now we can look back to talk ha aboutt bipartisanship at thein water's ed vge but it wasn't i that way in vietnam or thedor. uesues of central america s and it was all foreign policy issues. there is a speech given by a senator saying bipartisanship.togetherthey >> but we always had some people in the house andco senate to bring peoples together how can we move the country for word? nd have strong disagreementst ca but we have to make sure the t watehr stays pierre, a's bridgestone collapse, trips getsy supplies. disag ef that is nothing and then.hasn

>> but do you think obama and has gone along the way o with the new budget proposalt th by curtailing some agin box riements? table e of the day i put said but the senate after four years finally has come we to the table with a budget the white house, republicans come we have the makings ofi thn something getting done the possibly which remains to bealk seen. but the president talking about the and that they can sit good there research on

acid sundered billion dollars after getting close to revenue in january. i can tell you right now there is no mood in theh republican party for that atis this point*.p . . a senior and captain at ki school. congressman my dad served with you in congress. >> a great man. absolutely. >> i am a democrat but i followed with great interest the candidacy of inglis kaine who was a republican turned independent and he seemed to me to represent the idea of post partisanship working for the

people. but even though you said 40% of the registered voters in the united states are independent it's incredibly hard for them to get on the ballot. i think one of the down sides of the primary system in washington and california is that a completely shots out of them in the general election and so i am wondering over the next couple of years what you see as being the volubility of independent non-partisan candidates and how do you think if they are to become viable. i know you have to be very proud it's hard for somebody as a green party libertarian much of independent party to have much chance to succeed and the system that we have. but what has happened with the california and the washington primary, so even if you end up because it is an attorney

general election in a very liberal district to seven in california the berman race, the liberal district it's not ever going to elect a republican but those that end up in the primary in this case both liberal and the democrats have to appeal to the third party. they have to appeal to independents and appeal to libertarians and green and so forth in order to win. totally change the dynamic in that race and it's done in washington. so, i do think that is one of the things. but in this can -- there is a very positive, they have a little bit of a - that comes out of that, she was a good guy and it's good to see an independent elected as an independent running as an independent. the problem is he said absolutely. he had to caucus with the democrats because the parties controlled the system and if he doesn't caucus with the party he can't get a committee assignment

and he can't get -- we have to break that, too where it's not party leaders that decide whether or not you can get a committee assignment. >> that's the key from the political side of this i've always said we will not have a viable third-party movement effort in this country if it is from the top down. we've seen them pass, people running for president as independent and things like that. it's got to be organic from the bottom-up where the citizens decide i want you, sir search or the independent activist to be our representative and then that begins to form an organization around them that begins to crack at the gop and the democratic system which is deliberately designed to keep everyone else out. >> whether it is on redistricting, whether it is on getting on the ballot, it can be a nightmare and help you if you want to try to petition

something to the voters referendum. again, the system is designed for very limited access, very few players, and those who are players in the system already are protected by it. incumbency has enormous value. until you begin to break that, very little will change and the way you do is from the bottom-up with activists pushing up the system. we saw bipartisanship in california and washington. the republican leadership and the democratic leadership came together to fight against of the one time they wanted to be about them. >> thank you kevin >> yes, sir. >> are we done? i think we are done. >> we just got the hour.

>> thank you for having me. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my ideas about political dysfunction and how we fix it. i began thinking about two representatives had served in the indiana house of representatives and i was there for three turns. and like most candidates do not or started running, i pledge to the end. i was going to work with my colleagues across the aisle and support good ideas, whether they are democratic or republican.

i tried very hard to do that. but i did find quickly it's very difficult to remain above the partisan brad. i came to the conclusion we don't get partisan conflict in washington or indiana is because we elect people who are inclined to be partisan. there's not a selection bias here. our political system drives elected officials. so i'm very madisonian about this, but i think about how the structures direct behavior. what is it about our political system that feels partisan conflict? that's when i came to the idea that i discussed in my book the partisan conflict at the national level is driven largely by the fact week about the executive power to one person rather than executive parity

among local officeholders. one is both political dysfunction are planted with the founding fathers chose to visit the president or the executive branch and the best way to address political dysfunction has to change to a two-person, to party president the which the two presidents are truly deep and come from different parts. ordinarily that would be democratic republic and, but third-party candidate would be eligible and more likely we would get third-party candidates because it's easier. before i make my argument about why a single president is back in two presidents are good, which we mean by a two-person bipartisan presidency? photo look like? the two presidents would have to be equal partners. some if the bill passed congress, both have to sign before it would become law. they have to agree an executive

order, supreme court nominees, decisions as commanders in chief of the military. he should have their own vice president for succession, but all other appointment, whether the executive range would be single joint appointees. with that, decisions of the field much more quickly. instead of a democratic nominating democratic, you'd have a bipartisan nominees that would be incentives of the confirmation that position should be filled much more quickly. in all likelihood, they divide a primary responsibility. one might direct health care company of education, when they focus on relationships appear in countries asian countries. but when it comes time to make decisions, they have to do agree, i'll decisions have to be shared decisions.

instead of having a republican president championing the republican party are democratic president pressing the policies of the democratic party, where we have presidential partners advocating policies that represent the views of the full range of voters. so how do we trace? little dysfunction make entries to the single. isn't congress the problem? or senators and representatives can't have bills to balance their budget. they can't do anything about global warming work on violence and even back on march 1st and they were faced with the sequester but the march across-the-board budget cuts, and i couldn't even get them on a sensible budget reduction plan. if we focus on congress, were

focused on the symptoms rather than causes of the problem. the problem with congress is the problem i want to suggest come in the founding fathers decision to place a single executive at top the executive branch come a single president. mice having a single president a problem? i'll talk about what the framers thought, but with happiness modern president exercise exceptional power. are the sausage are called because the president will their immense power in behalf of only one party come to field a high level of conflict is in washington. because they exercise their immense power on behalf of one perspective, they make too many decisions that are detrimental to the national interest. let me talk about how it got to this and why it causes problems. the founding fathers of course worried about different branches

becoming too powerful, but they didn't protect against the imperial presidency because they didn't anticipate the essential role the executive branch and plan our government. the framers worried about the legislative ranch. so when they wrote the constitution, that was the concern, so they took steps to divide the legislative power between the house and senate and give the president of the challenge someone. but they misjudged things. my wife says i shouldn't criticize the framers, but they did get this wrong because over the past 75 years, congress has transferred much of the executive branch peer presidents have their own power craft. so with the creation of the administrative state, all these

agencies like the environmental protection agency, housing and urban development and so on. so that's a huge growth of the american state and departments and agencies, presidents can consider considerable unanticipated domestic policymaking power. the president controls all the regulations energy exploration, k-12 education, health care, consumer protection down the line. all these different concerns, rulemaking is overseen by the president. it's not only the rulemaking. presidents have other policymaking tools so they can see national policy to their signing statements and grant waivers from statutory obligations. it's easy to find examples. president obama -- under president upon this direction

without congress' participation we have a doubling of fuel efficiency for cars that take effect three now and 2025. obama decided to expand and offshore drilling for oil and gas and granted lots of waivers for the no child left behind that she was most of the central provisions are found by this. think about stem cell funding. president bush decided they wouldn't be federal funding for stem cell research. president obama decided they would be. all these decisions are made by the president. this is just on the domestic side. on the foreign policy side, presidents play a far larger role in determination of u.s. policy in congress say the first mauler role in the framers in tended. the recent illustration is president obama would be involved in interviewing olivia

was his decision even though congress is supposed to decide what to send troops to battle lovers these, but obama, truman, clinton, many presidents decide on their own without waiting for congress. presidents reach agreements about anticipation and unilaterally decide about terminating treaties or change from recognizing taiwan as a government to mainland china with president carter who unilaterally terminated by pat the taiwan. presidents decide about restrictions to travel abroad when we were prevented from cuba, that was a presidential decision. they also revise their immigration be. people brought his children by their parents. president obama implemented his own dream act and waive

deportation and son not work permits to young immigrant. now, presidential power has increased. congress has transferred power to act on their own so there's a shift of power. the other piece of the puzzle is the vast expansion and the founders lived in europe and not the united states can become a great world power. presidential power has increased both because the u.s. has increased radically in the power the u.s. government has hessman shifted. so we no longer have coequal branches of government. we now have a politically dominant executive branch. many scholars say congress needs to assert itself and do this checking and balancing power.

