debate from america's role to questions of governors, institutions. this is in many ways what is happening in -- and i don't have any data to argue this particular point. barack obama's presidency has indirectly helped shift the debate in the arab world rum via external enemies to the internal tormentors and the debate in the arab world today shows very clearly a shift of priorities and i think barack obama has in a very small measure contributed to this particular shift we have seen. ..

>> i think we are ready to begin. i and the senior fellow here at the brookings institution. the greatest insult directed to me is from david brooks and might i as light up at a panel discussion. [laughter] i tried to be fair and balanced. i am not be here because of thomas mann and norman ornstein i cannot tell you how excited i am. it is great for the republic

ibm please to be here i want to begin this the event is live webcast and attendees are able to hash tag even wars send your comments. it will be available at the conclusion of the event. any other announcements correct thomas mann is a senior fellow here and head of the studies program that his from the a political science and florida and he speaks for the heart and for our great country.

[inaudible] [laughter] and was opposed to stopping production. [laughter] he lectures frequently and is on every television and radio show they often compete in the media world. norman ornstein is the election analyst for cbs and has written for every publication on the face of the year if in his bet nine "nightline", turn rose, he has said the a university of minnesota and also from the university of michigan where you guys met.

when the reasons you got sell much attention is they have spent their entire lives being so moderate and reasonable that when they get mad, something must be wrong. then i will introduce susan and make the. >> i really appreciate all of you coming and participating. norm and i have been friends and colleagues over 40 years. it shows on the but not on him. people ask me what is the division of labor? finally i have the book

cover that leaves it out. how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism" on the left is your constitution page on the right to is the color extremism. i do see the politics of extremism. [laughter] i have a divided base already. [laughter] and before entering the witness protection program maybe we should follow the script but they run not

smart enough to do that. in response to the first 10 days of commentary, i know what it means to go viral. with really eight of the hate mail and constructive criticism, thank you for saying this. prominent of the scores of people and we are in 95% and that a fair number of reporters they take a little

heat from us it is fair to say each passing day brings reinforcements of the argument mr. delaware not so much with seven terms in the senate. and lost his selection. and nature of the case against him to collaborate with the enemy would be barack obama with the

supreme court justice supporting the t.a.r.p program. it is quite telling to see how his opponent undermines him by saying he has gone over to the dark side. it talks about the problematics and the incident on the campaign trail mr. delaware while in the town hall meeting setting the woman talked about the abuse of the constitution by the president and he should be tried for treason. i remembered john mccain reacting to a statement t

say what kind of a person mr. obama was? mitt romney just passed it by. sentiments are so strong and he said no, of course, not. the house republican budget committees now proceeds to do two things. then was agreed to end the law that came at the end of a dreadful process of holding the debt ceiling hostage. that that was the lower and

not a ceiling with a remarkable set of additional cutbacks and means tested programs. and the most analytic colt reporters show his the motion of. and with the republican filibuster and to extend the loan rate. this is the 21st successful poster and

consequential as the filibuster was there was a republicrepublic an house. and the democratic wishes are not likely to be realized. and the word filibuster is never elevated to the story itself. it is procedural. it shows how much the filibuster is 13. our argument can be summarized briefly. we are mismatched with our political parties in turn of the unified, highly strategic with their

partisan behavior in congress that is parliamentary and opposition all went out of government but they are operating when that can be productive with the separation of powers system with the possibility of divided party government that is such a mismatch it does not work. the second point* is the polarization that exist is not symmetric one party has gone off the track and has become an

insurgent that is more ideologically extreme. several generations of policy stretching back one century ago, down to the individual republican identifier does not have much use four fax or for science but what questions the legitimacy of the opposition party this is something individuals have said that never to be accepted by the leadership of the two major parties. the third point* without the

public to step up and iranian but the complications of accountability and the way these events are portrayed not through the partisan press but through mainstream press with reporters that leads to the false equivalent. they're both implicated. we argue that has the effect to disarm the public that may other way is not something about it.

