johnson says wonderfully, don't ship me george wallace. and then he says george this is not about 1968. it's not about 1988 it is about history. and when you die, do you want a pine scratch stony grave that says george wallace he hated or do you want a beautiful elegant granite monument thatt says george wallace he built. and that is the fundamental question it seems to me of citizenship, do you d want to he or do you want to build? and one of the things eddie and i debate off-line a good bit is the extent to which, i am a right by way in this debate just so you know the extent to which progress is a common measured nba, celebrated. and so talk a little bit about that. >> one of the things i insist on in our conversation is that while black america's liberating between whether it's going to hate or build, we have to raise our babies. while you are trying to decide what kind of human being you are going to be auteur going to be monster we have to protect ourselves. we have to figure out how to raise our children in a society that fundamenta

he was in a rocking chair and he leans over george wallace and 'wallace says he controls voting boards or something and johnson says wonderfully don't ship me george wallace. and then he says towards, this is not about 1968, it's not about 1988. it's about history. and when you die do you want a pine scratch stony grave that says george wallace hated or do you want a beautiful against granite monument that says george wallace, he built? and that's the fundamental question it seems to me of citizenship. is you want to hate or do you want to build? one of the things eddie and i debate off-line is the extent to which and i'm right in this debate just so you know. the extent to which progress is measured and be, celebrated. so talk a little bit about that. >> one of the things that i insist on in our conversation was that while white america deliberates between whether or not it's going to hate or lives we have to raise our babies. while you're trying to decide what kind of human being you want to be, whether or not you're going to be monstrous, we have to protect ourselves. we have to fig

that says george wallace. he hated. or do you want a beautiful elegant granite monument that says george wallace he built. and that's the fundamental question. it seems to me of citizenship. is do you want to hate? or do you want to build? and one of the things that eddie and i debate offline a good bet is the extent to which and i'm right by the way in this debate, just so you know. the extent to which progress is a measured and b celebrated? and so talk a little bit about that. one of the things that i insist on in our conversations, is that while white america is deliberating between whether or not it's going to hate or build. we have to raise our babies. while you're trying to decide what kind of human being you're going to be. whether that you're going to be monstrous. we have to protect ourselves. we have to figure out how to raise our children in a society that fundamentally. despises them and so the task then becomes or the question rather. isn't whether or not we're going to hate or whether we're going to build

wallace so the person would sink he leans over george wallace but then he says don't ship me this is not about 1968 or 88 but it's about history. when you die if you want a stony grave that says george wallace are a beautiful monument? and that is the mental question. do you want to hate or do you want to build? in the extent to which it is measured and celebrated so talk about that. >> one of the things i insist on in our conversation whether or not it will hate or build if you try to decide what type of human being he will be. and that fundamentally t despises them so whether a lot we allow hatred seven we think about this moment and use a symbol of the black panther so we think of the black panther paparty but that first image comes from alabama. and there's no more freedom now. so this ongoing battle of how do we respond between the you hate to know you build? how will we raise our babies are doing the interim as a make those decisions? and how long must we wait for progress? and we must lose another george floyd. and lose our own babies. and is a story to be told from the vantag

do you want a stone that says george wallace, he hated. or do you want a beautiful granite monument that said george wallace, he built. that's the fundamental question, it seems to me of citizenship, do you want to hate or do you want to build? and one of the things that eddie and i debate off line a good bit is the extent to which, and i'm right, by the way, in this debate, just so you know -- the extent to which progress is, a, measured and b, celebrated. and so talk a little about that. >> one of the things that i insist on in our conversations is that while white america is deliberating between whether or not it's going to hate or build, we have to raise our babies. while you're trying to decide what kind of human being you're going to be, whether or not you're going to be monsters, we have to protect ourselves. we have to figure out how to raise our children in a society that fundamentally despises them. and so, the task then becomes, or the question, rather, isn't whether or not we're going to hate or whether we're going to build. th

so george wallace was a bigot. pat buchanan a xenophobe. however, this type of politics, it transforms someone like cawthorn, he's a heroic figure. he's fighting the deep state. same with josh holly. >> it's a great point. hadn't thought about it quite the way you put it. opponents and villains are always important, but if you create fake villains and that's what you're against, you're controlling a narrative for anyone who's gullible enough to believe and that is the way it works. you always bring out interesting thoughts, jay. we're out of time, yes or no, did you know? >> i did not, actually. this is one of the reasons why tuning into "the beat" with arry ari melber is important. >> it's a party built on lies because when that's cap, when someone says that, they're talking about lies, falsehoods that animate modern life and we need to deal with. we appreciate your honesty. we'll see you again. thank you. as anyone can see on their screen, the nypd will be holding a briefing. they're running over on schedule because we haven't gone to it