we wouldn't have a piece like watergate and abu ghraib another presidential authorities. the problem is congress is proving capable for various reasons other scholars are worried about this. congress can act decisively or efficiently. they've made sense to have a powerful congress released a coequal congress 200 years ago. in the modern americans at the global economy and fast-moving technology, we need a strong impact. i don't think we need to settle that whether we should have a powerful executive or not, it's not critical to my argument even if the executive branch is not accumulated too much power, it's a mass to much power one person.

thus the problem. because when one person exercises this enormous power of the modern u.s. presidency, we shouldn't be surprised in the breaks down. all of us though, we'll want to have a voice in our government, but only half the public has been meaningful input. currently we had a democratic president who represents democratic voters in 2001 to 2008 we had a republican president. so it's no wonder when you have one president from one party at the party out of power spends all his time trying to retain the oval office and not enough time trying to interest the countries need. democrats and republicans fight tooth and nail every four years for the white house. hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars once the

election is over, a new cycle begins. candidates are traveling to new hampshire and iowa will happens if congress is the president mindset behind the initiative to bolster the president and make sure it can retain the white house and the losing party tries to block presidential initiative so it can weaken the white house, because the president the end when it back over the next election. when health care reform is being debated, jim demint from south carolina told his colleagues, we need to vote against obamacare and break the obama administration. for senator mcconnell, senate majority leader announcing in 2010 that his highest priority as senate majority leader was making barack obama a one term president.

ephrata coalition presidency were restarting it would elect a partner, it would entertain as much political it and pitch. with a status is they still share with the other party. said that it would be much for your to judge legislative proposals. it's not surprising when you have winner take all elections for presidencies to the level of an imperial president be, we shouldn't be surprised with high levels of partisan conflict. indeed, the increase in partisan conflict if you go back to the 50s and 60s, it was much more working across party lines. it residences the 45th is gradually. the presidential power has increased and it's not surprising.

we now have people elected with a small majority or even a minority of the popular vote, substantial numbers of voters feel their interests and concerns are not elected. if we had a two-person presidency nearly all other presidents or maybe much marco debow emerging from the executive branch. it would no longer be this massive voters who are receptive to a the of obstruction. aren't there other causes of partisan conflicts? i don't want to suggest the imperial presidency is the only cause. there's other factors of law, but even so the argument for bipartisan is strong. if elected officials have strong and gives for a highly partisan fashion, would it counter incentives to act in a section.

it would not only address the presidency back your, but also provide an effective counterbalance at any cost. there's another problem with having a one-person imperial presidency. innovates decision-making harmful to the country. here's another area where the frame rate things have changed in the in a way they didn't anticipate because a substantial increase in presidential power changed the nature. over the framers thought congress would be a policymaking branch and the president would be the executor. the executive branch. it beat implementor policy, not so much a shaper of policy. the president now has become a major shaper, perhaps the primary creator of policy for our country. that's not a good idea because when we have policies been made, we want to be named by multiple

people with different perspectives. robust debate. so the framers are right if you want an executive president is in executor policy coming as the one the person and correctly deserve political bodies that congress is the supreme court. the whole purpose of democracy is the medal count with one another so as not to depend upon the understanding of unmanned. when it comes to making policy there is much truth that two heads are better than one. if you look at studies by economists, psychologists and other research your decision-making works better than unilateral decision-making. it's not hard to find unilateral decision-making. george w. bush is the decision to take us into iraq.

single decision-makers will make decisions. two presidents from different parties bring the problem-solving approaches that make for better decision-makers. two presidents of different perspectives would make market choices and fewer bad choices. i understand several presidents of course still locked in isolation. they consult members of the cabinet and staff to enjoy many benefits of group decision-making. nevertheless, there is a big difference between their decision after consulting with those inclined to reinforce inclination as opposed to sharing decision-making with a partner who's inclined to challenge their inclination. an example of use to illustrate his imagine the supreme court with nine justices and

decision-making authority and perspectives. if you have one justice, scalia or ginsburg who had eight to experience law clerks, could be a very different supreme court. and it's not only the two presidents would give us better leadership a nice time for deliberation, but even in times of crisis. don't bring in a single person? i don't think that's right. part of the problem is what could happen. one is single decision-makers often act in authoritarian and unconstitutional ways. during world war ii we had japanese americans. after 9/11 terrorists and having a single making those decisions of congress, courts are supposed to check abuses of power.

they have not stepped up when they needed to. so having a two-person bipartisan presidency could give us the internal check on the executive branch we need one other checks are not effect you. we also have to sacrifice rapid decision-making. presidents always consult trusted advisors before making decisions and consider israel, a country that has had to respond to major threats to national security and they always convened the cabinet, then their full cabinet before they decide on their response. some deliberation is good, even in the faith of the next acted events, international events. an example i like to use as the 2008 presidential campaign in georgia and russia got into the little war.

john mccain immediately condemns russia. barack obama waits a few days to find out more information and he did so wisely because it turned out both georgia and russia were at fault. sometimes acting quickly and decisively makes that decision. why wouldn't two presidents bring a person can't look in the white house? border met romney and barack obama really cooperate? alexander hambleton talks about multiple executives with dissension and rivalry. i'll think that will happen. there's a very good reason to think they'll develop a cooperative relationship. they would entitle the senate to have a relationship. elected officials are highly partisan, but they are partisan for a purpose. the reason why typical

power-sharing setting, each person are different people feel that by maneuvering they can establish a dominant position. but in the coalition presidency i propose no amount of maneuvering, backstabbing or doing whatever could be to a dominant position no matter what with the 50/50 relationship with the current term after reelection. what's the incentive to engage in conflict? more than that, a very important incentive to cooperate because when president at the top of the political ladder at that point the primary concern is how are they going to go down to history? george w. bush's decision to invade iraq will suppose saddam

hussein. their number of of reasons for his decision. one of the accounts was an important one, which he was influenced by the potential for introducing democratic governance to the middle east. we could set up a democratic government in iraq, a model for other countries. george w. bush's legacy would be transforming a major region of the world even though he said we should be engaged in nationbuilding. when he thought about his legacy is going to do that. the first year the obama administration talks about the decision, should we do health care quite obama's advisers say no, do not do health care. the president wants you to focus the economy. that's where you need to put your efforts. and what essentially persuaded

obama is to do health care now was his legacy. the goal that eluded presidents for a century. well, two members of the coalition presidency spent their turn maki and wouldn't be able to have the achievement, established the record to have an important legacy. that's what i think it would work out as not only my thoroughly educated guess i hope, but we have other support. switzerland i like to use as an example. does the work anywhere else? switzerland executive branch has several department heads there is no first among equals. they rotate the president the

msn account others there's now five to represent 80% of the vote during the national elections. the important thing is the seven people of different parties of the political spec to work cooperatively. you might say switzerland. in fact, switzerland has its own history of political conflict. it is civil war in the 19th century between catholics and protestants. not as bloody as ours, but there is a war. french, german, italian and that's why they drafted our constitution to try to overcome the political conflict that they had experienced. my view is because they have

their power-sharing across different decide, political and other come and they have been able to have a society that doesn't have political conflict we experience. francis also shown the shared decision taking to work well. this is not as institutionalized , but when presidents and prime ministers come from different parties, nor let the president is the dominant political figure. far più bill now the prime minister, but when the president and prime minister have the cohabitation government. for much of the time between 1886 and 2002 at cohabitation governments. the first was sharad, right, mitch on the last and they work together reasonably well and the governments are quite popular.