>> when they first describe the book that is like the eric clapton album is called garmin un plug in. [laughter] >> i'm want to start with the plug my only book that should be capturing the attention about our political system. is this -- nationale why i love these guys. [laughter] >> by both of the books july 4th.

mother's day. father's day. he started talking about the partnership tom and i have had but we have tried to be fair minded and not take sides. recall them as we see them but i could give a talk and people said we could not tell what side you're on writing this book was not easy because that will change. people see me as taking a side. i am asked why did you do this? we spent 40 years building capital and a reputation.

there is a point* you feel you have to use that the stakes are too high. we at a critical point* to face huge problems. and end up with people like richard murdock my idea of compromise if they're making policy decisions, as all major changes of social policy expand or contract fade disrupt people's life. you cod not make that work with short-term pain with the promise it will improve

their life for the future if we get rid of richard lugar and those who have a different perspective. we have been moving in that direction and there has not ben of price paid for hostage taking and other bad behavior's motivated us to take on the press corps to a much greater degree to fall back to say we report will sides because we see the emergence of fairly

substantial and effective lobbying on both sides nd journalists don't like criticism. and with the mainstream press hits the idea of the liberal press to be hit hard you tilt in that direction brings about the desire of over balance our obligation to report both sides of the story. so if you have a hit and run driver they say it is his fault he stepped in to move the crosswalk. that is not the obligation but to report the truth. we've report what we believe

this the truth right now. i have no desire to turn the republicans into a version of the democratic party. we need to parties. that have different centers of gravity to compete with bigger and bump heads together. also understanding the process where if you reach a level that except those desions in have to have broad bipartisan leadership which is a collaboration. 51 to come to us, that is fine. are we will obstruct even if

it brings significant damage we have to shed blood in the revolution. our heroes include borat and pat moynihan. did cougar. strong conservatives. if you read his statement after his defeat that had bitterness but losses not saying i am everyday moderate the people said what you become the independent? he said i am a republican i always have been and i believe in small government and less taxes and what it

be. that is not enough. jack danforth said today if we move toward parity we will move to irrelevancy and the country goes down the tubes. that is the clarion call. calls from not just from us it ought to shake people up where we are and where we're going. happening with a degree of penetration, all the credibility we had built bob would resonate with people.

it is not people from one end of the spectrum. there is plenty of blame to go around and it needs not to to disappear that it moves to irrelevancy aware we had plenty of imperfections with the tough decisions it would make. >> two things that want to say is one of his great lines is we believe democrats move the they have moved outside the stadium altogether also apropos of

journalist you have been skin and you have no skin. it is an active graciousness that susan has agreed to join us today she has a slew of a words and deadline on reporting on the presidency and a lot of other words and his guest host of npr's and many other broadcast outlets. bachelor's degree from northwest and master's and journalism where she was the pulitzer fellow with

princeton university woodward school of public policy international affairs and of the republic and leadership teaching at princeton and harvard with the constitution and project at brookings and currently a vice president of the asman institut leadership program his book the parties versus the people. published this summer. and mickey will baptized all of them before you leave. [laughter] >> is the great pleasure to

be here with four people i have quoted so many times. i have a little bit of news i found out the title of the next book coming out between thomas mann and norman ornstein. 1982 is renewing congress. 2000, the permanent campaign. pretty neutral. 2006, the broken branch. the new book is called a run for your life. [laughter] after that they will march up and down they take on many institutions and let me

talk for a minute appropriate to criticize how we do our jobs and do them better fact checking truth telling on what the organization's tried to do this year. there has been a move that is someone says something is black and another says it is white you should not say the opposite. what pushes journalist is the birth third movement we found out it was not enough

to say he was born in kenya. obama's denies that. that is not sure readers fully enough and with the mainstream media it comes up zero lot but he was not. he was born in hawaii. if the thing that has pushed journalism there was a time with skeptics with equal force the overwhelming predominance is in favor of

