♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for april 23. the supreme court took on a case that dealt with laws directed to those who are homeless. on monday, the justices heard from a lawyer for the city of grants pass, oregon, defending the city's enforcement of laws outlawing the sleeping in cars parked in the street or public parks. however, attorneys defending the homeless made the case that enforcement of those laws violates the eighth amendment. we'll show you portions of the

case. but do you agree or disagree with the city's rights to ban homeless people from sleeping on public land. you can call and let us know. if you agree the city should have the right. yes line, 202-748-8000. perhs u're not sure, 202-748-8002. if you wish to text us your thoughts, can you do that at 202-748-8003. post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. and post on x @cspanwj. the case before the supreme court took case yesterday dealt with city of grant pass, oregon. the website has a story looking at the case yesterday and said on monday they dove into that case that originated in oregon's grants pass with justices struggling to figure out where to draw the line on how far cities can go to regulate how

people sleep or camp in public spaces. they also ask the supreme court even needed to intervene in the case since oregon in 2021 adopted its own state law that allowed for quote, objectively reasonable time, place, and manner limits on sitting, lying, our sleeping outside. over 2 1/2 inform hours of -- hours of lively argument why federal judges should weigh into municipal policy decisions. their individual circumstances left and nowhere else to sleep once they are fined or charged with a crime. seek ago broadband on the ordinances. the liberal justices hammed the city's lawyer saying homelessness isn't considered a status. more there from the case. we'll read this and show you more and portions of it as well. when it comes to the idea of cities banning homeless people from sleeping on public land,

where do you fall on that? if you agree with those cities and laws. if you disagree, 202-748-8002. 1. send us a text at 202-748-8003. this full case the oral argument is available at our website at c-span.org if you want to listen to it. it was in the portions the attorney for the city of grants pass, oregon, and evangalist made a main argument why the city's ordinances do not violate the eighth amendment. >> le cities nationwide, grants pass relies on camping laws to protect its public spaces. these generally applicable laws prohibit specific conduct in our e-- and are essentialo public health and safety. the ninth circu tied city's hands by cstitutionalizing the

policy debate over how to address growing encampments. it'solding that the eighth amendmen bars grants pass from enforcing its camping laws is wrong for three reasons. first,he cruel and unusual puniments clause governs which punishments are permitted. not what conduct can be prohibited. second, no precede supports the ninth circuit's rule. respondentin the united states abandoned its reliance on powell. instead they misread robinson to bar any punishment for invontary conduct that's linked to a status. robinson held only that states cannot outlaw thetatus of drug addiction. made clear that they can prohibit conduct like drug use. this crt should not rewrite robinson six decades later. third, the ninth circuit's approach has proven unworkable. the eighth amendment does not te courts who is involuntarily

roamless, what shelter is adequate, or wh time, place, and manner regulations are allowed. in 35 suits and countg, federal courts are now decing everything from the exact size of campsites in san rafael to the adequacy of specific beds at empty shelters like the gospel rescue mission in grants pass. cities are struggling apply arbitrary shifting standards in the field. this court should reverse and end the ninth circuit failed experiment which has fueled the read of eampments while harming those it purports to protect. i welcome the court's questions. host: that was opening argument yesterday in that case tkpwerpbg grants pass, oregon. the eighth amendment to the constitution by wait reads that excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. that being applied to this case. when it comes to the larger

issue of the city's rights, the ban homeless people from sleeping on public lands, do you agree or disagree. if you agree, the rights to do so. you say yes, 2302-748-8000. no, 202-p 48-8001. if you are not sure, maybe you want to call us at 202-748-8003. a person's status and conduct trying to draw the line to permanent what's cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. the ninth circuit's rulings in the grants case and prior days kase in boise rested on a constitutional principle from the 1962 u.s. supreme court decision on robinson v. california which found the at-eighth amendment prohibits the government from punishing people based on their condition or status n that case a man could not be punished for being addicted to drugs. only illegally losing drugs. several justices lobbied

hypotheticals at lawyers on both sides asking if city laws barring urinating or deaf fating in public spaces or breaking into store to find food would be permitted, or if a homeless person needed to eat and didn't have access to other way to fulfill their basic need. dealing with city rights. when it comes to the homeless. do you agree, yes line, disagree, no line. unsure, call in on the not sure line. on that not sure line in maryland, hello. what do you think about how a city should approach this? caller: thank you. i think there is a balance about protecting the rights of the sittens who -- citizens who live in the city and the rights of these individuals. also respected. unfortunately, oftentimes we are given a limited options. i think the idea of harboring

limit options yes or no. there are more options we can explore. one of those things is the $100 billion that's going to overseas that congress is going to could be used to make sure our homeless, vulnerables, are protected instead of putting this money out there. we have enough money to address the issues. the elected officials are not taking care of people who they are supposed to represent. charity starts here in the united states, not overseas, thank you. host: another person on that unsure line is patty joining us from connecticut. hello. you are next up. caller: i say i'm going -- you are going to see a big increase in homeless because with biden in office the middle class is going to fill that spot next. we are going broke. send the money all over the world. here in america which should be number one. we have nothing. host: the city's rights decide

whether or not a homeless person should sleep on public land to what extent do you think that should happen? caller: i think we have no idea because it's going to increase. there's nothing we can do about it. because of biden. it's going to increase. and then we have illegal immigrants here. where are they going? we cannot house all these people. we can't. it's time to put the law out there. deport. and stop raising taxes and giving money away. host: why do you think this issue centers only around those who would come to the united states from outside? why not those in the united states as well? caller: the one that is are coming here, eventually will take jobs from the one that is are here. host: why do you think homelessness is just that issue and not homelessness with those dealing in the united states. caller: i am saying that. the middle class is going to be their next homeless because we cannot afford to live.

the groceries, the gas. you can't feed your family. it's very bad. host: ok. this case by the way centers around that city from grant pass oregon. our next caller, janet, says she's from that city. janet, if that's the case, tell us why you are calling on the yes line. caller: we would like our parks back. it's ugly. i can't walk into a park without being verbally assaulted and screamed at. i even was chased by a homeless person when i was simply out walking. and luckily there was another group of people that were also walking through the park that were neighbors and i was able to join them. and we put some distance between

ourselves and the homeless. and then we called the police. it's reached the point where we are getting overwhelmed by homeless. they are breaking into our cars. they are breaking -- trying to break into our homes. host: if i may ask, where is grants pass, oregon, on the map. how would you find it as far as the people looking for it on a map? caller: we are about i want to say two hours from the border of california. we are about two hours south of salem on route 5. host: as far as the city dealing with this and the case that's

now before the supreme court, what do you think that this has reached the supreme court and how do you think the city has done so far in dealing with the issues? caller: the city's been trying to be reasonable. they have tried to help the people to a point where we just have been overwhelmed in the last year or so. and they give them tents. they have different charities that have been giving them food. it's just reached -- we are a small city. and yet we have been overwhelmed. host: what's the population of grants pass, approximately? caller: i want to say about 30,000. we are in a valley. it's like bowl-shaped with

mountains on either side with a river running through the valley. host: how much public land would you say is being occupied for those who are homeless? what's the approximate amount do you think? caller: i couldn't give you a percentage. when you go into the parks it's pretty bad. one of the riverside park had to be cleared of homeless for us to have our annual boatnik celebration. the drug users have needles all over the ground that had to be cleaned up. like i said the defecation and urination. the park near me now has a

port-a-potty because the homeless were going out and using the soccer field and baseball field. host: that's janet there in grants pass. that's the city at the center of the supreme court's case yesterday dealing with homeless population and where they sleep in public land. asking you if the cities should have the right to enforce those laws. keep people from that. doing that. if you say yes and agree with the city it's 202-748-8000. perhaps you say the city should not have those rights or modified that, 202-748-8001. number to call. and several of you, couple calling on our not sure line, 202-748-8002. as always drop us lines on social media and other places. some have done that, from facebook, deborah, no one can waive a magical wand. people need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.

support mental illness. lots of people and they have choices. some of these peoplha been enabled. this is from x saying that's a ha one. if a person truly has no place to go, what happenso em? many homeless people have mental illness issues. they are not being addressed. that do not allow them to go to a shelter. what happens to them? the question posed by that viewer there on x. always post there, too. if you want. let's hear on our no line from ohio. this is ronald. ronald, hello. caller: hello. host: hi. caller: hi. i don't agree with that one woman. host: why is that? tell us why. caller: because they are homeless. they have no place to go. people that goes out and screams at people, homeless people don't

do that. they just mind their own business, look for change, and just try to get something to eat. host: ok. ronald there on our no line. melissa is in california. campbell, california. also on our no line. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i said no because i don't think that we should be punishing homeless people more. also, where else will they go? th the best idea in the situation would be to make the politicians deal with the problem instead of trying to hide it under the rug. host: you don't think as far as local laws for cities they shouldn't be applied as far as the ability to sleep on public lands, or should they be

modified? where does that intersect or balance come in? caller: they should just -- the politicians need to make sure there is housing. if there is not enough affordable housing, they are going to be anywhere they have to be. trying to get them off the public lands is almost like we are trying to sweep it under the rug. that's not going to get us anywhere. i just think -- that's why i'm a no. host: melissa in california. add your thoughts to the mix. if you agree with the city's perspective as far as those laws keeping people from sleeping, homeless people keeping on public lands, 202-748-8000. if you disagree, that's our no line, 202-748-8001. and then perhaps you are not sure, 202-748-8002. during that argument yesterday, before the supreme court, it was the city for the -- lawyer for the city of grants pass oregon going back and forth with justice sonia sotomayor about the application of the law.

here's some of that exchange from yesterday. >> we e talking only about sleeping with a blanket. so let's narrow it to what it is. i agree there might be other cases in the ninth circuit that are not rational. i don't mn to throw aspersions at those holdings. somef them are not permitting time, place restrictions. let's go beyond that. les go here. here you are not precluded from prohibiting fires. you are not preclude interested prohibiting tts. which at issue is are you prohibited from keep having someone wear a blanket anywhere in the city. your intent was to remove, stated by your mayor, intent to reve every homeless person and

gi them no public spaceo sit down with a blanket or lay down with a blanket and fall asleep. that's nothe intent. i would like to address that int. >> answer the basic question. it's not about fires. it's not about tents. it's about not being a time and place restricon about eliminating all choices. >> we think that it is harmful for peoplto be living in public spaces on streets andn parks, whateveretting materials when humans are living in those conditions. we think that that's not compassionate. >> it's not. neithe is providing them with nothing. >> we -- >> to alleviate that situatn. >> this is a difficult policy question, justice sotomayor. >> where do we put them every city, every village, every town

lacks compassion? and pses a law identical to is? where are they supposed to sleep? are they supsed to kill themselves not sleeping? >> this is a necessity defense as i mtioned under oregon law is available. stes are able to address these concerns. this is a complicated policy question. we believe that the eighth amendment analysis to go back to it focuses on -- >> what's so complicated about letting someone, somewhere sleep with a blanket in the outside if they have nowhere to sleep? the laws against defecatio the laws against keeping this unsanitary around yourself, those have all been upheld. the only thing this injunction does is say, you can't stop someone om sleeping in a public place without a blanket. host: that was just a portion of the exchange yesterday. if you are interested in hearing

the whole oral argument, go to our website at c-span.org. special page there jt for the supreme court. where it holds oral arguments. listen to that whole case. you can talk about the merits of the case concerning grants pass. the larger issues of cities banning homeless people sleeping on public land. if you want to give your thoughts on that we provided three lines, yes, no, not sure. pick the line that best represents you. let's hear from our not sure line. this is paul in connecticut. good morning. go ahead. caller: paul in plymouth, thank you. the hypocrisy of these cities that want people to come in and spend their money. when they take a rest break they are going to arrest them? all the way to oregon. i traveled that many times. you have states that encourage rest breaks, rest stops. pull over.