they are well above above letter publicly at cohabitation. in all parliamentary systems, tend to have coalition governments, people from different parties working together. i know other countries differ in many ways in the united states, but i don't think there's any reason elected officials and other countries are left as part of the partisan conflict than our officials are. i'm also not claiming to share power cures all political will. bosnia has its reapers executive has not been able to overcome the powers. their problems go far deeper than the nature of the executive ranch. to be centralized, serbia, too much power and so on.

as political scientist have observed, the coalition executives offer the best possibility for resolving conflict deeply divided society. one other source from an argument and that's game theory. elements of relationships that encourage cooperation is supposed to conflict. the kinds of relationships are the element that would be part of the coalition presidency i propose. one is people have an ongoing relationship much more likely to cooperate in a one-shot relationship. at a much better relationship with the guy who who services my car than people would regard by a car.

the servicemen knows i'm coming back, jessica chapman treats me well. so having an ongoing relationship, having regular and frequent interactions with your partners also encourages collaboration. most importantly, coalition presidency have symmetrical relationship with the amount of power. as i've indicated that's exactly half the executive power and no maneuvering could change that symmetry. neither could gain the upper hand in that tells you when you have that situation where they have little to gain by instruction, must again by collaboration, we should expect them to collaborate. it's out of self-interest.

i don't assume they're going to do this for the good of the country. the desire for the legacy. people with strong philosophical differences would work cooperatively, could eric cantor, nancy pelosi really work together? i think they would. part of this i draw my own experience as state representative and watching them there and also the national level because public officials to exhibit quite a bit of flexibility to achieve their political goals. matt romney pushes for individual name day for health care. presidential mandates propose individual mandates. arlen specter mostly as a republican wins the democratic party and its voting record shifts to the left. evan bayh positioning himself for a run for the president the other liberal voting record.

they have the most conservative voting record of any democratic senator, even ben nelson from nebraska or on academic tears. president bush pushing executive power. the obama administration changes its tune and takes position partially criticized when he was outside the executive branch. so i think the desire to leave a legacy, and that's what drives president and a lot of their statements and posturing much more as a true commitment to the ideology they can't compromise. i conclude i saying the two-person presidency may seem radical for us. but this function is gotten to the point radical reform is

needed. the alternative to a two-person presidency with greater partisan conflict and even more decision. i look forward to your questions. hot mark [applause] >> will pass on the microphone. i'd like to start out with one question first. it seems to me an assumption you are making that having presidents from both parties will be able to be going back to congress to lead their party along in congress. i am wondering how likely you view that is being in light of the fact that even speakers of the house, sometimes majority leaders in the senate have a hard time bringing along their own them or us in the room chambers. how woke up this representative of their party in the white

house actually end the gridlock that it is within congress' south. >> why wouldn't partisan conflict moved to cios of capitol hill. i'm not so worried about that. a couple reasons why i think you start to see more cooperation in congress. let me say, i am not against competition and disagreement. i still want republican members of congress and democratic members of congress. what i'm trying to avoid is the extent to which partisan conflict overtakes legitimate disagreement. so there's two reasons -- at least a couple reasons why will refuse the excessive level of partisan conflict. one is now your going to have

romney and obama fashioned their health care reform for immigration reform or climate change legislation and they send their own proposal to congress. now that there is a bipartisan proposal, the members of congress currently when president obama sent this partisan proposals, remember mike earnest there's this massive disaffected voters. 47 are some of the public voted for matt romney. 47% of the public doesn't think they have a voice in the white house. their instinct is to say this proposal doesn't represent my views and so their instinct is to oppose that. so the republican members of congress recognize that and know there is a substantial massive disaffected voters who will be receptive to a policy of instruction. now if you had a bipartisan proposal coming forward, voters

on both sides will say that proposal represents my views. seven members of congress might decline to obstruct for partisan purposes are not going to find a receptive audience amongst voters. another reason why you think they would be less than claimed to be partisan, one of the things i learned as a legislator, you can build up its constituents by by passing the bill and do more for constituents to helping cut through the red tape and other hurdles in the bureaucracy. if you're a republican today and collect the executive branch, you're not going to get much help. if it's a bipartisan executive branch, they're going to respond to your call. you have a lot of incentive to have good relationships with the

white house with the food and drug administration. he won a help them. it really changes do not have an audience perceptive and members of congress having their own personal set in terms of constituents in getting reelected to have cordial relations with the executive ranch would help. >> thankthank you very much. we will open it up for questions. we will bring the microphone over to you. >> i guess my question deals with the political process of these two presidents. one of the reasons candidates like to sit close to the center is because they have a general election coming up. when you know you're elected president once you got a democratic or republican primary and six other guys are

conservative or liberal, the best way to distinguish his move further and further another's no incentive to come back to the center, which means, is there a problem he travels so much more from where you were during the primary and special interest groups invested to be so far out now need you to stay there. >> that's an interesting question. once you make this change, it is going to have all kinds of change. so now the primary, the primary voters don't have to think i need to find somebody who select: november because decisions will be mostly decided. the elections usually decide the third-party candidate. one possibility i would moderate things, but even in the absence of a third-party candidate, what's going to happen?

is going to change voting patterns, too. right now, a lot of people wait till november. we might have 60% in her. you might get 20% of the eligible voters so you drive a lot of people don't have strong affiliations with either party to pick one of the parties they are closer to. they'll change the primary voting. some evidence suggests general election voters are no more moderate. the primary voters may not be party activists, but might be more moderate. that may not have enough fact. others wonder whether in recent years has changed. you might get some moderation,

but if it doesn't happen, if you still have the desire to get the extremists because i want the person to advocate the negotiator, candidates will recognize that and start even if they are romney moderate or whatever else, you start recognizing they position themselves as a conservative liberal so they'll be gaining outside. candidates a different things. for there to people further out, they still move to the middle to get anything done. the legacy will drive the compromise and then will they be punished? i promise that i would vote or

stand up for a deals and now have to worry about a challenge. what drives a tea party so that democratic control again they don't have a voice. so it's hard to mobilize people to throw out an comment when they have a voice in the person is speaking on their behalf. people understand there's a partisan process. but we love to win all the time. we feel at least we have gotten my purse in his promise to fight hard fight that battle and they don't win all the time. at least we will feel like we gave america a shot.