climate change. nothing to fault but to might be underestimated the paralysis is a conscious choice with murdoch's defense is the same thing. lugar said he does not want to legislate. he will not make the compromises necessary. murdock said that is what i want to do. i will prevent things from getting done. i do not agree with the consensus. i have a different path. voters who voted for those candidates or not tricked

into tactics that they would follow. and over the cliff because that is the only way to achieve the political ends that they wanted to see. it seems the fundamental problem deals with such a lack of fade and the government and the suspicion that it has led a significant portion end of americans to elect candidates which is stopping kings from happening in washington regardless. >> to correct one paying i said that mickey would baptize you all as americans

we are joined by the ambassador from norway. [laughter] but that is only if you wish. [laughter] maybe a green card. he is already a citizen of minnesota senate is great to be here with tom and norm. i have been a friend of theirs for a long time. note to scolars who are more respected and have more credibility than these two. i am delighted to help them sell as many books as possible.

[laughter] you are not allowed to leave. [laughter] i am pleased to be here what can i add? talk about being even worse if you examined what is happening on the hill every conceivable way, how decisions are made everyday whether or not to allow opposition groups, if you saw this in detail, it is much worse than it looks. they are right the problem

is not equal between the two political parties. i rode a boat called reclaiming conservatism. those people of today have no idea and they preach weird ideas they don't understand the constitution. i will not defend the republican party. but maybe this book can do a better job that there is fault on the other side. nancy pelosi is a good friend but when barack obama wanted to work with

republicans she said we we won the election. we will write to the bill's. when democrats controlled the house, what the republicans have done is used clothes rules to prevent amendments and shutdown debate. i do not dismiss the criticism of the republican party and it is more locked against compromise which is the ingredient of 320 million people. but do just shut it off is a terrible problem. but do not let democrats off the hook. they have medpartners in

this and house members lost their primaries. we have a system where both parties are focused. because they are focused on partners and i have argued i think tom and norm know this, a large part is system it. look with indiana and dick lugar losing, which is durable -- terrible but it was a republican primary. in new tot losing the primary and the braman lost the democratic and mike castle lost in the

republican primary. i don't know if dick lugar could run. we created a system in which the parties could have the bulk of the voters to choose the options the most ideological moving the process forward. talked-about redistricting tom is a great guy and very art the p is a member of the party i would say you are great. it would be good for america. if you stick with party-line spur growth to make the book

even better it would have to be three times as long. but the system that allows the official decision-makers. this is a really good book. i agree with what norm said said, it took a lot of courage to write a book like this. i admire them for doing that. >> i am such a contrarian i feel like turning on my friends. [laughter] i want to remind people who

are listening to the webcast said your thoughts with the hash ted even worse. let me start with a question to norm and susan. laying out the question that you have singled out the republicans the insurgent outliers and mickey said democrats have to. can you explain why? why the republicans really are different. is easy for me i write opinions but here is what

hit me this morning with the coverage of dick lugar. he was a regularly described as a moderate. looking of his reading american conservative union is 77%. if that is moderate that is skewed to the right to. that struck me the language reporters use as a concession to radically changed situation. >> i did not want to say good things about the panelists before they spoke. [laughter] it is a thrill to have both of these people here. mickey adding to the pantheon of heroes he stood

up for the constitution and article i in congress when his colleagues trashed it for their own political purposes. he is a true conservative who used to solve problems. susan is a journalist we need a lot more of. there are no angels. democrats have manipulated the process and dispensed with order when in their favor. then that for the year period in the maturity arrogant and condescending to the minority and use the proxy power to have one person show up and throw out the minority amendments because they could.

it is not angels vs. doubles but there is a difference. look after 2000 george w. bush's elected. after the most controversial election and 100 years, 36 days to decide, in a weekend position losing the popular vote to, it would be easy for democrats to stop from the beginning damage the weekend presidency but the first thing he pushed to the initiatives. no child left behind and tax cuts. that moved through in a mottled bipartisan fashion coming from miller and kennedy.

