tv Book TV CSPAN December 4, 2010 1:45pm-3:00pm EST
1:45 pm
author of pac-10, bill press author of "toxic talk: how the radical right has poisoned america's airwaves" and douglas schoen, co-author of "mad as hell: how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system." the authors spoke about their books and the current state of politics in america. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. [applauding] [applauding] >> i'm john avlon. we are going to give you a brief talk about our respective books and then have a conversation with you. take some questions and have some fun. thank you for continuing to have a kidney to talk about politics after this election. my name is john avlon. my most recent book is "wingnuts: how the lunatic
1:46 pm
fringe is hijacking america.">>k it is a book that is about the rise of extremism that we have e seen in the opening of the obamt years. it is an attempt to remind us f that we face forces of befor and extremism. they are not isolated to one t political party or the other. neither political party has ahes monopoly on virtue or vicevirtue prefer get that in our over in egypt intent -- overheatedhese intense debates. i, as an independent, get concerned that we are hurting our country in the process. more and more americans who are independent are effectively politically homeless in this to debate, and we need to push bace on these hyper partisans who aru hijacking hour debate in thei' l country. so let me tell you a little bit about the wing nut. well, what is a wing that? wng well, it will not, as i definetf it, is someone on the far right or far left.l the professional partisans, the professional polarizes, the
1:47 pm
paranoid conspiracy theorist who are always trying to divide rather than unite. one telltale sign is that's they tend to confuse patriotism but partisanship. they increasingly think that being a good partisan makes them a good patriot. in fact, i argue that the tove have very little to do with each are other. time we are in a time of a cycle of incitement in our politics where the extremes echo and encouraged each other.hate and they do use hate and fear to drum up ratings. yes ago used to be a few years ago that ve oolitical leaders not talking p points to talk radio. now talk radio gets talking points from political leaders.ci they use the same formula, fear and resentment.ry day every day they drum up listeners in a narrow, but intends nichere audience.o our political leaders are starting to echo that plan.ing, it is in powering. us
1:48 pm
the most enhanced. the french is blurring with the base. it is not isolated. we've we have seen a particular amouna of uglinessin outpouring againsi president obama.ll it is important to pull back ant realize,ha though, that before there was obama derangements anw from there was a bush derangements syndrome. the to actually have many of the same characteristics. calling the president a tyrant,m the prist. well, the problem is whenever i am interviewing people for thisr book, people at protests holdinm signs comparing obama to hitlere i always say, what are youbout h saying?is what are you thinking? wl, invariably they say something i like, well, they started it. [laughter] they compared president bush toy hitler, and nobody complained.st i figured it is fair game.you and that is the problem.ll you know, john stuart at hiseste rally to restore sanity, one ofn
1:49 pm
his suggesteds signs, i really disagree with you, but i'mou, pretty sure you're not a not hitler.it and that is good advice for us l all.if and if yyou only have a problem with the president from yourpret part oy, then you are part of te problem., that is the problem in our politics right now. and the hyper partisanship is distorting. sansh it is hurting our country r because it's stopping us fromstg solving serious problems.g it's stopping us from being able to unite. we are increasingly self segregating ourselves into separate political realities when it comes to media thatumption. that itself is dangerous becausd it dooms that old idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their ownle fact. people are approaching politicss as war.the conversation, reaching outis across the aisle is condemned af traders behavior to the party as partwere if the parties were the mostt important thing in politics, and ley are not. attempto
1:50 pm
so this book is an attempt to look at the way that the extremes are increasinglyto dominating debate in political h parties to resemind us that weoe have seen these forces before and confronted them. to in some ways i was trying to update the classic paranoid stalin in american politics. we havvee faced these forces oefore. degogues d demagogues always do well in economic downturns. we sometimes don't appreciate how much these old arguments arf being recycled, how much of this stuff you hear today is just recycling of stuff that was now being said 50 years ago.e now advanced by candidates. what we have not been havinggh t enough is what we had at thatime time where william f. buckley had the decency and dignity and integrity to stand up when they buckly were doing insane things like claiming that president dwight d. eisenhower was a soviet d. agent, one of my favorites. you know, i'm sorry if you thiny that general and president eisenhower is a communist spye i
1:51 pm
then you are not welcome in ourat conservative movement. he stood up. theth problem is we don't seeda. enough of that today.s our political leaders are the afraid. ecognize or fear that the fringe is blurring with the base and are afraid that if they stand up they will alienate their baseal and lose a close partisan primary.é there are somse political resonance that add credibility to that fear.o what we need to do to restore our some balance and backbone to our politics is start standing up to the extremes on both sides. i really believe that is the tht only way that we are going to cc stop the cycle of incitement that we are in before it gets even uglier. any that is not to claim that at an given time there is quality ofat extremes in our politicaltreme,b debate, but if you buy into thit idea that only one side and blay party is to blame you compound the problem.bout. that is what i am concerned about. i care less about the parties, and more about the country.t's it is an attitude that is is
1:52 pm
