes.
i am not in any way against international agreements or movements, greta thunberg and company, but the agreement is going to achieve nothing. the united nations, the inter-mental government -- it has played a vital role in trying to get states to act to the whole covid pandemic has also been an example of that. of course, it would be far better if we had more international cooperation and aid, but there have been so many things -- closing borders, lockdowns, vaccination contains -- campaigns that only states can do in the end. that is true with climate change as well. taxes, limits, incentives -- these are all the business of states. host: one of the effects of issues like migration, cross-border especially, water issues that affect more than one country, will be exacerbated
with climate change in the future, and how countries, while they may try to solve their own issue, they have to rely on other countries to solve theirs as well. guest: yes, absolutely. one of the arguments in my book as far as america is concerned is america should put far more money into helping central america, including to build resilience against climate change. i find it, actually, quite bizarre and scandalous that america spent so much more money on countries thousands of miles away while, in its own backyard, it has really neglected these countries. apart from mexico, there is not a single central american country in the top 10 recipients of u.s. aid. we in the wealthy countries of the world have to help other countries, but very much in our own interests. one of our interests is to limit
migration. as i've said, there is simply no excuse for ignoring the fact that migration is a key factor in driving political extremism and polarization in the west. one sees this in france now. we thought the national front was bad enough. now you have somebody who really is a fascist, eric zemmour, gaining astonishing levels of support. if we have to push liberal democracies for ourselves in the world, we have to help limit migration, and climate change in future, and already, to some extent, will be the key driver of that. perhaps, if we failed to limit migration, this will be at a scale unimaginable, a scale which will make it simply impossible to manage by democratic means. host: we have calls waiting, but
want to get your reaction to some pushback from the copenhagen consensus, this piece in the wall street journal, in which it is written that reading that 0-would mean little for global temperature. if the whole country went carbon neutral tomorrow, the standard climate change model shows that the reduction would be barely noticeable. that is because the u.s. will make up an ever larger share of omissions as the populations of india, china, and africa grow and get bigger. guest: first of all, i am not sure that is true of africa unless africa expenses levels of economic growth that we have not seen, alas, in recent decades. at the moment, africa contribute
very little to global emissions. china and india, yes. a, the united states will, one assumes, remain one of the biggest economies in the world. my figures certainly do not suggest that, if the u.s. moved to net zero, that this would have a negligible or significant effect. secondly, as they say, that is the question of leadership and influence. the united states, as such a rich country -- although it does not feel that way to most ordinary americans -- it is not prepared to limit its carbon emissions. it simply becomes morally impossible to ask poor countries to do so. and it is not just the united states. it is the united states and canada and australia and many of the rich european countries, allstate well, in the end, what
we do will not matter very much. put it altogether, and it really is going to matter, and it will be disastrous. host: let's hear from our callers. we go first to john, west hollywood, california, on the line with anatol lieven. caller: good morning. i am not a climate disbeliever. i am a political scientist. there was a fact that came out of noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, that this past winter period, which is our summer in the northern hemisphere, was the coldest ever recorded on record since they have been keeping records in 1957. also, the abrupt discontinuance of america being energy independent and having gasoline and food distribution,
everything else, go up at our heart -- at a far higher percent of inflation than is reported in the economy overall is a regressive tax on the individuals who have to pay it. and people who are not in the wealthy category are paying a much higher percentage of their income to necessities, and it is actually exceeding the growth in wages. so regardless of any growth in wages, people's purchasing power is still falling behind. natural gas was supposed to be a bridge energy source that would reduce carbon emissions and transition us with enough energy
to remain competitive in manufacturing. and i am just wondering, you know, the mainstream media completely ignored this report, from what i've seen, about antarctica having a record cold winter season that was 4.8 degrees fahrenheit colder than ever host: ok, john. your thoughts? guest: as all the scientific predictions but also the facts, the recorded facts of the past 20 years show, global warming is not uniform across the planet. it's been suggested, for example, thank god it hasn't happened yet, but if climate change shut down the gulf
stream, then far from getting hotter, europe will basically develop the climate of canada. but if you look at the actor -- arctic over the past 20 years, you see on the contrary, temperatures which are not just rising but rising at between two and three times the global average. so whatever happens in the antarctic, you have a massive threat to humanity coming out of the arctic in the disappearance of ice, rise of sea levels, and perhaps above all release of methane from the arctic permafrost. things are uneven certainly, but one statistic from the antarctic does not cancel out everything else that's happening including the opposite pole of the world. concerning energy and energy independence, this cannot be
abrupt, and that's why in my book i criticize some of the radical and naive greens who say we must abolish carbon emissions totally by 2030. that's simply not going to happen. also why i emphasize the need for nuclear energy and gas will undoubtedly remain. what we need to do for a very considerable time to come, so this won't be abrupt. it will have to take place over the next 30, 40 years be -- but it won't be overnight. but what we need to do amongst other things is pour money into research and development. at the moment, the money going into research and development of not just renewable energy but also carbon capture is less than 1/10 that going into military research and development.
that is totally misapliepped sense of priorities. ideally we will develop cheap universal carbon capture and then we could go on burning fossil fuels. but we don't know whether at the moment that's possible. we have to work on a lot of things simultaneously. as far as sacrifices by ordinary people are concerned, i entirely agree, but that after all is why the biden administration and still more people like elizabeth warren have emphasized so strongly the need for higher taxes on the rich and corporations. so that's the greatest burden of this transition. falls precisely not on the poor but on those who can afford it and who frankly for many years now have got away with, as warren buffett has pointed out,
paying scandalously low levels of taxation compared to what they paid in the past or what people are paying anywhere else in the developed world. host: let's hear from michael, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i want the guest to know that i agree with almost everything you said word for word. and i do try on this micro level to do what i can. i recycle everything that i can possibly do and so forth. i don't even know if they actually recycle any of the stuff we throw in our special garbage cans, but that is beside the point. my specific question, and it's two parts, i wonder -- i would like your opinion as to the likelihood that mass migrations because of some problem,
drought, whatever, would trigger a war between either some of the superpowers or some blocs of nations and where do you think the most likely flash point would be? that's kind of what i'd like you to comment on. guest: i am not sure that in the medium term, migration will lead to wars between nations. i think it may more likely lead to the collapse of nations or political systems. although in the longer term, if enormous populations troy to move quickly, wars between nations are possible. i think, though, it is worth pointing out from this point of view that in the west
understandably enough we are focused on migration to us and both those who till to -- hostile to migration and advocates talk about what is happening in the west but actually the most ferociously militarized anti-immigrant border in the world is the fence that the indians have put up to stop migrations from bangladesh. more than 1,00 people are being shot dead on that border over the past 10 years or so. and india is absolutely determined to prevent further migration by every means, however ruthless. so i fear -- look at the reaction of many neighboring countries to the exodus from persecution in myanmar. you are quite right. whether or not it leads to conflict between states, it will certainly if climate is exacerbated by climate change,
it will certainly lied to -- lead to much more violence, local conflicts, clashes, massacres, genocides, god forbid in future. so that's another reason why we have to act quickly to limit climate change. host: several reports ahead of the glasgow summit about china's continued need for the use of coal. their headline, china's need for coal clashes with global climate goals. yet you write in your book about the alternative fuel efforts that -- in your book you write that another truly radical development that china is already engaged in the plan is to make 50% of vehicles electric by 2025 and 100% by the 2030's through a mixture of small businesses and sanctions. if they manage this, and there are enormous obstacles in the way, it would be a very important contribution to limiting carbon gas emissions and also very convincing testimony to the ruthless
efficiency of the chinese system. so on the one hand, the chinese are making progress on that front. yet continued reliance in china on coal fired power plants, for example. guest: yes, and of course, one must recognize that electric vehicles are great and reduce carbon emissions from the vehicles, but the electricity has to be produced somehow. if the chinese produce the electricity from their cars, for their cars, by coal, that would be a step backwards, not forwards. i suppose the one advantage the chinese have, i emphasize in the book, is they can produce programs with life spans of 10 years, 20 years. obviously the american democratic system but also the lack of scone sus on climate change -- consensus on climate change makes that very difficult for the united states.