george wallace is amassing some support in the community. i think it is going to be harder than you think, and we have to do all these other things in order to -- lbj, the president, says to my brother, thomas, we don't want any crybabies around here. [laughter] just tell me what you think we should do. he gave him a last, he did them all, and he won maryland. [applause] he did them all. >> thank you, speaker nancy pelosi. thank you, very much. [applause] [indiscernible conversations]

i would pay less attention of george wallace as an individual and more about george wallace's movements and the emotions he tapped into and the direct relevance to subsequent history and i would argue contemporary history. i think there are some real all too familiar elements in wallace's appeal and even in wallace's style. but, more importantly, again, i don't want to -- the question i learned about '68 is to pay less attention to the individuals and more attention to the movemens, the emotions that they aroused. i can remember literally being with my grandparents who then lived next door to us, house on the same property and i spent a lot of time with them. i mean, that's where i think my initial sense of history in some ways developed. and i remember tom jarriel on abc, i'm sure there was a bulletin and the news came of the shooting in memphis. i have a very keen aware fz now, more than i did at the time, that the civil rights movement which, after all, i didn't ever directly participate in and yet i felt vicariously a great emotional connection to it. i mean, i remember vividly the

george wallace is amassing some support in the community. i think it is going to be harder than you think, and we have to do all these other things in order to -- lbj, the president, says to my brother, thomas, we don't want any crybabies around here. [laughter] just tell me what you think we should do. he gave him a last, he did them all, and he won maryland. [applause] he did them all. >> thank you, speaker nancy pelosi. thank you, very much. [applause] [indiscernible conversations] ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect-to-compete program, bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. cox. bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, every day we take your calls live on the on the news of the

in other words, i pay less attention to george wallace as an individual, and i would see much, i would pay much more attention to what it was about george wallace's movement at the emotions that he tapped into, and their relevance, the direct relevance to our subsequent history. and i would argue, contemporary history. i mean, i think there are some real -- all too familiar elements in wallace's appeal, and even in wallace's style. but more important, again, i don't want to, the question about what i'm worried about 68, it's to pay less attention to the individuals, and more attention to the movements. the emotions that they aroused. i can remember, literally, being with my grandparents, who then lived next door to us, house on the same property. and i spent a lot of time with them, i mean, that's why i think by initial sense of history in some ways developed. and now remember tom jarriel on abc, it was a bulletin in the news came that dr. king had been shot in memphis. and it's strange. and we talked about this before. i mean, i have a very keen awareness know, more than i did at the

george wallace is amassing some support in the community. i think it is going to be harder than you think, and we have to do all these other things in order to -- lbj, the president, says to my brother, thomas, we don't want any crybabies around here. [laughter] just tell me what you think we should do. he gave him a last, he did them all, and he won maryland. [applause] he did them all. >> thank you, speaker nancy pelosi. thank you, very much. [applause] [indiscernible conversations] >> one of the recent documents shows sorry about the language, it is confusion, drop it, we are not going to use it anymore. it took gorbachev a while. he starts pressing in the summer and fall to get that in writing. that is no longer an offer, that was just a claim. when push comes to shove, there was a treaty negotiated, the treaty is exquisitely allowed nato to move eastward across the former cold war from lines. >> mary and her book, view it now on the c-span now app. c-span's washington journal, every day we take your views live on the air and we discusse

so he was he ran for governor against george wallace. he sure did talk about that. yeah at the top of a ticket of a party that he and others created the national democratic party of alabama. my father had no illusions about winning that race, but his point was to create a party where newly registered black voters coming off the voting rights act of 1965 had a place to go with their votes in as late as 1966 the official slogan of the alabama democratic party was white supremacy for the right and you could see that when you entered the voting booth. it was a banner above and below the party emblem the rooster so they founded a different party to enable particularly black people in the black belt of alabama not us to vote but to run for office themselves, and he headed that ticket trying to inspire people to do that and he would proudly say in that election particularly the election of 68 they in counties that used to be dominated by virulent violence backed white supremacy. they got people elected to county sheriff probate judge school board reconstruction return to t