unfashionable these days.bellios this is a rebellious project. the whole media system is set up to record high partisanship andr often the lowest common omnominator. c it is about pushing back. it is about trying to restore ar sense of common sense to ourplaf politics and to play offense ina from the center for the first time in a long time. is not just to feed this beast thad is distorting our politics andih dividing our nation., y i think we can do it. i know that, you know, we are of facing a resurgent groups.n we have seen a resurgence of and militia groups on the far right. you know, they are comparativelt small, but it is worth paying attention is arguments start bleeding into the mainstream. if we do that, if we play offense for the center, if we can be honest brokers and politics h and the media and it left to right as an event or
1:53 pm
cosmic compel us then we canan restore the trust. i think the parties could be goo more effective in governing the rather than attacking eache other. to do it we need to be vigilanta stand up to extremes wherever we see them, call them out. into sunlight is the best m disinfectant.ieve. [applauding] thank you. pplaus [applauding] >> good afternoon. well, i'm convinced -- john, i the agree.le i will stop being so reasonable on the left when those hasslesoe on the right stop being so unreasonable. [applauding] all right. today [laughter] here bid to be here today. we are here to talk about ourwe books, but we also talk about the issues of the day. i i cannot help myself.i
1:54 pm
i do have to have a brief comment on the biggest story ofi the day. "mi when i pick up theam miami "herald" and on the front pageae it says that the pope says it is okay to use condoms. [applauding] especially, he says, when male prostitutes use them. [laughter] now, ladies and gentlemen, i grew up catholic. i was an altar boy. i studied for the priesthood. nv i was in the seminary. i never thought i would see the day when the pope felt catholics should take their cues on sexuality from male prostitutese [applauding] [laughtely call that progress. [laughter] at great to be back at this book gt fair. it is great to seeto so many of you who love books and loveank
1:55 pm
fiters and reading.re thank you for being here. [applauding] so, my book is "toxic talk," tak about the phenomenon of's greata right-wing talk radio which ispd so powerful today. most of us don't realize that tr more people listen to talk radid every day then read theer. newspaper. doe surp maybe that does not surpriseu. you. more people listen to talk radio then watch all three of the cable channels all combined. talk c radio is the most powerfl medium of perful communication in our our country today.today. my problem is that it is so and right wing and ugly most of the time. that's what i talk about in the book. i see a lot ohef gray hairs inrr this audience to remember back o in saturday night live, that famous sketch. t l they were doing a little thing, to the takeoff on the today show. dan famously says jane, you
1:56 pm
ignorant slut you know. and she says dan, you arrogant. we all laughed. we thought, political dialogue would never end up like that. that was theth extreme. guess what. today thatth is mild. first of all, the imbalance.reat talk radio is great. it rea wlly is. eress people can express their h opinion, your other americans express their opinions. a great national thtown hall. the problem is from my take is it does not really reflect the american public because it isere 90% -- nine hours oftry forvery conservative talk for every one hour a progressive talk. we are not and 90% right-wing nation.doug we are, you know, 50 / 50, 55 / 45 nation. just to give you a number, ther, are 2,000 new stock stations in0 this country. all
1:57 pm
1,940 of them are all right wing all the time 24 / seven. there are 60 progressive radio stations, nine in this market. t they used to be in miami. they pulled the plug. ion. i am on every one of the 60 st stations in the country where i can get. there aren't enough platforms for progressive voices, not tops mention a centrist voices, which really don't exist on talk radio today. that is the first problem that y see with talk radio. tal the way it happened, by the wayl it is not because liberals wen cannot talk. god knows we can talk.'t it is not because we can't makek money and get good ratings. the apartment, ore., chicago, minneapolis, buffalo, all arouno the country where progressive, talk radio is on the air, makinr money committed to get ratings. in some cases they will be head-to-head. is the real problem is ownership. most of the stations are owned by conservative owned and ds
1:58 pm
controlled companies. it started back in the days of t richard nixon. they were very smart. il they did nothing illegal. they did something very smart. they went out and bought radio stations, created a network,oday hire talent, trained talent, and it'sy they dominate w the airwaves. the fcc does absolutely nothingt about it. ra it isdi not just that radio is , one-sided. the problem that i see is when , you listen to with the content l is so ugly, partisan, and dis personal and disgusting. nute. that me back up just a minute. e a couple of, observations. he number one, i don't have the anything against political good debate. just the opposite. i've made a good living all of s my life.radio crossfire, buchanan, press, thee spin room, radio, television. i love political debate.p i have been up against some ofit the very best. more i enjoy it. i'm not i'm not saying we all have to be
1:59 pm
pansies, nice to each other or no can't mix it up. mix it the other thing is i admit that i am not perfect. i'll tell you that before dog does. ov i go overer the line sometimes. [laughter] you remember scott mcclellan. you remember him? mc he was president bush's press secretary at one time. i called him a decade on the air he is a decade.ut now, he is not really. i just love saying that on cnn. but i should not have done it. i apologized. i should not. t the point is you may hear some l of that on the left. you hear it all the time of the right. a guy out of that land is said onout katrina, you know, who tod blame? you don't blame bush.the blamed the worthless parasites to live there. se did not even have enoughhem sense to wipe themselves that te
2:00 pm
alone get out w of the way with. the levees talk broke. of talk timeind talking about. about rh rush limbaugh. you can disagree with presidente obama. you don't have to call him and ignoring jackass, which rushed did last week pretty don't have to call him the amnon child. the connotations of that. say that barack obama wasn't blackie would be nothing morebe than a tour guide a in t honolulu today. you can disagree with the the politics, disagree with the policies beauty don't have to go that far. g i don't think it serves this dot atuntry well when people go thah it's the final point, it is not only disgusting to listen to, it can wa be, not always, but it can be dangerous. .. the san fransisco area called the tides foundation and called them the most dangerous element in america today out with george's money to undermind this country and bring the country down. about a couple months later, the
