>> coming from washington to total vf with so many

historic compromises it's a terrific setting for a terrific book this is of great to read. i don't normally say that. with fact i want to to ask you to talk about how you govern without compromise? simpson bowles said it cannot legislate without compromising. invite is well go home.

>> rate. [laughter] was she has said. [laughter] and what of the important points we're not against the and uncompromising but with a campaign is the owe some game.

we don't want to turn the campaign in to the climate. have reduce which after that and govern? those some of those suggestions give space for governing. >> talk about of compromising mindset?

putting this speaker john boehner on the spot. best illustrate did odd "60 minutes." >> talk about leslie stahl. [laughter] in i did not volunteer. >> this is serious. >> it started he cannot stand of isi diamonds and throw bombs. -- stand of the sidelines. >> governing means compromising. >> working together.

>> common ground. >> that does not mean the compromise is? >> i will not compromise the will of the american people. >> you want to common ground but will not compromise? i do not understand that. >> compromise this? people being you will sold them out so finding common ground makes more sense. >> you try to make best tax cuts bourbon it to you did compromises. >> we found common ground.

i reject the word. [laughter] [applause] >> some of the freshman thought he was is too conciliatory and had to much flexibility. you might not notice this budget just like you suggested this is not well known but i was born and

>> this and should be a lesson for polarization and extremists the makes it possible. we add ted kennedy and orrin hatch they were not moderate they knew how to compromise. that is a lesson of that time. we should have paid more attention.

[laughter] >> health care act is another. the her minute campaign and august recess at the lot to do with it to have political support. >> i think it is interesting to compare the tax reform act it is very interesting. what i find interesting with the bipartisan tax reform act was just as hard to get health care through with a one-party.

and almost no possibility of bipartisanship and it was a game of chicken. the pending if you ask republicans or democrats you blame the other party saying there republicans more to the right and democrats to the left although they did not seriously entertain tort reform. they know it was not to their political advantage. they did not have relationships. is not surprising joe biden and mitch mcconnell sat down together. not true with health care reform. >> reason to become that

way. so for all sides to create a crisis? >> they got the agreement but it to was a real crisis. but talk about those personal relationships but to this was not a success story. they take the kn down the road.

when will we face this again? nobody thinks it will be settled before the election. you cannot govern if you are campaigning. >> talk about of grand compromise the slavery compromise which is not that grand but you cite some of the rules to help achieve but mutual respect know what gained o or jockeying. translate that to the floor.

little things make a big difference. there were small roles of respect. the compromising mindset is mutual respect. tip o'neill ronald reagan were fierce opponents but they respected each other look constitutional convention was clever. they also did it in secret. [laughter] no cameras but there was a lot at stake. if you don't pick the compromise you with the east

pass with your politics the one that makes the constitution possible makes anything we object to look easy. one of the favorite to institutions to compromise is the filibuster. you will bought abolish that. so you keep that but senators 1/2 to be on the board to filibuster. then the media is on the right side to show the public who is that holds up the bill. that would make a big

difference in the spirit of compromise. >> the secret to holes that paralyzed departments. at the height of the red banjo crisis nobody could testify. within the agency. >> the diversities are so deficient. [laughter] they may not agree but they are. >> confidentiality. are there times when at haskins more mistrust? like the panel's of the gang

of six can own they do outside of the glare of people like me and their colleagues that it is difficult? >> eric is a balance. constitution no convention and confidentiality of was justified. while the deliberations were not covered by view they did have a sense of the arguments pro contemporary is harder because you do want to opportunities to

have some space where you can confidentially exchange of the without pretending you are in a campaign. that should be eventually come out. the media at is the only help. >> there as the media in different forms instantaneous, twitter, the news cycle is constant. there is no deliberative process. to say that they of national

newspapers that are challenged or the newscast or public broadcasting but about implants of cable, radio, but talk talk, adversarial? >> the 24-hour news cycle puts the premium on extremist rhetoric. you can repeat it to over and over and it is titillate -- titillating. it is the horse race coverage. it is not the content but they said it to get to a political advantage. it is simple to do.

there is a broader political coverage this strategic and exciting like me the press or "60 minutes." it is harder but it is so much better. it is not hopeless but people use the internet media in addition to the network news it certainly feeds into the campaign mentality to have a news cycle. we still be the media to cover the issues four rs.