but the chinese are basing the program on the belief or the hope, i suppose one should say, that over the next generation, they will be able to develop means of carbon capture, which will allow them to transition to clean coal. the problem is that this of course is a gamble. it's like a nuclear fusion energy. we don't know or the attempts to develop much more efficient and larger scale batteries to store renewable energy. all of these are hopeful lines of research and development and deserve massive investment, but of course we can't know that they will work. we will only know that somewhere down the line. host: let's hear from steve in san jose, california. republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to make three quick
points. we are getting mixed signals when biden, after trump stopped the russia to germany pipeline, biden allows the russia-germany pipeline. when we -- we would provide -- we were offering to provide germany with gas that is 42% cleaner than russia. point number two -- trump got out of the paris climate accord because they never met their goals. point number three -- i would like to see world debate on the issue, but it is not allowed and the other side, those that believe in it, climate change, do not show up and they will not
allow it. what are they afraid of? goodbye. host: ok, steve. anatol lieven, any thoughts of any of those points? guest: well, first on north stream, the biden administration went along with this because they wanted german support and help above all against china, limiting china's global economic influence. germany plays a position in europe. germany is absolutely central to that. i am afraid this is what diplomacy is. if you want people to do things for you, you have to agree to things they really want and the germans had of course poured so much money already into the north stream pipeline. they were very unwilling to throw it down the drain. and of course, forgive me, but the united states is not necessarily always a reliable ally when it comes to helping
its allies. they reckon that russian gas, once they committed to the pipeline, would be a reliable and essential support for the german economy. other people also have national interests, which the united states has to recognize and try to compromise with. second thing, as i said, most countries have failed to meet their full commitments under the paris agreement, but they have plans in place. they are meeting them in part. they are doing something, some more than others. that cannot be a reason for the united states to do nothing at all. on climate change. unless you simply don't believe that there is climate change. i am sorry, but the scientific evidence -- the evidence from our eyes and skins is such now that i really don't think that that is a rational position. as to the other side not showing
up, i don't quite know what you mean. i am here, and as far as i know, most of the senior and distinguished figures talking about this are always willing to turn up and talk about it. you could say we do nothing but talk, but we do talk, and listen and debate. host: here is a headline from the guardian. biden pledges largest effort to combat climate change in u.s. history. anatol lieven, what was the effect of the u.s. withdrawal from the paris agreements under president trump? guest: well, it certainly -- it very badly damaged u.s. prestige in europe because in most of europe, you do now have a political consensus across the conservative political spectrum, as well as the liberals on the left, on the existence of climate change and the need to
do something about it. i myself am going up to glasgow to talk to the conservative environment network. i am a small speaker to that. boris johnson is a big speaker to it. so this does damage the united states leadership of the democracy and more widely. as i say, the u.s. is seeking close partnership with india. so the united states to withdraw from climate change agreements, then you have democrats coming back and demanding that india fulfill them, well that does not go down well in a very -- what remains on a per capita basis. host: you mention the conservative climate group. is the difference between views -- the political difference between the conservative group there, you mentioned the prime minister speaking, he is the leader of the conservative party. is the difference as wide as it is here in the united states on the views -- in terms of the view on climate change?
guest: no, at least in western europe, it's far, far smaller. the great majority of the conservative party here in britain, moderate conservatives in france, in germany, everywhere really, recognize the existence of climate change and the need to do something about it. something radical about it. of course, there are differences in terms of how much reliance you put on free markets solutions, how much you put on state leadership, but in britain we have had a conservative government for how long now, 10 years? and conservative governments have vastly boosted renewable energy in britain and have committed themselves to even more radical action in the future. speaking from a british or west european perspective, there is
really no contradiction and i mean no contradiction between a conservative political position and a belief in the need to act against climate change. on the contrary, and here once again is the point about my appeal to patriotism or nationalism, a conservative who is dedicated to his or her country and to the future of the country, the future of the nation, a conservative who believes that national society is a contract between the living, the dead and those yet to be born, is more or less i would say naturally committed to trying to prevent radical climate change from getting out of hand because it threatens generations yet to be born, as burke said. host: let's hear from new jersey, mark on the democrats line.
welcome. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you very much for this very important, and your guest is very impressive. i have questions. one for your guest, one for fellow listeners. to the guest, i'd like to know what you think about all of the messaging surrounding climate change by really people in your call, the people with brains, who are aware of what's happening, you are doing yourselves a disservice because you are talking about the sacrifices and hardships and as you suggested, people are thinking in the short term. why are we not messaging this as this is going to create jobs? this is going to be a major
infrastructure project similar to when the western world had to fight nazi germany? and imperial japan, and that created jobs. that's why it was so popular. people got back to work. i don't understand the messaging isn't similar. host: mark, you are breaking up a little bit. lieven, i did want to read a little about it in your book. you write, the green new deal is an essential step in winning over the working classes on climate change. the massive reconstruction effort necessary to overcome the economic effects of the pandemic is a maaing enough -- magnificent opportunity for this. such programs are especially incompatible with the advocacy of open immigration by many of the people advocating the green new deal. expand on that issue and what the caller is suggesting as well.