2:01 pm
police stopped a guy weaving in and out of traffic and had three guns in his car on the way to san fransisco to wipe out the leadership of the tides foundation baa glenn beck identified them as evil. toxic talk can lead to toxic actions. it's not good when that happens. as a solution, look, i'm not about to censor anybody. people have a right to m anybody has the right to make a full of themselves on radio and television as much as they want. god knows i do regularly. but i do think there should be some balance in the air waves. did it sink in every market in this country people who don't necessarily agree with rush limbaugh and glen beck should find a station they can listen to and maybe eat and disagree with or agree with. i would like to see the fcc the
2:02 pm
back to and forcing the current law which is if you have a license to operate the public airwaves you have to operate and the public interest. what a novel concept. [applause] >> you an operating in public interest when you are all right wind or all left-wing. where all of this is coming from, for right-wing talk radio hosts are feeling that the party and that the party is feeling politics today and nobody could defended the party today except douglas schoen. >> it is left to me to tell you what my dear friend and i did not tell you. and dennis a. this in both mock
2:03 pm
and real seriousness because there is another perspective. my own worldview is close to john's. it used to be close to bill's that that was eons ago when both of us had dark hair. now i have less hair and he has white hair. let me make a couple points. i wrote a book about the tea party. i wrote it with scott rasmussen. it was not and isn't a defense of the ted purdy movement. and was designed to the an explanation of why 40% of american people identify with the tea party and 36% identify with the two major parties. it tells you something. two years ago at this time there wasn't it the party. what is it about american politics that allows a movement to grow that arguably elected 50 or 60 members of the house or two or two members of the senate
2:04 pm
and has effectively assumed power over one of the major political parties. i think you chose the wrong bill buckley analogy with all due respect. when i came of age politically, most typically was described to bill buckley's that he would rather be governed by the first hundred names and the massachusetts phone book than the harvard faculty. the reason dilute to that is it is one of the things driving the tea party. there is a sense that politicians of both parties, john is absolutely right, both parties are missing the boat. it is not only extremism and extreme rhetoric but failure to solve problems. if you look at the tea party and you analyze what they stand for it is not so much what john was talking about. there are certain we leaders who
2:05 pm
would reflect sentiments of so-called wing nuts but bottom line, is the party in vast numbers and bulk of leadership are real people with real concerns with and the way government operates and with federal spending, the dysfunction of washington, the absence of a balanced budget and a growing debt and if you talk to them they will tell you they gonna increase under george bush and in crystal under president obama. with the health care bill driving that sentiment. you obviously have a senator here who but for the tea party head and those sentiments would in my judgment the addendum to the political process rather than rising star. it is important to recognize that political issues surface because of real concerns.
2:06 pm
my friend doesn't like the fact there is talk radio or the fact that i worked for fox news but the reason why these stations have done as well as they have is people listen and that is what they want to hear. rest assured business men running them are not ideologues first and foremost. their business men. and it is not a 5545 nation. it is a country in the exit polls that was 42 conservative and 20 liberal. that is the fact. i am somebody who thinks like john avlon. mayor bloomberg saw in new york city. i'm not somebody who's comforted by that body also don't try to deny the reality of what has happened. this is one country and if you put moderates and conservatives which is something that's happened in this election more
2:07 pm
or less, it is probably not a 9010 country but closer to another country and that overstates things but doesn't over stagings by much. john is absolutely right to say that the instability in our discourse is a siege problem. the problem is what people want to hear and bill was a master at it. they want to hear the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that entertains, polarizes, titillates andesite judgment destroys the context for civility and discussion. on is also right that when it is done on the left is done on the right. we're all losers as americans. let's be clear about this. in real life he is a sober, for, rational, reasonable person who is a terrific entertainer and a i am taking the veil off but suffice it to say, problem in
2:08 pm
america today is to get ratings, get attention to sell books. he really have a tough time being fought for and story broke. the problem we face as americans is it is one thing to wind gauge in the political equivalent of roller derby when you have a balanced budget and you're not work but given the nature of the problems that we face, if the republican leadership and the white house engage in the kind of rhetoric we have seen recently with mitch mcconnell saying highest goal is to make barack obama a 1-term president, president obama who tried to moderate some of his rhetoric but has spoken of his opponents during the campaign as enemies say we're going to have to have hand-to-hand combat. the net result of all that is we are not going to solve problems if we have another election in 2012 that will seek to litigate the issues of the 2010 campaign.
2:09 pm
the losers will be all of us because if you look at where our economy is and where we are as a nation, we are at 9.5% unemployment. ad in discouraged workers, underemployed people in your closer to 20% of americans who are facing some degree in of economic dislocation. if you looked at targeted audiences like african-americans you have 40% unemployment. doesn't matter what your philosophy is or your approach. those numbers in my judgment are intolerable. so my conclusion about all this is to try to demonize people whether it be the tea party, people on the far left whatever, is really more than just bad politics. it is destructive of our broader national interests.
