that's just come after spending over $200 million on this health initiative. you have to have the will, show the courage and leadership to say enough is enough. when you find yourself in a hole stop digging and we're still digging. what we need to do is transition to something else whether it's a federal exchange or going in with another state, whether it's connecticut or hawaii or somebody else. there's other alternatives to what we are doing. we have a custom-made i.t. structured no one else has. thank heavens. because they can't afford it. lee: you've got $200 million into the game and you're going to just tweak it a little bit, keep it going. take a lot of buses like bernie set and let's go up to montréal. i did shoot and $18 extra with all my orthopedic guys. i've had four operations up there. i get my implant and getting hit with a line drive and knocked out, i get them for one-third

the cost of there. i pay out of pocket i don't usually insurance. i go ou up there because it's quality job and everything else. i will drive the bus. let's go up and get whatever we need. all the stuff you need, high-priced drugs in will get them for 10 cents on the dollar. the system down is broken. we think we're going to fix it, this little state? no, you're not. we don't need borders. that's her problem on this planet are too many borders, we've got to get rid of them. that's the thing. you make this informed with new brunswick and harness the energy right there from the tides going up and down. i'll tell you, we won't have any problems. get regional. minter: i will say it is the rising cost of health care that is really breaking the banks of our families, our school budgets and rising property taxes and

our state budget. what we need to do first and foremost is address the rising health care costs. that's why we need to reform the we need to continue on our health care reform agenda. moving away from the current system of incentivizing more fees, more visits, more pills and procedures. and instead focus on investing in health outcomes. that's the kind of reform that i'm looking forward to moving on. with respect to vermont health connect, look, this has failed many vermonters and i want to say that is undermining our government. i of overseeing large i.t. projects in a $600 million budget. i know it is not simple to cut the plug. we have to have a plan if we cannot make dysfunctional and i look at the end of the assessment, understand what the opportunities are, but we have to have a plan that doesn't kick people off their health care

trend what do we do with medicare beneficiaries if we scrapped them lex. minter: what i'm saying is that we can't just scrap vermont health connect investment a plan to do so, precisely because it will cost, we have investment of over $24 million up front, those are state dollars not federal. and i understand that 17,000 people will lose their health care benefits. the issue is the isn't simple to jump to the federal exchange because the our programs actually support so many different programs. which the federal exchange will not cover. if i learned we can't make the system work, i will come up with a plan that is a very thoughtful about not allowing people to lose their health care. scott: first of all 3000 people in from iran from a health connect to pretty much tell you

it's not working. we need to pull the plug on a. it's as simple as that the it was promised in 2013, 2014 to 2015, 2016 that we could fix it by governor shamblin and it hasn't been. it's time to say enough is enough. move to something else. as far as medicaid is concerned, there's other initiatives. when i spoke to connecticut they said they could handle the medicaid portion within their i.t. structured. hawaii had the exact same contractor that we did to begin with. they moved to the federal system. they kept a portion of always build for medicaid. we could talk to them and i'm sure they could give us some opportunity and the ideas for transitioning to the federal exchange without losing anyone off medicaid. this isn't going to happen overnight your it's something we just need to transition to over the next year. have a plan for doing so and i'm

absolutely positive we can do it. >> if you are elected which is for universal health care or an extension of doctor dinosaur which has been proposed to him our kids up to 26, 27 to stay on the program for children? and if so how would you pay for it because it seems to be an expensive endeavor? lee: run your children more at a younger age. that's the key. you get them out, you wanted to you create your own endorphins to have a healthier body. you quit eating the junk we have and could have a much healthier environment. i'll tell you, i've seen david reed right now is on his deathbed in greensboro. he fought on mount suribachi. he's 92. i shook hands with them. about the top 14 acres of his farm. that's the guy. i'm so embarrassed about the

baby boomers and what we've done on this planet with medicare and everything else that, i'm ashamed to be taking any benefits from this federal government. these are the guys that did it. when my father was on his deathbed and he was laying there, the psychiatrist ghost mr. lee, how you get a quick he goes i feel great today. he alwayhad a great attitude like that. i look at the bill, $475 for saying i feel great. that's what's wrong with america. minter: what i focus on for health care reform is reducing the cost of the system. let me to you what i saw yesterday at cathedral square, a senior housing development in burlington. they are using a program called sash consummate work unsupportunsupport ed when i was a legislative. they're providing health care to seniors in their homes when they need it most. regular routine wellness care. deal with the demonstrated? they discuss one of the outcomes and one of the cost. that providing care for seniors

in their homes when they need it is actually reducing significantly anybody's use of hospitals which, of course, is the most expensive care. they have demonstrated over $1500 of savings per patient or year. look what we can do when we think differently. how do we provide more resources prevention and community based health? how do we incentivize that? the health care system we have incentivizes more people go into the hospital in treating then there. we got to build a system that can actually invest in health. scott: i believe everyone deserves access to affordable health care. i think that's a common goal that all of us probably share. we seem health care spending go up 20% in the last six years in part because we spend time on the premise that just didn't pan out.

as i talk about transitioning from the vermont health connect to something else is a first step at least to take that structurally. you asked about dr. dinosaur. the rand corp. is doing a study on the at this very moment. i'm looking forward to the results of the. it's something the legislature to pass for. i'm concerned about taking that portion. when you look at the overall population of vermont, that's part of our problem. we have an aging demographic. there's less people, let's of our youth. when you have a healthy youth, that is what drives down the cost because they don't use the system as much. we need more youth in the state in order to do that. if you take a portion out for dr. dinosaur you elevate the cost or everyone else from 26 to 65. >> moderator: we will take a very short break and when we return, members of the studio audience will questions for the candidates. you are watching the google

debate on vermont pbs. >> moderator: welcome back. this is the gubernatorial to date here on vermont pbs. candidate bill lee, sue minter and phil scott here for another half hour debating the issues we have members of our studio audience are going to question them. first up, richard smiles from essex. >> for all of you, your positions please on universal background checks for gun ownership in vermont. lee: we've got the information you find a discussed in the give them a psychological test, too. guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. unit, make bullets, reduce the size but i believe everybody is entitled. i'm not going to tamper on the second amendment rights. but if you read it right, a well

armed militia. you've got to join the militia. i will run it. you come to me, i will not sink into a foreign war. you join up, we'll fix roads and highways. we will increase, lower the hunting light and details because i'm am a firm believer in allowing people to get out and shoot. i'll introduce has inspected it's going to get warmer. there's nothing better than a rooster jumping out from under your legs and your pointer thing on him and you knock them down and that dog goes and gets it and brings it back and drops it right at your feet. because we're all hunters and gatherers. we've got to continue that and i'm a firm believer but yeah, i would check everybody. half the people, if you want a gun, you don't deserve a gun. minter: i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and vermonters rights to own guns. i am going to on the hunting heritage but i do believe it is time for commonsense gun safety.