you could say they like the policy but in doing so they gave legitimacy to bush and made the presidency stronger. it enabled the tax cuts to go through. then we had 9/11. some was controversial but almost unanimous support then you move to the t.a.r.p rejected by republicans and democrats saved the bacon. first president came in without great momentum from clinton and 1993. every republican votes that economic plan then a series

of programs including health care with a conscious effort he could not get what he wanted. he could not keep the democrats together but a significant difference then move up at 2009. a president elected in a landslide with coattails. 70 percent approval rating and the worst economy since the great depression. 3-1/2 weeks he has a stimulus plan. mickey would argue it was hatched in democratic rooms the more than one-third were tax cuts. the single largest the extension of the amt coming

from chalk grassley who voted against the plan. not a single republican votes for the senate not including those who had amendments added. not a single one voting for an initiative. that is the difference willingness to figure out how to solve problems. the real contrast from where we are now. there is no angels but one party is not that far although it has moved in the other party is behind. >> day disagree? >> no. the problem is with both sides.

i don't like the goalpost -- goalpost framing that decides who is the middle of the field. republicans would say we have said 30 years we don't want to go there and the failure to go there does not mean we have changed. i do think it is worse on the republican side but right now, i don't know the next nominee for the supreme court will be dominated by barack obama of our mitt romney. nobody knows who it will be but they're paid democrat if obama they will vote for him

or hurt and every republican will vote against because that is the situation it comes down to my club or your club. both parties only play to the next election. not worried about saving saving -- sultan problems they're less willing to engage in what richard murdock said it is typical of the republicans who take part in the primaries. other examples but that one struck me the press allows one party to redefine the middle without its knowledge

chain is the new middle. >> with the indianapolis star called dick lugar of moderate or a conservative that was the weapon used against him in the primary. maybe we should retire their word moderate. we have nobody in the middle. there is a republican and with the more liberal voting record and the most conservative democrat. there is no overlap. dick lugar has a conservative voting record and half a century and government, mayor, senate. reporters have called him

that not because of his voting record but his manner. he has a moderate manner to talk to democrats and engage with obama on issues. liberal democrats are moderate and manner. maybe that is the language to use. >> i thinkusan is right. it is more about ideology it would be a mistake to say it is that it asked to do with the process of politics and the legitimacy and to in gauge been give and take.

barney frank got along well with ranking republicans the baucus level. winds added committee he said i cannot support you on the floor because my party has the strategy. but mickey is right. there is a broad dynamic at work. we may not play that up be enough. there is now so much strategic partisan behavior they are operating at all level of parity so each is a change of party control of

the house and in the senate and the be lawlessness to fame again those terms. in that sense i am when mickey completely. i am with democrats and republicans. because they believe government has got 10 out of hand. anything associated with government except for the defense department is counterproductive.

democrats are more diverse and protective of government and especially of the regime going back to woodrow wilson and frankly nixon and liz responsible for the apparatus of the country. they are not wanting to socialize. it is a joke. they anders stand the demographic forces at work will make programs they phoenix are essential --

think are essential. they're willing to engage in those negotiations. republicans say no new taxes. democrats say don't touch my entitlements. which democrats? the president does not say that for the leadership does not say that. they are prepared to say that. and you are serious you don't begin the program as paul ryan has with major new tax cuts and figure out how to put that together in the end.

that is the fundamental difference. the political incentive has the permanent campaign hardball but they are not prepared to shut the government down. they will not do that because they think it plays a role. unserved is what the government that they have. no more. they are not wild and crazy about dumping on that. it is a radical perspective, not conservative. difference is real. >> i want to throw a very

out even worse. that starting in 1996 moderate republicans begin to leave the party and large numbers. the john heinz republicans are not any more you created a different electorate from delaware or indiup. >> the universe is loving norman's pink socks. [laughter] one is for robert kelly and he says if there is a systemic problem what do they feel is the most temperate -- appropriate?