2:10 pm
we all enjoy it the export of politics. i enjoy going on fox news and talking about the issues but i try to tell things as i see them to the straight. i can tell you bill and john r. two of the smartest people you're going to get and rather than have me go on defending things that bill find intolerable and john finds only barely palatable i think i will mercifully stop and take your questions. thank you. [applause] >> here we go. >> you use a word in what you said in your talk -- you used the word the they. >> didn't hear the question.
2:11 pm
problem with my ears and a better ability. >> i wonder why is that we talk of the they doing something and at the same time we talk of less government doing something. it sounds to me like not a paradox but a contradiction. i don't understand that on the right. i wish you explain. >> very fair question and i encourage john and bill to join in. by use the word they because i'm not part of the tea party and my book was not a defense of the tea party but implicit in your question is the fact that i didn't use the word we and certainly i feel the defused the word we and not they as a
2:12 pm
country we would all do better as a people and i take your point. >> the us against them analysis of politics is a big part of the problem. we are dividing ourselves. there is a divide and conquer strategy that has been embraced by activists and ideologues. this seems to divide and conquer and doesn't think so much about unifying the country as a goal. they want low turnout and high-intensity elections. they know that they can win and there's something distorting about that. is a good linguistic cash but even on the tea party, certainly -- the tea party are not all wing nuts. i want to make that clear. it is a good example of having this honest debate speaker everything is seen through parts and prison. the ted purdy is composed of two mainstream's. the fiscal conservative protest
2:13 pm
movement created in a bailout backlash that gets angry at big government and big business that is concerned about the generational theft that is the debt and over the course of summer of 2009 you start to see obama derangement syndrome and folks that have really unhinged, a angry views of the president that departed from reality that turn into a demonized figure. democrats only see the obama derangements and drum. conservatives only see the principal fiscal conservatism and the reality is and what we need to get back to is be honest enough to serve their bows in there and until we do that we're going to keep having these fractured and distorted debates and end up in as against the analyses. >> i disagree with both of my colleagues on this issue. first of all to this smacks of moral equivalency which i despise. by like the phrase we and they. i'm member of the professional left and i think we are right
2:14 pm
and they are wrong. [applause] >> let me tell you what drove me crazy. i went down to a johnston rallied and the glen beck rally too when you to know. and i went to the john stuart routing and at the end he should this video with cars merging into the tunnel in new york and this is america. we are so polite. i go when you go and that is what politics is and i was screaming know it is not! i do like being polite and try to be civil too bonet there is a difference between the two parties and there's a difference between the tea party and the republican party and the democratic party and i think the tea party is dead wrong on a lot of issues. when they say they're against government spending and i say where were you when we went to war in iraq against a country
2:15 pm
that didn't attack as first. i just submit i think there are legitimate differences. we can disagree and not pretend we are all in the same boat. >> broadcasting has been my pension. my little sunny transistor under my pillow. >> i did not understand a word. speech i said broadcasting. broadcasting in the passion of month since i was all lay listening to mike a.m. radio under my pillow. i had a blazer just like you guys. i agree with you. language is not the issue. the second election between adams and jefferson if you want to see political rhetoric. in my view the issue is money.
2:16 pm
in terms of looking at how talk radio works, bill clinton's deregulation of the broadcast industry after 1994 -- 96, the financial crisis moving into the financial industry at the same time after the '94 election. it is all about the money. [applause] >> certainly there has been a lot of conversation about the decision. the one thing i will say about money and politics would you believe money is a speech or not. i keep waiting to hear my wallet talk back the certainly a lot more money -- 2008 in the rearview mirror of history looks like a very civil election because there were a lot of lot of 527s because people who did
2:17 pm
this, folks on the left corner about litigation in the justice department and keep in mind the current decision open the floodgates on corporate money and union money but that said if you think things are ugly and uncivil now just wait. we have problems coming down the pike. >> let me take issue with the premise of the question and perhaps bill's point as well. win david axelrod said the issue is the coke brothers or corporate money or foreign money he didn't have any evidence but beyond not having any evidence he didn't have anyone who much cared other than some professional liberals. i say that not because there's anything wrong with being a professional liberal. times sort of a professional moderate but the average over's attitude is what you going to do
2:18 pm
to change my life? maybe it is a good living for you but it is a route living for us. so john avlon is basically right. unless we focus on common problems and provide some effort to create collegiality, agreement for a least consensus i can assure you the net loser will be abroad mass of the american people even though those of us who make their living talking becoming rich. >> on the money issue first of all i always tell my democratic friends stop whining. dorr raise your own money and spend your money and outspend the other guys. that is just a temporary solution, but as long as the game is the way it is you have to play at the way it is. at the same time the amount of money and we see more and more of it to promote especially wealthy people spending their own money to buy elected office and it was omb in new jersey.