guest: yes, responding to the caller, on one side i compleelle with you and the book is indeed strong -- written strongly in support of the green new deal and the need and the possibility of creating many new jobs. however, as you mentioned the war against nazi germany and imperial japan, of course it did create many jobs. it also required enormous sacrifice, much greater sacrifices than the struggle against climate change because it required hundreds of thousands of american and british lives. i don't think there is -- it's wrong, i think it's democratically wrong, and i also think it's politically unwise, simply to talk about opportunities and not to
acknowledge that there will be difficulties, there will have to be sacrifices, there will be damage to communities which have to be compensated by state policy. but if we put out too optimistic a view of how this is going to be a wonderful transition in which nobody will suffer, well, i think we risk then being accused of bad faith or utopianism. the other point, of course, as i've already said, we need to shift as many of the sacrifices as possible on to those who can afford to make those sacrifices. certainly it is absolutely politically and morally impossible to demand additional sacrifices from ordinary people while maintaining grossly inequitable levels of tax for the rich, and by the way, i don't regard this as a left wing
position. president theodore roosevelt, president eisenhower, even president nixon and president ford would all have agreed with me on this, i think. on migration, yes, the point is we know that while mass migration may boost the economy as a whole, we know that it is very bad for the wages and the living standards but with unionization of the poorer sections, perhaps increasingly more skilled sections of the working classes, and one of the reasons we know this is because a number of american corporations have been extremely frank about it. about how migrant labor and especially of course illegal migrant labor, which can't be unionized, can't be used to
break strikes and force wages down. this is in no way a racist position or a condemnation of the migrants themselves. if i lived in honduras, i would do exactly the same myself. but i think that those of us who are deeply interested in the future of liberal democracy, of social solidarity, and of green new deals, do have to recognize the degree to which uncontrolled migration is a threat to all these things. host: our guest is a senior research fellow at the quincy institute for leadership for responsible statecraft. what is that organization and what is your role there? guest: well, my role is that of a senior research fellow, which means i talk and talk and write and write and then do some more talking on international affairs, including climate change.
but also including a range of global security issues. the quincy institute is -- probably ultimately grew out of opposition to the vietnam war. but more immediately out of opposition to the invasion of iraq in 2003. and its core philosophy is that i suppose you'd say of moderate realism. it is deeply opposed to american military adventurism and interventionism elsewhere in the world. it believes in attempts, as far as possible, at reasonable compromises with other great powers in order that america should be able to scone trait much more strong -- concentrate much more strongly on a range of pressing domestic issues in the united states of which i would say climate change is one. so we are opposed to american
global hegemony by political means. we are not against american leadership by political and cultural means and we are in favor of scone traition on the -- concentration on the interests of american citizens. ordinary americans at home. and brits. host: couple more calls for you. ralph in washington, d.c., go ahead on the independent line. caller: hi, great conversation. thank you for being there. a couple points i would like to make very quickly. first of all there is a technology called molten salt reactors, developed in the 1960's, at lawrence livermore laboratories, which nixon killed, brought in a reactor which was a nightmare, never worked. this technology can burn our nique leer waste -- nuclear waste. this technology has a 500-year half-life instead of a 10,000 year half-life.
this technology cannot melt down because it's already melted. this technology is walk-away safe. we are spending $13 billion to $15 billion on one nuclear aircraft carrier. all we need to do is to fund some of these small companies that are trying to get it through and the first start or phase, which is a multibillion-dollar phase, and we cannot three or four or five prototypes of the different designs out there. you need to start talking about this. this is something that is solid. it's not a scientific breakthrough that's needed. there are some engineering hurdles that have to be overcome but most of those have been overcome and china is currently throwing huge money into this. now, it's not just energy. if this country falls behind and is stuck in the horse and buggy days of energy and china walks away with this technology, they are going to be able to produce
cheaper goods and they're going to be able to dominate the industry in the future. this is imperative and it's being stopped by the oil and gas industry and i am shocked that you haven't mentioned it. one last point. i get tired of hearing the stupid arguments that -- well, these other guys are doing something wrong, so we should too. it's the argument, well, he beats his wife, i can beat mine. he beats his children. i can throw my -- if he throws his trash out the window, i should be able to throw mine out the window. that is a lame argument. thank you for being -- host: ralph, on the last point what are you talking about and what are you specifically talking about? caller: they say india is burning too much coal and therefore we should be burning more coal. or china is burning more coal. host: got you. we will let anatol lieven respond. you have spoken about nuclear
energy, but go ahead and respond to his comments. guest: yes indeed. i am not a nuclear scientist, so i feel shy about commenting in detail on this. i've done more reading on nuclear fusion technology, but i entirely agree. we have to do everything possible to explore the safe -- and develop the safer forms of nuclear energy. i find the prejudices of the environmental camp against nuclear energy. it's a misassessment of risk. at most, at the absolute outside indirect casualties of the chernobyl disaster, 60,000 or so, the actual figure could well be less than a quarter of that.
between seven million and nine million people a year die from the effects of pollution by carbon fuels. that's not even talking about the ongoing and future effects of climate change. so absolutely. yes, people have talked about the sputnik moment. you are absolutely right. if the chinese are pouring money into this kind of research and development, then if america wishes to compete with china as an economic model and as a world economic and moral and political leader for the future, it is essential that america do the same. once again, for decades after the second world war, what the two of us have just said would have met no resistance at all from republicans as well. eisenhower regarded investment
in civilian research and development as simply a natural task and duty and an essential task and duty of the american state. it wasn't controversial. host: let's hear from craig, new jersey, on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a degree in economics. i am listening to the speaker. he thinks -- he refers to the united states and great britain as being wealthy. the united states is $20 trillion in debt. great britain is essentially bankrupt. says nothing about putting the financial burden on china. this is financially not reasonable to the west, totally favorable to china and really listening to him, it sounds like the talking points i would expect to hear from president
xi. i wait for a response. host: ok. anatol lieven. guest: britain isn't bankrupt. i've seen no sign of that. america would not be so deeply in debt if it could only fix -- and i quoted warren buffett horks is hardly a communist, if it could only fix its inefficient tax system and get a grip on money laundering as well, which is a universal problem. as to xi jinping, have i not just said that in order to compete successfully with china, america needs to put money into research and development in order to compete with china, not to help china. by the way, the development of a variety of renewable energy,
including -- once again including nuclear energy, developed in the united states with american technology, that contributes vastly to america's energy independence and therefore national security. those are not chinese lines. if you want to look at some policies which might have been developed in china, i suggest you look at american policy in the middle east over the past 20 years. as far as i can see, the only country in the world that has benefited in terms of the damage it's done to the united states and the american economy, american dit and american -- debt and american interest, the only country in the world that has benefited from american policy in the middle east is china. i am not suggesting that it was designed there. it was a last de-- alas designed in the united states. host: you can read more in the book, "climate change and the nation state." our guest is anatol lieven. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. it was a pleasure. i really enjoidz the conversation.