are boaters getting what they deserve and when will they wake up? >> barney frank once told the angry crowd politicians are no great shake but the voters are not to a day at the beach. [laughter] >> there are systemic problems half of the book is what not do do the start with the acknowledgement but tinkering with the institutional set up. it is cultural now. tribal politics. we can talk about the primary electorate

cable-television networks have the enormous impact to create conditioncondition s where politicians may look for solutions. if they do, they're dead. the way even when they go wild you get no push back. when they say that was too much, their legs get cut off. the new world of media say the fox news model with an audience of 2.5 million people can make more nonprofit with an audience

of 30 million. is that true? >> 400 -- 700 million last year 1 billion this year more than all combined. it is enormously successful. if tomorrow they say this is the new message. can't read yet along? he is a good man. i will guarantee within one week there arabia new news channel wolf news they would gravitate over there. it is hard to change. how the you share the common facts and hammer and debate?

that is the challenge. we have to broaden the electorate we are big fans of the australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls. a small fine if you do not show up. it has led 95% turn out. that is not the end itself.

>> i think the two questions really go together. that is, how to make it better, and isn't it the public's fault, after all. credit >> if you had polarized parties operating in a separation of power systems, you can, one, try to alter the parties over time, and that's what norm has been talking about, ways of moderating parties, and the best way to do it is to expand the electorate as much as possible because those who do not now participate are ones with less absolutely committed and polarized views, and reinforcement for australia and the dozens of other democracies that have some form of mandatory attendance.

at the polls. the other thing is, you say, we got these parties. let's have a political system in which they can get something done. that means fundamental reform of the senate. i believe the united states senate is today the most dysfunctional legislative body in the democratic world. the very processes that in the past -- i'm looking out at senator sasser here -- in the past would lead people to come together across par lines to try to work out some agreement, now do just the opposite. they reinforce the absolute partisan divide between the parties and individual senators have come to so abuse the individual holes that, frankly, that sort of the partisanship and the culture is such that the

senate cannot function under its current rules, and that is the big change that is needed. one final thing. thinking of change and the public. sure, it's the public's fault. they got frustrated and angry because the economy didn't improve, and they changed the team in power after two years, in 2010, and created a divided party government and a republican majority that believed it had a public mandate to do just what they said they would do, and they worked hard to do it, and the public hated it. so, in a sense, you know, they get -- they got what they asked for, if not consciously, unconsciously. but that's in a sense asking too much of the public. it would be nice if every member of the public was registered to vote and voted and kind of had

the knowledge of a typical attendee at a new england style town meeting, but, hey, -- >> at a brookings seminar. >> or a brookings seminar. not going to happen. people are busy. it's hard just keeping life whole without investing in two hours of reading of the times and the wall street journal every day, but it does mean we've got to figure out a way -- it's very hard in our constitutional system to make the choices more clear, to hold individuals accountable. divided party government has become the bane of american democracy. i worked under other conditions. it doesn't work now. thank you. >> mickey has some ideas and i want to bring him back in but i want to turn to the audience. do we have some mics to circulate? we have a lot of hands here. this gentleman right up front. yes, sir. and then right behind you.

>> more rein sew morris, howard university. when you look for an explanation of an -- an external explanation of behavior and the more rigid leanings of the republican party, it was said -- you all said it was the voter at some level, but referring in particular to the fox news profitability, and the inevidentability of money following the more extremist idea thursday the media and elsewhere. so the question to me is, to what extent can that link of the money to the media be linked to the rate of rigidity of the republican party, whether it's in came pan finance or anywhere else. the public insinuation into the process is facilitated by media guided and influenced by ideology include imbalanced money. it that going to have -- has it had a greater reflection in the current condition of the