2:19 pm
you would not have rick scott as your governor if he did not spend $73 million. the saving grace is meg whitman spent $43 million. >> i would like to ask any and all of you to look a little deeper with the use of social media and the next number of years. i am specifically bringing this up because those who were not here for the west talk, meghan mccain represents a 20 something very astute political figure in this country and she if i'm quoting her correctly when asked why the turnout was poor in the elections she said they were not sexy enough. when asked what her source was for various pieces of news she listed 17 -- she reads every
2:20 pm
day. and when someone approached the microphone she said oh my god, you are so and so from the miami reality show and i thought she was going to jump off the stage, break her ankle to the jessica simpson shoes and ask for his autograph. i think it would have been a day. this is very important because she does represent and i was very impressed. she presented herself beautifully with is very important to me is as i look at her as a twentysomething individual and a look at sources -- eugene robinson this week said there are facts and there are fox effect. the number of 20 somethings and 30 zero -- get information for facebook. i will stop to catch the drift between now and the next election how do we help the
2:21 pm
media getting to some of the incredible issues that face this country resident the celebrity crazy whatever being covered by the news today. >> i will address the social media part of that question. there's a good and bad aspects of it. much as well make change your ally because it is a lousy and day. the good news about social media is it gives us the ability to aggregate people cordial and is. run the ball the -- party politics follows because they can get away with it and mobilize the club house model. partisan politics is played by industry laid rules. it has not or cannot do information age reality. and there is a -- politics is the last place we are told to be content. it doesn't fit. for many of those--the youngest
2:22 pm
segment of the electorate is independent. many of those are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. neither party reaches out was because they can't get the power of special-interest republics that unions in particular. we don't like joining things. we don't want to surrender our individuality to walk with one party or another. social media creates the ability to unify and organize that group like never before. that is helpful. you will see groups like no labels is one of them using the internet to aggregate folks from center in a very hopeful way but there are a lot of groups to do that so we can push back on the power brokers and party bosses using social media in a way that is better than ever before. we're getting fractionalized news. we are essentially everything -- people can isolate themselves with only that which confirms their own political prejudice or bias and that divides us further and create a dynamic of group
2:23 pm
polarization and that can be very destructive and one of the reasons what politics is looking more like a cult because there is that self reenforcing echo chamber atmosphere which is really popularized where people are only getting their news sources from their ideological points. >> the question is a very good one. there wouldn't be a cheap party if there was not the internet, social media, blogs and the like. as we were writing the book we were able to trace the development of different individuals tea parties for precisely what you describe. there would not have been an obama campaign and fund-raising that was done by a social media and the like. the hugely important point you are making that none of us made
2:24 pm
and we shouldn't, young people today are more likely to get their news on line from bloggers or snippets of newspaper articles than they are from newspapers. the model i suspect we all followed -- we meaning the audience and the panel is we get three or four newspapers in the morning and try to slog through them and finish the that night and end up with a and vague sense that if we didn't do it we didn't do what our mothers told us to whereas people who work for me don't look at newspapers. believe their relative. mostly go on line mostly on blogs, websites and social media sites and that is how they communicate and that is how you organize politically and to not understand that is to really miss a fundamental truth and corps element in american politics. >> you are on dangerous territory when you ask this
2:25 pm
panel to go deeper. what we all agreed not to do. all of us recognize the we are in the middle of this and the social media is changing our lives in many ways especially the b and none of us understand how. the address trying to keep up with it as fast as we can. you cannot be on radio or television today or in print alone. you have to be on every platform today. i have a website, i have a blogger. i do all that stuff. most young people never pick of the newspaper. it wouldn't know where to find one but they go to these sites. you have to be there but the problem is the quality-control is lacking some stuff gets started on bloggers and friends and its life of its and and next you will see it on the network news and if you kick the tires
2:26 pm
there's nothing there so we are all dealing with this phenomenon that is very real and powerful. >> i work for the daily beast. is a great web site. editor-in-chief has taken over newsweek and that is a remarkable fame so there's a lot of hoopla aspect of all this too. minute by minute that is exciting. >> i couldn't keep up but in my own life as a talk radio host i can remember starting with a stack of papers and going through papers to look for things i wanted to talk about on my show that they. a hit this to be read 5:00 in the morning and there are no papers but i wouldn't anyway. ago 2 drudge, political, huffington post, daily caller. i look at ms nbc and fox. it is all on line and that is where we are.
2:27 pm
>> everyone knows about the crazy election we had two weeks ago but there was one thing that came out of their erection and there was amendment 5 and 6. and for those of you who don't live in florida of that was called for district. we got 1.4 million petitions to get it on the ballot and more than 60% of floridians who voted to save that congressional and legislative districts cannot be drawn based on their registration data. we have to keep turkey together and use natural boundaries to draw these districts. this seems to be a movement in europe one person that can really push this that if we can get rid of red districts and. districts that congress men and senators and state legislators are going to have to run on the issues and also get rid of
2:28 pm
closed primaries but nothing is going to change as long as there is this crazy gerrymandering. we saw it -- but knows where this guy came from -- we need people like you to talk about this. >> we need people like you to care about this because this is a citizens' revolution. you want to change politics? redistricting reform and open primaries. it is hugely important. our system has been read by partisans who want low turnout. table safe districts and what you did in florida and what happened in california. a section in my book called how to take america back from the lunatic fringe and it is redistricting reform which will happen in 2011 across the country. just look at how the senate system has been changed. you get low turnout, 10%
2:29 pm
turnout, 5.one is the majority. it is a paradise for activists and ideologues and makes politicians spend all their time playing the debate because is the only election they have to worry about and primaries give us people like christine o'donnell who heard the republican party because they would have picked up that seat and redistricting reform is so essential. of primaries and redistrict form is the most potent and powerful citizens tool we have to reduce polarization and extremism in politics. this moves beyond florida and california. it is the most important thing we can do. [applause] >> let me make one other point, temporary moment of complete agreement. i just changed my mind. >> i am glad.