host: ahead here on "washington journal," we will talk politics. 2021 politics in particular with the virginia governor's race coming up on tuesday and a look ahead to 2022 as well. our guest is u.v.a.'s center for politics' larry sabato. that's coming up next. >> monday the u.s. supreme court will hear argue oaring eument -- argument on s.b.8 which bans all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. the justices hear whole woman's health versus jackson which challenges a part of the law that gives the public power to enforce it via civil suit without federal court review. and united states versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral oaring eument --
argument live coverage on c-span2. listen on c-span radio or on the new c-span now mobile app. >> tonight howard husack discusses the poor side of town, his critical look at the more than is00 year effort by the federal government and others who create low cost housing in the united states. >> what happened was once your home is torn down, you are directed to the projects, which seem nice at first, but you can only rent. the government owns them. you can never own anything in public housing. to this day, this remains a problem. 47% of the residents of public housing to this day are african-american. those are all people who are not owning anything, not accumulating wealth. we shouldn't be surprised that
having steered african-americans into public housing that there is a gap between black and white wealth. >> author of "the poor side of town" tonight at 8:00 eastern. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> book tv every weekend features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. coming up fox news host jesse waters critiques left wing activists in his book "how i save the world." then conservative podcaster ben shapiro talks about his new book, in which he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda in american. get the latest on publishing news and trends, plus insider interviews on "about books." on "afterwards," in his latest
book entrepreneur says that corporate america is signing on to woke culture only to increase profits. he is interviewed by the former chair of the president's economic advisors during the george w. bush administering. watch btv -- book tv every weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: up next joining us from the university of virginia is larry sabato. good morning, professor sabato. welcome to "washington journal." guest: good morning. nice to be with us on halloween. host: on with us this morning to talk about the upcoming virginia governor election on tuesday, among off year elections happening nationwide, but certainly a lot of national focus on the virginia race.
in fact the associated press defining it as a post-trump test for democrats in virginia. how do you see the race on this halloween morning, larry sabato? guest: it's close and competitive and both sides agree with that. obviously they have different interpretations of what numbers we have from early voting and each side thinks they're winning. i know that will shock people. that's usually the case with campaigns. host: it's reflected in a front page headline of "the washington post." poll finds a dead heat in contest for governor. what about this race that strikes you as different from any other race you have seen in virginia politics, any other governor's race in virginia politics? guest: well, it's only the second time that a former governor has run for another term. virginia is the last state in the union that limits a governor to one consecutive term of four years. if they want to serve a second term they have to stay out for four years and run again.
only one other governor has done that. his name was miles godwin, in 1973. he won extremely narrowly partly because people wanted to move forward. they often don't look to the past. they like to move into the future. and so it's not as easy getting re-elected, running for a nonconsecutive term, as it is running for consecutive terms. incumbents often have it easier. maybe the new jersey governor is in this category. he is on the ballot too on tuesday and he has been leading pretty handily throughout much of the campaign, but he is running for re-election as the incumbent governor. mcauliffe doesn't have that advantage. host: what does each candidate have to do to win in virginia? where are the strengths that have to turn out both on election day and ahead of election day in the early voting? guest: well, i will give you a general comment and get down to specifics, try to be brief
because we want to get to the questions. but generally speaking, there are simply more democrats in the new virginia than there are republicans. a lot more. that wasn't true even 10, 15 years ago. you had more republicans than democrats. but the state has been changing significantly in demographic terms and in rescronnal terms. the -- regional terms. the most democratic region of the state is northern virginia, and northern virginia depending on how you define the region, is about 1/3 of the entire statewide vote now assuming they turn out. back in the old days, and i've seen virginia since the early 1950's, virginia was democratic but very conservative democratic, southern democratic. it switched to republicans in the 1970's, actually beginning with a man who died this week, governor holton, who was elected in 1969 as the first republican governor of the 20th century.
now, having said that, if democrats get their vote out, they will win because there are a lot more democrats than republicans. the problem that democrats are having is getting that vote out. republicans are much more enthusiastic because they think they have a keabd who -- candidate who can win and they haven't been in office for 10 years. host: our guest, larry sabato, we have a line for virginia residents. the line is 202-748-8003. all the other lines, republicans is 202-748-8001. for democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. i wanted to ask you, larry sabato, about part of a poll the post did at mason university on issues that were important to virginia res dints. the one issue that has jumped in the past month is education. it was -- 15% of the people responded in september.
that jumped to 24% in october. what does that reflect? guest: it reflects the fact that republicans have been following their nominee closely and his tv ads are overwhelmingly about parents' role in education and they are following the candidate. that is overwhelmingly a republican group. the democrats, who have said education is important, are voting for terry mcauliffe. people misinterpret polling, especially about issues. it often depends on what is in the headline and what specific candidate is pshing for a -- pushing for a particular issue. to me that's all it means. people overinterpret it and read too much into it. host: do you think that really appeals more to a subset of people rather than the voting population at large? guest: oh, absolutely. 25% is 5%. you need 50% plus one or since there is an independent on the ballot maybe you get by with
49%, something like that. host: on the aish of education -- eab of education, let's show in case our viewers haven't said the latest virginia ad for glenn youngkin. we will follow that with a response from the mcauliffe campaign. [video clip] >> as a parent it's tough to kratch everything so when my son showed me his reading assignment, my heart sunk. it was some of the most explicit material you can imagine. i met with lawmakers. they couldn't believe what i was showing them. their faces turned bright red with embarrassment. they pass bills requiring schools to notify parents when explicit content was assigned. it was bipartisan. it gave parents a say. the option to choose an alternative for my children. i was so grateful. but then governor terry mcauliffe vetoed it twice. he doesn't think parents should have a say. he said that.