when i was in junior high, governor george wallace of alabama said segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation tomorrow. that worked for him in alabama but when he ran for president and they quoted him, it didn't work for him, so words matter. what kevin mccarthy said after january 6, condemning donald trump, and now he's praising donald trump. if a politician's words don't matter, what do we have to go by? thank you. host: let me run through a couple of your text messages. the number is (202) 748-8003. dave from annapolis saying this is all meaningless, inside-the-beltway trash. what matters is inflation. george in virginia saying establishment republicans have no backbone or courage. you should have been passed over for speaker 10 years ago. bobby minnesota -- bob in minnesota said kevin mccarthy is proving politics is more important to him than the constitution and democracy by changing his position. audrey in philadelphia saying charlie cook, who was on this program recently, saying that -- charlie cook noted that republican members were rational for one week after the i

the protection of the service has been and arthur brammer who shot george wallace wanted to kill nixon first. >> and he was awarded. >> and it's a good story for the secret service. he wrote in his journal he was trying to get next and but it was too tricky he was struggling because the secret service made it too hard to get a close enough shot. did for them but kennedy's assassination made them rebuild that agency from the ground up and amazing security but it has been flipping the last couple of decades. >> i was not aware of the exceptional case study project where the analysis was done of 83 people who attacked or came close to prominent american public figures in 1949 in 1996 but that is a lot of instances of attempts more than we remember and the point made among others is that many wanted fame it wasn't about political ideology so something about the secret service's they have a much tougher job than we even know because there are so many more attempts. >> so many. even before president obama was running for office who set the record there are thousands per month that are regist

let me start by asking, limburg, mccarthy, george wallace, pat buchanan. what did they represent? matthew: they represent a form of the american right that in varying degrees has drifted towards conspiracy theory. as distrusted elites so much that it ends up close to distrusting america and the capacity for american government and american people. they are also distinct in a few ways. charles lindbergh. national hero, he became a prominent spokesman, opposing american entry into the second world war. he represented the pre-world war ii american right, which was noninterventionist. not wanting to become involved in the great power politics of europe. mccarthy, after the war, he had an anti-communist foreign policy. he supported international engagement to fight, it isn't. but, we also had a conspiratorial worldview where he felt and charged the executive branch had been infiltrated by communist. he went overboard. wallace is a figure who i would not call an american conservative, yet somehow, he situated himself in a place where many elements of the american right was supportive of

wallace 113.5% of the popular vote and carried five states. fifty years ago. one hundred years ago more than half the audience was disenfranchised before the 19th amendment. this notion i sometimes think of it as the tyranny of the present. of course our problems seem consuming and overwhelming because they are our problems. my argument is if we think historically it's not a kind of, i'm not trying to offer a literary zoloft but i do think proportion creates more room for hope. so it's not as though there was a once upon a time and suddenly the 2016 election happened and the world ended. it represented the interesting victory of perennial and i would argue destructive but surely perennial forces in american life and anybody who wants to say this is and who we are doesn't know anything because of course it's who we are. the plaintiff the country is to try to not to be that 51% of the time and i think we are doing that right now actually. something like 65 federal judges, the supreme court of the united states, sam alito may have saved the repub

mcgovern george wallace. runs too so much of the 1960s talks about supreme court justices. it talks about a general or to talks about the towering activists. we associate with the 60s, dr. martin luther king jr. malcolm x but if there's one thing that animates my sense of the past my sense of myself as an historian. is also really believe that ordinary people. are central to history too? ordinary people who we don't know help us understand whose names. we've never heard of help us understand. the past in a new way an ordinary people in the american past change this nation. so alongside all those famous people who run through the shattering. but i also try to do is tell the stories of ordinary people. what i want to do today. so i just want to tell you. four stories and this is the first one. this is the fourth of july 1961. on the 6100 block of west eddy street in the northwest corner of chicago the day before and cahill and his neighbor clarence mitchell draped their block in 38 flags. that's a lot of flags

it deals with those people that tried to become president, barry goldwater, bobby kennedy, george wallace. it runs through so much of the 1960s. it talks about the supreme court justices and talks about a general or two. and it talks about the towering abg activist that we associate with the 1960s, martin luther king, jr. and malcolm x.ctivist the 1960s, martin luther king, jr. and malcolm x. i also really believe that ordinary people are central to history, too. ordinary people, who we don't know, help us understand the names we never heard of help us understand the past in a new way, and ordinary people in american past changed this nation. alongside all those famous people who run through "the shattering," what i also try to do is tell the stories of ordinary people. what i want to do today, i just want to tell you more stories. and this is the first one. this is the fourth of july, 1961, on the 6100 block of west eddie street in the northwest corner of chicago. the day before, cahill and his neighbor draped the block in 38 flags, and that's a lot of flags given that there are only 36