2:30 pm
>> i am glad. >> i will tell you about something people in my position rarely do but a failing of mine. i wrote a book about this. it was called the political fix. a try to say what john avlon said so eloquently. nobody cares. maybe it wasn't a good book. maybe i let the reader down and let the publishing world down. i will be happy to acknowledges that but the reason why i point to my own foibles and failings is what john said about open primaries and redistricting reform is absolutely right. i tried to do my bit for the cause and failed to the extent you were able to do what the last questioner so eloquently spoke of and compellingly accomplished we will have a better country and better politics and we will be able to do what each of us want to do to
2:31 pm
solve our problem. [applause] >> i wanted to ask you about the extremist rhetoric. in terms of the biggest problem have with news commentary work accurately fact checking people if we have a more moderate and civil dialogue, had the truth and how you feel we can fix that problem. >> in florida in st. petersburg, it is a great site and service and that is exactly what we need more of. the problem with the rise of partisan media is everything is put through a partisan filter. facts are selectively pecked and it leaves most people confused because they get opposite
2:32 pm
visions of america and opposite facts depending on what their news worse is. what we really need is more news sources to be independent again, to push back against the tide of partisan news. to be the honest brokers of politics a agin. and the analysis of what is a lot and not true is invaluable. that is what we need more of. actually they're trying to be independent and fair and balanced rather than just saying they are that are willing to touch both sides based on who is lying and who's telling the truth. [applause] >> i have to tell you, i like facts and i think every political debate should start out with facts and then you can draw your own conclusion. i see how different people can come to different cononcusions about what should be done or
2:33 pm
what the solution is to that problem but when you at least start -- and there are basic set of facts on any given prproleblm you don't get very far when you start out by saying the obama health-care bill contains death panel. it doesn't. it never did, ever will. yet you heard it untilon'ery en. sarah palin is probably still saying it. you donprol get far when saying the stimulus bill or the recovery bill did not create one single new job. i don't know how many it did but that is certainly just not tnot and john boehner still says it toreay. and i am sure doug can gnye you examples of people on the left who will say things that are patently untrue and that is where we are in washington toreay. png peple stop and refuse to lat
2:34 pm
fact on the issue. now let's difyou fr on how we s it and we will be a lot better off. >> thafacts you for your talk. basically i think all of you have described the problem. i don't thifacts i have really heard solutions. i donprol thifacts afacts obobo ccbeting down to the very basic problem and i don't know what it is. >> people like you should be leading the discussion -- >> i will urge you to go back to it was the fourth of november if you have the time and inclination to do so in the wall street journal when i said what i thought president obama should do. we need a fiscally conservative
2:35 pm
pro-growth agenda that seeks to unite america on a set of stimuli to ewas ourage on for norship and whpro creation, mer based in education system to areak dependewas e on fore, make modest but real cuts on the defense budget to put together plans to begin the process of doing what bill press said he wanted to do which is balance the budget which is an absolutely critical necessity if we are gch ng to go forward as nation which will require tough decisions about entitlements given the attacks that came as john suggested. the two balanced bgnget commission's. i put them forward, john has in his own way and rest assured they are there but for panel diwhat
2:36 pm
more about condoms than payroll tax holidays. [talking over each other] ãthe vvery it is not your op-ed wall street journal that i am itlrried about but the washingtn post a few days later where you wrote the best thing for the country is for barack obama to declare that he is a 1-term president and not reelection. [talking over each other] ãthe v> the dumbest sion wtemen read -- [talking over each otheck o ãthe vvery summarize why did so you regard as dumb. >> you can defend your opll [ion wesiing s fer each otheck o >> you summarize. >> as i recall the argma tent ts is the way to get things done. suddenly barack obama says i itln't notn for reelection and mitch mccall will love him and which atlea- whjohn n bo tnner give him a frewas h kiss and li
2:37 pm
happily ever after. ãthe v> donprol you realihy bar obama says i'm not running for reelection then wov should we deal with you you lame sick? [talking over each other] >> i a ree with you. ãthe v> the pch nt of the piece suggest if the president retumised to theon'alues of the- hold on. [talking over each other] ãthe vvery the 2008 campaign wh emphasized bringing red and. together, put aside the extreme rhetoric. streaming down the speaker doesn't really add to this sion wntility that whjohn n avls speaking of. [talking over each othero ho cfo >> bill even r-- articulate, tells you how abho] avlon talsc about every day.
2:38 pm
civility, rationality -- ãthe vvery i am talking common . [talking over each other] >> here is the dirty secret. the png peple are not deeply divided. the activists in both parties, theon'ast majority of american people are not. there desis toned as a wedge iss put fo tard by the party to divide people. even an issue like abortion which actnyists on both sides are sincerely divided. theon'ast majority of american people agree. if you look at the urgent is[tas we are facing and social is[tae, the american people are not that divided. the president could work with the gop if they would give him a chawas e leading. [applause]
2:39 pm
but you have to genuinely reach out. ö ot federal law by partisanship but the substance of it. what if the president took ialkiis toration reform? the immigration reform gets demaded.rd ase ccery election c and nobody deals with it. what if president obama took president bush's ialkiis torati plan, dusted it off and said do yo sulike this? or were you whust fooling with the american people? [ion wesiing s fer each otheck o ãthe vvery loe pa at energy. the american people -- health-care r-- remember the debate on health care reforms that we agree with 80% but that ialkiediately beca about death panel that socialism. let's d-- round and build on it. the issue of deficits and debt which is the bis togest issue w face the president could lead by pooling china on entisteement reform. we know that is how you deal with the d-- yo suhave a bipartisan panel tht just came back with
2:40 pm
recommendations and it ded.t attacked and destroyed these png peple itluld rather demided.d the debt then deal wi it. we should beon'ery sad because those folks are game in america. >> just one issue, was to givet far, far, far fewer people coming across the border than there were two, three, four years ago. more borders secure and there have been ever. the fact is we have made a lot of progress. the of the fact is the president has put forth the very same plan that george bush had on immigration which at the time i said and still say today the bush plan was a good plan. obama has put i obama has put it forward.