he shut us out. glenn youngkin, i -- he listened. he understands parent matter. join me in voting for glenn youngkin. >> i am glenn youngkin, candidate for governor and i sponsored this ad. host: that is the glenn youngkin ad. let's take a look at the mcauliffe ad afterward. [video clip] >> nothing is more important than my children's education so when i heard about glenn youngkin wanting to ban books by prominent black authors, it scared me. >> here in virginia youngkin is campaigning on banning books. we know what this is about. it's the same politics we saw from donald trump. meant to divide us. it has no place in our schools and no place in virginia. let's choose a better way. >> i am terry mcauliffe, candidate for governor, and i sponsored this ad. host: larry sabato, whatever the population thinks of that issue, they have tapped into an issue
that has made a lot of headlines nationwide. guest: yes, but you actually showed one of the least effective youngkin ads. he has had some very good ads. that wasn't one of them. it probably backfired because more information came out about the woman who was in the ad and her son, who works for a republican committee and was in the trump white house briefly. it just didn't work. that's why it disappeared almost immediately. on the more general issue, because of gap that -- gaffe that mcauliffe made in the second debate saying that parents shouldn't be telling schools what to teach, some other ads that the youngkin campaign has had and republicans have had were more effective and i think it stirred the republican base. people who are really concerned about what the schools are teaching and whether there is a book with a pornographic passage in it, they are heavily overwhelmingly republican. so it's a matter of getting your
base out in an off, off year election. it's a battle of turnout. the turnout won't be nearly as high as it was in the presidential year, for example. host: how is mcauliffe's first term as governor generally thought of? guest: well, when i am asked that question, i simply refer to the nools were taken at the time as he exited. he had majority support. he was generally viewed as a good governor. he wasn't at the top and the governors i have watched and studied since the 1960's, but he was far from the bottom. he was in majority territory. given the times that he served in, 2014 to 2018, i think he got a pretty good score because the conditions were not per febt in -- perfect in many ways. host: how do you think glenn youngkin has handled the issue of donald trump's support for
him am this governor's race? guest: delicately. there was a strange character on tv, i am dating myself, tiny tim, whose famous song was tiptoe through the tulips. essentially that's -- i am glad you remember. i feel better. basically he -- youngkin has had to tiptoe through the tulips because on the one hand he needs all the trump voters to vote for him and i think by and large he is getting that because they don't want to lose any more. virginia's elections every year, the republicans have lost every election, every statewide office and the legislature for 10 years. so they've got a candidate who certainly has the funding, a lot of it provided by his own wealth. they have a candidate who looks good. they have a candidate who has campaigned mainly on generalities but some specifics that appeal to the republican base. they don't want to blow it, so the trump people are going to be
there for him. he needs voters beyond the trump base. he needs voters who in virginia don't like donald trump. donald trump lost in virginia by five points in 2016 and by 10 points in 2020. so how do you get those additional voters? you put some distance between yourself and trump, but not so much distance that donald trump will start if not twreeting -- tweeting about it, issuing press releases saying nasty things about you which he has done in other states. so far he has pulled it off, although there is a trump teleraly on monday, i am sure the youngkin people aren't too happy about this, and he is expected to talk about youngkin. i am sure he will endorse him for the fifth or sixth time. he doesn't need that. youngkin doesn't need that. we will have to see what trump says tomorrow. if he doesn't make headlines, it will probably have little effect. host: play this out a little for 2022 in terms of a youngkin win
on tuesday or a youngkin loss on tuesday, and the future role of donald trump in congressional elections ahead in 2022 in terms of his support for those candidates. guest: sure. if youngkin wins, i think democratic fundraising is going to tank certainly for congressional candidates because they will be uniquely responsible along with president bush for mcauliffe's defeat if it happens. the fact that they couldn't get their act together, they couldn't pass those two big bills that they ran on in 2020, president biden's ratings have been falling. a new nbc poll released moments ago has biden falling to 42%, national popularity and he is not far from that in virginia. it's a little bit higher but not much. these things are unchangeable for a candidate for governor.
terry mcauliffe can do nothing about that. he tried to get the democrats to pass something, but they failed. they're talking about passing it tuesday. we have heard that before. but even if they do it will be too late to help terry mcauliffe. i think democrats will freeze up and freak out. even though the midterm elections are a year away, 36 governors, coming up next november, november of 2022, it will suggest that democrats are going to do very poorly. we will see whether that is premature, but that's what people are going to think. if youngkin loses, my guess is he is only going to lose by a point or two if he lose. that's also going to be interpreted as a good showing for a republican. if a state that biden carried by 10 points has a republican suddenly within one or two points of winning, that also ought to cause democrats to freak out.
so my guess is that psychiatrists' offices will be filled after tuesday with democratic activists. that's my guest. host: calls for larry sabato. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, and for independents and others, 202-748-8002. it's election day tuesday in virginia. so virginians, your line is 202-748-8003. let's go first to john in florida. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. mr. sabato, i have been watching you for a long time now, and i trust your opinion. if the virginia legislature flips, what is going to happen to cannabis? will virginia be told you are not having it ever? what will the pushback be on that or is it even a factor in this election? thank you for taking my call.
guest: well, that's a good question because a lot of the policies passed by the democratic legislature -- they've only been in office a couple years in both houses -- may well be repealed by a new republican legislature, although let's remember the state senate isn't up this year. the state senate is 21-19 democratic. they're not even on the ballot until 2023 so you will still have one of the two houses and as we know from our bicameral system you have to have both houses pass something in order to get it to happen. so i don't think the cannabis rules -- the law will be changed significantly in the next two years. the change might happen after 2023 if you have a republican governor, a republican house and a republican state senate. that's my short answer. i could go into a longer answer because the rules matter and some of the rules may be set add mib straight -- administratively and a different governor from a different party may well
construe the situation about cannabis differently. host: you recently said the republican party in virginia is energized and they're doing a better job of turning out their voters. why is that? what are they doing better than the democrats? guest: because the republicans are really enthused. the energy level is very high, because they actually have a candidate who might win. they've had a series of losers for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, both u.s. senate seats, presidential losers since 2008, all the republican nominees for president have lost here. so naturally if you had lost for that long and your team has a chance to win, you are going to be raising the roof, right? you are going to be screaming and yelling and stamping your feet and that pretty much is what is happening for republicans. democrats say -- i have no way of verifying this until we see the vote, but they say they have done very, very well in the
early voting, especially in northern virginia. if that's true, it is possible, possible that mcauliffe can pull it out by building up a big margin in northern virginia in the early vote. we will see. one big change people should know about is this year the early vote, that is mail vote being and early in-person voting, will be released first rather than last. it's been released last for quite a number of years. people think there is something fishy there because they're watching the board and one candidate is winning and then all of a sudden a giant number of votes come in and then the opposite candidate is winning. that's because the early vote is reporting. by releasing it first, people ought to have more confidence in the vote, though they should have had confidence in the vote regardless. host: there were reports earlier this week that there will be more poll watchers out in
virginia than in past years. is that your understanding? guest: yes, yes. i think again a lot of that is applied by the republican party. i have no problem with poll watchers as long as they dont interfere -- don't interfere. whether they're democrats or republicans, that's not their job. their job is not to discourage people from voting or scowl at them. their job is to be there to watch and to make sure that things are done properly. so the more the merrier as long as the local vote officials at each precinct can handle it. host: let's go to our virginia line next. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span, first-time caller. host: great. caller: i am just amazed at how people don't remember last year. the democrats are the only ones that give us any help and republicans said no, they don't need no help. i will remember that this year and i hope all virginians do, too.