republican and democratic part parties? >> that great and highly relevant question. i think the main takeaway from this is, what will the onion do with the idea of wolf news. >> i'm eliza. acknowledging that there is a conservative wing of the g.o.p. that has gained influence, is it fair to say they represent the party as a home that's part one of my question. and, two, is it possible that these folks play a valuable role in making it easier for moderates in both parties, including the president, to make the tough decisions about things like entitlements and taxes? >> there's an optimistic view. thank you so much. and then right behind you. >> i notice that mr. ornstein's pantheon or heroes, none are still in congress today or won't be in a few months. seems that once they are on their way out or out the door --

simpson is a great example -- they say all the right things but when their continuing to run they don't. olympia snow is another good example. what do you suggest we do as a public or others do to encourage politics who are in office to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do? >> um, tom, you can start on -- and i'm curious bus you have done so much work on the money question, and then whatever you wanted to say before. and then i guess we're supposed to -- are we close or past the time? >> no. >> oh, go. >> i usually go over. >> we have lots of time. we have many fascinating questions pending, most of which haven't yet been answered. let me try to run through a couple of them. eliza, no. conservative wing is now the party. it's been embraced by the party. it's agenda has been embraced by the leadership.

the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, very able member, is the architect of that agenda which would make every tea partyer very happy so that it's indistinguishable, and they in no way provide cover for all those moderates who want to do the right thing. i don't think said people exist in the republican party. the answer is, grover norquist, no new tax pledge. that alone would free the republican party to engage in good faith substantive negotiations. everybody knows our taxes are now at an historic low in the contemporary era, and they're going to go up, sort of naturally, and with the aging of

the population, i guarantee you it will be somewhere around 23% of gdp. wouldn't it be nice if we could acknowledge that and say what's the most sensible, efficient way to structure a tax system, probably a progressive consumption tax, directed in ways to accomplish a whole host of objectives, but as long as you have that pledge to which members sign, it's hopeless. the republican party cannot be a player in any constructive resolution of the problems confnting the country. gary, there is no political space for a third party to occupy. it's based on a presumption we have two extreme parties and there is this great center to mobilize. then i'm deeply skeptic kell there's room for such a party and it would really play a constructive role.

is it going to get worse than it is now instead of just looking worse? and are we in route to the status of greece? not at all. i mean, the simple truth is, we're almost close to a position where the status quo would solve our problems. that is to say that expiration of the tax cuts pretty much take care of our immediate, intermediate deficit problem, and implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca would deal with our long-term healthcare problems. so, we're not that far away, and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investments to transform the economy, to deal with the

reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to reign in behavior that is destructive, and we need political leaders to act forcefully. we have given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. it's time for sensible hard ball politics along these lines. and i'dike you to take the money question, norm. a couple of political scientist had a great chart that showed they party polarization, polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth, increasing inequality went together with partisan polarization. and the money question you can handle in so many different ways. i am really concerned about our

post-citizens united system with the federal election commission that's completely out of control, and with other agencies unable to do anything about it, and a lot of money coming in, in ways that intimidate political actors and tilt a policy process in a very bad way, and in a way that will only enhance inequality, and i you look at this one example from north carolina, you had a group of agricultural influences wanted to influence the state legislature on an ag bill and they prepared a bunch of model commercials that would destroy members of the legislature. put them on the ipad, went in to see them. nothing do with agriculture. defined them as child-molesting aliens out to destroy the fabric of america and showed them the commercials and said, if we don't get what we want, millions of dollars could be spent on commercials just like this, and they got what they wanted to didn't have to spend any money. and the idea this is not

corrupting, anthony kennedy was on a different planet in a different universe than the read world. so there's all of that to deal with and we're getting legislation being written by outside interests that just gets plugged right in. it's the gilded age brought up to the 21st century and nothing that we want. i want to take a little -- i always like to find places to take issue with tom, and so i want to address the question of eliza's question. i actually don't believe that the right wing -- that now is out -- represents the republican party. we have survey after survey that shows on a range of issues, self-identified republicans do not take those same positions. the tea party consists of a lot of older voters who have no clue what the ripe budget would do on entitlement programs they don't want touched for themselves, just for others. it's not clear all of this will play out the way they want, and i believe there are problem