i support background checks for all guns are quite? because we have a national -- sadly we are not immune here in vermont. i know what is really happening because i've been told that we don't have a problem. but i see no problem and it's often behind closed doors. i'm talking about domestic violence. in vermont the majority of our homicides our domestic violence related, and the majority of those are with guns. in states that have background checks for all handguns, 46% fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partner. so i say yes, i'm going to stand up for gun safety. i'm going to protect women behind close the closed doors aw stand up to the gun lobby. scott: vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. i'm not advocating for any changes in our gun laws. i believe we do it right in

vermont tha but i believe we shd enforce the laws we have but i'm not advocating for any changes in our gun laws. >> moderator: richard, sufficient answers? thank you very much. next up from now. spent i'd like to ask e.g. what is your plan for the struggling our economy, especially the conventional dairy farmers where their only option for survival is to become organic? and how could we help them transition into that? >> moderator: let's go from the right to the left with mr. scott first. scott: we have to recognize that the dairy industry in particular is one of the most important industries as part of our traditional heritage, something we need to protect when people come to vermont, recreate year for tourism and so forth. they rely on the farmers, the dairy farmers in particular to have those views and so forth.

we have to work hand in hand with them. we can't rely, we can't force them into paying. i know we talked a lot about water quality in vermont and we need to clean it lake champlain the we can't but on the backs of just the farmers. we are all in this together. we need to work together. we've all benefited from the farming community over the last couple of centuries. so we need to protect them as well and recognize they are an important part of our economy. minter: you know, right now farmers in our state are really struggling. of course, we have very low milk prices, and there are additional requirements been placed upon them for our water quality. all of which i will support as governor. i know our dairy farmers need technical assistance. they need support and best practices to ensure their management. i agree that maybe some who if they can transition to organic

with the price of a much higher, that might be a sustainable option for them. i will have a secretary of agriculture who will be looking to support those conventional farmers would also help with that transition. i also have a program of innovative vermont. it looks to drive innovation in our four key sectors of our economy. one of them is our farm food and forced economy. bill was talking about the great pizza creams and all the exciting innovative farms and food industries in the northeast kingdom vanessa. we've got jasper hill cheese. we have incredible dairy products. this is the future of vermont. this renaissance of our great agricultural economy. lee: organic, they have to go organic that you've got to break from monsanto, the arthur daniels midland you've got to quit killing all of our kids and

everything with all the high-tech foods that are going into us. we got to be close to the vest. mr. kobak to the hexagonal double digging technique that they used in indonesia where you feed twice as many people on 18 your plan. wants to start adapting, this'll be the breadbasket. we are going to be fine in this state. we get are from smaller, we'll sell to all new york, all of boston, montréal, everybody is going to buy. everybody will be getting on its we've got to get on it first. we've got to be out the first, get the markets and get a thousand chickens at the most, all organic the be diversified. let's go back to the way from what used to be done and how do they do? all right. next up is jared sullivan from south burlington and then after that will be frank the while they're making their way to the microphone i'd like to remind folks this is the first of four thursdays in a row on vermont

pbs for debates. mark those debt and please do join us. >> this is to all the candidates. what would you say to try to win over voters who especially in this political climate of extreme polarization feel jaded, disenfranchised and and testing of government? minter: i've given my whole adult life to public service and i actually think our government is something that we need to believe in, trust in and feel confident about. that's why i've worked very hard in my public service to focus on being accountable to taxpayers.

we really have lost faith in our government i want to make sure we know that government can function and is there when we needed, just like we did. we had over 500 miles of road damaged overnight. we had to pull together the i was at the transportation agency to emergency operations has been flooded out the it was up to us at the state agency of transportation to pull together, to innovate, to partner and to do what nobody thought possible. actually reconnect those roads, rebuild the bridges in less than four months. that's what government can do as it builds great partnerships. that's a we are therefore. i want to be a governor that helps make sure we are providing great service to the customers can great accountability to the taxpayers. lee: first thing he got to do is quit watching cnn and fox news. that's the start to only watch

this channel to only listen to this radio station. it's the only thing. amy goodwin is a good friend of mine, sister-in-law. i go way back to common cause, their share. i go back but government is not the problem the problem is the interest groups from the cold brothers, the guys who are african dicing and see everything is bad and the sky is falling, the sky is falling. i thought it was a beautiful day. thank you. scott: it is an issue right here in the state. a lack of faith and trust in government and across our nation. we may see what's happening on the presidential scale its alarming. what we can do is act of programming. 20 years ago i didn't have a political bone in my body. had interest in politics but i started complaining about what was going on in montpelier and decide to run, step the. i've been in the minority my whole political life for 16

years but was then able to get something done because i've always been able to reach across the aisle, bring consensus, bring people together. and look to what we should be doing. we should be public servants, not politicians. that's what we need to do. just acted properly. i was put in a position of leadership when i was in the senate by then senator welch, congressman welch but wasn't because we agree politically or philosophically. we trusted each other from a hand to hand basis. it was just as simple as that. just lack of faith and trust is what we need to rebuild. >> moderator: frank from burlington is up next. >> thank you. i was glad to you speaking about a balanced budget early. i think i listened to that every two years.