it deals with those people that tried to become president, barry goldwater, bobby kennedy, george wallace. it runs through so much of the 1960s. it talks about the supreme court justices and talks about a general or two. and it talks about the towering activist that we associate with the 1960s, martin luther king, jr. and malcolm x. i also really believe that ordinary people are central to history, too. ordinary people, who we don't know, help us understand the names we never heard of help us understand the past in a new way, and ordinary people in american past changed this nation. alongside all those famous people who run through "the shattering," what i also try to do is tell the stories of ordinary people. what i want to do today, i just want to tell you more stories. and this is the first one. this is the fourth of july, 1961, on the 6100 block of west eddie street in the northwest corner of chicago. the day before, cahill and his neighbor draped the block in 38 flags, and that's a lot of flags given that there are only 36 houses on the entire block. and ed, being ed, written to the

wallace 113.5 percent of the vote carried five states, there was 50 years and on one years ago more than half of the audience was enfranchised before the 19th amendment and so, in this notion that i sometimes think of this as bring me into the present of portland and of course our problems are consuming in my argument is that if wehi think historically, suny erkind of not trying to offer you literary saucier but i do think that proportion creates more room for hope and so is not as though the was a once upon a time and suddenly the election happening in the world ended, during the 2016 election was representing of the interesting it victory of perennial and i would argue destructive but it surely perennial forces in american life.. and anybody who wants to say that this is not who we are, does not know anything because of course it is who we are and the point of the country is to try to not be that 51 percent of the time. i think we are doing that right now actually, 93 united states senators, and something like 65 federal judges, the supreme court of the united states, they may hav

george wallace, in the race. nixon did not want to have him on any debate stage. you saw george mcgovern. we had three straight elections where there were no presidential debates. what changed everything, it was 1976. gerald ford was the un-elected president. appointed vice president. succeeded to the presidency when nixon resigned. he was behind in the polls, jimmy carter, one-term governor of georgia, they both saw an incentive. in 1976, carter and ford saw an incentive to debate. the debates were back on. they turned to the league of women voters who sponsored the 1976 debate. it continued in 1980. at the last minute, carter and regan debated. the famous line, there you go again. won the election. in 1984, the pattern was established, that is when the next big change happened. the two major parties look at this why are we letting the league of women voters set this up? why don't we do it ourselves? it was set up by the two major party, there have been debates in every cycle. it has been bumpy. in 1992, bush senior at the time, his campaign had issues with it. f

carol, i didn't know until i read the book that arthur who shot george wallace wanted toth kill richard nixon first and was stored at. >> and that is a good story for the secret service. he wrote in his journal that he was trying to get nixon but it was too tricky, too tricky to get he was struggling because the secret service men made it too hard for him to get a close enough shot. so good for them. kennedy's assassination made them rebuild that from the ground up, rigorous training, amazing security that but it's been living the last couple of decades. >> are not what aware ofpa something called the exceptional case study project where an analysis was done, 83 people who attacked or came close to attacking prominent american public figures between 1949 and 1996, they are not all presidents but that's an awful lot of instances, attempts, many more than ist knew i think we probably remember and among other points in this, many of themmo were wanting faith, thiss not political ideology something we learn about the secret service is the got a tougher job than we evenhe know because thee a

karol i did not know to read this book that arthur bremmer who shot george wallace actually wanted to kill richard nixon first. and was thwarted. >> that is actually good story for the secret service. he rode in his journal that he was trying to get nixon. but it was too tricky. it was too tricky to get. he was struggling because the secret service men made it too hard for him to get a close enough shot. so good for them. kennedy's assassination really made them rebuild that agency from the ground up with rigorous training, majoring security. it's been sleeping for the past couple decades. >> is not aware to something you referred to in this book the exceptional case study project. this is where an analysis was done of 83 people who attacked or came close to attacking prominent figures between 1949 and 1996. they are not all presidents. but that that awful lot of instances of attempts, many more than i knew then we probably remember. the point made among others in this study is that many of them are about wedding faith. this is not political ideologies right? something without about t