thank you. host: thank you. ok, tim. lee in grand gorge, new york, lee on the republican line. go ahead. you are on with larry sabato. caller: hi, i guess some of my questions have been answered by a previous caller but basically is mcauliffe and youngkin neck and neck? how can we be sure of election integrity? are they going to come up with a bunch of mail-in ballots after the polls have closed? guest: i am really glad that she asked that question and here is why. my main focus is national elections but i have lived in virginia for decades and i have followed and analyzed virginia elections as well. i am here to tell you, as somebody who analyzes votes, and who has followed the virginia elections closely in every way that it's possible to follow them, i am proud to say that virginia, my home state, has a safe and secure election system.
there is not the slightest evidence of fraud. we have had a number of recounts where candidates, national or state candidates, have been separated by dozens or just a few hundred ballots out of millions cast, and we found almost no change when every single ballot was examined. so i am simply here to tell you, i can't speak for every state. i don't have the same nj base -- knowledge base in every state, but you should put concerns about fraud out of your mind, at least in terms of virginia because it doesn't exist, no matter what anybody, including a former president, says. host: let's hear from jarrett in texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, sir. mr. sabato, needless to say i respect your opinion and expertise on this, but we are talking about political
advertising. the two ads that were shown earlier, you denounce $the republican ad as being somehow illegitimate because the actor in there -- in the ad was tied in to the republican party. well, of course, to me it's a lame observer. of course, the whole ad was designed by the republican party, no? but the substance of the ad, wasn't that straightforward, that what she said and what the ad presented, wasn't that honest and wasn't the substance of the ad valid sneferls -- nevertheless? thank you. guest: you have to judge advertising by its goal. what is its goal? persuasion. or transferring energy to the base. maybe that ad transferred energy to the base, though i hardly
think republicans need more energy in their base here in virginia this year. everything that i have heard, including from some republicans, and the fact that the youngkin campaign really stopped airing it or at least i have seen it very little. i've heard from others, they haven't seen it except online. that tells me that it did not have the effect they hoped it would have. so if i "denounced it" it is because it is viewed as having been ineffective and that's how you judge advertising. does it win you votes? does it get you more votes? does it lose votes? does it have no effect? it's a waste of money and money can go to other ads that have more effect. host: let's go to robert in texas, independent line. robert, go ahead. you're on. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am just curious, a
little question for the -- mr. sabato there. having trump not engage in the campaigning for mr. youngkin, is that by design, that it actually is a plus for the republicans getting trump not involved in the campaigning here? thank you. guest: i think you could say that the republican campaign in the general election did not want any close association with trump, though they got some anyway. unsolicited endorsements on days they didn't know they were going to be endorsed by donald trump and has done it repeatedly. i've lost count, five or six. but he hasn't appeared in virginia, and youngkin certainly hasn't appeared next to him. when youngkin was running for the nomination, he was a trump guy or he projected himself that
way, saying that donald trump was the reason why he got involved in the election, the reason he jumped into the governorship and he is proud that president trump endorsed him. a lot of that was dropped right after he got the nomination. that's practical politics. if you are running for governor in a state that rejected donald trump by 10 points, you are not likely to want to be photographed with him and you won't see youngkin -- i don't think -- even at that telerally tomorrow, he is certainly not going to host: for many election, the northern suburbs have been strongly democratic it is that still the case? as though suburbs spread, are those suburbs still as democratic as they once were? guest: you ask a good question. they are very likely to vote
democratic, a large majority of them. but it is always a question of margins. if youngkin cuts the democratic margin by five points any increases, as i think he is likely to do, the republican margin, which can give him 70% or so of the vote, then he can win. you want to cut the margin in areas you are going to lose and you want to increase it in areas you know you will win pit and that has been the strategy that he has had from the beginning and it may work. host: what did joe biden win those suburbs by in 2020? guest: over 60%, depending on which suburb. it was a massive landslide in northern virginia. even though he won virginia by 10 points he still lost to rural areas by a massive amount to donald trump. those areas do not have the punch they once did, that is
putting it mildly. host: we are shutting -- showing some video from this past week. has he been seen as an asset to the campaign? guest: a lot less so than his first visit to back terry mcaulliffe in the summer, before he became unpopular. i would have to say he is a minus. he may not be in northern virginia, and that is where he went, where the publicity was concentrated, but the president's trainings -- ratings have fallen further than i thought he could fall in a state like that. i would not call him a plus. i certainly would not call the professional democrats -- congressional democrats a plus. they have really screwed up the campaign plan for terry mcaulliffe, and apparently keeping the governorship is not a big priority and i think that
they will regret that. host: this is woodbridge, one of the suburbs -- sorry, jeff, in woodbridge. caller: woodbridge is the southern part of northern virginia. i am sort of a fish out of water. i am a moderate republican, born in california and never a trumper. i voted by mail in my precinct, it was secure and fast. i have no complaints about it at all. a question for the professor come how much confidence do you have in the polls? guest: a lot less confidence than i had before the elections of 2016, 20 18, actually 2017 too when they suggested it was a close governors race.
the polls were off in many of the key elections in the 2018 midterms and in a lot of the key states and i mean really off in 2020 and they were supposed to have corrected the problems that existed in 2016 my answer is i pay attention to them, and i read them and analyze them and i care about them. but i weight them a whole lot less. host: are you still with us? you said you are a moderate republican in your suburb. would you mind sharing with us how you voted? caller: i voted for terry mcaulliffe. i thought he was a good governor. i have lived here since 1990. host: emily is on the
independent line from missouri. emily? guest: i just wanted to ask, they are finding stuff in wisconsin. if you think that will happen in virginia? the voter fraud? in the nursing homes. host: i think we're getting a little confers. professor, any response? guest: all i can say is i am not going to speak to every precinct in every state or nursing home or whatever. i cannot say whether that is an example of fraud or not, but i can tell you this, in every single court case of fraud, donald trump and the republicans failed in their attempts to even present credible evidence to the
courts that there was fraud. that is all i can tell you. maybe there was some that was not uncovered it may be other things will come out, but right now, my personal opinion, and i think the opinion of my entire field, 2020 was overall a safe and secure election. in some inside information, one of my former students, always a conservative republican and was an appointee to head the group within the homeland security department to run the election, cisa, says it was the safest election in american history, and after he said that, trump card him on twitter. i know chris and his politics are conservative republican, and i tend to believe him over somebody who tells a big lie a lot. host: we have some democrats in congress.