i've also heard that the deficit has been rising every year, after every budget every year and that a continues to grow and grow. i think i'm tonight it was 40 million i thought i read 120 million, i'm not sure which is which. even though i've heard it's so bad that the budget is a deficit like that, the sky hasn't fallen. in fact what i see around vermont, life looks wonderful. i have to make the reservation to get into a restaurant sometimes in burlington. isn't such a bad thing that we have the deficit we have? >> moderator: buil built-in deficit. let's go right to left this time. scott: it absolutely is problematic. i know that you're sometimes things look pretty good but you need to travel around, get to rutland, you did anything, get to springfield. go up in the northeast kingdom.

there's problems throughout the state, and some of the deficits we are facing right now is a result of being over optimistic in expectations in terms of how much the economy will grow. they have been basing that on like 3% and in the event grow it by another 2% so they been thinking it's going to grow at 5% every single year. we need a lee grosz about 1.5-2% to the deficit to there's always a rescission after. this past year, the year before, figure before that, after the budget is passed, a month after its revenue downgraded. all of a sudden it's an emergency, they bring the emergency board it and attack it. what we need to do is be realistic right up front about what it is we can afford and not have this over optimistic expectation. minter: i do want to clarify between a deficit which we don't have budget shortfall, a budgets were full. in other words, the projections we all said our budget on

actually common short. then we have to make that up. it's different from going into debt which we never do. in fact, we are one of the few states in the country that doesn't require a balanced budget but we always present when. we do need to talk about how we're going to grow our economy because too many people are struggling to that's why invest vermont and innovate from a that's the economic development plan. investing in our great downtown creating more opportunities for entrepreneurs, for housing just like we did in saint albans, just like we did in my account of waterbury. actually pulling together setting a plan in building economic opportunity and growth. we also are going to innovate around four key sectors, out advanced manufacturing, high-tech and the green economy both farms, food and forced, and the renewable energy and efficiency economy. i had plans to go out economy, get livable wage jobs for the future.

lee: with hair like we've got we had to worry about a thing. [laughter] the thing is i'm leaving my doctor's office. they didn't take my blood. they said there wasn't a technician. so then i get on the road because my physical is active in quantities of the i get on the road and then following this logging truck and discount perfect plates and on it had 43 of the oedipal maple logs with small parts. i had instilled into, to follow the truck at 50 miles an hour album up route 14 as a past my house input into canada to be built. that's our problem. everything has let this be the we've got to do our stuff arsenal. we've got to get small sauce. we have the best land. we've got the best of everything. nothing is going to happen. deficit? what deficit? we ate going have a deficit at

where the greatest state on this planet are i picked this day. actually it picked me. i've been there longer than i've been anywhere else. thank you. cannot find the words? follow-up? assad now, i don't. thank you. >> moderator: valerie is next from south burlington. spin first of all of what you which one to do for women's issues in vermont and i just want to have a follow-up with an ad that ran recently with the bobble head. i know you don't coordinate with tax but she would be our second theme of the week never sent a woman to congress on vermont those insulting of a woman in an ad with a non-with everything peter said repeatedly that? spin it's not something we can coordinate. scott: when we were accused of

coordinating with others on some ads which we were not, that was dismissed. we are very careful. we can't coordinate any sense of the word. [inaudible] scott: i don't agree. we are about that. i've never run a negative campaign in my entire life. this is my ninth campaign to i've never run a negative campaign. spin kind of rubs me the wrong way as a moment to see the. scott: whether you're a man or woman, it ruptured the wrong way. we can coordinate in any way with anybody. and sue can't be there. spent is that the koch brothers? >> that's a good question. who is running that? you don't know who's running that ad? transit bill. it's by the rga or somebody. lee: that's the koch brothers. >> what would you do for women in vermont? >> moderator: that's the question on the floor for all of

you and we will start with mr. lee. lee: now, and equal wage, equal time, equal pay, raise the men wage up to $15.50, 16 books, but my money and economy and the deficit goes down. i'm always been, my aunt is in the hall of fame. she taught me, hazel, her mother, broke her leg sliding into second when she was 47 my grandfather played. i was raised with strong women. my great-grandmother had three husbands over for thanksgiving. back in 1800. that doesn't happen all the time. you know, my grandmother said bill lee she gave a strong cup of children's coffee with condensed milk an and everything and then she would give me a box of shotgun shells and should go out and say oh out and shoot dinner. that was my life. minter: you know, thank you for raising the question. we know that 43% of women who work full-time in vermont still

can't make the basic needs. there are many issues i need particularly affect women are. .. >> >> we created new lactation

facilities for new young moms to be able to work. >> despite what you might tear on some of the ad dash a emma moderate pro-choice who supports marriage equality and equal pay for equal work. i am the father of two daughters. very independent and i am very proud of my daughter's. i want the opportunities for the if we grow this economy we have to have everyone pulling in the same direction on the equal basis. white dad passed away when i was 11 and my mom raised three boys. she is the strongest person on the face of the year san one that inspires me. we want to do better for women in vermont. i will seek to find equal opportunity.

>> coal guns out of the hands of domestic abusers but. >> of course, . >> i am not picking on you i just need clarification. >> minimum-wage has been brought up twice proposed $10 an hour by 2018 what will you do by the minimum-wage acute take office? scott: i was in the senate almost 10 years when we had a debate on minimum-wage. when i remember that quite well.

it could rise naturally with the cost-of-living. and there was an issue a couple of years ago that would raise the minimum wage up far more than the federal standard. i am concerned about those small businesses that are working multiple of hours to make ends meet. if we raise the minimum wage will just work more hours and cut jobs. we should allow them to work there should be entry-level jobs and that teaches you about structure. >> yes i will be supporting increase of the minimum-wage $12.50 per hour. i want to major we have more

vermonters qualified for the label wage jobs this is the opportunity gap that we have discussed earlier. to many people are struggling to make ends meet and not keeping up with the cost of living. to deal with this affordability challenge we need to get more vermonters into those jobs and connect the dots between our businesses and students with internships, apprenticeships scum must cert that is what my program is about. talk about the workforce development strategy coming out with a terrific plan with the full consortium of institutions for higher learning school for international training and i forget the last one but they worked in a consortium with a group of businesses move

one to know what type of course, it is they need to have to get to those jobs connecting the dots. >> it has to go what you need more money to pay more taxes to pay these services. i want the middle-class to make more money but there is a lot in albany 30 feet long and it is off the ground not riding fast and escudos worth $30 a but there is 1 million spoons and that is what you have to do you have your natural resources. use them be more diversified the problem with our health care is everybody is out there with hard die quick don't leave a beautiful corpse that goes along with