so that's why the challenges are not likely. >> i think he used the expression real president v. is that right? so mayor bloomberg, governor walker, barack obama are all using executive orders to accomplish a lot of what you're talking about. my question to you is whether you think this is a response to the legislative ranch for a change in how the executive sees themselves. and how that contributes to what you're talking about. >> we see this use of executive order, so they've got high levels of partisan conflict, legislative bodies capable of making change.

i think it is a combination of congressional failure. there's no question the legislative body, as racially congress have advocated in their response abilities. but i also think as the framers warned us, people in power in presidents have. why hasn't congress? the framers didn't anticipate the collective action. 435 person house, 100 person senate in an individual legislature increase in institutional power of the congress shared with the lot of people. it's not in fact its way. anytime you increase your institution's power, you increase your own power. surmise that right in the

framers were right about the presidents would push for greater power. they were wrong about congress. so it's a combination of the natural see how president to increase power and the willingness of congress. the courts have not intervene. president carter's decision terminate in the supreme court said it is a political question on other procedural grounds, but they would reach the narrative. and this gets back to what i said earlier. i am not so sure even the failure of congress to work effectively maybe does next son to give executive branch more power. even if it's correct to give it to one person from one party and one perspective, that's where it breaks down.

if it's true we rely, then you should have more people saying we should preserve the policymaking power for one party always. especially when it walked in for four years. in the parliamentary system, you have a chance to change the government if they had done the wrong path. profoundly unrepresentative. one vote among day in the majority that wins one vote one day controls for years, thousands of decisions. as justice breyer and whiteside the redistricting case when you have a minority that is persistently shut out of the political process, that is not fair. that violates our concept of equal protection.

[inaudible] the president is not the sovereign. the citizens are. a question to you is ready to get these ideas from because it's totally different from my perception of reality if we have an imperial congress and presidency since 1913. >> yeah, the failure of our government to respond to the voters -- yeah, to the citizens. there's no question that is been a serious problem, sort of the washington mentality, the elected officials seem to be captured by the beltway lobbyists and other interest groups and it is a big problem, but it's a bigger problem with the president than with congress because the president, because so much power is shifted from

the executive office that congress is not mr.'s aunt said that this should be, but it's not as dangerous because it doesn't feel as much authority. but you're right, our government as a whole isn't as responsive as it should be and that's why at least if you allow people on both sides of the political aisle to have representation of the white house, the look of us are more representative government than we have today. >> high, even with the system, it seems to me the legislative idea so going to polarize political parties. my question is, why would this new proposal create more political gridlock if now there is a partisan proposal from the legislators sent to the white house, at least one or the other

is going to refuse to sign that particular legislation. >> here in front of the legislature a top about what happened when their bipartisan and in fact, one of the realities of the current system is that the president drives the agenda. the model was supposed to be the legislative proposal driven more by the congress, but that's really flipped and i don't think that would change so much. i still think initiatives would be driven but to the extent congress tries to drive the agenda. they know they're going to have a democratic and republican or libertarian, whatever. two people will represent a broad range of voters. partisan proposals are going to fare very well. they understandably want to get

something passed, we've got to pass something that will satisfy people on both sides of the aisle. again, it would be futile to send out proposals. one thing i do say when i talk about bipartisan white house and the senate heard he has a filibuster against a minority of choice that would leave the house with the one branch of our political government and all you need is a fair majority and you don't have to worry -- there's no filibuster. you might have to worry that your tea party. john donner, but you don't have to worry about democrats so much. one of the questions is would it be a good idea to give the minority more of a voice and have a filibuster while the house. filibusters have a bad representation. having served as a minority or,

sitting there watching and you're a spectator and filibusters have an important role in making sure minority has a voice. >> one of the incentives are identified, the import set forth by partisan proposal as an incentive to be this legacy. i guess my concern is there such thing as a bipartisan legacy item and if we think about the things in the news today, immigration, republicans wouldn't see that as a legacy item. for them it's a political necessity. it doesn't have to appeal to a greater population. republicans are man-made which means any attempt to curb it would not be a legacy item. universal health care for republicans is an opportunity to

buy health care if they don't want it. so given just how polarized parties are, are receiving so much that there could be a legacy item that's nonpartisan? >> could they really find a common ground for a legacy or is the republican view of the legacy so different from the democratic legacy that she would end up -- there really is sufficient common ground because republicans did campaign on universal health care. the difference was, should we rely on the market. mccain's idea we should have a voucher, give them the means to buy insurance and let them go out and buy it on the private market. but mccain's proposal would have been in some ways morally universal proposed role. it would've reached everybody, whereas we end up with 23 million americans once obama

carries fully implemented. there's still 23 million americans without insurance. i think legacy means solving problems others the economy, health care, immigration, so i think what happens is both will want to solve the same kind of problems when it comes to budget the republicans want more tax cuts -- more spending cuts and democrats want more tax increases and i think you end up with some pain it's about 50/50 that would really both of them would want to be prepared at the cab. i look at my governor, mitch dan knows who came in and who is so important for him to change and

shape things up and health care he pushed the expansion of our medicaid program with a cigarette tax increase. he wanted to leave a legacy with health care and the one thing that made a republican was in had a health savings account approach. i'll the other elements expanding medicaid should include working adults who didn't have kids and funding with the cigarette tax comes out of the democratic playbook. even our new governor, mike pence who has a republican study group is a member of congress who has an ultraconservative member is now funded a much more moderate tone amongst elitist legacy. so i think we would actually see a lot of accomplishment and sufficient common ground for that to happen. >> to follow-on to that point,

in addition to the question to which they could seize, can solutions to problems the bipartisan? can we in fact address climate change adequately, appropriately through some kind of solution that's what the difference or do we really need to kind of go all in on one party's vision of the world or not. in other words, what a two-party presidency give this a lowest common denominator that might not actually be what it really takes to solve health care problems for the tech craze says the climate change or any number or other big goblins be a >> that's an interesting question. maybe one side really is right

on some issues. i think as a general matter, both sides -- there's truth on each side of the other side is too slow to record highs and his excesses on each side that they are slow to recognize their own and the other side. when you see this going back to the shared decision-making, people with different tastes tend to get better results with their own perspectives to try to solve problems. i think what we end up with is once on our current system, once they push policies to access as we have been 1600 democrats, the other side comes in pushes policies under nixon and bush. i think that is what we would avoid is the access on either

side coming to solution. there's times where one side has a monopoly that are rare enough or as alexander hamilton said about the power, the harm of losing some good policies is much smaller than the benefit of preventing that policies. i worry about the downside is. you never want to put all your eggs in one day, even a year or two ago a great place to put all your money, but now it's not so good. diversification always works better. the diversification and political philosophy. >> we have time for one more question.