oftentimes it says no overnight camping. what does that mean, exactly? if you encamp for an hour or two hours? is it overnight camping? it used to be an open door for police harassment for out of towners and out of state, i'll point to the case of truckers. mower vehicle -- motor vehicle laws. truckers who were ousted in the middle of the night when their performance is based on sleep. they have to get so many hours of sleep and rest off the road. it's the law. federal law. so there are a number of points -- last thing is the uncomfe feelings that people get when they see a homeless person. my god.

these are homeless peopl and then the lies and fabrications start about unsanitary conditions. host: ok. paul, let me ask you this. you are calling on our not sure line. it seems like you're fairly sure as far as the approach. can you elaborate on that why you're not sure? caller: i just don't want a homeless person out on the curb. if i run a business, it may affect another person coming into my business. i may get my news slanted, and all of a sudden i expect all this terrible stuff to happen and i step outside my house and i see a homeless person, i'm going to run back in because i'm scared. i'm scared of the encampments. i'm scared of free speech. host: ok. cindy in kentucky on our no line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro.

thank you for c-span and taking my call. i watch you almost every morning. i moved from st. petersburg, florida, to kentucky because of the things that were going on in florida. a lot of this is caused by gentrification. in florida they are building multimillion dollar sky scrape condos. developer dedee an teus is what i call him. has taken -- desantis. has taken -- signed bills that gave all the writes rao*euts to the landlords and took the rights away from tenants. and the landlords' prices are going up and up and up. a lot of this is caused by the corrupt, mongrel real estate and corrupt politicians that take

the real estate money. that is why i think we need to do more for the homeless. before i left pinellas county. i knew what it was going on. i was running around looking for homeless and giving them cash. i wanted to do something before i left. i'm a 66 your pinellas native. i saw what was going on with the gentrification. so much of this is caused by gentrification. i was talking to the homeless. so many of them were pushed out on to the streets because of the costs, the rising costs of real estate. this has cause -- this is caused by a lot of the greedy real estate mongrels. host: ok. let's hear from eric on our -- this is eric on our no line.

he's in baltimore. hello. caller: yeah. it's a hard no. let me tell you something. what she was saying is capitalism. look, they defunded h.u.d. and section eight until it starved to death. affordable housing is a myth. i was living in eastern long island. i paid $1540 a month in 2012 for affordable housing, end kwoefplt. cost us $8,000 to move. my father had to sign his life away to get us into there. the only reason i got in there is because i got my tax return. i was able to get in there. i'm saying the root cause is capitalism because the money goes into-n a circle motion between the 1%, the israeli lobby, the industrial military industrial complex. that is what's happening.

host: casey in california, santa barbara, on our yes line. hello. caller: pedro, hi. out here in california we have a lot of homeless people. you saw the comment from justice sotomayor. of course housing is expensive. but the thing that people need to understand about homeless people, i have been around a lot of them, is a lot of them have serious alcohol and drug problems. that's part of the reason why they are living on the streets. if they could get sober, hopefully land a job and meet somebody and possibly share an apartment. there is a lot of choices there. if you are sleeping on the streets there is a reason why. i would hope that these people would get sober. thank you for taking my call. host: as far as the city's -pb tpoerplt of these type of laws, where do you fall on that? caller: well, the thing is with the -- what the city is trying

to do when people come to town to visit they want to see clean streets because they want to be able to shop without having to fight off the homeless. one of the things the homeless do all the time they constantly beg for money. then they take that money and they go buy alcohol and drugs with it. it's a sad problem. but you can understand a merchant, store merchant trying to sell stuff to his customers, and the homeless people are getting in the way. host: casey in california giving his thoughts. the housing and urban development recently put out a report taking a look at homelessness in the united states. states with the highest and lowest percentages of people experiencing homelessness who are unsheltered, that highest rate in 2023, california. topping that list. followed by the states of oregon, hawaii, arizona, and nevada. and then looking at the lowest rates of people experiencing homelessness who are

unsheltered, vermont topping that list, followed guy new york state, maine, massachusetts, and wisconsin. the 2023 assessment report from h.u.d. also says, if you would go to it at hud.gov it said at least approximate loose in 2023, 653 homeless for at least one night in 2023. that's a 12% increase from 2022. 60% wereng in sheltered locations. 40% were in a place not meant for human habitation. such as streets, cars, parks, or train stations. for 2023 the point in time count as it's called the highest number of people reported as being unhoused since reporting began in 2007. there is more there at h.u.d. for that homelessness report. factor that in as far as a city's ability to enforce laws when it comes to the homeless sleeping on public lands.

whether you agree, disagree. perhaps you are not sure. again if you agree with the city enforcing those laws, that's the yes line. 202-748-8000. if you disagree with that call our no line at 202-748-8001. and perhaps you are not sure that's 202-748-8002. on our no line this is greg here in washington, d.c. hello. caller: i was homeless for years. what i got lucked out was, i had a car. i was able to sleep in for years. so i got lucky that way. i'll tell you the bottom line, i last caller think the on the button. it's about drugs. it's about opiates. and it's about alcohol. once you start doing that, everything disappears. apartments. jobs. everything. and i'll tell you what, right around the corner where your office is, right around the corner over there in d.c., there is a homeless shelter. it's empty. it's absolutely empty. you know why? because they have rules.

and they do drug tests. and if you can't -- you are not allowed to sleep there if you get drunk or high on something. so they would rather -- especially this beautiful weather now, how about in l.a. and california, it's coveragous there. they get their disability checks, a tent given to them. it's the life of reilly over there. they do not want to stop doing drugs. i'm not saying there is a percentage that definitely need help. of course there is. but it's all about drugs, alcohol. and not having any shelter that way. host: linda in new york. on our not sure line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that we had that problem before in the great depression. and we solved it with a citizen conservation corps. right now we have federal parks that are understaffed. and they are in somewhat

disrepair. some on the appalachian trail where the campsites are pretty poor shape. i think maybe if we could recruit these people that are on public lands in smaller cities or towns they could live in circumstances that would enable our country to have better parks, better sidewalks, better zoos. etc. it would be so helpful to the nation and would give them some purpose. if they go up to some of the federal lands, no drugs that they could take, they could go cold turkey. and i think it would be somewhat of a chance to solve the problem. host: this is from elvin brown off of x saying when it comes to the enforcement of the laws, he says no. insteaof banning homelessness, why not man gentrification which is causing homelesess. this is bob fm facebook

saying, of course it doesn't otherwise why have a right to own property fundraise it's city property and the taxpayers own it and they can regulate it as they see fit by voting for ordinances. thr-rs are some ways you can reach out. if you wish to post on social that's facebook and x. send us a text at 202-748-8003. from texas, ed. in mckinnie, texas, on the yes line. hello. caller: thanks for kick ta*eubging my call. i lived in california for 70 years. and recently moved to texas. in the last six years. i have experienced a lot of homeless in california. my brother's been homeless for 30 years. so i have seen the ramifications of people living on the streets, public parks, especially near not berry farm and dishe kneeland. it affects the community quite a bit t affects those people using

public parks and public schools. in north texas i rarely see anyone that's homeless. you don't have to worry about locking your homes at night or going out at night. but i do feel, because of my brother's situation, there is a lot of homeless and i think it's the responsibility of the state and city to take care of it. they need to make housing available. they also could take some public land. they could fence it off. supply respite facilities and some aid and the homeless could stay in those areas. there are areas available for california for that. but in north texas, we have a lot of pan handlers. i'm familiar with that as well. panhandlers get $40 a day. get two or three of them and rent a motel room and they live a clean life. they don't bother anybody at

night. they don't have tents. we don't have small children walking by worried about it. i realize the drug situation will continue. i think the state and city's responsibilities are to provide areas for the homeless. it might be a warehouse. it might be something where they can get aid. but if you don't do it, the situation's going to get worse. and crime is going to be prevalent throughout the city. that's my -- host: lea in los angeles on the no line. hello. caller: good morning. pedro. i'm calling -- ok, my take on it is. property investors are buying up a lot of property. bigtime coming in from other countries investing. and even having the ones here. they are buying up so much property. now they are wringing them out at -- renting them out at

exorbitant amounts. the middle class is impacted by that. they are sliding down. we have nafta that have our jobs outsourced. all we have are servant industry. and you don't have any money to buy luxury services, guess what? you are not going to have a job. also our money is funding places like israel and ukraine. these people are not starving. but we are -- our money that we work hard for is going out of the country without our permission. and just for like israel, even before the situation with palestine, we were spending more than $3.2 billion a year just on israel alone every year. ok. we have given billions of dollars away. now, we wouldn't have a homeless problem, we wouldn't have half of the problems if we would stop

sending our resources to other countries. i agree with the gentleman from maryland. all of this is just really destroying us. it's not going to get any better. we must enforce our politicians -- force our politicians, force our government to work on our behalf. because poverty and abuse from these homes from generational poverty, it's having it's impact and only going to get worse. thank you. host: thank you. from los angeles. by the way, the governor of california, gavin newsom, filing an am pheu bus brief when it comes to the case at the supreme have tide the hands of the state and local governments that seek to use common sense appro to clean our streets and provide help fornhsed californians livingn inhumaneditis. the city shoul criminalize for homeless individuals to

outside when they have nowhere else to go, courts continue to reach beyond that narrow limit to block any number reasonable efforts to protect homeless individuals and the broader public from the harms of the uncontrolled encampments. that is from the governor there. also, filing a brief take ago look at this case. the u.c. berkeley, university of california berkeley law dean saying grants pass' ordinances provide civil tpaoe bo for repeat violations. city the ninth circuit declared this inconstitutional. concluding the city of grants pass could not consistent with the eighth amendment ordinances for the mere fact of sleeping outside. for sleeping in the car at night when there is no other place for them to go. this is clearly corre a matter of law. it is also right as a matte of public policy. no city is going to solve homelessness by criminally prosecuting the unhoused.

imposing fines they cannot pay or puttinghem in gale skwra*eul for brief times will not take them off the street. the only solution is to provide shelters and housing. perspective there take ago look at the case out of grants pass. add your perspective to the larger issue of the city's right to enforce laws concerning homeless sleeping on public lands. ted in oregon on our yes line. in waeurpbton, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i want to say i have been to grants pass. it's a very nice town in southern oregon. i have been listening to this long before it ended up in the supreme court. and in the city of grants pass they do have a homeless shelter. but there are rules. there is no drinking. no smoking. you cannot use your drugs. you have to goo church every day. and you can't bring your dog.