working get up there to do something and that is what vermont is good at we are diversified like that let's make our products and we don't have to worry about a damn thing because this is the best place to live. >> went as minimum-wage law petrodollars' $0.50 quick. >> 2018. >> i want all vermonters to make more money but raising the minimum wage will not do that if you go $15 an hour the company that i:18 make less than 1250 an hour but those that make 15 israelis then they want to make 18 then they will want to make 21 it will just keep raising the cost of living and that will come out of somebody's pocket so we need to focus on the economy state

government has caused part of this crisis by raising taxes and fees over the last seven years. to focus on something less focus on the economy's so there is something for everyone. >> to help attract those people. >> if you ask those 10,000 students that are graduating every single year whether $15 per hour minimum-wage, i would say no. they look for more affordable housing more opportunity that is much higher than that. growing this economy to attract more youth, it is running on all cylinders. we are missing the mark in behalf ben for the last

eight years because we're not focusing on what is the weekend due to help ourselves. >> i believe increasing the minimum wage will be putting more money into the pockets of those who need it the most. when you had the ability to spend it will help the ability to grow also to get people off of the services that they want to be independent and self-sufficient i worked very hard as secretary of transportation that those on the "frontline" that all year are dedicated to make sure your roads are safe in the winter and summer to make sure they have a higher wage. we could increase the wage without having to bump up every part of the business was so i think they can do like we did in government

class just make sure we don't have a huge disparity for those better doing their work daily i have been so inspired by those who give of themselves day after day to keep the roads safe and i am thrilled we can help them increase their wages. lee: be more creative take 200 coors light cans put in in a box and put the box around your house painted black it will heat the whole deal side of that house. we don't think outside of the box that has to do with jobs. use your head. be more diversified. you will make more money put on the vermont label to get dealt there and sell it. the state is a gold mine you don't realize this is a state of mind in a place that people come they will

be crossing your and that is what i am hoping for to get this down from montreal. >> moderator: it is time for closing statements. scott: thanks for having us again tonight and make it a practice to treat others the way i expect to be treated with respect and civility and that is what i would like to end of with the importance of leadership we have a deficit of faith and trust in our government and leaders i think is incumbent upon us to act appropriately to look at rollback yard to inspire others about instilling that faith and trust. if you get down to with the ability to make vermont even more inviting with the ability to grow the economy

to make this date more affordable all of these are tied to one common element which is leadership it will take strong courageous leadership to build consensus to change the economics here in vermont there will be some difficult decisions pbs the only place you can gain knowledge. with nebraska in nebraska that stands for knowledge. i see no problems.

but what i hear people are upset with their government you were looking at the only guy with his patients in his own pockets. i took $20 from 90 roldan wisconsin and i said i don't want your money. please. i don't believe it is money in politics. get rid of citizens united. or none of what we say today, get rid of the big problems to save this little state. minter: thinks for having this and listening to night. i spent the last year traveling meeting with t11 and learning about the challenges and looking for solutions. they have real choice in this election in their differences between us. i have plans to create a livable wage jobs and

affordable college with this plangives tax breaks to corporations to leave the middle-class behind i support a woman's right to choose and i support background checks that i am optimistic about our future and i'm asking for your vote to be governor to move vermont for word for the economy that works for all vermonters and this is a great month. [laughter] >> moderator: thank-you to all candidates for joining us into the audience booed take part next week is the debate for the lieutenant

governor right here on the vermont pbs. we will see you next week. ♪ public dissatisfaction with the economy, politics -- politics and current climate they will review their findings coming up and about five minutes.

>> donald trump declares war often the republican party four weeks before election day joining us from the washington post newsroom thanks for being with us. today once again he is on twitter what is he saying quick. >> coal mines twitter

earlier today to release several irish against paul ryan, a john mccain and any and all republicans are elected officials who have backed away from him he said paul ryan is weak and ineffective leader providing zero support he insulted mccain, he called him falmouth and that he begged him for support. he basically signaled today that he will go all out against the republican critics at a time when normally they will ban together to go against the opposing party nominee that will be the case in the final four weeks. >> for all practical purposes is dead now the party of trump more than ever could. >> it is to different parties on one hand it is. he will on the of record

numbers of votes and continues to draw thousands of people to his rallies and generate enthusiasm but it is in washington a lot of that has evaporated and there's a lot of antagonism toward trump right now so looking at of party that is divided but one who is almost alienated completely the party leaders who basically have the party in washington. >> yesterday between paul ryan and those of that house republicans it seems what you have been reporting is a lot of frustration or some anger toward the house speaker on his decision quite. >> and some surprise that he

did not more forcefully stand behind donald trump who said that they wanted to see him get behind of nominee and that clinton presidency should be enough of course, paul ryan has to protect is house majority. but things keep getting worse for donald trump sold all rights and has to think about that he is in a difficult position the matter what he says there will be many members of the republican party that don't like his position so whenever he would have said yesterday we see that in the conference call. >>, du distance yourself from donald trump but not his supporters? >> that is a very difficult question and no any

republican candidate has successfully figure out as he does invited the donald trump from raleigh audit saturday he got some serious people close dash backlash people showed up and heckled him we have seen in them go to the rnc and that they are trying to get across the finish line so even than my disagreement is he is not going after the trump supporters but they still take it as an insult that we have been working so hard trying to get the guy elected in for you to pull out and abandon them is an insult to us and the of voter so that is one of the things we need to watch in the final four weeks. how angry does this make it

the trump voter and activist or perhaps even not vote for some of these candidates? it is an important question that will provide answers on november 8. >> isn't this navigating and chartered waters? going back 1964 with the nomination of barry goldwater the last time there resected deep division in the republican party but it seems very different from 1964. >> yes it is an unprecedented kovach a little more recently 1996 where candidates did distance themselves from like bob dole at the thai and who basically concluded he would not win. but nothing like the open animosity bc between republican establishment leaders and donald tromp and his allies. this is our right war right