>> i'm glad to see examples from europe. i was born in a country where we had to pay ministers. one from chuck buyer, czechoslovakia investment exist anymore. one way to have a compromise is to split the country. an advantage of wanted to mention. my point of view -- the european point of view is the elections in the u.s. are too often too good and it's maybe an easier solution to give sailing for the budget before the election. if you're a member of the congress would want to be reelected, you need strong statement. so this may be easier to compromise when you have four years, just two years and so my

question is, wouldn't it be easier to change the election system in the u.s.? >> yeah, two quick questions. one is when you have shared power, cancer breakdown? viscous factor is very his very important to structure the single executives can be disastrous in many countries, africa, south america and come eastern europe learned. share governing can break down, too. it is important to structure and await their incentives because if you have escape option so you can leave behind your shared will become a dominant person, you're right. people will become dominant and get all the power. that's why it's critical to structure and away. the other part about our election are horrible. too much money and too much

posturing and i think actually this would be a better solution than the alternative because of the imperial presidency, high stakes of the election, the tremendous demand for the hundreds of millions or billions with the right response when it got so much at stake. as long as he's got that much at stake, people are going to find a way to spend money. we see one reform after another, so they limit how much you contribute to a candidate and a committee. limit how much you contribute to committee to set up your own personal, you know, kameny. just run it out of your business or home. if we say you could run a command is the guy who did the book and the documentary and hillary clinton. the money will find a way. but if you have a bipartisan president needs another power is

going to be shared, what are you going to gain out of spending all that money on the election? you can change which democrat or which are public and if you know there's always a democrat or republican or third party, power is shared, you just can influence. they were going to be missing some policy that are so important to people contributing money. the incentive to spend would drop considerably in this to be a very effect is way to get campaign finance reform. >> i want to thank you all for attending today and i know we might not all be leaving comebacker unit two presidents are better than one. most of us would agree to heads are better than one and i'm sure all of us would agree the one mind we've had sharing with us ideas here today and the result of his latest book, david

orentlicher is a creative one can articulate one end is given a tremendous amount to think about in a provocative approach so about improving the political process in the united states. i hope everyone join me in thanking professor orentlicher for a two-day seminar. >> thank you all for coming, for your great questions. thank you, c-span for coming,

the former chairman of the republican national committee from 2009 to 2011, and we will certainly get into a little bit of what i discovered as the chairman of the party and some of the things that we did as i like to say to turn the elephant between 2009 and 2011 which seems to be turning itself back for some reason. the author of a book called right now to deal with this age

we find ourselves where the political landscape is shifting almost daily. the attitudes of voters are much more open as we've seen recently and the thing that confronts them the most and that is citizenry who are actually engaged and know what's going on and are developing a political mind of their own and a new form of activism. i'm very honored to be joined by a dear friend and colleague i will let him go into the details of his background but needless

to say she had the presence of mind while in congress and has the presence of the voice today to really like a path because the future growth of republicanism and the republican party and as he will tell you and share his journey unlike not that different from mine has been a little bit more interesting at times, but mickey edwards is one of those great voices out there and so it's a real pleasure to welcome for an mickey edwards. >> thanks to key school having this event getting a chance to come and talk. it's a privilege because mike has been a good friend of mine for a long time, and i like to share the stage with him. so let me tell you a little bit about my book. it comes at this a little bit differently than what mike does

although when we sit and talk about issues we think very much alike. i have this new book out from yale university press, and the title to give you a little bit of an idea of where i'm coming from is the party's first is the people, yet it has a subtitle. parties versus the people doesn't sound really terribly exciting what people usually get most entranced by is the subtitle of the book the book started with an article in the atlantic magazine coming and the subtitle they put on the article is now the subtitle of the book is called how to turn republicans and democrats in two americans. and when i first heard that it sounds pretty harsh, and the others said did you read one you wrote? and so where i am coming from

and the talk that we just heard, one of the authors talking about the issues talked about structural questions. i actually talk about it as systemic issues. when i left congress i was there 16 years and a member of the republican leadership in the house coming and then i left and i went to teach and i taught at harvard for 11 years ended in princeton and one of the things that happens when you teach is you have a chance to step back from the daily grind. you are on when you are in the classroom, but then you have time to think and reflect and undeserved and decide what you see happening. and what i saw is no matter what the issue was and this is true whether bush was president or obama it didn't matter whether you're talking out an economic issue or a cabinet appointment or anything else. republicans were all on one side and republicans were on the other.

it no matter what the issue was our government had become more like the nfl, not like americans sitting down together to say here are the problems let's beat them and talk about them and solve them. instead of was how can i d.c. q? how can i teach you because you belong to a different club, you have a different label on your head, and i start thinking about why that was and how did we get to that point. if you read the papers every day coming you see here's two or three republicans talking to two or three democrats about doing something together, and that is front-page news we've actually got republicans and democrats working together so why is that the way it is? i go back and i thought about to the only thing i ever found that our first presidents agreed with each other is don't create political parties. washington, adams, they don't create political parties.

they had them but they weren't like these. me against you just because you belong to the other club. why did we get to that point? and i concluded you all know there is the role of money and i'd like to talk about those who but i want to give you a couple of examples on the political system we've created triet so i was giving a talk to the american academy for the advancement of science, and i know nothing about science, nothing about technology. i should admit that since i had to vote on issues about science and technology which i didn't understand, but i looked at -- sure is a starting point. what does the constitution envisioned in terms of how we as a people are going to govern ourselves? one thing coming it envisions that because the power of this country is not in the white

house, the power is in the congress, almost every major power, war, spending, taxing, uprooting trees, the cabinet appointments, everyone is a congressional power and the power was put there where the people themselves could control the outcomes so the idea was the people are going to go to the polls and elect their leaders. well what happens if it's not the voice of the people? that's being heard so i want to give you two quick examples of the party system that we created and what happens. when joe biden became vice president there was an opening now in the u.s. senate in delaware. everyone knew who was going to be the new senator, it was mike castle, former governor and members of congress, and he had challenged in a primary by a lady named christina adamle and she beat him. two things happened.

one, there are 1 million people than delaware. christine o'donnell only got 30,000 votes. so why didn't he just beat her in the general election clacks because delaware has a crease dewaal it's called the sore loser that if you run for your party's nomination and you lose your name can't be on the ballot in november. those 30,000 people kept all of the million people of delaware from choosing who they wanted in the u.s. set. so go over to utah where senator mike castle was running -- you should have put him in the senate, like steel and mike castle, i'm not going to give you those, robert benet was running for reelection of the senate in utah. they have a convention. there are 3 million people in utah, 3500 were at the

convention. 2,000 voted for other candidates other than robert benet. because of those 2,000 people, his name couldn't be on the ballot in november for the 3 million people of utah because they had this sore loser law. how many states have this? 46. 46. here's another provision of the constitution. every senator and representative must be an actual inhabitants of the state from which they are elected. the idea is if i were running for congress year i would know you and the people of an adolescent or economic interest, you know me and my reputation in the community, that's the idea. but what happens when you allow the political parties to control redistricting?

if the idea is that congressmen and women are supposed to know the community so frattali person paucity i am a city guy. i've been on the farm once or twice. i had no idea what i was looking at and i am a republican that was selected in a district that hadn't elected a republican since 1928 and there were 74% democrat. democrats couldn't figure out how i want. my mother didn't know, but i did. so the other party at that time controlled the state legislature and the graybill to regional my district from the middle of oklahoma, all of new england, it's not just a small place, from the middle of oklahoma all the way to kansas, halfway across to arkansas and what happened? i was now representing wheat farmers and cattle ranchers and i didn't understand their interests and i couldn't speak

for them. they were entitled to somebody that cut the both of those examples i gave you of because allow the political parties to control our electoral process and that we wonder how come our congress is controlled by the hard-line ideologues from the cyber partisan who promised never to compromise with the other side. it's because they know that if they compromise they are going to get primary and. they are going to get knocked off in a primary where small numbers of fighter partisan ideologues dominates the outcome. how did we allow these political clubs to be a will to control who we vote for? and with the district -- i was an active republican and the party. i ran and started thinking leader what have we done to ourselves?