so the is options in grants pass. when i look at portland it's gotten to the point now that every sidewalk in portland is lined with tents. it's gotten to the point now that they break out windows of the businesses in downtown portland. it's almost turned into a war zone. and the portland mayors and leaders are -- they are beside themselves. they do not know what to do. they have tried to put the safe rest villages on public lands. the neighbors that pay property taxes that are taxpayers that are members of society, they don't want them. i don't blame them. here in warrenton, this is a beach community with commercial fishing and logging, most of the homeless here live in the woods. people come from the big city

and they say, oh, this is such a nice place. i don't see any tents on the sidewalk. that's because they all live in the woods. unfortunately, pedro, this is a problem that has been going on for years and years. when i was a young apprentice in portland, there used to be these what we called bum motels where they were grand motels or hotels in their day, and through remodels, all of a sudden they have got 200 sleeping rooms. they are charging about $100 a month for the sleeping room. and seemed to work really well in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. when you have people come the investors and take a 1-year-old building and make it now a very fancy condominium, they have taken away the housing that people for generations have been

living in. it's a problem. there is no doubt. i do not know the answer. host: ok. thank you for the perspective. this is dale in maine on our not sure line, hi. caller: hi. i just like to say that if someone's been knocked down and they are trying to get back up, and they don't know how to use a computer and they can't own a computer, it's very, very hard for themselves to pick themselves up. you cannot get a job sweeping a floor unless you can get on the computer. host: you are going to have to watch your language and the rest of you if you are calling it. i understand the perspective and issues brings out emotions. watch your language for us. story from oregon live take ago look at this case, saying that the chief justice, john roberts, said he and others were having a difficulty trying to distinguish between what's considered a

status protected from criminalization under the eighth amendment, versus someone's conduct such as drinking in public. if someone is homeless for one week but finds shelter can their status change? why would you think these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh such policy judgments. there was more exchange between the chief justice yesterday and the attorney for one of the plaintiffs, gloria johnson, talking about the ordinance itself. here's some of that exchange from yesterday. >> what you have is an ordinance that says being homeless while sleeng with a blanket is punishable. as i said earlier the question becomes when you attach the status to the universal attribute of sleeping does it then transform the offense into conduct based on punishment instead of status. i think the answer is no. >> a number of us i in are having difficulty with the discontinuing between status and conduct. u'll acknowledge, won't you,

that those terms there is a difference between being addicted to drugs and bng homeless? in otherords, someone who is homeless can immediately become not homeless, right, if they find shelter. someone who is addicted to drugs, not s easy. it seems to me in robinson it's ch easier to understand the drug addiction as an ongoing status. here, i think it is difficult because you can me into and out of and into and out of the status as you would put it as being homeless. >> it's interesting. we today understand addiction as an immutable status n robinson the court suggested that someone might be recovered and no longer have the status of addiction. the robinson court wasn't thinking about addiction as something that couldn't change over time. >> that may limi the applicability of robion to a don't situation. what is the an cal -- analytic approach desaoeugd something is a status or situation of conduct?

>> the question is, status is something that a person is when they are not doing anything. so being addicted, having cancer, being poor, are all statuses you have apart from any nduct. >> having cancer is not the same as being homeless. maybe i'm just repeating myself. homelessness -- you can remove the homelesstatus in an instant if you move to a shelter or situations, otherwise change it. it can be moved other way as well. if you are kicked out of the shelter, whatever. that is is a distinction from these other things. host: more there in that oral argument. if you want to listen to the whole thing go to our website at c-span.org where can you hear that took place yesterday. lou green, health concern such as feesies on sidewalks -- feces on sidewalksment allowing health to be reduced is not fair to all. this is also a viewer on x saying only if cities provide an

adequate alternative. then he puts in quotes, both general welfare, another viewer saying if they did that where would the homeless go? the enforcement of laws. wh don't we fix this country so the is less homeless people. scott from facebook saying th problem is not homeless people. it's house less people. the price couldome down more people could afford to house themselves then, i would look at making sleeping outdoors a crime then. other byways you can post your thoughts on this matter. joining us on the phones from south carolina, mary on our no line. hello. thanks for waiting. caller: hi. good morning. i'm very compassionate about the homeless people. matter of fact i'm very involved in it. i have collected over 100 signatures -- 100,000 signatures to send to states i live in. in this state we have a lot of vacant buildings that could be redone to house homeless people.

and the problem that i have is that as an individual american person who lives here all their life see different people that's in the street, my granddaughter, myself, would stop and ask them what do they need to feed them? everybody that's out there is not on drugs. you have ex-military people out there. you have children out there. you have men and women out there. everybody that's out there on the street don't necessarily want to be out there on the street. but because of living expense they can't afford it. some of them have good education but can't get a job. it's a lot. if your listeners would stop sometimes and talk to a homeless person, to get an idea of what's going on in their lives. that's why they are out there. and a lot of the reason that they are out there is because

they can't afford the housing, food. everybody fall noose bad luck. this is what's going on. i'm in the process now of trying to write a really good, compassionate letter to my governor and to the -- send it to the state and this is what we all need to do. get involved as individuals to be able to see that our government can do something for these homeless people. there are so many have i can't buildings that can be refunnished -- refurbished. the people that signed the petition, they are willing to give time with these homeless people to try to see where they can pick themselves back up in life again. get a job, get training. this is what we need to do. we have to stop punching people because they fall down on bad luck. host: mary there in south

carolina. this is from duke in west virginia on our yes line. hello. caller: hello? you're having such a problem with the homeless people, how come we are not having a problem with all the illegals? can we give the homeless people the same benefits we are giving all these illegals? host: ok. caller: how about you? don't you have an extra room in your house? host: well, duke, as far as the issue of sifties enforcing the laws, what do you think about the ability for a city to do so? caller: the city should enforce the laws. but the people shouldn't be in the shape they are in. maybe we need donald trump back in instead of joe biden. host: ok. ken next in west virginia. on our not sure line. hello. caller: hey, pedro, that was great.

it's a very complex problem. the supreme court, it's amazing that they are picking up -- worrying about people sleeping. we should worry about our politicians sleeping. wait a minute, wait a minute. back in 1964 robert taylor project was built. woman named mrs. white was the first tenant. she loved going in there. it was great getting her family out of the black belt into a nice home. and crime had got so bad in the projects that she was just running from the projects it was so bad. now, the indians on the reservations they police their own self. i think that in the projects they should police their own self. they shouldn't have to do with

our police. they should have their own police. so the projects, they would have safe housing. i think safe housing has forced people out of the housing on to the streets because of crime. that's my take on it. host: ok. let's go to david. david in north carolina on our no line. hi. caller: yes. the lady called in just a minute ago, she just toll my heart. a loft these people, they are not out there because of drugs. they are out there because like the lady said, lack of food, lack of places to shower, be able to get a job. everybody's not on alcohol or drugs. that's living on the street. like the lady spoke of, just buy them a cheeseburger or something. get to know them as individuals.

you get to know them and see who they really are. i want to say this, our -- my church i go to, we go out on sunday morning and pick up the homeless. we go to the shelters. we bring them in. a lot of these people -- that might not -- they got a heart. they got a soul. that's what we are after. we are after the soul. feed them something each time they go to church like that they go home with the hot meal every sunday. never, never. not one person. they go homeless with lunches and stuff, around 11 buses. we are not a big church. let's ponder on the people's hearts. a lot of these people, like you said, is not out there because of drugs. the food product and stuff.

let's just think about this. what's wrong with a homeless guy living in the woods right below me. i was able to take him and deal with him a little bit. work with him. and the guy -- got him a job and everything. think about this. host: kargin in reno, nevada, not sure line. hi. caller: hello. am i on? host: you're on. caller: what i wanted to bring up, i was -- i volunteered both in the mental hospital and-n idaho and also in washington state. i used to volunteer. and when reagan shut those down, all of the mental hospitals, all over the country, after that i mean -- it was really bad thing. i thought it was just terrible he would do something like that.

then all those people got thrown out on the streets. host: as far as the city being able to enforce laws on homelessness, you are calling in on the not sure line. where do you fall on that? caller: well, i lived -- when i lived there in washington state, i lived there for a couple years now, we built some little tiny houses they were called. and the people could live in them. and then there was one setaside that -- where they could cook. but the rest of them were little houses. and people built them. and donated them. and they worked out fine. they still have those. but of course there is not enough of them. i thought that was just the worst thing that could ever happen. think of all those people that got put out on the streets from him doing that. host: here is roland from

detroit on our no line. hello. caller: hi. how are you? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i want to applaud the supreme court for taking up this issue. i think for many who are homeless it's an indictment against our government and society in general that they don't like those entities. something is wrong with cities, state, federal, community, churches, corporations that have created a society that people turn their backs to it. they don't want to be bothered. there have been numerous stories, the social service agencies, roam around trying to get people off the street. and they run away from these people and bans. they don't want to have anything to do with it.

i think people who are homeless should have a right to camp out on public lands until this government, communities, corporations find a way to encore pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 everybody -- incorporate everybody. it doesn't make any sense. people have these 15-room bedroom houses living by themselves in there. and people are on the street homeless. i know that's a weird dichotomy, but something's seriously wrong with our country, local, state, federal government that you have millions of people who have turned their back to this american so-called dream. host: gary in north carolina on our not sure line. gary, you are next up, hi. caller: how you doing, pedro. i was actually homeless. i lived in a homeless shelter.

i have been listening to people calling in, hear all these different ideas coming out of them. one of the things i noticed when i went into the shelter, there were two different kinds of people. and they split off into their own little identity groups. their little cliques. some were going to do thinking they could to get the heck out of there. they were hustling it up. going out looking for different jobs and stuff. other people were bouncing between homeless shelters to see where they could get the best digs. people would come by and i hear these callers coming in, oh, we are going to pray tore them. throw you a cheeseburger. pray for them. throw you a cheeseburger. heart's in the right place. there are people in there that have addiction that is are so powerful when these little groups show up around christmastime and given toothbrushes and toothpaste and stuff they have to take the bar codes off of them because they

were returning them to the store for money to buy alcohol. you are dealing with two separate people there. some kind of social worker has to come in there and identify each of these groups because they will spend their money to get their sickness, their substance abuse fixed before they pay a rent or something. they can't handle money. somebody has to handle the money for them. they have to use vouchers. even if they use vouchers they'll sell their vouchers for half price to get money. you are dealing with -- yeah, it's a complex situation, but it's not a one off thing going on here. i like these people that come in and they do these volunteer things. very nice. but they are not social workers. and their opinions don't really count. host: one more call. from matt in maryland on our no line. go ahead. caller: how you doing? host: fine.

go ahead. caller: i just want to say i can't believe some of these people calling in and acting -- i don't know why you haven't pointed out to them not everyone who is on the street and is an addict or anything or alcoholic, and some of them are families that have lost their homes, many of them. 20% of the people -- 25 last i checked, were veterans. you see -- i live right outside of d.c. here. bladensburg is like a border city. i'll tell you what, i see them. i see them. they are women, children. they are older people. you have not pointed out that to anyone. i think it's irresponsible. thank you. host: ok. matt in maryland final call on this. again more information there at h.u.d. when it comes to those homeless reports we showed you early. find that online. thanks to all those who

participated. coming up, two guests joining us throughout the course of the morning. we'll turn our attention to the continued tensions in the middle east and the u.s. role in the region. joining us aaron david miller of the carnegie endowment for ternational peace to take your questions on the topic. and news of the day when it comes to that. later on in the program we'll join by pugh research center's carroll doherty to discuss the pugh's new research on party -- pew's new research on party identification in the past decades and how it's shifted in the next three decades. those coming up on "washington journal." >> they say i'm over the hill. some say that would be a minute's prom -- a minute is prime. >> watch the coverage of the

press party at 6:00 p.m. eastern . journalists and saturday -- and celeb is what the red carpet and 8 p.m. on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday on the c-span networks. ♪ >> c-span now is a mobile app showing you what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.