now and there is no clear solution how to resolve this even after the election. this will not go way november 9th when people break up plan the race is over. >> finally, what is happening inside the trump organization? is there any organization or hierarchy? who calls the shots? >> important thing to remember eerily is donald trump that calls the shots. maybe the rotating cast of strategists that try to work with him some have more success than others but the one truth in that has been apparent date number one of the ones to do what he will do with it. at trump tower on saturday with reporters in bill lobby he just showed up and walked out to the sidewalk to greet supporters. a very surprising move that

came with no announcement or how little planning. that is the impulsive thing that donald trump has done over and over with this campaign. the u.s. to treat something he will if he was to insult somebody he will do that. i have not seen any evidence there is anybody to he has worked with that can stop them. the only person who knows what donald trump will do is donald trump. >> the state of the republican party and sean sullivan from the washington post is work is available on-line at washington post .com. thank you for being with us. >> live at the gallup organization for a discussion on the new survey of american political culture. some authors will talk about what reveals including dissatisfaction of the economy in electoral politics they're just getting under way and the of moderator and is introducing

the panel. live coverage here on the c-span2. >> speaking specifically with the director of survey research. in addition to leading the surveys at the institute the author of their brethren society a transformation of a peculiar people. our guest speakers, we have to today, first is a professor of history at louisiana state university. the author most recently of the acclaimed white trash. and she is also the author

one of sex and citizenship. and fall in founder. who is a villain in the season of the hamilton and be delighted to have her here that she comes all the way from that larouche to washington. our other guest speaker that most recently from his very sharp call a position the new york times until recently the public affairs professor in journalism at columbia university. he wrote for many years as the of correspondent in "the

post" and the baltimore sun in the glorious days and many other publications. we are glad to head it -- have him here also the author of the age of austerity. and has also written three or four other distinguished books. now we will move along the. >> thinks for being here. and also to the gallup organization for hosting today we appreciate all the work you have done in to be such great partners in this effort and thanks to all of you for taking out time of

your busy day. i will tell you first of all a little about the work we have done. everyone can agree there is something unprecedented about the presidential election this year with the amount of attention with every new cycle with the latest outrage the temptation is to say it is donald trump himself with his solidarity not to mention his misogyny and racism into presidential politics. this may be true but distracts to see from what else is new on the political landscape of far more profound. the question we began at the beginning of the project and guided this research with the political landscape.

to maintain perspective in november. were there is a tendency to view politics has a daily contest for power. that it tends to the latest changes who is gaining or losing or up or down. it is like studying the of whether. it will warm up by friday. with all of our work at the institute of it financed studies of culture we are concerned with the climate rather than the weather. as a bears on politics within which political context takes place.

did includes the ideals police in values and symbols and the public rituals that separate people but to direct them with political action. political culture provides the boundaries of what the political possibility. political activity emanates from culture and reflecting back culture deepest values and beliefs. political action in turn reinforces and one reshapes the political culture. those politics may change significantly. in the enormous context the culture of a society will change slowly but when it does those of the big consequence. the changes that take place within political culture without much of the future

order. so this is the orientation we have taken in 2016 survey of american political culture that we designed was fielded by the gallup organization to roughly 1900 respondents nationwide. what i want to do over the next 12 minutes is provide a brief overview. . . if we dig deeper we will find more. there are two themes in american political culture. the first is the american electorate and political

establishment. the second fault line is within the white population, the white look for it represents an evolution in the deep fissures of the culture war. let me unpack this. the first fault line, the the survey reinforces a long-standing observation of sociology and political science that american democracy is undergoing a crisis of literacy. we see it as a growing disaffection between the american public and the dominant political institutions and their leadership. they say in certain respects there is nothing new here at all there has long been disaffection in public opinion and there are ways in which that disaffection may be heartening.

it's also important to note that disaffection is not a one dimensional reality. analytically we can tease out the three dimensions. the first is mistrust of government. nearly 2/3 thirds of the american public has little or no confidence at the government in washington will actually solve the problems it sets of minds to two thirds of population, over half of all democrats and republicans hold this view that three out of four independents are especially adamant about this. this attitude of mistrust extends to other powerful institutions. 90% of all americans believe that wall street and big business profit at the expense of ordinary americans.

the second is cynicism towards leaders. it seems to me this is a particular problem, how the government in washington and beyond has actually managed. the american public is directed toward political leaders. that's majority. they really was politicians are more interested in winning elections and doing what is right and while the system of government is good, the the people who are running are incompetent. again, this tendency builds over beyond the government to other leadership groups they believe it's in favor of the wealthiest americans and american corporations media, corporations and technology care little about the lives of most americans in

the most educated are most interested in serving themselves than the common good. the third dimension is alienation or estrangement which has to do with the sense of agency one has to fix the world that one is a part of. these are etched in american self understanding and it's not surprising that majorities agree that most elected officials don't care what people like me think and that people like me don't have any say about what the government does. indeed 40% of the american population feels like strangers in their own country. a certain amount of disaffection is found across all dimensions. men and women, young young and old, white black hispanic, rich

and poor and so on. but there's also no question that the pattern we are seeing confirm what we know in a totally info other work that there is a predictable unevenness. some are more disaffected than others. briefly, once the greatest intensity of disaffection tends to be a bit more male than female, disproportionately represented from baby boomers and those who reside in the lowest density parts of the country though not in any particular region. less surprising is that the most are disaffected are poor, poorly

educated and conservative in the religious faith. i will come back to that shortly the least disaffected group are elites. those were well educated and wealthy. they're individuals were comfortably situated in life and they know it. it isn't a stretch to see why they have greater agency unless alienation, less cynicism and greater trust in government compared to those who have less. far more interesting are african-americans and hispanics. level of sinister and personal feeling of alienation alienation among minorities are comparable to those in the white community. african-americans in spanish exude much greater confidence in the government than whites. in general whites are traces

likely as blacks and his hispanics to be trustful on a variety of measures. these positive impressions of government are notable in light of perceptions of history and personal circumstance for the majority of these minorities agree our founding fathers were part of a racist and sexist culture that gave important roles dwight mount while harming minorities and women. the majority also say the police and law-enforcement unfairly target minorities. in spite of the recognition and even in the face of challenging circumstance, the plurality remains hopeful believing the future for the people like themselves would be better in the coming years against all

odds and difficulty. they tend to see a brighter future for themselves. that's the first fault line, how it falls in some of the variation within it. the second fault line, as i mentioned earlier is within the white middle-class. this we believe represents evolution in the culture wars. the cultural conflict surrounding moral issues that have defined so much of american politics for four decades was always one that took place within the middle-class. yes there were elements to that conflict, but they were mainly the differences between lower middle and upper classes. in the intervening years, this

has intensified and transformed into what is best considered two very different social locations with significant class cultures. since 2008. , the highly educated professional and managerial upper-middle-class on one hand on the less well-educated, nonprofessional working-class on the other hand has deepened and hardened. these cultures are marked by different values, beliefs and sensibilities and also by strikingly different life chances. this is at the heart of the new cultural conflict. empirically the line of division is drawn by education. it is the distinction between the credentialed and the non- credentialed.