when you see a congress where people will not sit down and talk to somebody on the other side of the it's because we set up a system that elect those kind of people and gives them the power so just one more quick thing and then we will get into this conversation. then you get elected to congress and you take the oath of congress which by the way is not an oath to be loyal to the president and it's not to be loyal to your party leaders or to your party it's to be loyal to the country. and you they are elected at the same time i was. i thought now we are all together. the parties that is that here we're all members of the united states congress that lasted about three minutes until we started voting on who would be speaker and who would dominate each committee in congress. if you have been to the house floor or if you have seen the house floor, if somebody speaks

here without this panel, you have a lectern. they're already is. not in the u.s. house. there are two lecterns, the republicans stand at one to talk to republicans, democrats and another to talk to democrats. if you want to go have a cigarette or eat a sandwich or make a phone call you go to the cloakroom but there isn't one. there's one for republicans and democrats can we operated the united states congress the branch of government with all the power that is supposed to make decisions for the country. we treated as rival clubs. at the bottom line for what i did in my book is not electing stupid people we are not electing and patriotic people. we are electing good people who are trapped in a system that we have created the three words and

stability, rewards intransigence , that punishes cooperation and compromise and then we are shocked at the result we get so that's what my book is about and i am glad to talk about that. i want to hear about my next book but that's where i was coming from. >> that is pretty scary but that's our congress, that our government and that's part of the political process. now, has mickey was laying out in the first scenario, the race and the christine o'donnell race, both of those happened on my watch as national chairman. and i remember meeting with a group of very, very excited and some argue excitable republicans about a month after i had become chairman who were laying out for me a new strategy that was

beginning to emerge from iran of the country and they called themselves to a party years. i said what's the deal and they were very clear about the focus that they wanted to bring to the discussion come to the debate about the role of government, the size of government, the expense of government. so we met and at that time they began to talk about being outside the party to read and part of my responsibility as the national chairman looking at the political process to elective individuals like mickey to the congress is to make sure we have as queen of the process as possible that we don't cut our nose off to spite our face in the effort to getting to victory. in other words, but the race that matters, about all that matters is the one in november, not in september or june or

february, meaning the primary process. but what i recognized very early on a new but is this tension that was beginning to build within the political structure at the primary level. at the popoff point, the volcanic moment was new york 23, the 23rd congressional district of new york, the spring of 2009 where the party officials of the local party decided to go around the ordained a political process in other words having a primary, but instead takes their nominee for the frustrated voices of activists within that particular congressional district. he was put on the ballot as a republican nominee and that was

one of the key turning points politically within the gop of activist tea party voices raising up against the system. part of my job as the national chairmen, and something that i wanted to capture and i thought and i believe i captured in the book was coming out of the system that we had already watch and witnessed devastating losses in 2006 of which i was one of the casualties in my senate run here in maryland. in 2008 presidential the party had lost its brand, it had become tarnished to the point it was basically sound. we had to be put on the table whether it was philosophically, politically, policy lies, our donors were beginning to dry up the conference by holding back

their checks because they denied the party the direction was going to be the republican as some had began to take hold in the last term of the bush administration. so a lot of the economic conservatives who would eventually form themselves into the tea party really begin to figure it out and find another way to assert pressure back on of the establishment of the party to read as the grassroots activist, i found myself in a very interesting position because lenders to both sides to the establishment to sort of protect the status quo and other words the process to get a clean primary to go fight the democrats in november and the frustration of this new emerging voice of activists who were upset that the party had rolled back on its principles to the

economics. not social. one of the big misnomers about the tea party is that it is somehow the social conservative movement. it is not. what it has morphed into and has subsequently become is very different from the first meeting i had into a fury of 2009 as they were beginning to emerge from the country. and does use all played out in the town hall meetings that summer. you didn't see or hear these voices raging on abortion or marriage or social issues. they were raising against the violation of the constitution, the proper role of the congress to come to the table with a budget to manage the spending of the country etc. so you have these different dynamics that were beginning to emerge in some cases sub merge and part of my responsibility as the chairman is to try to figure out the best

route to win in november so in looking at the potential candidates to help me make the argument that the elephant had to turn and focus on what the citizens of the country wanted done and to of those individuals that summer happened to be chris christi of new jersey in the bob macdonald of virginia. when you look at where the party is now and where it needs to go, those governors i believe are examples of the future direction in many respects. you have a blue state like new jersey with a governor, republican governor-elect christie who was able to navigate but more importantly on a foreign policy position to take the full use of the party, articulate them and translate them into the policy while is

very, very smart and reflective of what the people want. however you have a competing interest that's grown in the two years between -- since 2011 that pushed back against that because it's now become intertwined with a social agenda, and it's kind of lost some of the economic edge with the success of obamacare and other successes the administration had so politically the party finds itself against the proverbial wall and the direction it takes in my estimation will determine when or not it goes the way of the whigs, or it actually becomes a party that competes for a governable majority were in the future and that ties back to what mickey has written in his book, and i think his book really reflects the attitude of voters out, this idea can you as

an elected official be more like us where i am sitting on the political process side, the party organization and structure, the challenge is to create a structure in which the voters feel that their ideas and their views are respected and heard what as they go through the overall process of running for office and talking about message points and stuff like that, so it becomes a very interesting dynamic for the political party that largely helped sway in the 1980's and 1990's and much of the first part of the 2000 s, at least 2,004. 2005 is when the wheels began to come off and since then, they're has been a massive struggle as we see get played out from candidates who talk about vaginal probes and legitimate

rape verses those that want to talk like a chris christi on how to govern a state in the country in these changing times. so what i tried to do it in my book of the political strategy standpoint right now is to get the party to focus on both its challenges and opportunities right now and the like any good 12 step program you have to begin with acknowledging you have a problem. and our problem is us, largely what we think of ourselves, what we value, how we articulate those principles and ideals that are part of the famine organization of the party in the world that looks vastly different if he entered the

republican primary today, he would lose. so for all the stock and embraced of ronald reagan they are doing a disservice in my estimation to his honor and his memory because they but not elect him today given his stance on immigration as president and governor of texas taxes and some of the other social issues and goes to the heart of the struggle that mickey and i had to deal with the inside of the party trying to get the elephant to recognize its core and therefore word in this world is changing around us. and not necessarily throwing your finger up to the wind and testing the waters every 30

minutes, but standing on firm principal ground that recognizes the value of the american dream, that recognizes that these lawyers of those that ought to be part of the dreamed whether they are here now or coming in the future that understands the direction demographically that this country is taken and 30 years it will be a majority minority country. what does that mean? held to the political parties deal with that? the licht surface to the minorities that frankly what you don't believe me the change happens around, not within. the gop instead of throwing black faces and hispanic faces up their saying we know who won, too, should be embracing the movements going on in the various communities. in other words, shut up and

listen and pay attention. so, for example, when my friend senator randy paul goes to harvard university, you don't go to howard university and tell them what they already know, you don't insult their intelligence that way. you bring them why they should listen to you what value are you offering, how will you make there opportunity to access the american dream as they have defined it real? the political parties find themselves and i think the democrats are going to find this when they get to 2016 particularly if hillary is not the nominee of the party those tensions that exist within the party began to get exposed. it will be on the left, not the right. moderate conservative democrats

will tangle with the senate deacons senator flatted progressive democrats just as you have seen in the republican party since ronald reagan stepped off the state and since that in blue is no longer there, but ideological glue he was able to bring the right, left and center reasonably together. you see now with the crackings that occur as the foundation. so the political party for the challenge right now is how you begin to mend those before the foundation completely breaks in light of the demographic political economic shift that is occurring in the country. right now the goal is to recognize the challenges, had met the feelings that we have committed and then begin to turn the elephant in a direction that points to the future standing on a foundation that is all about