solvers still in congress. they are completely intimidated from being able to play that role. but you still have a few who have taken out to do so. mike crepo, saxby chambliss, and tomkoburn, and dick durbin on the other side actually stepped out on a limb here, and i will tell you where we are in tbal politic that when president obama praised the gang of six, an aide to a senior republican in the senate immediately sent on e-mail to politico saying, that kills that plan. if he is for it, we're against it. this is less about ideology now than it is about tribalism. so, that's a challenge that we have and it's not encouraging moderates or providing space. it's intimidating. the everytime we get people who leave congress, we get these republicans who leave and it's like you've been inside a tent where you're breathing a gas and suddenly you're outside and you say, how could i have done that? how could i have acted that way? so, one of our ideas is to

create a shadow congress that consists of former members, who span the spectrum and start with a common set of facts and maybe have them debate not in the way that congress used to, because congress never was a great debating society, but genuine debates and discussions that aren't going to have huge audiences but you can provide a model how voters who yearn to have some real discussion of our options. you can start with the notion that there is something to climate change and then have a great debate over whether you do anything, whether you do a lot, whether you do it with a carbon tax or a cap and trade program or through some other mechanism, that could actually give people a sense of what our tough choices are. instead of having people who say, gee, maybe scientists have something and then they're thrown out. small steps that me a provide us with some opportunities to change the dialogue. >> just very quickly. we had a u.s.a. today gallup poll that came back on monday.

a third of republicans, people who said they were republicans -- not leaners but people who describe themes as members of the republican party, when you asked them their ideology, called themselves moderate to liberal. a third. and in this pole, for the first time, republicans enthusiasm for an advantage the race and declining thump among group. so there's not a republican in washington who would describe themselves as a moderate or liberal but a third in the country do. >> and then they lose primaries. >> there's that. >> just to eliza's point. rahm emanuel liked to say the republican party is deeply divide between its small government wing and its no government wing, and i do think, if there's a truth win that barb. i'm told we are now at our time. i want mickey to come back in and a couple of closing comments. incidentally.

the part of this book that hasn't gotten as much attention, and susan mentioned it, i like the bromides we shoulding now our chapter. the american political system will correct itself. third party to the rescue, no. a constitutional balance el but apple. they say, no, and full public finances of elections, they say no, and then they have a whole bunch of things they say yes to and i propose you have your shadow congress and then we can have an election between the shadow congress and the current congress and see who wins. so, let me invite everybody to do closing comments. let's start with mickey. >> well, okay. just going down a couple of these. does this represent the republican party as a whole? as susan just said, no. but it does represent those who vote in primaries. and so it's a matter of, you can't be on the ballot.

you lost your primary, you can't appear on the ballot in november. those need to go. but it's the primary voters who are represented in the party. secondly, in terms of what can we do about it? i don't know how many of you or how many of your presents -- i assume all of you -- show up at a town meeting, show up where you're a member of the house or senate is present, participate in the elections, call into the radio and tv shows, in other words, we need to get the citizens engaged. the citizen is aren't crazy. 42% of the american people are now registered as independents. they're fleeing from the parties. they need to be at those meetings. they need to confront -- they need to be confrontational with their representatives and senators and say, we're not going to vote for you if you behave this way. the final thing of the question about can it become more repressive? you know, i got to testify on

behalf of the american bar association to a committee in the house when the president -- previous president announced through his various signing statements that he would decide for himself whether or not he had to obey the law, and every republican saw nothing wrong with that. there are -- democracy is not about policy. it's about process. and i think, as long as we continue to focus on, do whatever we need to do to get the policy outcome we want to hell with process to hell with the constitution, you know, is more repressive. how do you define repressive? how about wire tapping without a warrant? is that repressive? i do think we're more on a slippery slope than some people want to admit. >> susan? >> just briefly saying what an