the credentialed have achieved a four-year college degree and the non- credential often only have a high school diploma or less there are obviously variations here but as a rule, the life chances that these two groups are notably, consistently difference in that difference has important consequences for how each understand public life. for example, confidential the one and a half times more likely to have levels of mistrust, three times more likely to be highly cynical and twice as likely to express rate high levels of alienation. this fault line plays out different worldview of public policy in their ideology, their views of government, immigration and voting patterns. we see consistent patterns of differences of opinion rooted in

education letter pulling consistently in opposite directions. education is clearly a discernible in the cultural landscape landscape. how deep does ago, how ideas that is that divide? will we push this further in two different ways, it becomes apparent that the fishers disguise a much deeper risk in american politics. we need to push the education factor out beyond those who are merely credentialed with a college degree to those who hold graduate degrees. we oversample this population. by virtue of their educational credential, they are the best positioned to operate effectively in the global economy.

by many measures these are social elites. the second term was to introduce the social factor of belief. among the poorly educated, the non-credential, we pulled out those who are religiously conservative, in this case mostly evangelical protestants and conservative catholics. they are not only at a disadvantage in the work of the global economy, but they also feel more and more cultural outsiders because of their religious belief. we call these the disinherited. these two groups sort themselves out in predictable ways. the rise of financial permit are narrow and they are a bit older. there also found in the midwest and southeast in the least

densely populated areas. social elites are in the kos, england in the far west and they tend to reside in demographically dense areas of these regions. these lines of division, those pertaining to education credentials and faith are familiar in a new. they represent a risk that the new cultural conflict. it plays out in every front in ways that are fundamentally different worldviews. i should note, in our analysis we added a point of reference with religion being a category. these are non- credentialed,

they have the same educational profile high school diploma, maybe some college but no degree they're also overly religious moderate or secular. the disinherited are over seven times more likely and the disadvantaged or four times more likely than social elites to have a very high distrust of government. likewise, the disinherited and the disadvantage are five times more likely than social elites to be highly cynical of leadership. the disinherited are nine and a half more likely and the disadvantaged six times more likely than social elites to be alienated. these are neither small nor

subtle differences. it's a world that has left them suspicious of governing institution and leadership on this in the face of powerlessness to do anything about it politically or otherwise. another way we see these groups contrast is how they perceive solidarity with some groups and differ from others. the racial legacy of racial conflict and prejudice has always been at war with the ideals of a just society. certainly those lines of difference haven't disappeared. where do these lines figure in? in the 2016 survey of american political culture, we asked the question, for the following groups, do we see the leaves and values as being completely different, mostly different,

mostly, mostly similar or completely the same as americans like you. the one thing that each group shared in common is the perception that the belief of values of the wealthiest americans are dramatically different than their own. the sense of distance from the cultural elite is also strong though stronger among the disinherited and the disadvantaged. another point of commonality is the moderate distance between african-american and hispanic. the disc disinherited perceive distance from conservative christians as you might guess, the social elite perceives the values and beliefs of

conservative christians as radically different. the reverse is also true. social elite feel only minimum distance from gays, lesbians and the non- religion as the other see themselves very different from all three. in all of these contrast, the disadvantage holds positions. there's nothing middling about the distance they perceive between their own beliefs on the values of those of the wealthiest americans. it's not surprising that there pre-to predisposed against different visions of public policy such as welfare, obamacare, gay marriage, gun-control and immigration. two thirds of all the disinherited favor banning entry to all muslims until we better understand the terrorist threats

were country compared to just 14% of the social elite. the same pattern of difference can be seen in their views towards building a wall across the border between the united states and mexico. the final point i will make care, while social and cultural factors clearly predispose the american population towards starkly political different orientations, the survey also shows how clearly align the disinherited and social elite are with the two candidates, trump and clinton. the findings of the survey on american political culture also suggest the candidates themselves have an independent role in intensifying the political divisions, they crystallize political differences, not unlike unlike a flag around whom supporters

unite and act together. this dynamic may be especially important and in context their personalities are large while political institutions, parties, special purpose groups in solon failed to coalesce in current days. with that i will pass over to my collie. colleague. >> i would like to begin by thanking people have been involved with this project, stephanie at the gallup organization has been incredibly responsive and worked very well with us throughout. josh and matthew at institute for studies and culture have been tremendously helpful in

various aspects of the project. it's always a privilege to work with james on a project like this and so i have a few comments, i am not going to try to duplicate everything that james discovered. he really covered the math of the report. what i want to do is give you just a few figures to highlight some particulars, some of of the things that we have found. first, it doesn't take a political pole to realize that this is an unusual election. it doesn't take a social survey to know that confidence in leaders and political institutions is at a low ab, but it does require systematic measurements to unpack the disconnect, to to examine its contours and to explore the depths of what is happening in our political culture.

as the donald trump and bernie sanders campaigns have highlighted, many americans are angry and frustrated and many have lost confidence. it's not in the system of government, at least in its leaders and the way it is currently functioning. consider this series of statements. more than half of all americans agree with all of these statements these days the government in washington threatens the freedom of ordinary americans. the american way of life is rapidly disappearing. 58% of americans agree. america used to be a place where you could get ahead by working hard, but this is no longer true. 59% agree.