individual opportunity, of of individual traces and freedoms and decisions. we cannot be a party that says we are about individuals making choices, but then we want to limit some of those choices. we cannot be the party that says we are about creating economic opportunities but then not put policies on the table that basically even surgery to those economic opportunities particularly for the poor and those that are at the margins. we can be a party that speaks to a limited role for government without being anti-government, without being disrespectful of those institutions that heretofore have been beneficial in helping people get up and move forward. the challenge than for government, sure you saw this in the congress it has the tendency to throw stuff out and then not

follow up and not manage the opportunity, not managed responsibly their resources and that creates the tension we see today where we are not going to spend one more dime until you cut and we aren't going to cut until we have the resources come so the back-and-forth has now bled into the political what was policy has now become more political which makes it much more difficult to do policy. >> i agree largely with mike in terms of changes the would be good for the republican party to make. i can think of changes that would be good for the democratic party to make. i really don't care about either one. i spent my life -- and jerry -- the life i was telling before about how we run our primaries, how we ll the ideologues of both parties to control the outcome

has driven me in a different direction and while that story that i told about the examples of the 46 states that allow underrepresented minorities to be on the delicate and so forth and naturally optimistic. 40% of americans today register as independent. usa today had a big article about the american people are fleeing from the political parties. in 2006 from the people in washington state were to have a petition and the constitution. the people of washington state having followed all of this, having followed the republicans versus the democrats on everything, there is unity. all the republicans agree on one thing they are against whatever

the democrats are for and all of them agree they are against whatever the republicans are for and the people in washington state said enough of that nonsense and they went to the polls on an initiative they created what, and they got rid of the party primaries. and they got rid of the ability of the political parties to control what congressional districts were shaped like. 13 states have now done that. that was in 2006. in 2010, california did it, california got rid of party primaries and party control of the redistricting. the bill to do it in texas has been reintroduced. it's been reintroduced in arizona. but the people are saying we want more democracy in our democracy. we want a system that lets the majority of people that want

candidates to have to appeal in order to move forward to all of the electorate not just the ideologues, so i think the people are finally getting that point, they are fed up to here as i have become. i am republican. always have been one. i have a lot of friends who are democrats. i love them all, and i want them to sit down together. we want you to do something for this school which deserves whatever good you can do for it. if you want to do something good for this school, a new facility, a new building, where should it be, how much should it cost, what should you do in the building, how many rooms, what equipment coming you all get together and form of group and say let's make a decision and not one person in this entire room what say okay all the republicans sit over there and the democrats over there and

let's come up with different plans and fight it out. we don't do that except the way we run our country. and we cannot continue to do that. so i hope that the republican party does make the changes mike talks about and i've talked about, but i hope ultimately our decisions don't get made by what's good for my party, both by what's good for my country. >> we have some time left for questions from anyone in the audience if you have any. there is a microphone right back there if you could advance to the microphone that way they will take it up. >> i would like each of you -- me you can start first with your thoughts on citizens united, the short-term and long-term. >> citizens united.

i have to be careful. i am a lawyer so i don't know if i'm allowed to say that the justices for smoking something illegal. the only thing i will say about that is if corporations are people, give me a break. first of all, i am not going to challenge the knowledge that supreme court justices have about the constitution. but they obviously skipped corporate law because corporate law makes it clear that there's a distinction between corporations and persons. i have a chapter on this in my book, and i probably have one of the more extreme positions coming and that is that when you go to cast a vote, there is nobody in line with you accept another human being. and that when you give money to the campaign there should be

nobody giving money except a human being, no corporate money, no labor union money, no political party money, no money except from human beings in limited amounts cannot casino owners in las vegas but putting tens of millions of dollars into a campaign that's the way to fix the money system. >> so, how would you address what the mayor is doing in new york right now? basically threw his pack, based on what you are saying that he would outlaw something like that. >> i think what mayor bloomberg should try to do is encourage as many people as possible to individually give money to defend the people he's trying to defend. i'm not trying to take people out of the system i just want it to be people, and i don't want -- you know, i agree with bloomberg, but i don't think it should be okay i've got more money than you so i'm going to determine the outcome.

he is an articulate guy. going to the states and say i want you to put the money of to help elect. >> the citizens united case, again it is one of those things that happened on -- what happened when i was rnc chairman as that also happened during that time we had a case before the court as well as a thing apart from citizens union as companion or sister case which spoke to a lulling the parties. our argument was a third party entity pact shouldn't be the source of campaign funds but the money should be back within the political parties. mccain-feingold did that if you have unlimited wealth and you

want to share that with the political parties you could only to the extent of $30,000 a year before mccain-feingold that money that we see getting poured into the packs, millions of dollars in individual could write. the difference was writing the check to the political party you have full disclosure. we had to record the date, the time, the amount of the job, etc. to get all of that pertinent information and then put that on the public record within 30 days. citizen united says okay not only is the corporation a person for purposes of campaign finance law, but we will let that person do what no other person in the country can and that is to give unlimited amounts without any record. unlimited amounts without any record. so there is no way of knowing that you just wrote $25 million

checks to a pack from a democrat republican, doesn't matter, they know you wrote it but we've the citizens don't. they claim we will disclose that information. okay, selectively because if you say don't disclose i'm not writing a check, what do you think they are going to do? so i think what you are going to see is over the next couple of years the congress particularly if the republicans lose the house next year, the congress will proactively go after citizens united and put in place some of the controls of the notification identification and record as i think should have been done in the first instance. yes, sir? >> it's my view that political divisiveness, especially hard line political divisiveness has increased in direct correlation to the incessant pounding of

talk radio. i'm wondering if you have any comments, role of talk radio and the formulation of policy especially within the party itself. >> there is no doubt that talk radio has been to the political process and certainly to the political parties. the growth at least from the republican and the conservative side really hearkens back to the only viable outlet that a lot of conservatives felt they had to express their views on a lot of issues and hence you see for example the success of the conservative talk radio in various forms and the failure of the liberal talk radio and america and other efforts it is the way that the political process for those activists unfolds itself.

they want the issue and to count, count compound. a lot of folks on the left its more visual and television oriented. if you look at msnbc, my network where i looked it's much more oriented that way. the impact however on the political process has been profound for both the radio and the television aspect, and i think you see now both fox and msnbc and cnn to a certain degree trying to adapt to this landscape that we have already talked about in terms of the attitudes of the voters being less edgy and much more looking for the conversation. i don't want to hear you yell and scream and shout and talk over me. i don't want to hear you have to agree with me. i want to ury solution to the fact it's been unemployed for 18 months.

for $50,000 versus $20,000.10 years ago. these are the new realities i think we are beginning to shake some of that. we have the edginess of the conservative talk radio with rush limbaugh and a few others, and i think that hasn't been helpful as we have seen the case is a good example of not helping the the date from the talk-radio standpoint simply because it puts the party and a cut the candidates running for office in the position of having to go out and either slam rush or do the right thing and say he is bonehead and stupid and we saw how that played out. we saw how that played out in that case. that is a real dynamic within the party to contend with also i will say it's getting less and less so.