achievement it is to write a policy book about washington that gets sold out on amazon, so congratulations to our two authors here. >> tom and then norm. >> i want to thank my colleagues, mickey and susan, and e.j., of course. you know, we're really with you. it's a very negative-sounding title, but we, too, agree with you that there are things we can do, building up, small things, that can help produce a larger and more informed electorate, changes we can make that would allow the public to hold officials accountable in a way that is very difficult to do now that, in the end, clear signals from the public and responsible institutional changes, especially within the senate, and sort of political leaders

willing to sort of lay it out, and not just say, we all have to come together, but, listen, this is how we must begin, and be forceful. there is a bright future for the country. i'm pretty optimistic. >> i would just say, finally, a couple of pleas. first, please buy the book. secondly, please buy e.j.'s book and please buy mickey's book, and please, susan, write a book. [laughter] >> thank you all very much. [applause]

>> what are you reading this summer? >> i'm an avid reader, and this summer i'm focused on chris matthews' new book, a personal presidential favorite of mine, john kennedy, and i have the book here. it's jack kennedy, elusive hero, and one of the great things about being chairman of the caucus is that we get to bring people in to talk about their books and we have had chris matthews in, and also came and spoke at the library of congress with all of the spouses, in what was an incredible evening, where people got to ask questions, et cetera, and see the personal side of jack kennedy, and matthews has done such incredible research and

interviews, and it's a book you can read over and over again, and so very appropriate for summer reading, especially with president kennedy's affinitiy and love for the sea as well. all you need to do is read it on honey fitz and we'd be okay. so that's one ofhe books i'm reading. another person who has been in our caucus has been roy -- who writ the assassin office the -- assassins of the turquoise palace. her only personal story as someone who grew up in iran, a woman of jewish descent who grew up in iran, whose family had to flee, but it followed the events that go on in iran, and while this is fiction as the old saying goes, more truth is said in fiction than not, and

especially with the assassination attempts that took place in germany that she chronicles so well. also, the relevance today, especially if we look at our dealings with iran and it's a revealing look at the culture and at the system and current regime in iran as well. so this is a fiction but it makes for interesting reading. something that is certainly light reading but also focused reading, is our own tim ryan has just produced a book and we had a little reception for him where he got up and spoke about his book as well, and i think it's thoughtful advice for anyone in

congress, but people in general, just being in the moment and being more thoughtful with some very practical advice, but also i think lessons in life learned from everyone from john wooden -- from john wooden to presidents and to gandhi, and so tim has this very thoughtful side about him, and i think it was nice for his colleagues to see that as well. so i would recommend this book. and of course, the legendary john lewis just came out with his book, "across the bridge." and he was at a graduation, and honored to receive an autograph

ed copy and as your probably aware, john does an event where they re-enact the crossing of the pettis bridge in that famous march between selma and montgomery. it's this very compelling story, and of course "across the bridge ""features the incredible journey of this incredible hero and civil rights leader, clearly an inoperation to us all. those are -- an inspiration to us all. those are the four books i'm reading bay and be remiss by saying almost every summer -- and i just happened to see my english teacher in high school on saturday, at an event, and of course my favorite book, and largely bus of this teacher, is the great gatsby, and it always

makes for great summer reading, and of course, taken from then 1920s, and during the roaring 20s and the jazz age and the time of elusive dreams, and of course the language of f. scott fitzgerald, the way he is available able to write both symbolically and with mixed metaphors, and as he describes the gambler, fluoroshame, at the time, eating with a ferocious delicacy. so this is always a great read and i hope it has some influence on my children. in the category of favorite book and movie, of course, would be "to kill a mockingbird. ""and the highest honor any eselect e selected official is

to be referred to as atticus finch, and of course the incredible novel written by harper lee that is just -- always a great read and whose lessons stay with us today as well. and another favorite. harper miller, "the death of a salesman. ""interesting to note it's making a great revival on broadway, and so many people acclaimed the audiences are overflowing. so those are my recommendses for summer reading. >> for more information on this and other summer reading lists, visit booktv.org. >> timothy gay presents a history of american war reportage during world war ii. he follows five journalist as