the leaders in american corporations media, universities and technology care little about the lives of americans. 63% agree the most educated and successful people in america are more interested in serving themselves then in serving the common good. 62% agree. people like me don't have any say about what the government does. 64% agree. our system of government is good but the people running it are incompetent. 71% agree. seven out of ten americans. our economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthiest americans. this is something that was echoed by canada this year and 73% of the american public

agreed with it. most elected officials don't care what people like me think. 74% agree. we need a president who will completely change the direction of the country. 72% agree. political correctness is a serious problem in our country, making it hard for people to say what they really think. 73% agree, almost almost three out of four. you can't believe what you hear from the mains stream media. 75% agree with that statement. most americans vote without thinking through the issues. we have 86% agreeing with that. they. they are is critical of themselves as voters as they are political leaders and institutions. most politicians are more

interested in winning elections then in doing what is right. nine out of ten americans agree with that statement. why have we heard here? americans believe that government threatens us, our leaders in and out of government are only in it for themselves, they have little say in what the government does, that you can't believe what you hear from either the politicians or the media. they have a distinct loss of confidence. as james have pointed out, we have gone beyond these individual statements to try to discern underlying patterns. our initial analysis suggests that the crisis of legitimacy of our governing institutions involves first a loss of confidence in government including the truth of what we

hear about is functioning, we have called this mistrust toward the lower left and that figure. second, a purse found skepticism about the interest and intent of those who re- rule and wield power. this is will on the lower right, we are calling that cynicism. mistrust and cynicism prime popular attitudes against political institutions and public institutions more generally. the final one at the top has more to do with how americans perceive their own life situation as one where they feel estranged from those who hold the reins of power. they see their world changing in ways they don't understand. the connection between hard work and thriving has been broken. they feel powerless to change

these things. these concepts of mistrust and alienation were not ones that we carried into the survey and analysis. we had so many complaints that people could agree or disagree with him that we could explore the pattern of relationship among them and we were able to isolate these as somewhat distinct. americans conclude political events these days seem more like theater or entertainment then something to be taken seriously.

only one american intend would reject the sentiment the number that completely agree has grown by 50% since 1996. the number of americans who say they have no confidence at all that the government in washington can solve problems, even when it sets its mind to it has grown by about 50% from 21% - 30% in the span of two decades. the prior figures here are from a previous survey we did in 1996, the state of the union survey which union survey which was also fielded by the gallup organization which provided historical context for some of the items that we went after in the study. one of the surprises in our

survey given all the attention on racial discord is finding that some of the disaffection we have been describing his lease pronounced among minorities. take the issue of whether the nation is in a state of decline. 56% of whites say the nation is declining while only 30% of african-americans and 20% of hispanics say the same. in fact, hispanics are the only group of the three where marseille the nation is improving then declining. minority perceptions of solutions to our nation's problems are also distinct, half of whites say it would make our nation more dangerous if more americans legally carried

weapons in public. compared to 63% of hispanics and 83% of african-americans. we found that race and education are the two best predictors of who americans will vote for in the presidential election with race being the strongest. how someone might vote on election day is not what they say or believe about hillary clinton or donald trump, but how favorably they view president obama. 94% of those who view obama favorably say they will vote for

hillary clinton and those who view him unfavorably say they will vote for donald trump. there is a fault line for racial and ethnic minorities is clear the second fault line, political disaffection is felt among those without a four-year college degree. two understand this further, we understand the difference between those who lack a four-year degree and those who have gone on to achieve even a higher degree, a graduate degree of some kind.

the social elite have political views that depart dramatically from those without a college degree. the disaffection of the less educated is deepened by religiously conservative belief system as james pointed out. indeed, noncollege educated americans with conservative religious views are the most disaffected of all americans. we had called them the disinherited who contrast with less educated americans whom we call the disadvantaged. i have time to give only a couple tastes of the difference between these three groups. we limit consideration of the social elite to those who are

not religiously conservative. consider their presidential preference. 85% of the disinherited say they will vote for donald trump. the social elite say they will support hillary clinton. the contrast is almost as great here as the contrast between minorities and whites. similarly, two thirds of the disinherited favor building a wall between the united states and mexico. only 10% of the social elite share this view. you can't come up with survey data that can contrast that dramatically. another about the social elite, not surprisingly, they don't feel at all, i missing a slide slide it looks like, yes, they don't feel like strangers in

their own land. eight or 9% of the social elite who feel they say like a stranger in their own land. most of the disinherited, it's nearly nearly 50%. it's in the 40s. that sense of not belonging and the strangeness of structures and the way institutions operate is really concentrated among the disinherited. the last chart i want to show you is the social distance, the cultural distance that james mentioned. i made be able to do this better if i can somehow see what you can see. what we have here on the left-hand side of the disinherited, the disadvantaged in the middle and the social elite on the right-hand side. at the bottom of the groups that

each of these three groups believe they share beliefs and values with. that was the question that drove this graphic. on the left-hand side, you see the disinherited feel they share the beliefs and values of white americans completely and that's true across the board. these are subgroups within the whites in american society. you've got conservative christians alongside white americans on the left-hand side as sharing the beliefs of the disinherited. if you go to the far right, look look what happens to conservative christians. with the exceptions of the wealthiest 10% of americans, they are the group that the social elite feel least connection with culturally.

on the left-hand side, you've got gays and lesbians among the disinherited, muslim or islamic americans and nonreligious people as being groups that don't make sense to them. they don't understand them and they feel they don't share the beliefs and values of those groups at all. coming to the right-hand side again you see that gays and lesbians and nonreligious people are two groups that the social only fill very much in common with. they share the beliefs and values of those groups and it's interesting that african-americans and hispanic americans are in the same general level across all three groups. it's also interesting, there's one other contrast that jumps out and that is that the

cultural elite, which along with the wealthiest americans are seen as being very cultural distance by the disinherited in the disadvantaged, the cultural elite is a phrase that feels more familiar for the social elite in that they understand that group of people. this was an attempt to unpacked that second fault line that james talked about and we are still in process on much of this >> couple of concluding thoughts on the wall turn it over to nancy and tom. we began this afternoon by talking about how unusual this election is and again, it seemed so extraordinary.