2:41 pm
why hasn't it moved? the same republicans who supported it, john mccain, lindsey graham and others say we are against it because it is obama's plan. that is the problem. we are not being honest about our support. people say it is about ideas but frequently the supporter of something based on the party the president belongs to. let's not be serious about problem-solving. it is stopping us from solving problems. to what the other ladies said, redistricting in open primaries are a good place to start. >> time for one more. >> a quick comment about the tea party. for douglas schoen to suggest that there is this back and forth, democrats of the same as the opponents is not true. what i see going on is the tea
2:42 pm
party sounds nice. there is the real extreme part of the tea party and then there's the american team party people. if that is true then why are the tea party candidates so radically extreme? if the tea party candidates represent this broad consensus of americans about smaller government and stuff, that is the legitimate ideology of the tea party, why are the candidates so extreme? [talking over each other] >> i want to hear douglas schoen answer that. >> when you have a social movement that is leaderless, that encompasses up to 40% of the american people, frequently those who step forward our
2:43 pm
people who wouldn't pass the litmus test for rationality. even john avlon. >> how about saturday? >> maybe that too. you want to regulate speech and fairness. i understand that. because we are in a democracy and because broad ideas percolate, there are people who come forward who don't pass this test. is good for america, people like christine o'donnell did not win the election. but i tell you if you have a large percentage of the electorate's responding as people have to the tea party far more important than there are a few candidates who are arguably outside the mainstream and not acceptable, the fact the we have a real problem in our politics that we have to deal with. >> the questionnaire had an important point that a lot of tea party support, they have been attracted by libertarian rhetoric. real concern about fiscal responsibility and lack of it in washington and concern about
2:44 pm
generational theft and what it means to have this debt. we know it is a strategic problem. we can't be the world's sole superpower -- it is worth pointing out that there's a fault line in the tea party movement. the contradiction between the candidates put forward who are not libertarian in the least but more social conservative activists and those folks lost. you have a rise of the sarah palin standard on abortion. being proposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. most of those candidates lost. i can think of anything less libertarian than that. or the fact that a couple candidates were saying the same stuff about separation of church and state that it wasn't in the constitution. a look of the tea party caucus. the most serious fiscal conservatives in congress like paul ryan are part of that caucus. nine of the co-sponsors of the burglar theft. people were sincerely devoted to this tea party movement really
2:45 pm
need to look deeply and recognize there's a full wind and fundamental contradiction they need to deal with. >> good point. i want to say i have been around a long time in many different angles. i worked in the legislature and for jerry brown. i run campaigns, press secretary, i was a candidate who won statewide in california. i did radio and tv. i love the political system. i have a lot of friends on the side. i really believe in it and it is the way we citizens get involved and get things done. as an american who really loves the political system i am worried about the 2-party movement. i don't like it. i think it represents the dumbing down of america. when i hear somebody stand up -- [applause] -- when somebody stands up and a town hall meeting and says here's whatever
2:46 pm
think of health care, skip the government out of my medicare. [applause] [laughter] >> can't we do better than this? i don't disagree that it is good for america that they didn't win but it is bad that they got as far as a did. [applause] >> when you decide whose dumb and who is not, that is not how things should work. [talking over each other] >> i am defending fairness in the process rather is an your omniscience. we don't want to demonize people we disagree with. [talking over each other]
2:47 pm
>> there seems to be general agreement on that. i want to check the closets. [talking over each other] >> christine o'donnell is really special. >> i am a californian but i grew up in delaware. all that stuff about masturbation and all that, i learned to masturbate in delaware. >> he began with condoms and ends with masturbation. such is the nature of america. >> she didn't get my vote. >> that is clear. >> seeing if we have time for one more. >> of the going to keep this? [talking over each other] >> where is brian lamb?