c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> get information of members of government right in the palm of your hand when you order your copy of the 2020 for congressional directory with bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 118th congress. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today for delivery this spring. ♪ >> "washington journal"

continues. host: david miller is with us. he is a senior fellow and thank you for your time. guest: a pleasure to be here. host: a longtime watcher of israeli-palestinian issues. how have the last few months complicated the issue? guest: three october seven, the israeli-palestinian issue had reached what i call a strategic cul-de-sac. the prospects of significant breakthroughs in pursuit of a conflict ending solution were basically undermined by the absence of leadership by either side and the sheer impossibility of reaching agreement on border security. that this conflict would bring

to a settlement of existing claims situation with difficult and fraught well before october 7. now, we've taken the israeli-palestinian conflict to a place it's never been before. the traumatic impact of october 7 and and the israeli response is created extraordinary trauma primarily to civilian populations especially in gaza. it has created a sense that when this phase dies down, as it will, israelis and palestinians will not sit with one another. the problem is not that we don't understand one another, the problem is you know each other only too well and if that transpires, i think the future is going to be truly bleak because there will not be any space, any space in order to create what is required first to

stop conflict and then somehow to end it to a better pathway of negotiations leading to what i believe is the least worst solution to this conflict and that is separation through negotiation into a palestinian state living in peace and security alongside israel. the processes are slim to say the least. it's clear what happens in gaza also does not stay in gaza because you now have a situation where even though the regional conflict has been somewhat contained over the last six months between israel and hezbollah, we see iranian strikes against u.s. military and the recent escalation between iran and israel has taken us into new, dangerous and very uncharted waters. host: in the short term, what

are possible aftereffects of what we saw a couple of weeks ago concerning iran? guest: there are two or three questions we need to ask that are clear to me. answering them will be difficult. has the attacks on one another's territory which is unprecedented , certainly attacks that were overtly claimed by both sides, unprecedented. will these attacks lead to a greater risk readiness on the part of iran and israel? could this somehow become the new normal all or turn it to, will this lead both of them to scale back and understand how close they came to the possibility -- which i think neither of them once frankly -- and that is taking another step or two of the escalatory letter, something the middle east is never experian's before which is a regional war.

number two is the issue of how will each side compensate for the loss of deterrence which i think has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that there was very little compunction in striking the territory. for the iranians, this may well lead to a decision to ramp up their nuclear program. with the israelis have struck iran if tehran had a deliverable nuclear weapon? iran strike israel full well knowing, even though it is not acknowledged by u.s. officials or the israelis, that israel possesses not one deliverable nuclear weapon but quite a few. i think those are the two questions. if in fact there was some mechanism, some de-escalation process that would somehow work with both parties and diminish

the prospects of conflict, i would feel more sanguine about what the future holds but the reality is the competition is a strategic rivalry. it is a zero-sum game in which both parties believe that the stakes are existential in nature. when it comes to those sorts of conflicts, i look at the last 27 years of my experience from the late 70's to the early oughts, 2003 is when i left the state department. when parties in conflict believe their vital interests are at stake, these outside parties are very limited. the middle east is literally littered with remains of great powers who wrongly believed they could impose their dreams and schemes and ambitions on smaller ones. i'm afraid.

i don't have a whole lot of positive prescriptions either for the israeli-i must warrant gaza or the regional competition between tehran and jerusalem. host: our guesswork to the state department as a middle east analyst and negotiator and republican and democratic administrations and currently at the carnegie endowment for international peace here to take your questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. to the role the u.s. plays now, what is the best role? guest: the question is what does the united states want to achieve? i think it's ending in containing the conflict in six months income i think the biden administration finds itself in what i call a strategic cul-de-sac. it's politically weekend, dealing with two parties, the

government is israel in the islamic resistance of hamas with no urgency now in either side frankly to ending this conflict and is now faced with the prospect of a serious escalation that could without much of my nation -- without much imagination could go into a war. there may be a lot of leverage on paper. six months in, the administration for any number of reasons, we can talk about has basically been reluctant to impose what i would describe and what normal humans, let's assume u.n. me would describe as significant or serious pressure. that's as far as the israelis are concerned. with respect to hamas, i don't know where the levers start. u.s. doesn't have any and countries have limited access and they post the hamas external

leadership. the architect of the october 7, what his true calculations are, is this and end of days strategy for him in this cosmic world or does he believe that he can survive this using time, tunnels and the tragic situation of hostages. there is the expert initial rise in deaths of palestinians with who had nothing to do with this conflict. 30 or 40% of women and children to which hamas expose them to retaliation to destroy hamas as a political and military organization. neither israel nor hamas right now are on the cusp of realizing their objectives and that poses a huge problem.

i think the administration thought and maybe it still believes that it could create the environment for an israeli-hamas hostage exchange that would buy six weeks of quiet, returning 134 hostages, 34 of whom the israelis believe were killed on october 7 and the bodies taken to gaza. that leaves 100 hostages. even if that deal was consummated, hamas would still retain 50 hostages, almost certainly israeli soldiers and male soldiers and male civilians. what they want is a comprehensive cease-fire and withdrawal of the israeli forces from gaza but that's clearly not going to happen. i don't see how it will happen. israel is bent on continuing its campaign to destroy hamas. to be quite honest, i cannot

provide you with an rx had to get out of this. i don't think the u.s. is in a position to use the leverage it has. i think we have very little leverage when it comes to hamas and that's where things stand. it's not encouraging. host: this is our first call from richard in michigan on our independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: i'd like you to confirm and pedro i'd like you to make a pledge and have the host of c-span, whenever someone says that israel is committing genocide, is a blood libel canard because let's just say 35,000 people were killed, at least half of them were soldiers and fighters and if israel

wanted to, they could kill hundreds of thousands of people. they've destroyed 50 or 60% of the buildings and only killed that few people, they are either pretty poor aims or they are really not trying to kill everybody. host: that's richard in michigan. guest: the international court of justice and it will take them another two years if that to rule on the question of whether the israelis are committing genocide in gaza. if genocide -- there is a definition of it and i'm not an international lawyer but i look at the situation. what the israelis done in an effort to destroy hamas as a military organization has involved the deaths of scores of thousands of innocents and yes, the 34,000 of the hamas-controlled ministry of health has calculated includes

12-14,000 hamas fighters and combatants. i think this is a just war but i think it's been waged with an expansion of israel's rules of engagement. i think there is no question about that. is it genocide? i don't think is genocide. i don't think the israelis willfully determine as the khmer rouge in cambodia where the nazis were in germany fundamentally extinguish socially, culturally politically an entire people? i don't think that's a what's going on. we wouldn't even be having this conversation if october 7 had not occurred. host: sorry. guest: i think these discussions and debates, i understand the emotional impact but frankly in the end, i think they don't deal

with the practical reality that in effect we face. those practicalities are so galactic right now. this conflict shows no prospects between israelis and palestinians of coming to an end and i don't see the mechanism by which that will happen. it certainly will not happen by adjudication in the international criminal court or court of justice were in the corridors of power. it has to be somehow ameliorated by the influence of parties working with the israelis and key states that have influence over hamas and somehow create another path forward but right now, i refuse to engage in hypothetical discussions of this or that solution. we are six-month into the work and we have yet to see a compelling pathway for how both

sides get out of it. frankly, right now, i don't see it nor do i see the international community which in response to so many examples of mask killing, where do you want to start? the holocaust, cambodia marie wanda -- rwanda, the international commute including the united states needs to focus the power and intent and motivation to deal with these issues and right now, as we talk about gaza, we are talking about catastrophic levels of violence and starvation in places like sudan. again, i don't think united states is a potted plant. we can use our influence but right now i don't see how given the circumstances. that includes the political circumstances that will be -- that won't be terribly effective to end this conflict. host: alan in indiana, democrats

line. caller: thank you for having me on. i appreciate "washington journal " and i'm a big fan of yours. much kudos to you and good luck. i have to add some odds with just observations. i think this is a simple situation with a very simple solution in the occupation. 76 years and this did not start on october 7. 76 years ago, palestine was invaded and occupied by 200,000 displaced european jews. because of our american and british imperialism, it was a protector britain and britain did a lousy job protecting them. we decided to dump the people there because we had no thoughts about palestinians even though we had a ban on european jews

coming to the united states. we didn't want them but we would dump them in palestine. they had a good run for about 76 years just like south africa but it's time to end the occupation. the second question i want to ask you, does israel have nuclear weapons? i guess we should all know the answer to that because in my mind it's yes but if you look at the signing 10 amendment which was created back in the 1950's that said any country that develops nuclear weapons will not receive financial aid or support from the united states. we should follow our own laws. we are so hypocritical on foreign policy. we know they have nuclear weapons and we should immediately stop supporting them . israel does not have the right to exist as they are an invading occupying force. guest: the first question is not a question and not a

prescription. this is not one hand clapping. the conflict has existed for decades and we don't have the time nor do i have the inclination to try to unpack and unwind this. even if i tried, the caller has a clear view of who is to blame. you have two choices in this conflict. i work for 27 years to try to help israelis and palestinians. you can work for your own team and decide one part of the conflict has moral superiority over the other and it is more just than the other side or you can look at this and say it is a conflict as persistent and the consequence of israeli and palestinian behavior but it's also a conflict in which both sides have competing needs and requirements that need to be addressed. that's the basic reality here. as far as nuclear weapons, i

think i address that in my opening remarks that the government of israel has never declared that it possesses nuclear weapons. you won't get a u.s. official to comment on that. i will give you my opinion that israel has developed nuclear weapons. as far as the signing 10 amendment and the notion we should terminate our assistance to any country that has nuclear weapons, the five-member security council, two of our key allies britain and france both possess nuclear weapons. so to the indians and the pakistanis. we have relations with both of them. i'm not a fan of nuclear weapons and i think they shouldn't exist but we -- but they do. i would argue that it be terrific to figure out how to get rid of them but in the meantime on planet earth, instead of in a galaxy far, far away, we have to figure it had

to contain the issue of nuclear proliferation and ensure that powers like north korea which has declared nuclear weapons and iran which is a nuclear weapons threshold state, it has all the elements that are required to actually weaponized should it make a decision to do so, we got to figure out a better way to contain this. i'm not terribly optimistic when it comes to looking at the pathway the israelis and iranians seem to be on now with respect to their regional competition. host: we saw the house pass the supplemental package for israel and the senate is set to take it up today. even in the passage, some democrats voted against and criticized the move. what do you think about the back-and-forth in congress over this additional aid to israel? guest: i think there is no question that the u.s.-israeli relationship which has been driven over the course of decades by two primary drivers.

number one is value, the notion that israel in the u.s. share common values and the other is common interests. the u.s. and israel share a high degree of coincidence of interest. over the last 15 years, there is tremendous stress on both of those. and israel come you have the most extreme government in the history of the state of israel, to ministers who are openly racist. i would call them jewish supremacists and their pursuing policies clearly with respect to the west bank in their annexation everything but name only. there are generational differences now in this country. congress has become more diverse. you have democrats were calling to openly sanction israel and more than a few mainstream democrats want to impose consequences on israel. someone who is a support of the u.s.-israeli relationship when the relationship in fact is

maintained equitably and doesn't become exclusive, i think it can be used in a way that benefits both the interest of the state of israel and the u.s. but i think it's under great stress. 37 house democrats is my math right? they basically voted against the national security supplemental with respect to israel. they have legitimate concerns about restricting military assistance to israel. in a different time and under different circumstances, i think the u.s. and israel can sit down and figure out a way to actually win israel off american military assistance. it's an extremely wealthy country with incredibly high gdp per capita. it's an extraordinary place. it really doesn't need $3.8

billion per year. we can continue to research the israelis and they can have access to by our high state weaponry but this military creates a dangerous dependency. i think it complicates the relationship. at some point, down the road at some point, there ought to be serious discussions between the two governments about how to reconstruct the better relationship when it comes to the issue of military assistance. i want to make one more point on republicans and democrats. i've the voted for both. in my judgment, the line for an effective foreign policy is not between left and right or liberal and conservative and not between democrats and republicans. it's between dumb on one hand and smart on the other. the only thing matters is what side you want america to be on,

the dumb side or the smart side? i believe in the national interest all my life. the national interest that transcends partisan politics and party affiliation and what you just saw even in our dysfunctional political system with this pernicious polarization, which is on congress over the last several days is an extraordinary demonstration even amidst that dysfunction of a fundamental belief that support for israel, tie ukraine and humanitarian assistance for the palestinians and others was in fact a national interest of the united states. i think democrats and republicans need to sit down and think very hard about how to turn the m in me upside down. then it becomes a w. in we that's the key here. it's my hope although i can't

say i'm terribly optimistic that would be a great direction to head. christine on our independent line from michigan. good morning and thank you for accepting my call. caller: thank you mr. miller for letting me speak to you. i'm in my late 70's and i've been watching this and paying attention for decades now. the holocaust was horrible. i know, i visited auschwitz. i know how horrible that was. the palestinians did not do it. in 1947, we decided to create an israeli state, why wasn't there a palestinian state also? you kick those people off and you wonder how this happened. and we will not kill hamas because it's an idea. you can't kill the idea.