>> and those that are so distorted by the process coming immigration comes to mind. there was a painful compromise then endure president bush there was the attempt in meaningful ways. senator mccain was being put -- punished what about that? >> one of the recommendations about the media there should be more rotation so people who cover campaign is they have also done substantive work for

crown with immigration. one of the features of a compromise to make it difficult the classic compromise is conflicting principles amnesty was included with opportunities to become citizens. it wasn't that they them on to common ground pedigreed to the principal and legislation that it was expressed so it was not common ground but messy.

unattractive. it succeeded because it was not the permanent campaign. they trusted one another and had credibility and could compromise without losing their base. even though you had very respectable people the permanent campaign has taken over. >> i am not sure immigration reform is possible with the permanent campaign. even though it makes so much sense the word is amnesty and it gets no attraction

with the campaigning mentality. this country is great if we continue to be a nation of immigrants. one of the biggest travesties is the bill year of the immigration reform. >> what is the role of money? [laughter] i know some of these splendid senators left the senate because of big money. this was in 1994. we have seen a lot of openings house members bring the culture of the house with less of a spirit of

compromise. >> the more time spent campaigning the more money counts. hubert humphrey said it is demeaning and degrading and disgusting. it has got worse because if it is 24/7 fayyad everyday is election day you can use money to buy the election time. -- television time the root of the problem is not money but the permanent campaign that many greases the wheels and now not just what romney collor obama's can raise but the super pac which is hundreds of millions of

dollars. >> they suggest a time limit? >> i fake it could pass but it is a part of the problem. you point* out we have the institutional reforms but most depend on the compromising mindset. it would be harder to do that. eric is a catch 22 we think there is a way out of that. we do suggest banning fund-raising outside of your

district or the leadership back the grass roots fund-raising reform these all tried to skirt around the position of the supreme court. the court has over interpreted way the arizona plan for financing campaign. there are a thing that could be done but we've eight we

should focus on not only money. then there is the excuse not to compromise. >> is there one is not good? >> the argument you could agree with but to with the campaign if you are a fan you don't want him to go on record to compromise. that would not be the ethical thing to do.

fact is not the stands to take. i would be in favor that congress could agree not about raising money. some are bad. it is the capitulation. where compromise is say dirty word pro it is not dead but of my support. nobody likes to compromise but the alternative is the death of democracy. >> you mentioned suspending

his campaign officially today newt gingrich the context of not going home. the spouse's did not know each other and node type of community spirit. it was called the tuesday through thursday club. when he became speaker he is the one. >> you were there.

that was the turning point* for the unfortunate development. we fate is good they go home to talk to their constituents but they talk to the same people who encourage them to be uncompromising. so one thing i think what about, we did an op-ed piece , this is a wonderful argument. it is not unreasonable if you have term limits and people will not think of

being reelected. the problem is with term limits you don't have relationships over time. when they put to term limits into effect, the there is less compromising going on. there may be a case for term limits but no one that has a reasonable compromise. >> you write about the year of the pledge 2011. how does that tie people's hands? >> a maturity of the members of the house and 41 senators

took the pledge not to support any tax increases. alan simpson says that is crazy to do in politics. why? because you cannot govern zero or six down at the table and i faint you remember their republic 10 primary candidates were asked would you agreed to $1 of taxes for revenue or $10 of cuts? not one would agree. they all took the pledge.

that blocks of governing. why did they do it? imagine democrats taking the same pledge we will not agreed to $1 of benefit cuts. why do they do that? it drives a stake in the ground and caters to the base. it is a great campaigning profit -- practice if that continues it would be the death of democracy. even the tea party supporters their representative that you agree with most would you

agreed to the tax increase to avert a crisis? it is not the american public that is driving this. is really the people taking the promises. i will never compromise my principles. >> over freer that grover norquist would run us candidate against them. also on social issues like abortion also same-sex marriage. >> marriage is sticky that was taken in the primary i will be faithful i am

against sharia law. that is a great threat to. and then same-sex marriage. >> the promises are good for marriage but bad for governing. i had to say the first part. >> we will pass the questions out but to this is not your first book together. is a right teeing marriage broke are there times you have to work out disagreements? [laughter] >> go ahead at. [laughter]

i like to say i am democracy and he is disagreement. >> i am to say yes and you say no. we cannot even agree. our editor is here and he knows how much time we put to on the word compromise. there ought our six different kinds of fonts. we had no disagreement of the content is just the cover. we like that.

don't we? >> yes. [laughter] >> a series of blades that we alluded to the floor is not always, the ground that the and coherence as a political philosopher would. we would like to think the book is not messy but we would also like to think you could write a book that is coherent that has an effect of the world of politics. see if you agree. >> baidu. we have questions from the audience. members of congress are more extreme because of

gerrymandering. how do we fix that without waiting another 10 years? >> that is a great question. it is commonly thought congress is more polarized because of gerrymandering but political scientist will tell you there is not good evidence for that. however we do argue the idea it does not make sense for the park and -- for the partisans to decide on redistricting. there ought to be independent commissions because what ever the fact of the matter polarization

this not inspire conference for those that decide on the redistricting. >> isn't it better for a politician to take a strong position in and dig deep to not compromise? [laughter] >> nice work if you can get it. first of all, it is unlikely one party gets complete control. you can hope is the democrats or the republicans. even if that happens it will be very hard to compromise.