late in the week adam kinzinger announced his resignation come and his intent to leave congress and retire before the next election. what you think that means for the future of the congressional republican delegation in the house? guest: personally i am sorry to see that. i have followed his career here he is an iraq war veteran, and he votes a very conservative line and always has. yet he is leaving because of two reasons he was redistricted into another republican district and that republican is more or less a trump republican and almost certain he would win the primary and the other reason is because donald trump is determined to get back at adam kinzinger and liz cheney and all of the other republicans who voted to impeach him. that is his right. it is a free country.
but he has courage, and so does liz cheney and the others who voted for impeachment. it is easy for democrats to vote for impeachment and i'm not saying that they did not take it seriously, but it is tough, extremely tough for a republican to stand up against his or her own party. and adam kinzinger did that and liz cheney did that and other stated and a lot of us have respect for them. i consider adam kinzinger to be a real patriot, as we used to define it, who does the right thing for the country even if it costs him personally. host: this is jay from virginia, a republican. caller: so what happens to glenn youngkin if he does not see victory this year in virginia? we did not hear his name before, one of the first time we have heard his names. and we see youngkin and he has
spent a lot of his personal money financing his campaign. what happens to youngkin if he does not have a victory in 2021? guest: good question. i will have to look into my crystal ball, but i have not heard him address that. he thinks he is going to win. you never what to speculate about a future that is based on your not winning. my sense of it is that in the beginning he may have been a fish out of water as all candidates are who have never been in politics, he has adapted well to the campaign trail and seems to have done well. if you loses, my guess is he will only lose by a small amount . republicans do not have a lot of choices in virginia of a good strong candidate who might actually win statewide. he has worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 billion.
that is a lot more than i can count. he has spent to this point i think 20 million, somewhere in that vicinity, so he has more to spend. i would think you would probably run for office again. that is pure speculation. he has not addressed it and he may not have to. if he is elected governor, i would say within three months, there will be a quite group pushing him for president. it is going to happen. if he is the governor him he will be push for president or vice president. that is a swing state, and if republicans can win those 13 electoral votes, the democrats are behind the eight ball. they will have a tough time because that suggests they would have a candidate that when it win other purple states. host: this is the latest from new jersey.com, the poll showing that governor murphy with a nine point lead over the republican
challenger in the final days of the governor's race. anything in that race that is notable in terms of national issues or implications? guest: if somehow the republicans also when new jersey, the panic i talked about among the democrats would look more like the panic that you see in godzilla movies. that is what will happen in the days following that election, but i do not think it will happen. governor murphy i do not believe has been behind a single nonpartisan poll in the election . some have had it closer than others, but everybody i talked to including some republicans who would hope they would do better, thank governor murphy will be reelected. it is a more democratic state then virginia. i think he will do all right, but i am looking to see what the margin is. it matters whether he wins by
five points or 10 points or some other number. you want to see relative to bide n's strength in 2020 or the normal democratic vote in new jersey. host: this is steve from roderick spurred, new jersey. caller: i have a question for the professor. some of the issues that are being considered by the voters include women's reproductive rights, the minimal firearms regulations, medicare or medicaid, education, and that drawing of congressional districts. should youngkin win, what with the effect be on these issues? guest: good question. it really depends on whether if youngkin wins he can pull in a majority of republicans in the
house of delegates and if they need to win that six seats. it is doable. if he wins by your four points, it is probable that i think the republicans would get at least a narrow majority of delegates. there is still the state senate. there is at least one democrat who is open to restrictions on abortion, in fact really two. some of these things can happen. gun control you control out entirely. that does not pass at least in cogent form now, and it didn't pass under democrats, certainly not going to pass under a republican governor who vetoed it, no way that the legislature can override a root even probably try. yes, abortion is a major difference between the two candidates. terry mcaulliffe very pro-choice
and glenn youngkin very pro-life. my sense is that if young can --youngkin is elected. he said he would do everything he could to limit abortion and that says he will try to get past in the legislature whatever pro-life legislation he can. that is his prerogative if he is elective. if terry mcaulliffe is elective, you can expect the current regime to continue. an election is not just a choice between two human beings or even between two parties, a choice on all of these key issues because today our system is so polarized, that the two sides have very little in common and their positions are diametrically opposed, so you are voting for a long list of
things. host: the polling is pretty much at a dead heat for the virginia governor's race. larry sabato taking your call. republicans (202)748-8001, democrats (202)748-8000, and independent and others, (202)748-8002. if you are in virginia, (202)748-8003. we will go to sunnyvale, california, and this is alex on the independent line. good morning. guest: i have a comment and a quick question. joe biden has majority disapproval by the american public, however the majority of hispanics and african-americans
support him where as the majority of asian americans and europeans disapprove of his performance. the quick question is in the case of youngkin and mcauliffe, how does the support break down? guest: i will not put a precise number because the polls differ and likely we have an exit poll coming out, at least one, maybe two, on tuesday and they are often wrong, but they do adjust them after the election to reflect the real vote. you get some sense of how the demographic groups and certainly gender has played in the election. i would predict terry mcauliffe would win somewhere nine out of every 10 african americans.
republicans are interesting to analyze because you cannot be assured, they are subgroups that are different. i'm going to look at that carefully because the president trump did better with hispanics, any carried a heavy majority of hispanics and border communities in texas and a good of your state. my guess is that hispanics will go democratic, but it is the margin that matters it will it be 70% or 60%? asian americans at least in virginia and nationally vote disproportionately democratic. i would expect them to, but you have many sub groups within the rubric of asian american, and so you got to look if we have the numbers to do it, to break it down, we got to look at each one of those subgroups.
so it is always interesting. you asked about gender, just exactly what you would expect. men are disproportionately publican and women disproportionately democratic, and i being a big gap in the polls that have been taken and i will be shocked if the exit polls don't show the same thing after tuesday. host: robert, from alexandria, virginia. caller: i wanted you to address the campaign financing that is coming from outside the state and how you think that will affect the elections. it seems like there's quite a bit of outside money. guest: the gentleman is certainly correct. this has shattered all records for all time in the state them the two candidates have already
spent 115 million together and it will be more than that when the bills are paid and everything is added up. think about that. one governorship. i will not date myself, but i will go back several decades and say that if you had an election were both candidates together spent 25 million, it would be worth a headline and now we are at 115 and probably a lot more millions before the total tally, but a lot of it comes from in-state and a lot of it out-of-state. youngkin has put in 20 million i'm a i don't know the exact figure. it is not the majority of his spending, but substantial. my own personal feeling about it is, if i had my way, we would have at least public funding for part of it because that is relatively uninterested money.