got to do something diplomatically. these days, i agree with you, israel and they been doing the west bank settlements for years and we in the u.s. keep saying you shouldn't be doing that but we allowed them to. yes, they are a rich country but yet we are giving them all this money. that gives them the right and the fact of the matter is, both sides are wrong. both sides are wrong. i don't know how this can result because now it spilling over into our college campuses. all of a sudden, everybody has decided that violence is the only means. our politics, the colleges and everywhere and violence is what destroys everybody. thank you for listening. host: thank you for the call. even on the front pages of many of the papers today, what's

going on college campuses as far as protests. if you can weave that into your response. guest: i spent seven years in ann arbor non-from ohio to have to live down michigan beating ohio state three years in a row. every time i go home, i don't have to grieve for my relatives and friends. what's happening -- let me start this way, i was in ann arbor during the vietnam war. i have not ever seen any foreign policy issue without exception rural american politics and college campuses in the foreign policy issue as the gaza war has and frankly, i'm not sure i fully understand it. think about this -- not even when the united states was deployed in afghanistan and iraq

, when american men and women were dying, when we were afghans and iraqis, do you see the kinds of polarization and irrational debate and emotion and passion which often involves into hate speech, islamophobia and antisemitism that we are witnessing. i am a smart guy but i don't get it. i don't understand why this has happened. it has driven people to their corners in a way i have not seen. it has created a situation with no civility. when i say civility, i don't

just mean a conversation and the fact that i can listen to you without screaming and yelling or walking away. i am not talking about that kind of civility. civility is the capacity not just to be policies -- polite. it is the capacity to listen to what they are saying so that just maybe while you are listening to the other one, they might say something of value. not only to make the argument better but maybe to build a bridge on which the two of you can somehow begin to agree. that is gone. it has disappeared. it has gone the way of the dodo. i don't understand it. i have been to several universities. the campus is that i have been

on including the university of michigan, terrific reception. whether this is prevalent across the united states on every single college campus, i very much doubt. the fact that it is happening at yale, columbia and university of michigan, it is a very dark moment. if you cannot figure out a way to have these discussions on a university campus, where will you have them? there is a time in the educational process where you are free from otherworldly issues. people struggle with college loans. if you cannot debate the issues in a serious way, which is part of the purpose of a college or

university education in this country, where do you get the time or the inclination to do it? i am pretty discouraged about this. host: some of the papers this morning, photos from new york university of demonstrations taking place. this call is from wayne in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: how are you all doing? i would like to ask one or two questions. you are a knowledgeable person about the situation that is going on. everybody is talking about the hostages. you have destroyed my cities, towns, brothers, uncles. i want to ask you this but you will probably not answer. dui he believed that the hostages are still alive -- do

you believe that the hostages are still alive under all of that rubble? can you answer that? you might not want to answer it. if i was a military person or if that were my country, the terrorists would not be alive. host: that is wayne in pennsylvania. guest: we talk about palestinian grief and suffering and catastrophic starvation. thousands of palestinians, drawing attention to october 7 where what you saw was an indiscriminate, sadistic and depraved killing spree. no distinction between men, women, children. -- it has not been confirmed. hostages, 253.

there was an exchange for palestinian prisoners out of israeli jails. i only look for what i have gleaned from other sources. 134 hostages alive and dead in gaza, covered by hamas and probably the palestinian islamic jihad. 31 of those the israelis believe are now dead. their bodies taken by hamas to gaza to trade for palestinian prisoners. or they died in captivity. there are some estimates, i interviewed the former israel prime minister on a show "carnegie connects."

at least half of the hostages are dead. it is impossible to know. but one thing is clear, the longer they are captive under extremely -- if you listen to the stories of the freed hostages, particularly the women , it is a very grim outcome. while the hostages are not the most important element i am told in the way israelis are approaching war, they are the most urgent element. in the six months and counting, under extremely difficult circumstances. i am tired, frankly, of one side or the other managing to want to capitalize and monopolize their pain. both israelis and palestinians

have suffered. while i do not expect them to understand or be empathetic or sympathetic to one another, what i do expect as i expect of myself, is for humans and americans thousands of miles away from this, to be able to understand the pain and the suffering and the trauma both on israelis and palestinians. the inability to basically recognize this on a human level, again, i don't know. i had an extraordinary mother. she taught me care about other people. she taught me to think about other people and be empathetic and sympathetic. we are bound together in certain ways but i do not understand why it is so difficult for people

thousands of miles away from where the conflict is taking place in the security of the prosperity of this extraordinary problem, that they cannot understand the pain and suffering on both. why is it necessary to trump one another? i don't get it. but i put it out there because i think if people embraced the alternative in the way that they felt about both sides and did not turn it into every -- into a morality play, we might actually be able to engage with one another in a much different way. i have been in the public conversation for a long time. i am impressed by the capacity that people actually do have to understand one another. i just think it is missing here. host: i apologize.

let's hear from jacob in maryland on the democrats line. caller: over the past 20 years or so, i think the israeli government has become one of the most extremist and repressive governments at least in terms of the history of israel. netanyahu has this famous line of we control the height of the flames and so on. it is no surprise to anyone that october 7 is an awful tragedy and there is a lot of pain and suffering happening in the region. no easy solution to this. my question is why has biden seemingly not really done anything to stop the netanyahu government from continuing its current means of oppression. we have a 25-1 ratio of israelis

to palestinians. why has biden done effectively nothing to stop the current israeli administration from doing what they are doing and slaughtering the people they have killed in palestine. thanks. guest: i will offer you an explanation. i am not here to advocate on anybody's behalf. i'm here for three reasons. six months in, there was not a single consequence that you and i would consider serious. there are three levels to the administration that could have conditioned the military and introduced their own

counterrevolution. they could have abandoned the notion of an israeli-hamas negotiation. simply said, we will deal with the hostages later. we just need to stop. hamas needs to stop. need to stop. we need a complete succession, a cease fire. the president has not been willing to do any of these things. i think for three reasons. i think his emotional identification with israel was deep. i watched bill clinton grieve for the late prime minister of the -- joe biden support for israel, his regard for the security of the israeli public,

the idea of israel, is deeply ingrained on his emotional and political dna which brings me to the next issue which is the politics. yes the democrats are outraged. yes, in a rose -- close election that could be determined by three states under 1000 votes, youth president would have course corrected. he also calculates that sanctioning israel, restricting military assistance and getting tough with israel will cost him. on the conservative democrats as well as the republican party, because it is true that is the israel can do no wrong party. i think there is a political

angle to his willingness to expose himself by toughening up. finally, i think he also deeply believes that the only way you will free the hostages, the only way you will be able to send humanitarian assistance into gaza, the only way we will be able to de-escalate the situation for six weeks or six months is with the support of the current government. i think he also believes this is not just a benjamin netanyahu's. he has a stake in prolonging it. if he loses power, he will face one of two outcomes. conviction or a plea deal which drives them out of politics. it is not just netanyahu's war.

the israeli public. it is not just biden going to war against netanyahu figuratively. we have these three reasons which if combined -- which have combined to make it extremely difficult. this is his power -- his policy. very hard for him to bring himself to do that. they are considering right now invoking military assistance and training to any military unit that receives it that is accused of gross violations of human rights and they are now looking at a battalion -- the israelis are opposed and arguing. the administration may follow through on this. i think you have moments and instances where the administration is willing to be

much tougher. by and large, this is a good issue for biden. it is a hard -- it is hard for him to bring himself to draw from any of these three baskets. host: let's hear from peter in tennessee on the republican line. caller: there was a caller earlier that said he was on the palestinian side. even people who do not believe in god but look at the bible as a historical document, they will tell you that is god's chosen people and he gave them israel. why, i don't know. even scientists and archaeologists, they use the historical document, they have done discoveries.

i have watched a lot of our military people even use it for the tactics used by the israeli soldiers from moses on up. these people hollering that the jews through them out of there is bull. i don't know why these people believe that. even if you don't believe in god , they are his chosen people. it is a historical thing. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: the notion that jews have no claim to jerusalem -- the most extreme annexations are wrong. the question is whether or not

you can find a way to reconcile the legitimate needs and requirements of palestinians with the security and the needs and requirements of the state of israel. that's the issue right now. rights are important. claims are critically important. in the end, this will polarize waste on practical reality. whether or not two people between the mediterranean sea and the jordan river, 15 million people between the mediterranean sea and the jordan river can find a way, with outside help. i believe the u.s. can, with the right attitude, and committed on the part of the israelis and palestinians, can find a better pathway. i continue to believe in this. i have two kids in their 40's. i cannot mortgage their future.

i cannot mortgage the future of israelis and palestinians by saying this cannot happen. i think it can happen. it requires the one thing we have not talked about and that his leadership. where are the leaders in israel and on the part of the palestinians who are not prisoners of their ideologies? leaders who are willing to compromise and who are willing because they believe it is in the best interest of their respective peoples and one another to make the key decisions on the five issues that need to be resolved. border, security, refugees, jerusalem and end of all conflict and claims. there is a chance to do this. certainly not now. surrendering to the forces of hopelessness and despair is not the answer. retreating into your respective corners determined to prove your side is right and the other is wrong, good versus evil is wrong

as well. you need to understand the needs and the requirements of the other and be courageous enough and empathetic enough to support the idea that negotiation on both sides can get what they want. maybe they cannot. but it is critically important for their security and well-being and for hours as well that we try. host: the website for the carnegie endowment for international peace. mr. miller, thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: half an hour from now we will talk to caroll doherty. party identification in the united states and how it has shifted. first, open forum. if you want to participate, it is (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats and

independent. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. >> do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> saturdays watch american history tv's congress igates as we explore major investigations in our country's history by the u.s. house and senate. each week authors and historians will tell the stories. we will see footage from those periods and examine the legacy of key congressional hearings. this week lawmakers held hearings from 1973 to 1974 to examine events surrounding the 1972 break-in at democratic national committee headquarters in washington, dc. the investigation led to the resignation of richard nixon. watch "congress investigates"

saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> friday night watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a roundup of c-span campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, whole numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch the 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download the podcast on our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss any c-span coverage, find it anytime online at c-span.org.

videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on videos. this tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> washington journal continues. host: this is open forum. to participate, (202) 748-8000 republicans. independent, (202) 748-8002. as far as the president's schedule, president biden will travel to tampa, florida today to focus on the productive rights. he will take center stage on abortion one week ahead of the ban taking eec he will place the blame for the state's abortion restriction squarely on president trump who

has repeatedly taken credit for appointing the supreme court justice is who overturned roe v. wade in june 2022. stay tuned leader for that to see the president's statements on abortion and the supreme court. axios reporting that the court this week will consider rather a federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency care, overrides idaho's district abortion you look -- abortion ban. it was the spotlight on stories of president -- pregnant patients who were denied abortions. stay tuned for that case being heard. you can always hear those oral arguments on our website at thursday the court will take, all the former president's immunityims. they will hear oral arguments in 10:00.se o thursday starting live coverage tartt

10:00 on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. stay tuned for all of that taking place this week. daniel is first up on this open forum from texas on the republican line. go ahead. caller: donald trump, they tried to impeach him before he was elected, the whole four years after he was elected. he took one dollar per year and put everything else into the military. now our military is weak and our country is weak. we have 10 million illegal people that have crossed our borders in the past three years. 10 million people. we have to house them, clothe them and feed them. host: bill in new york city, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for washington

journal. i just wanted to say that what was just said a couple of minutes ago about jews being given land because they were the chosen people, i find that weird that we would support that but not support native black americans for reparations and land that is owed to them. that is strange how that was said. another thing i would like to say is when people say that we are a nation of immigrants, that is offensive to the native americans and the native american blacks that were here before anybody got here. i would like to say those things. have a good day. host: sue in missouri, independent line. hello. caller: good morning. i enjoyed the last interview you had with that man.

he made all kinds of sense. i think congress, both houses should meet and have them listen to some of the things that he said because congress does not even talk to each other. all of this hate and everything. we will never get anything settled until you start talking, drop the hate. those college kids, if they are not in school, they don't belong in our country. send them back. those who were going to get a certificate to graduate, they should be dishonored and not given anything. host: when it comes to the work of the senate, they will meet today at 10:00 to start working on the foreign aid package

passed by the house last week. if you are interested in seeing how that takes place, a series of amendments by republicans are expected to be attempted to be put into legislation. if you want to see how that all plays out the senate died as they debate -- on the senate side as they debate, 10:00. you can follow along with that. timothy in florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i am a republican living in florida. i have never been fond of anyone killing a baby. every week we get closer to a near total ban, it will give the democrats more fuel to overturn abortion limits altogether and

we will be right back to where roe v. wade was from the beginning. independents are just a blind spot from the democrats. they don't do anything to appease them. host: ruben in maryland, democrats lined. caller: thank you. i want to make a comment about the hamas and israel. hamas started this. if anyone does not know what they did, they are not reading the news. the most horrific thing possible. jewish blood is not free anymore. they will do everything they can do to get everyone from hamas. the government is gas lighting them. the government is saying we have to worry about the palestinians. they are suffering. is that what the u.s. did in

world war ii? is that what they did to destroy the nazi idea and the japanese idea? they gave humanitarian aid? these people are hiding in hospitals, hiding under residential businesses. all of the aid given to them has been used for terror. they could have had the hong kong of the middle east. they had beautiful beaches there. i have been there. i have seen them. the way that the government is saying on one hand we will give israel money and weapons so they can defend themselves. but we will tie their hands behind their back because we have to be careful. how do you protect a woman and child when a terrorist is in front of them? host: terri is next in virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on.

i would like to chime in on the hamas and israel deal. i believe that israel has a right to defend themselves. it was the palestinians who put hamas in charge. they came in and took hostages and murdered people. you cannot negotiate with them. they want to destroy israel. the only way israel can make this right is to eliminate them, get them out of their country for good. also here in america, the blacks were treated terribly for hundreds of years. the whites were very bad. today the whites have made amends and they have been trying to do the right thing. i commend them for that.

we are a christian nation. we are one here, the majority of us. the difference between us and israel and hamas and palestine, we have love and they have hate. host: terri in virginia. usa today breaks down opening argument yesterday during president trump's criminal trial saying that the lawyer described the meeting between mr. trump, michael cohen and david becker. they agreed to a three-pronged conspiracy according to the lawyer. david becker said he would be the eyes and ears and would work to keep it quiet. it was described as the core of the conspiracy. he vowed to use his publications to attack mr. trump's political

opponents. part of this game according to the prosecution, secure the story of mary mcdougall who said she had an affair with mr. trump. when it comes to mr. trump's lawyer, the argument that they brought, the lawyer denied that mr. trump was reimbursing michael cohen. he added that the prosecutors have put a sinister spin on this as if it is a crime but the jurors will learn that it is not. trump amped up the drama. he emphasized that mr. trump denies her claim saying daniels agreement to not spread false claims about trump is not illegal. it was mr. trump himself after the proceedings, giving some comments in new york city.

here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> they take this payment and call it a legal expense. this is what i got indicted on. they should be in georgia -- i should be in georgia now. i should be in florida. i should be in a lot of different places campaigning and i am sitting here. it is very unfair. the judge is conflicted. it is very unfair what is going on. i should be allowed to campaign. whoever heard of this. to be indicted for that? people in the courts cannot believe it. this is the case. we did something wrong. why didn't the district bring it to look at it? why did not other agencies and law enforcement groups look at it? because it was shown to everybody. very importantly, why did the

federal elections do nothing about this? they are trying to make it a state thing. it has never happened before. [end video clip] host: that was former president trump from yesterday. if you go to the website of politico, taking a look at the lawyers who have been talking on the -- talking about mr. trump's affairs. the story spares that the january 6 committee was working on a bombshell investigation into the capitol riot and president trump's effort to overturn the last election. staffers took time out of their job to brief a group of lawyers and legal pundits on the zoom call. the people on the call were not affiliated with the investigation but they would be familiar to anyone who watches cable news. they were some of the country's well-known clinical commentators. they were there to get insight

into the committee's work and learn about what to look for at the hearings. the group gathering was not a one-time event. it was a weekly digital whose existence has not been previously reported. go to the website of politico if you are interested in reading for yourself. democrats line in florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a democrat here in florida. you know who i will vote for. your prior guest mentioned that we need to take the m in me and turn it into we. that was a great statement. if mr. trump wins, i will pray for him and that his success will the success of our nation. if trump loses, i hope he runs in 2028. host: jonathan in ohio,

republican line. caller: this is jonathan. i'm a republican and i will not vote for donald trump. donald trump is a danger to our democracy. host: ok. do you want to add anything else? caller: donald trump is a threat to our democracy. as a republican, i am ashamed of that man. he is acting like a victim. because of his actions, that's why he is in court. host: did you vote for him four years ago or eight years previous? he hung up. let's hear from russell in massachusetts on the independent line. caller: i just wanted to make a comment on all of this activity with the colleges and the

students and demonstrations in new york city. why do they have to -- host: i have to warn you about the language. i understand sometimes these things drive up certain emotions but you have to watch the language. go ahead. caller: why don't they just tear-gas all of those people and get rid of the demonstration? host: curtis in missouri on the democrats line. hi. caller: yes. i just want to call to make the comment on trump. he has been lying. he has documents. he has falsified everything that he did is really crooked.

he is going up for immunity before the supreme court. day in and day out i hear no one is above the law. when he gets to the supreme court, i hope they think about that really hard because if no one is above the law, i have two words for them on that day. prove it. host: 10:00 on thursday is when the oral arguments are set when it comes to the former president's immunity claimed. -- immunity claims. follow along on the main channel. scott in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i just want to comment on a few things really quick. i really like the guest that you had on. i like really people. i don't like fake people.

i have been following this government for 10 years. this show i have watched quite a bit. i really enjoy watching the government work when you have your intelligent people working. you have to have intelligent people working. there has been the far right and far left in the government. i want to comment on the fear and intimidation that has been going on for quite a few years but especially when donald trump came into running for president and being president. he knew what he was doing and it is pretty sad he is doing it right now. i am a conservative big time. i am their angry at a lot of

the filth -- i am very angry at a lot of the filth in the united states that is being pushed down our throats. we need intelligent people not brainwashing people, not lying to people. i really would appreciate you and the rest of the media to tell the truth when people call and say it is the democrats. i voted for more republicans than anybody. it is not the democrats. it is the same people that know what is going on. if the media would just tell the truth, it is nobody's fault but donald trump's. he committed the crime. nobody should be able to run for president who is a criminal. nobody should be able to run for president who is a seven-time loser and he claimed bankruptcy. host: major point, scott. a few more minutes left. i want to show you video from president biden yesterday making

an announcement on earth day not only when it comes to solar panels but also a new effort called the american climate core. here is president biden from yesterday. [video clip] >> energy costs are among the biggest costs especially for poor and middle income families. low income families spend up to 40% of their paychecks on their energy bill. it is outrageous. to reduce energy costs, the environmental protection agency will exact $7 million from our inflation reduction act for a new program called solar for all. [applause] the reward gives grants across the country to states to develop programs that enable disadvantaged communities to benefit from solar power and it is a big deal.

this new program means that 900,000 households will have solar energy for the first time and soon. millions of families will save over $400 per year. that is $350,000 nationwide. it means we will cut more than 5 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. solar for all will give us more breathing room and cleaner reading room. this will also create 200,000 good paying and union jobs over the five years and communities who need them the most. as i always say, i think about climate and when i think about it, i think about not only the health and safety but i think about jobs. that brings me to my second announcement. last fall i talked about a

historic new program that my administration is launching with help of my colleagues called the american climate core. as i said, ed markey talked about that long before. it is part of the peace corps and the american court. it brings out the best in young people to do what is best for america. it will put tens of thousands of young people to work at the forefront of our climate resilience and energy future, clean energy future. today i'm proud to announce that americans are as the country can now apply to become the first members of the american climate core. [applause] over 2000 positions in 36 states to start with in washington, d.c., puerto rico and many on the way. host: let's hear from dana in indianapolis on the democrats

line. caller: hello. i am calling to say when are the republicans or maga going to realize, i'm talking about the constituents, going to realize that the republicans have done nothing to help them. they have not done anything that helps them as far as wages. infrastructure, medication, prices going down, prescription costs, insurance, obamacare, new jobs and the price gouging. they want something to complain about? do something about the price gouging. their representatives don't care about them. they do nothing to help them.

it is always for their daughters and their lobbyists. when will they realize it? it is plain to see. trump literally lies to your face every day like he breathes. host: let's go to robert in arizona on the republican line. caller: that woman that just said that trump lies every day. it's the other way around. that brain-dead idiot in the white house lies every day. he cannot complete a complete sentence. host: caller, you will have to watch those types of statements because that can get you in trouble in the long run. i will put that statement out for anyone who wants to go down that road. that's it for open forum. thank you for those who participated. up next, we will look at party affiliation in the united states particularly with new information from the pew research center. taking a look at how people identified by party aow tha

has shifted over the last couple of decades. caroll doherty of the pew research center joining us for that conversation that will take place when washington journal continues. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrate 45 years of covering congress like no other. in 1979 we have been your source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the politics are debated with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books,

and accessories. there is something for every fan. every purchase supports our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> thursday the u.s. supreme court will hear oral argument in a case on whether former president trump has presidential immunity against prosecution for his role in attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. are live coverage begins on thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. free spend now, the free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry c-span has provided coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings.

c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current releases, bestseller lists and news and trends through insider interviews. find about books on c-span now, the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is caroll doherty of the pew research center here to talk about new research in the party identification. thank you for giving us your time. guest: it is great to be here.