the trouble with legislation is that is not sustainable. the next party will overturn or implement. a lot of friends that those in cambridge say what is the talk about compromise? then we can reelect obama and forget about the nonsense. good luck. >> republicans want to do the same thing. been a parliamentary system, the government is

the government and power. with our regulatory system good and bad, said that to be very hard to have a eighth party in power that did not have to govern with the minority party. >> speaking about respect respect, address the issue of comedy -- comity how can compromise the fostered between the hill and white house? >> i think nato respect is the realm of governing and without it to with what

andrea assad 1986 there would not be the tax reform act or any other piece of legislation between kennedy and orrin hatch. americans for disability act. health care for children. kennedy and hatch had a respect for each other all both wildly partisan. i think respect is incredibly important how do you cultivate in that era of the permanent campaign? there are a simple way is. have congress spend more time with each other. less time raising money.

>> one thain comes to mind is the primary as are so poisoned is. next tuesday is a republican primary for the senate. the former chairman and ranking member against dick lugar most people would call it landmark legislation during the collapse of the soviet union. what about the records of compromise are used against you are that insider mentality?

>> not too much. but that illustrates why that is important and citizens begin to learn if they want government rather than a campaign, and the other thing about primaries is the system of self is not ideal. we would favor open primaries. but something like the state of washington. you as a voter can choose which ever candidate that you prefer. >> the open primary tends to produce a more moderate

candidate and we choose not between extremes but for those who are more likely to compromise. maybe you want it to more extreme but it is now more of a certainty. >> and the spirit of compromise be applied to current affairs? >> a question for you. [laughter] >> we rightabout it in part you can compromise and a safe space. internationally, win doing it between countries what is

at stake is war, slaughter, or not. eric is a terrific book on this and he is very much in favor of compromise and politics internationally. everything better what did compromise. those that perpetuate degradation and humiliation for more than one generation. why draw the line there? is the same argument you have to ask if compromise will improve on the status quo toward the principles you believe id that makes it

possible to make progress in the future. if the answer is yes there is openings but if it will give more power to the repressive regime, then it is dangerous. there are no general principles because sitting down and crafting compromises is not allow you to know i have time -- ahead of time. >> one of the questions that modern campaign is not

likely to go away is the democracies still relevant? what makes democracy the right form? >> that is a deep question. he will answer that. [laughter] >> please stand up and explain yourself. [laughter] it is a serious question. we take it for granted that elections implied in a campaign. the search committee did well today. but not always at harvard. most of the time. [laughter] you have a campaign. we just have to discipline

ourselves. we have not dead in the thain about civic education. the hope for preserving this democracy, some if you are young new neff but with the next generation that is to the message is directed to. that requires self discipline for the campaign to the uncompromising and hold back and let your representatives govern. not because you did not like

your pledge but to because you screwed up. so the alternatives, led technocratic the elites have not served us well in the past. >> we are a few blocks from independence hall. the story goes when a woman confronted him, what do we have? a republic, if we can keep it. that question challenges democracy and citizens. can we keep it to? it will get worse before it

gets better. i think the spirit has faded and intel said listens stand up and show that they care about the republic and governing comment it will not revive. but i think it will. if not, the spirit of democracy is at risk. i think churchill was right to is the worst form of government except all of the others. it is great with the spirit is alive. our founding substantiated slavery. president lincoln i think one of the two greatest

presidents, he made compromises to preserve the union. we have to recognize our responsibility take control of the future of democracy so the oligarchy we don't have to take seriously. it is the tragedy of our lives. president clinton and come with the chair of the national constitution center said there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed with what is right with america. >> britney it back cover the lack of regard for congress 9%.

the lowest in history. what can we do about education to create a virtuous cycle where people care and respect about government and therefore we have a higher number of people voting. >> absolutely. government deserves more than 9%. there is check-in and the a problem. we cannot get out of the blind today we suggest three things have compromises were

made in the past and how difficult they were and learn how to understand the perspectives of other people. and engage in depth and learn to make compromises on school rules and the things that matter and have them with a workshop. there is the education program for you. comeback in 10 years. >> that could not be of better way to conclude. "the spirit of compromise." is exciting is a useful reminder of moments in american history when things

did work and things could be better. its election year. i'd love politics. i a love this new work of wisdom. think you to our authors. dr. gutmann and dr. thompson 85 pic mac and -- . [applause] [applause] . .