people give 50 bucks and it is matched. you want to encourage small dollar contributions because we all know you cannot even get a phone call for $50. that is nothing to a candidate running for major office. i wish it were different. i am concerned about it, and yet i think after a lifetime of talking about campaign finance and politics, i put it in the category of it will not be fixed in my lifetime. that is not saying a lot, but i put that to the side because it is not going to change. host: this is marina from chicago on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: i wanted to talk about what your guest thought about the black people voting for republicans. there are a lot of them.
i am now involved with a women's group, in chicago, the corrupt city of chicago. chicago is like really bad now for lack people and for everybody. we are not walking away from the democratic party. we are running away from the democratic party. this is not our party anymore. the democrats have been playing the black community for i don't know how many years. host: did you vote republican in the 2020 election? caller: i did, but i was one of the very few, but now there are many. we have a group now in illinois, all women, no men allowed -- i should not say aloud, but no men have been wanting to be a part.
guest: i cannot speak specifically to the situation in chicago, and this is a great city. they have loads of problems like everybody, but it is a great city. i do not want the ex mayor to jump down our throats, much less the incumbent mayor. all i can tell you is the numbers, and nationally it really has not changed much. democrats generally get 88-95% of the black vote. it varies. we had a couple of republicans here, i mentioned the late former governor lyndon holden, who got at least a third of that vote when he was elected. the late senator john warner, in the senate, he frequently got a third on more of that book.
there are republicans able to do it, but they tend to be more moderate. donald trump was not one of them. as the lady correctly noted. i have not seen a big change. there may be changes in specific localities and occasionally in elections that are statewide in specific states, but on the whole, no. host: on the democrat line, william from nashville. caller: i had a question. i would like to know, there is this republican candidate who has spent $20 million to run for office [indiscernible] that is a lot of money for the campaign. how in the world can they vote for somebody like this that come out of nowhere, when all he had is money.
host: we touched on that earlier, that is youngkin's money that he loaned his campaign, correct? guest: correct. you can have arguments about why that is a bad thing. there is an unequal playing field among the candidates, but terry mcauliffe is no slouch when it comes to raising money. i wish things were more equal in our society, but i would also argue that if somebody is spending his or her own money, that is maybe less harmful then big special interests giving millions of dollars to a candidate, because those special interests will want something back. they do not do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
if you are spending your own money, everybody knows your money -- motive. you yourself i guess the money. spending your own money, the american view is it is your money, do what you want with it. host: this is bill from hackensack, new jersey, the independent line. caller: two points, please, first regarding crt is both inappropriate and abusive to teach children to hate themselves and hate others and hate our police. and number two, it takes away from the essential subjects, by the way, that should be taught. and number two, to confuse elementary school children as to whether they are male or female is child abuse. thank you.
host: a couple of the issues coming up in the campaign, any thoughts on that? guest: in the primary and secondary schools in virginia, a credible race theory is not bought. i have had people contact me and say it is not formally taught or in the standards, but some teachers work it into the subject matter regardless. i don't know. i am not in every class. there has to be a happy medium. i do not want to go back to the textbooks i had as a child in virginia in the 1950's and 1960's which told me that slavery was not really a bad thing, and the slaves were so well treated. get real. there has got to be a happy medium. one hopes eventually the society will reach it. the other thing about transgender children, i don't
know how early that can be projected by analysts and psychologists, but you certainly want to support every child in his or her or their own environment, so i am completely opposed to discrimination against transgender trojan, adults, anybody. it is a subject that i am afraid is becoming a bigger political football, and real people are involved and they get hurt. when politicians legitimize attacks on a particular category of people, the attacks increase, and they are vicious. so count me out when it comes to attacks based on race or gender identity or really any category of what people are. host: another big race on tuesday is that new york mayoral
race, always a national focus. i don't know if you have looked at it, larry sabato, the two candidates, any thoughts on that race? guest: yes. the democrat will win. that is a bold prediction. i know it is bold, that i will take any bet. i will probably give you odds if you want to bet that eric adams will not win because he will and he will be the next mayor of new york. how he will do, who knows? talk about tough cities. chicago has problems, but governing new york is a real task. more power to whoever is elected mayor on tuesday. host: our virginia line, alexandra, charles, independent. caller: thank you for your candor and honesty. as a black american, i do not
see anything wrong with critical race theory. it is taught virtually -- advanced schools, so further, when i go to the polls tuesday and put on my military shirt, i am a retired veteran, and if they are any republicans that come to me and challenge my vote, however, this is a progressive state, and i do not see why fear is the number one topic. there's nothing wrong with critical race theory being taught at the advanced level, and when you take a single topic and run with it, that is what gets votes. thank you. guest: if i could add a comment, one comment on that, the society
has changed so much and certainly on race. i am at the university of virginia and have been associated with the university for 51 years and i love it, but the university has finally come to terms with how it was founded and by whom. i respect thomas jefferson and others, but we have come to terms with the fact that i'm sitting here in pavilion on the lawn that was designed by thomas jefferson but built mainly by slaves. we have come to terms with that and we have to come to terms with it continuously. it is a good process, so to the extent that critical race theory forces people to rethink assumptions about institutions, i think that is a positive thing. host: larry sabato, however the race comes out on tuesday, we look forward to hearing what you have to say on that glenn youngkin terry mcauliffe race.
thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you so much. the hour just sped by. host: that will do it for this program. we are back tomorrow morning. happy halloween. have a good weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] ♪
>> comcast supports c-span, giving you a front seat to democracy. >> tonight on q&a, the senior value of the american enterprise institute discusses the poor side of town, a look at them more than 100 year effort to the federal government and private developers and others to create low house -- low cost housing. go what happened was, when your home was torn down, you are directed to the projects, which seemed nice at first but you could only rent. you could never own anything in public and subsidized housing.
to this date this remains a problem. 37% of the residents of public housing to this day are african-american and those are all people who are not owning anything, not accumulating wealth. we should not be surprised that having stared african-americans into public housing, that there is a gap between wealth. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen on all of our podcasts on our new c-span now cap. >> now testimony from attorney general merrick garland. topics include and a covert memo of threats against school boards and officials and the fbi mishandling of the u.s. domestic's sexual abuse investigation and the january 6 capital attack investigation. this runs just four hours.