we have been studying for quite a while. party identification is the most basic political measure there is. which party do you belong to. which party do you lean toward. we have data going back to the 1990's so we can see how party id has shifted. host: we will get more into the details. there are so many factors that go into how a person identifies. guest: this is one of the most fundamental measures. it starts very young. how are you socialized? how do you grow up? what is your family like? what is their party affiliation? all of these are factors in party identification. host: the recent research in 2024, you asked people if they leaned democrat or republican. 49% of those who told you the information, 48% were leaning

republican. as far as those numbers, what did that say about how things have changed? guest: they say a couple of things. these measures have been close over the past few decades. democrats had a slight edge four or five years ago. what you see is pretty even. even that reflects where the country is politically divided. host: as far as the narrowing, talk about that. guest: we take an estimate every year. year-over-year since 2018 the democrats have had a five-point edge. now it is down to one. it is close within the margin of error. the two parties are even in party edification. host: just to show the viewers at home, it was those who were democrat or leaning democrat, 51% saying that republicans, 46%

. guest: you can see how that has changed. host: as that shrinking is concerned, is there something there? is that unusual? guest: it is a significant shift but probably not that noteworthy because we have seen fluctuations over time. is not coming from any particular group. host: this is our guest and if you want to talk about not only why you identify yourself literately but maybe some of the reasons why you do so and talk to our guest about their findings, you can call the line. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. when it comes to the various factors, let's look at race.

you have a chart with the majority of hispanic, black and asian voters and the party they favor which is the democratic party. can you elaborate? guest: what you see is these groups are pretty democratic. although the hispanic identification with the democratic party has narrowed and declined a little bit since 70% in 2016 to 61% today among registered voters. you see it in a lot of other surveys too where hispanics are becoming less democratic. asian voters are very probably democratic. and black voters overwhelmingly are democratic in their identification. host: black voters, 83% of those identifying with the democratic party versus 12%. guest: a little bit of narrowing in recent years but not a huge shift. host: when it comes to the stark

numbers, they don't tell you why they identify that way but are there conclusions you can draw? guest: if you look back at the recent history, this is not new in the identification of a lot of these groups whether they are white or black. the party identification trends do not change a lot from year to year. over time they tell a story. host: black voters, 56% of those identifying with the republican party, 41% with the democratic. guest: a little bit more they were -- more of a republican edge. host: talk to us about how you compiled this information and how you weigh it. guest: it is a complicated process because our methods have changed over the years. we used to do telephone service. now we do an online panel. we have had to adjust. we asked each year, we have hundreds of thousands of interviews we are able to draw on to develop this.

it is a rather complicated process. it is worth it. host: how many are in the sample? guest: per year, it could be as much as 20,000. in the last few years, more like 3000 to 10,000 because of -- we use the panel. host: elaborate on the panel. guest: this is our probability-based online panel where people are recruited to join and take surveys. host: this is how you come up with the information as far as party identification. one of the things you also look at is the amount of education a person has and how does that determine how they choose a party? guest: education has been a bigger factor in party identification and politics in the last 10 or 15 years than it was previously. noncollege voters, these are

voters who do not have a four year degree. they are increasingly identifying with the republican party, 63%. voters with a four degree more likely to be democrats, but evenly divided. host: those are some of the findings. 63%. 51 to 47. we see this education divide. you have seen it for the last 15 years. guest: in every election, it is an important marker. we saw it in president biden's job approval. we saw it in former president trump's job approval. host: you looked at race. when it comes to hispanic voters with college backgrounds, 60% of those identifying with the democratic party versus 35%. black voters, that is where the largest margin is.

guest: that is because it is the largest margin among black voters generally. we do not see as much of a difference between college and noncollege voters among hispanic, asian and black voters. host: again, party identification. if you want to ask questions about it (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. ned is in maryland on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. it is an interesting topic. i want to declare upfront, i am a pisces. my heart is toward the democrats and my head leans toward the republicans. the question i have for you is the whole thing about leaning democrat and republican, one

that ms. issue because of my old standing, people would consider me leaning republican. i have done a 180. now it would seem eileen democrat -- i lean democrat. it is really contingent on one or two issues whether someone is democrat or republican. thank you. guest: that is an interesting point. for some voters it can be a single issue or a group of issues that causes them to lean or identify with a party or identify with a party or even to change parties. usually what we have signed -- what we have found is they do not tend to change their party identification that much. about 8% to 10% will change from year to year. it is not a lot of change on a year to year basis. host: because the caller was on

the independent line, how do you account for independents? guest: identifying means you affiliate with that party. leaning is a softer measure. about one third identify as republicans, one third as democrats and about one third as independents. those who are independents tend to lean and they often have strongly partisan views themselves. they are not nonpartisan. host: one of the other factors you look at his income and how that factors in to how someone might identify. voters on the lower income scale largely favoring the democratic party. as you get to the upper income scale, 53% lean democrat.

46% are republican. guest: that is a very interesting phenomenon. we have seen this in recent elections. when you look at exit polls in recent elections, democratic presidential candidates do better among lower income people while republicans do better with middle income voters. host: why do you think that is? guest: it is hard to say. it is an interesting phenomenon. part of it reflects the changing democrats -- changing demographics of the democratic party. the college attainment among voters is related to higher income. host: we want to hear from roles on the line for -- we want to hear from rose on the line for republicans. caller: hi.

i am wondering why the government essentially letting all of this stuff happen and no one is lifting a finger to do anything, get the kids outof he. they are just sitting there watching and letting god and do what he wants. i don't even like looking at him on tv. host: i have to stop you there, not only for the background noise on the tv but goes beyond our discussion. fran on the democratic line. hi. caller: mr. carol, i wonder if you could explain something for me. when they talk about the blackmail vote, how they tend -- black male vote, how they tend not to vote and lately are turning more conservative. can you talk about that? caller: some surveys -- guest:

some national surveys are finding that. it's a little bit on the margins. our party identifications, we don't show much of a gender gap between black voters. it is an interesting point, though. again, this party identification is a very broad measure, not predictive of how people vote, but we could see black men, women possibly voting -- nobody knows how they will vote exactly in november. but this party identification sort of sets the parameters for how they affiliate politically. host: you talked about the income. you also take another measure of it, the gap between homeowners and renters. guest: some of that is about age. younger people tend to affiliate with the democratic party at higher rates, so renters tend to be younger, homeowners tend to

be older, homeowners, identify as republican. host: 51% of those homeowners leaning republican. 64% of renters for the democratic party. guest: it is an indication of where they are in their lifecycle. essentially they are still renting so they tend to be younger people. host: let's hear from philip, new york city. republican line, on with carroll doherty from the pew research center. caller: good morning. i changed from democrat to republican. i basically changed because i looked at the platforms, like the abortion issue. do you believe, during this time, people really pay attention to the platform, or a re we just a heard of whatever

kind of animal -- herd of whatever kind of animal, just go with what our family dude, race did. whatever group we belong to. that is how we choose our political affiliation. guest: that's a great question. there are so many factors that go into it. what we see, often in the exit polls that we see after an election, it has gotten increasingly polarized. 90% of democrats to the same for their candidate. people arrive at that decision in different ways. sometimes it can be an issue like abortion or immigration, or how the administration is handling the economy. sometimes it is just feeling more comfortable with a party. sometimes it feels like the opposing party is a danger to the country, so you may not like

the party you are in, but it is better than the alternative. host: ray is in napa, california. democrats line. caller: i have a question. i have been asking conservatives this question forever. name one thing the conservative republican party has ever authored, past, and made into law that helped workers of america like the family leave act, minimum wage, any of that. they seem to go against everything that helps the working-class people but working-class people seem to be going to them according to your graph. curious to your answer on that. host: before you go, why are you a democrat? caller: i work for the party that works for the people of america. fdr did more than anybody. i chose to be a worker bee, i choose the party that represent me the best. the family leave act, the republicans stripped out the

part where we get unemployment insurance, minimum wage, they will not pass that. reagan fired the air traffic controllers which was the downhill for unions. i was in aerospace. i watched unions dissolve in front of my eyes after that. it doesn't make sense for working-class people to vote republican, at least i don't think so. host: thanks. guest: we don't have a measure of working-class as such, sort of a self-definition, but union members tend to affiliate with the democratic party at pretty high rates. nonunion people along with the republican party. to the caller's question, you do see that pattern of union members, have seen that for quite a while, probably going back to the 1930's and before, identifying with the democratic party. host: william in mississippi for our guest, jackson, mississippi.

independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call once again. i want to talk about some things that i heard. i don't disagree with too much of what your guest is saying, but i just want to point this out because i know people are listening. when they talk about the black mail loader, don't believe in that malarkey. i am 57 years old now. the people that sit up there and talk about them switching, 85, 90 percent of those people don't vote. either they are locked up, don't vote at all. i have had 10 conversations in the last three years about different things that trump didn't do, things that congress passed, that trump takes credit for. you hit these people with these facts, they say, i never thought about voting. but they try to influence a lot

of people that do vote. people, listen to me. when it comes to black people, 85, 90% of people talking about switching over don't vote, never vote, never will. thank you for taking my call. guest: we don't have a measure in this report about intention to vote, likelihood of actually turning out to vote. will not be doing that throughout the campaign. again, this is a very broad measure of which party you belong to. it is not indicative of your own interest in politics or engagement with politics but that is something we will study. it's a good point. just because you identify with a party doesn't mean that you will necessarily show up to the polls and vote for that party. host: from ida in tampa, florida. mcgrath line. caller: -- democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i was looking at some data in terms of shifting party identification. some of the data that is coming from i believe harvard university, the key predictive vote would be the muslim vote in some of these key swing states. if you have any data to support that, the shift in party identification, how that may affect this coming election considering the ongoing genocide in gaza. thank you. guest: that is very difficult to say at this point. our data goes up to the end of -- we have a measure for 2024 for a muslim response but it is a relatively small number. this is a pretty democratic group generally across the country in the past but it is hard to say how the ongoing conflict in gaza will affect that population. and especially in states, it is hard to get a measure, because the population, segment of

michigan voters, even though that is a relatively large segment for a state, is still pretty hard to measure. host: carroll doherty, you take a look at age when it comes to a person, identifying, found if you are between the ages of 18 and 24, chances are he will identify a democrat, 66, verses 34% republican. that republican and goes up as a person ages. guest: it is a linear phenomenon. you see it every decade, the share identifying as republicans go up. it is very interesting, voters themselves on average is getting older, the country is getting older. in some ways this is plain to the advantage of the republicans. these older voters tend to vote at higher rates and tend to lean to the republican party. young people, very democratic, doesn't seem to be eroding in any way, the dominance the

democrats have. but their turnout levels are much lower. host: when it comes to aid, by the time a person hits 50, 59, 50% identifying as republican. where can they find this report by the way? guest: at our website at pew research.org. host: if you want to go to the website and check it out yourself, ask the guest about it, you can do that during the time we have left in the segment. mark in sanborn, new york. independent line. go ahead, you are on. caller: hello. i would like to ask mr. carroll doherty, i've never seen anything on poles about disabled people and how they vote. i would like to know if you have

a chart that you can show that shows disabled people, because we care about things that other people don't care about. we care about health care, social security, and that type of thing. if you would, can you comment on that? guest: we don't have that in this report. in the past and probably in the future, we will get to that. disability, again, one of those hard things to measure. an important population. as a population ages, more and more people identify with having at least some disability. it tends to be a democratic-leaning group, at least it was in the past, but we have to see where that affiliation is today. host: kenneth is up next in illinois. republican line. caller: good morning. i am a retired army veteran and i live in illinois, and i used to be a longtime democrat.