>> i want to have just one thing. i totally agree, talk radio and talk tv or a major problem. they just high cut the anger and the instability a lot. we don't do a very good job of putting the blame on the people that own those networks and make their money off of touring plays into the political system, but its more complicated than that. they are a part of the problem that there's been a lot of studies that show with the exception of the party in this room while all of you are not part of this but everybody else you know talks only to people who think the way they do. you and your friends generally all watched the scene shows, read the same columnists and read and watch in order to reinforce the positions you already have rather than open to listening to different points of

view with somebody who thinks differently than you do and that's a real problem. that's what gives talk radio and tv the immense power that they've got and so we would like to reform that but we have to reform some things in the culture so that we have more critical thinking that we have more people who understand six and are willing when the year a different point of view listen instead of just forming a rebuttal in their mind while the other person is talking so talk radio and tv are not the whole problem. >> i occasionally talk to people whose ideas are off-the-wall. do you listen to fox news all the time clocks and then i stop my conversation because these people aren't looking at the norm.

they're looking somewhere appear with their ideas. my next comment to mickey, michael, i watch you all the time on msnbc and sometimes i wish you could get a chance to finish your statement. when you are speaking about bipartisanship i remember when tip o'neill and ronald reagan were good friends that by partisanship always started at the water's edge and they're used to be a lot of bipartisanship and it's only recently that this debate are not increasing the national debt and turning the whole country upside down.

i think the u.s. to agree on the national debt and then he changed his mind on that. so, what do you see happening in terms of getting -- and i say the republican party closer to the minimum where it used to be. i come from new york and we have seen so many good republican senators to washington. >> let me disabuse folks of one particular idea and i will be interested to get mickey's review on this one. i've come to the conclusion as a native washingtonian that grew up in washington, d.c. who has for me my local news was national news, it was what was going on in washington. it was not national.

it was backyard stuff. and i agree with you, i have watched that transition away from this idea of bipartisanship. the last truly bipartisan era for that we had was with clinton and gingrich and we saw what could be accomplished. it started off a little rocky but both sides recognized very quickly that if they were going to tackle the debt and deficit, if they were going to try to work towards a balanced budget, if they really wanted to begin to work at the water's edge on entitlement reform for entitlement programs like welfare they would have to do this thing called a consensus. they would have to find that sweet spot. in 2000, all of that change. we became red states, blue states. the strategy implemented by grove and the team and the presidential cycle said that this paradigm of us versus them, read a verse is blue,

conservative versus liberal. overlaid with this idea of compassion conservatism but the underlying was really in your face your mama, too to this alive concluded that in the last ten, 12 years this bipartisanship no longer exists. when you hear members of congress talking by partisanship they are lobbying. it's not going to happen because they are not going to do it. as mickey illustrated the system does not allow for that anymore. what you see now that i think really speaks to this next stage of where we need to go is consensus and we begin to see it on an issue like the guns where you have senator pat to me from pennsylvania and joe manchin from west virginia find the consensus, the sweet spot on an issue that no one in washington

thought we could get anywhere near some resolution what the script on immigration reform what happened there. everyone at the beginning of immigration reform thought this train was going to rollout and we would get it done. they haven't been able to nail down the consensus yet on what to do and where that is going to go. succumbing you still see on the right and left that sort of well i'm not sure. so that's what i think the new dynamic is, whether the leaders, and i use that term loosely can find that sweet spot consensus, the point that says i know you've got to give up something and i've got to give up something. it's not about party or anything other than the people. the space in the middle of the sweet spot it may be center-right or center-left, but it's in that area that people

want us to be. that, ladies and gentlemen, you should pay close attention to to see whether the white house, the senate, the congress can find that sweet spot on these complicated issues as we have began to see emerge on things like gun-control. >> mike and i both agree that on the republican party, our party, we do have the problem. the democrats do, too. we used to call them old evils, the conservative democrats are all gone. max baucus found that out very quickly and others did as well. the same thing has happened in both parties there is focus on republicans, but the democrats have lost their conservative and to become members of congress, too. i was in congress in those days. now we can look back and talk about bipartisanship at the water's edge. it wasn't that way. it wasn't that way in vietnam or

the issues in central america hitting if you know, in nicaragua, el salvador. it was those kind of foreign policy issues. there was a speech given by a senator saying that by partisanship ends the water's edge but it was never really true so we have always had those divisions. what's different now is that we always had some people in the house and senate that would reach out and bring people together so they could say how can we move the country forward? you and i have strong disagreements that we have to make sure the water stays pure, we have to mature the bridges don't collapse and our troops get their supplies. that's missing now and it's because the primary system if you say look we disagree about a lot let's find the area where we can agree then we are both going to get attacked and our primary fox so that's the real problem that i see to it >> one last question. do you think obama has gone a long way in his budget proposal

by curtailing some entitlements and so forth to get the conversation started again or is it dead in the water? >> i gave him props' the other day because it puts them in a box right now to have to begin to negotiate the senate finally after four years has come to the table with a budget. the white house has a budget, republicans have a budget so we have the makings of something getting done. i think the president talking about the change cpi which is indexing the indexing of inflation becomes a good starting point. the president is asking for $600 million of additional revenue getting post a $400 billion of revenue in

january there is no mood on the republican party for that at this point which is we see how the spending side places itself out of the debate. thanks very much. >> yes, sir to be a >> i am a senior and captain at ki school. congressman my dad served with you in congress. >> a great man. absolutely. >> i am a democrat but i followed with great interest the candidacy of inglis kaine who was a republican turned independent and he seemed to me to represent the idea of post partisanship working for the people. but even though you said 40% of the registered voters in the united states are independent it's incredibly hard for them to

get on the ballot. i think one of the down sides of the primary system in washington and california is that a completely shots out of them in the general election and so i am wondering over the next couple of years what you see as being the volubility of independent non-partisan candidates and how do you think if they are to become viable. i know you have to be very proud it's hard for somebody as a green party libertarian much of independent party to have much chance to succeed and the system that we have. but what has happened with the california and the washington primary, so even if you end up because it is an attorney general election in a very liberal district to seven in

california the berman race, the liberal district it's not ever going to elect a republican but those that end up in the primary in this case both liberal and the democrats have to appeal to the third party. they have to appeal to independents and appeal to libertarians and green and so forth in order to win. totally change the dynamic in that race and it's done in washington. so, i do think that is one of the things. but in this can -- there is a very positive, they have a little bit of a - that comes out of that, she was a good guy and it's good to see an independent elected as an independent running as an independent. the problem is he said absolutely. he had to caucus with the democrats because the parties controlled the system and if he doesn't caucus with the party he can't get a committee assignment and he can't get -- we have to break that, too where it's not party leaders that decide whether or not you can get a

committee assignment. >> that's the key from the political side of this i've always said we will not have a viable third-party movement effort in this country if it is from the top down. we've seen them pass, people running for president as independent and things like that. it's got to be organic from the bottom-up where the citizens decide i want you, sir search or the independent activist to be our representative and then that begins to form an organization around them that begins to crack at the gop and the democratic system which is deliberately designed to keep everyone else out. >> whether it is on redistricting, whether it is on getting on the ballot, it can be a nightmare and help you if you want to try to petition something to the voters referendum. again, the system is designed for very limited access, very

few players, and those who are players in the system already are protected by it. incumbency has enormous value. until you begin to break that, very little will change and the way you do is from the bottom-up with activists pushing up the system. we saw bipartisanship in california and washington. the republican leadership and the democratic leadership came together to fight against of the one time they wanted to be about them. >> thank you kevin >> yes, sir. >> are we done? i think we are done. >> we just got the cut