arthur bremer, who actually shot george wallace wanted to kill richard nixon first and he was thwarted. >> that's a good story. bremer wrote in his journal that he was trying to get nixon, but it was too tricky. tricky dick was too tricky to get. he was struggling because the secret servicemen made it too hard for him to get a close enough shot. >> kennedy's assassination made them rebuild from the ground up, rigorous training, amazing security net, but it's been slipping for the last couple decades. >> i was not aware of something that you refer to in this book called the exceptional case study project, this is where an analysis was done of 83 people who attacked or came close to attacking prominent american public figures between 1949 and 1996. they're not all presidents, but that's an awful lot of instances of attempts. many more than i knew or than i think we probably remember, and the point made among others in this study is that many of them were about wanting fame. this was not about political ideology, something that we learned about the secret service, they had tougher job tha

mcgovern george wallace. runs too so much of the 1960s talks about supreme court justices. it talks about a general or to talks about the towering activists. we associate with the 60s, dr. martin luther king jr. malcolm x but if there's one thing that animates my sense of the past my sense of myself as an historian. is also really believe that ordinary people. are central to history too? ordinary people who don't know help us understand whose names. we've never heard of help us understand. okay, let's get started in this second half of the material. we're going to be discussing mass production and the american system of manufacturers. now as you well know. there are differences in the way economists and historians discuss issues in particular. i would sort of say historians plays a great emphasis on archival information descriptive statistics and testimony that was contemporary to the time in contrast social scientists, especially economists look very much for big overarching themes or a framework that will c

wallace stated democrat over favors lester maddox, the ross barnett all those southern governors all those southern centers only one switch and that was strong thurmond only one. the rest of them stayed democrats forever and black people voted for them so when i started asking the question, why did this happen? it goes back to stockholm syndrome. it goes back to a cognitive dissonance. it makes perfect sense. you've been oppressed. you've been beaten down for 400 years. of course, you're gonna take on the characteristics of your master plus if they had just been paying paying attention to the civil rights movement. we were fighting bleeding dying getting shot by water hoses and been by dogs. either hamburger beside them to go to the bathroom beside them to drink from a water fountain beside them to go to school besides them. of course when it came to vote. we were going to vote with him. makes perfect sense why are? blacks so skeptical about the republican party armstrong back in 1992 good friend of yours lee atwater with over the rnc george bush had just become president. he's looki

and when you go george wallace or you go strom thurmond, you can go places, get votes. but you're going to be stigmatized because of it. >> what's the difference between sending that kind of a vibe out versus what the biden administration is doing with saying, we're no longer going to call people who come into the country illegally "illegal aliens"? >> i don't know. look, the problem with the border is just one of -- immigration is just a flashpoint problem of our day, brian. i mean, nobody is having magic answers to it. each side is going back and forth. biden is getting closer to what trump was doing now, but then they won't, then it will be -- you know, i think the problem that trump did is he made "build the wall" his big thing. we're going to build a wall. well, he built a little bit of a wall. if that's the big -- dwight eisenhower can build an entire interstate highway system in the '50s and you can't get some wall up on the border, then you're leading people down a rabbit hole. and the reason is because people have property along the border, and there are easeme

he calculated that, and when you go george wallace, or hugo scott thurman, you can go places, get goats, but you are going to be stigmatized because event. >> what is the difference between sending that kind of a vibe out, versus what the biden administration did and was saying, which is no longer calling people coming into the country illegal aliens? >> i don't know. the problem with the border is just one of immigration, it is a flash point problem. nobody is having magic answers to it, each side is going back and forth, biden is getting closer to what's trump's doing now. and then there will be, you know, -- i think the problem that trump did was building the wall his big thing. he built a little bit of a wall if that is your big infrastructure, dwight eisenhower could build entire interstate highway system in the 1950s, and you can get some wall up on the border. you are leading people down rabbit hole. doesn't eat mean instantly you can move into people's private property and do things. so the wall was going to be a complicated and he made it seem like it's easy and mexico is going

there has been a backlash, whether it was post-reconstruction or the george wallace campaign or the trunk campaigns today, you see element of those backlashes and the backlashes reemerging. i can't be sanguine about the fact that blacks and whites, among other groups, are doing better than they were in the past. host: you covered a lot of the key stats in the report. the median household income for black americans is $43,682 per year. that is 30% less than white americans. $69,823 per year. i wonder what you think the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson, how that fits into the state of black america. guest: my three word response is it's about time. you heard that. up until thurgood marshall in the 1960's, supreme court's were always white males. that is why it boggles my mind when people say black people have it better off than white people. ketanji brown jackson, this was supposed to be a shoe in confirmation. she is qualified. she is replacing another liberal, judge breyer so it would not make a difference on the liberal-conservative balance. and look at how vicious her confirm