recently i switched to republican due to the fact of the immigration circumstances coming in and giving taxpayer dollars to them. another reason, reparations. like i say, i vote for policy, and that is the reason i switched. thank you. guest: immigration is obviously a big issue this campaign. we see the government, the administration gets a marks for its handling of immigration, the illegal immigration issue, the border crisis. it could definitely move some voters like that caller. host: you have some tracking, as far as veterans are concerned. here are the numbers. registered voters who are military veterans, 63% say they

are republican or lead republican versus 35% say they are democrat or lean democrat. breaks down from there. fill in the blanks. guest: the veteran population, for years and years, have been more republican leaning. no question about that. also getting smaller with a number of americans actually serving in the military, declined over the years, but still an important population, remains pretty solidly republican. host: let's go to scott in utah. democrats line. caller: hello. i think i have a pretty good theory about why people change parties. both my grandparents were democrats because they were hard-working middle-class people. one was a farmer, the other is a worker. to me, when it shifted, was when the gay people, minorities

started to get more power. those hats say, the magas want to make america great again to make america white again. they cannot accept these changes happening in society. they are both really voting against themselves. the republicans are still for the big corporations, democrats are for the small man. i appreciate you guys. thank you. guest: you see socioeconomic differences, class differences, educational differences. if you track the data back all the way to 1930, you would see a huge democratic advantage. the last 30 years we have seen neither party has a significant advantage. it reflects what you see in the presidential election. pretty close in the last 30 years. host: i don't know how strict

numbers you have as far as parents identifying. guest: we have asked people if they belong to the same party as their parents. they tend to, it is not automatic, for sure. it has an effect. host: you take a look if a person lives in a suburb or city, how they might trend. how do those numbers shake out? guest: that is one of the biggest changes we have seen in the last 30 years, there were real voter aligning with the republican party 60%. that is up in the last 30 years significantly. the suburbs are still the political battleground, as always, will be this year, the next election. urban counties, 60% identify with democrats. host: look at the breakdown. 60% versus 37% in urban counties. rural counties, 60% versus 35. guest: it is a pretty stark

difference and has grown over the years. not the urban/suburban side, the rural side. host: carroll doherty with us, behind the research that you are seeing from pew. if you have questions, you can call (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independent, (202) 748-8002. this is a leap from the bronx. independent line. . caller: yes, i am in one of those urban areas. i am a western caribbean american. we usually get conscripted into the african-american, what they call the black community block. i wonder if that is how you put us in that vote? as far as i'm concerned, i know these caribbean countries are very conservative, hold a lot of the republican views and beliefs especially when it comes to gay

rights, all those other things. i find it very curious that we continuously get conscripted into the african-american block. i wonder if that skews the numbers a bit? guest: this report does obscure the complexity within every group that we study including black voters. it is how people identify themselves. but this includes recent immigrants in some cases. among hispanics there is a great deal of diversity in the population depending on which country of origin. asian voters as well. there is a lot of complexity and diversity even within these groups we study. you are right about that. guest: howard in illinois. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. you had a call earlier from mississippi concerning the black

vote, when he asked what republican party had done for blacks in general. i would say the 13, 14th, 15th amendment, 1964 civil rights act, republicans passed that. most of the major legislation that perpetuated the social welfare state unfortunately was republicans who gave them the majority vote. the southern democrat party didn't have the votes. host: before you go, may i ask, why do you identify as a republican? caller: because what the democrat party has done and is doing is creating all of these entitlements. when you ask, who is paying for it? i was in a union. my salary went up exponentially because of union negotiations and inflation. eventually we are going to have to pay for it. we are $35 trillion in debt.

where is this money coming from? host: that is howard in illinois. he takes an economic view. guest: and the deficit, our polling shows it is a much higher concern these days among republicans than democrats. host: let's talk about religion. you talk about how a person's religious beliefs may impact. guest: first off, the country is becoming less religious overall. the number of americans who don't identify with religion has grown over the last 20 years. a lot of those voters are aligned with the democratic party, 70% of those voters who are not with a major denomination identify as democrats. that is one of the big changes we have seen. what you are looking at there is the composition chart. these are the compositions of the parties, who mix them up. the democrats is a diverse religious group there.

modest majority are actually christian. 80% of republicans are christian. that is a big difference there. and the democrats have changed a lot over the years and the republicans haven't in terms of their religious identification. host: because of the diversity of religions. you identify protestant, catholic, breaks down from there, but that unaffiliated number, to show all voters, in 2008, 15% of those. that has grown to 26%. guest: our data shows a big rise in religiously unaffiliated. church attendance is down. we see fewer people identifying with religion. host: all of this available at pew research.org if you want to look at it yourself. on our lawn for democrats, ally. hello. caller: good morning.

please if he could touch on the most annoying and probably most dangerous single voter issues. if you could identify them. thank you, sir. guest: there are not many single issue voters. whether it is abortion, immigration, gun control, something like that. not too many voters. usually a person aligns with a party for a variety of reasons, policies. they may disagree with some of those policies. not too many single issue voters in the current political environment. host: pat from the idaho. independent line. caller: thank you for having me. just want to say, i lived in california my whole life. i am retired. i was a strong democrat. i live in idaho now, a

republican state. i will tell you one thing, i have never seen a state so clean. people are nice, no graffiti, no homeless. people just seem to be happy here. they are more into their families. it could be because it is a lot of mormons here, i don't know, but california was really disappointing me. their politics have gone way too far. and i was a strong union member. i truly believed in the democratic party, and they have done a lot of good for the union, but i don't think they are as strong and honest to people as they used to be. that is all i have to say. thank you for having me. guest: seems like we have gotten a few union callers. it is not a monolith. 60% or so of unit members identify as democrat. that means roughly 40% identify

as republicans. the caller mentioned mormons. that is one of the strongest republican groups among religious affiliations. host: another breakdown you take is the classification among conservatives versus a moderate versus a liberal. why take a look at those? guest: that is the other piece of this, which is your ideology as opposed to your party. are you a conservative republican? we even break it down, are you a very conservative republican? very liberal, very conservative. you see the party is different, more conservatives in the republican party than there are liberals in the democratic party. democrats are split between liberals and moderates. conservatives make up 70% of all republicans. host: how do you identify a moderate versus a liberal in this case? guest: self identification, how they describe themselves. host: kim in iowa.

republican line. you are next. caller: good morning. i have never done this before. when you talk about the young people who tend to vote for democrats, could it be that democrats seem to buy votes? the younger generation has no work ethic, they would rather sit back and collect welfare. back in the mid-2000's when the unemployment, they were doing the extension for the unemployment. democrats wanted to give the extension, republicans said no. i tend to go with republicans. so many out there don't want to work and just want a handout. student loans taken care of. is that why younger people tend to go more democrat? guest: that is a tough question. what is interesting about our data is that people assume that

this has always been the case, that young people identify with the democratic party. we have data from 1999 showing virtually no age difference at all across generations in terms of their party identification. this started in the 2005, 2008, started with president barack obama to some degree, before that with the kerry-bush race. now pretty established in the last 15 years where younger people are strongly on the democratic side. host: here is a subset that you offer among young people, men and women. guest: same differences among voters that you see overall with age groups. we don't see much difference. there has been some suggestion that young men might be tilting a little bit to the republican party. we don't see that much in our data. the same gender gap across age group. host: women, 62, men, ages of

26-39. when you get to the age of 50, 40 1% of men identifying as democrat or leaning democratic. 57% for republicans. 47% for women. guest: the gender gap, it is kind of a pillar of politics the last 40 years. started in the 1980's. it is not huge right now, about eight points. the share identifying with the democratic party, women are eight points more likely than men to identify as democrats. but you see it across all groups, this gender gap. host: it doesn't matter the age. let's go to nancy in connecticut. democrats line. caller: hello, good morning. have you ever asked people in your survey if they are optimists or pessimists?

in my experience, many of my friends who are optimistic are democrats, more open-minded, hence they vote for biden. some of my friends who are pessimists are republicans, and they tend to do a lot more complaining. hence, they voted for trump. guest: we have never exactly asked that question. we have asked how the country is doing, if you are satisfied things are going. we ask about the future of the country, if you are optimistic. lots of pessimism on both sides in terms of how the country is doing, will be doing. people are not too optimistic even on the democratic side about the future of the country right now. a lot of reasons for that i think. right now, this is not an optimistic period among the public. host: you have addressed gender and marital status but you also look at sexual orientation when it comes to these trends. guest: we find lgbt people

pretty strongly identify as democrats, pretty overwhelmingly. that is something new in this survey. we have a lot of different groups that people want to see you party identification of. even smaller groups in the population. host: straightman, 55 percent identify as republican versus 43% democrat. straight women, 49%, straight women. gay and bisexual, 89%. guest: very strong democratic group. ralph is in d.c.. independent line. caller: i think about 50% of people identify as independence, so giving a platform of one third to independents doesn't make much sense. my main very strict independent but i'm also masters degree,

college educated but older. what i'm seeing now is a huge indoctrination into what i would call the victimhood syndrome where either you are a victim or perpetrator. if you were to give your survey to those who are college-educated, have undergone this indoctrination, you will find a lot more will buy into everything can be solved with social programs, as opposed to giving people the opportunity to see. i think that would be some thing to look into. host: before you go, what does it mean to you to identify as an independent? guest: i support -- caller: on the left, you have people in favor of late-term abortions, genital mutilation, can never

see enough of a social program. i live in d.c. three times the budget as chicago per capita. on the republican side, you have more taxpayers for the wealthy, more taxpayers for corporations, more tax breaks or these guys, kill all social programs. host: that israel finn washington, d.c. even the most people identify or lean toward unhappiness with both parties in recent years, the show of americans who have an unfavorable view of both parties has been rising to almost 30%. they are even saying they may not like their own party but it is also close to 30% have an unfavorable view of both parties. that shows you some of -- i think there is a lot of frustration with the two-party system. host: one of the things you

track was voter age. can you elaborate? guest: the population has gotten older and we see both parties getting older, but this is especially true of the republican party. one third or so, that is way up from where it was in the 1990's. this is happening in both parties. it is happening a little bit more in the republican party than the democratic party, aging a little faster. host: deborah joins us from alabama, line for democrats. good morning, thanks for joining us. caller: i really just have a comment. there was a lady about three people back that was basically saying that the younger generation, the reason why they vote democrat is because they are lazy and all of this kind of thing. i just wanted to let her know that i went to school and work

two jobs because i was a single parent, and student loans allowed me to be able to take care of my children and also get my college degree. that was all i host: wanted to say. host:before we let you go, i'm asking everybody why you identify as a democrat, would you care to elaborate? caller: well, i guess the way that i put it is that democrats, they do things, they will give you crumbs from the table. republicans won't even give you the crumbs from the table, they will feed them to the dogs. that is kind of why i'm democrat. all of them politicians have their vices and all politicians at some point are selfish and do things for themselves and their friends or what have you, but the democrats lean toward

helping lower to middle class people. republicans, all they want to do is get their rich friends tax cuts and grant all that they can grab, and they don't care anything about people, the working people. host: deborah, they fear for the elaboration. sorry to cut you off, we are short on time. things that we haven't talked about maybe? guest: one of the most interesting things about the survey is the composition of the party. they used to be more similar, now they are more different demographically in terms of where they live, in terms of their education level. as one of the differences we see in politics and it sort of undercuts some of the polarization we see on issues. some of that is caused by being more different people in the parties. that is documented in this report. host: p research -- peerre