2:48 pm
five minutes. [talking over each other] >> politically in every way, that is wonderful. i grew up in the cable television age along with the wall street journal. the group -- also some fairly brilliant articles. question is, my biggest complaint or biggest question today and i ask you this, why do we -- why do we call -- think of the tea party as an organization
2:49 pm
that has any fundamental beliefs or issues? as far as i can tell, it is just a radical group of people who are very unhappy and range from moderate to far right. >> simple answer, they have three or four corp. principles they articulated. large numbers of people responded to madrid--reducing the debt and reducing spending and returning to what they call corporate. that is what politics is about. >> we don't want to use the us against them line but fellow americans as aliens. they are not. we disagree with them on some core issues. we have got into a point where liberal or conservative the personal we start to question their patriotism. we question their american this and that is dangerous. don't fall into a. be better than that. [applause] >> trying not to. >> there is no such thing as the
2:50 pm
tea party. there are 24 organizations around the country who identify themselves with something called the tea party and none of them know what it is about. >> we have five minutes. >> my question for john avlon. how do you explain individuals who starred on one extreme of the political spectrum and change to the other side? >> depends on which way they go. [talking over each other] >> if they go to the right or left their brilliant. [talking over each other] >> i was thinking of the extreme right in the 90s and extreme left--wondering what your take is on people who do that. i was trying to find someone who does the opposite. >> there are plenty. i think that we want to encourage political evolution. it is a court added wind need to
2:51 pm
remember that we are forgetting is no one is thinking very much if we think everyone thinks like. we want doubt in our infallibility and people to question and think and analyze and evolve. is a healthy sign of the individual alone society. >> why do we need the party system that all? it has deteriorated into sports and government. why not have primarys -- two candidates with the highest number of votes have a runoff in the general elections? >> it past the primary vote except orange county and san francisco county which i thought was funny. >> quickly we started out when the number one go getter was the president and the number two go
2:52 pm
getter was the vice-president. that is holyhead george washington and thomas jefferson and john adams. and thomas jefferson under john adams and founding fathers had enough sense to realize it was not working and we changed it. i don't want to go back there. i thought where you were going was i really believe as a firm solid democrat all my life that the best thing we could do would get a viable third or fourth party and really shake it up. give people a choice. >> in a rare moment of agreement have an work for a third party and advocated a third-party candidate in 2008 and written a book about it i can tell you like it to agree with bill press more. >> independents are the fastest-growing segment of the electorate's. not democrats republicans. the team you talked about is a huge problem. it is deeper than that. don't buy this idea that it is the principal behavior.
2:53 pm
parties are opportunistic organizations and in washington the only city in the country where the most important thing about you is what political party you belong to. it determines where you work and who you work with and co-workers and friends and which newspaper you read. most americans don't have that. that is the reason washington is so screwed up. >> so why not have a rough? doesn't have to be president and vice president. it could be someone of his own party running against -- >> i would put none of the above on the ballot. but it would always win. how can you talk about the keep party and the motivation behind the tea party and not talk about race? it is the 2,000 pound elephant in the room.
2:54 pm
race is one of the main factors. you keep saying exit polls but you are assuming the electorate in 2012 will be the same small electric in 2010. let me tell you if the tea party carries out their program and if the democrats respond by doing what people thought obama stood for and really fought for progressive change you will see a much better turnout, what lost the election was not that people changed their mind but democrats did not vote. if you look at it that is the case in florida and its is the case across the country. -- if the democratic base comes out they will win. how you cannot talk about race -- [applause] >> having written a book about the tea party with no connection
2:55 pm
to the tea party, obviously scott and i were happy to write about race. you can yell about it but if you can present some evidence of mainstream keep party people making racial epithets, you would be at the cutting edge. it hasn't happened. john lewis is a patriotic american. if he had evidence it would be great if he came forward. there hasn't been any evidence to support what john lewis said. he is a man of enormous patriotism and enormous heroism. other than saying read on one day, people he could not point to engaged in some vile behavior there has been no evidence. that being said to brand and organization as racist because you feel strongly about the
2:56 pm
organization is pretty sad. [applause] >> i will tell you from my own experience i have been to several key party rallies. i did not see a lot of dark skin at any of the tea party rallies. the plan back rally and several washington d.c.. i don't play the race card but i do have to say that when you look at the issues that the party raises, government spending, the president before barack obama who until that time rolled up the biggest budget deficit ever, presided over the largest expansion of federal government since lbj, has taken us into two worse and given the wealthiest people $2 trillion tax cut over ten years you can go on and on with the issues and the only difference between that president where you didn't hear a peep from this crowd and the
2:57 pm
current president is barack obama is the first black american president. i think that has something to do with it. that is all i am saying. [applause] >> race has been a fundamental fault line in our politics forever and you can't discount it but people have come a long way from brutal racism. the attempt to throw the race card in every debate ends up the meaning our conversation nationally. you need to deal with the role of race and are have a chapter where our talk about the rise of white-minority politics because i do not think it is simple racism at all but some folks do spread anxiety about changes that president obama -- to some extent. the gentleman who asked that question, wearing the george bush t-shirt that said i screw america. that is important to note. i do think this election is not
2:58 pm
about -- some democrats say we were not ideological enough. the far right things obama is a socialist and the far left thinks he is a corporate sellout. he can't be both. if democrats got in trouble by misinterpreting the 2008 election as an ideological mandate for the left it was not. voters were consistent by swinging 18% for republicans this time around. we want checks and balances but republicans misinterpret this as ideological mandate they will find out they have another think coming in 2012. >> one final comment about race which everybody will at least consider if not embrace. the best of the american people a gracious and good people that they elected barack obama. it is a sign of the openness,
2:59 pm
willingness to consider alternatives to the established political order that people would react against that on policy grounds. many in ways in vaulting level of activism reflective in my book. to me it is not a sign of racism but the diversity of the american people facing issues as they take them and making judgments however difficult however -- i thank you for your kindness and your attention and it has been a great discussion. [applause] >> this event was part of the 2010 miami book fair international. ..
268 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on