david way into by day, week by by week we hear new things that are so unfamiliar compared to previous presidential elections. the findings of the survey tell a story that is probably more about continuity and change. the continuity the survey reveals are pretty commonplace at this point. the fault line between the electorate and the political establishment and what scholars have called the legitimation crisis of the last 50 years continues insofar as far as we can tell, it's heartening. any americans are more set in their ways that leaders cannot be trusted and the citizens have little meaningful influence over

the institutions or circumstances that shape their lives. the credibility of the mainstream political establishment, its mission, governing authority and leaders have taken a pounding over many years. after a half-century of polling that was initiated by the gallup organization in the 1950s and 1960s, one can say with near certainty that the confidence the average americans have in their leaders in the governing institution of democracy have suffered blows that will continue to have lasting effects what if the fault line within the electorate. whatever else the culture war, the last four decades has accomplished, it certainly contributed to the intensive engine intense legitimation crisis. oac is justified while by one side was viewed as irrational

and indefensible by the other and vice versa. back and forth it went in political discourse that was less about persuasion than about denigrating the other side to hyperbole. i will certainly continue into the future, even as the lines of culture conflict of all. it will also likely do so regardless of what party is in power and who holds the presidency. i would also like to no, following the work of robert putnam and others, there has been a weakening of the institutions directly or indirectly charged with personal character and political formation. schools, youth organizations, churches and other institutions of faith and local political parties.

for many reasons, not of their own making, these institutions have struggled to cultivate the shared civic sensibility and virtue at the heart of citizenship. in the process, the shared distributions, codes of civility, idealism that framed political this agreement have not been replenished. it's true that the internet and social media has filled some of the gaps, offering a kind of community and a voice for those were voiceless. it's a weaker form of community with little more than virtual solidarity. all of this is the story of continuity. there is something new here. what is new as a consequence of the conditions development.

it's a reflection of things that jay mentioned at the beginning that oftentimes comes quantitative change. what's here is the level of incoherence and governing authority. the party establishment appeared to be less meaningful collected to the minds and hearts of their constituencies. this is reflected in the long-term trend marked by a growing number of self identifying independence, presently at 43%. percent. leading candidates for the presidency has openly challenged what contradicted the ideas and rules of conduct have long defined the mainstream party establishment. this has been true this year among republicans who under

trump and self identification have been strained if not severed. it was true for democrats. most notably a strong campaign of a populist candidate that didn't register as it democrat until the day of the new hampshire primary. also new are the economic changes that have become magnified in public consciousness in the years following the great recession. underemployment, wage wage stagnation, the decline in certain areas of a manufacturing , the loss of industry to developing parts of the world and the perceived loss of jobs through illegal immigration. while members of the professional and managerial upper-class have seen their fortunes rise, the working and lower middle classes have suffered. they have seen the horizon of opportunity and hope for a better life and in some cases

disappear. what is more, they see the values and belief that once lived by art ridiculed as ignorant, homophobic, misogynist and backward by a privilege and powerful cultural elite. they have felt the sting and humiliation of the poor ability long before hillary clinton spoke of such things during this election year. in this light, the unusual candidacies of donald trump, bernie sanders, ted cruz and others are not so much anonymous as they are reflections of the political confusions of our times. that is not been addressed coherently and effectively by the political establishment and its leaders. moreover, the appeal of some of the recent candidates holds a

growing attraction because it promises clarity in the face of murkiness and leadership in the face of krups leadership. it doesn't matter whether the champion social such promises can deliver on their claims. it is the promises that count. if trump didn't exist, some might might say, we would have to invent him. the 2016 presidential election is the stage on which these deeper, longer-term dynamics are being played out. the 2016 race pitted a weakening establishment was democratic against an emerging insurgency which happens to be republican. we know that it could have just as easily been the other way. authoritarian impulses bubble up from the right and the left.

in short, social and cultural conditions described above are in place, we are likely to see more election years like 2016 with similar campaigns and candidates. the question remains is this. the 2016 election signifies a pinpoint in our political culture? we will only know in retrospect. american democracy has never fully embodied its ideals will never fully do so in the future. there are darker alternatives than we have seen in a while. the cultural conditions that have made them will likely be with us for some time to come. thank you. [applause]

this report raises several observations about our political climate or, should i say, weather, weather and our current political culture. as a historian, i am far more likely to analyze american democracy from what scholars call the long duration. we've given priority to long-term historical development. i see american democracy as far

less democratic and less stable than we would like to admit. in many ways, as they have emphasized, i also see donald trump as showing discontent and a perfect storm. he's drawing on a much older set of traditions to talk about that discontent and have a much older history. that's what i would like to highlight today. one question that i would like to poses for us to think about how american democracy, in the past has also relied on exploiting cultural divisions, rather than upholding the belief in a strong moderate and reasonable center. what i would like to say as part of what we see going on is this idea that the center itself has

always been contested. that's an important thing we have to think about. who claims the center who claims to feel disinherited or outside that center. second, and i will spend most of my comments talking about the disinherited because they think it's a really useful concept, they rely on this older ideology that i would argue divides the american electorate into what we would call the rightful heirs of our country and those who are often deemed as pretenders, usurpers or strangers to the american way of life. one of the things we have to think about here is our american political practices are often

fording general democracy. in part because, this is an idea that goes back to the early 19th century, it, a reflexive term was coined by washington irving who argued, our partisan system, our political system, rather than being a democracy is actually a law accuracy. it's words that are inherently not going to be fulfilled or promises that are not going to be fulfilled. i would add, in modern times, times, as the report shows, it explains why americans do subscribe to tribal party loyalty because it's very important in the way in which american politics has relied on political culture, identity politics and that's much older than just a new phenomenon that we also see journalists comment on. it also create certain problems

and one of the things that you will notice in some of the polling data is that americans are prone, at times, to want to reduce their political discontent to a single premise, a single idea, a single solution that somehow explain everything. i couldn't help noticing the one about the government that governs best are the governs that govern the lease. we know that's not in fact true, but those ways in which people are looking for certain premises that sum up everything neatly into one set of ideas, one solution is also very discouraging for getting americans to think about political problems and more

complicated way. i think this ties into something very in port and about the trump phenomena. in the past and the present, americans have often voted with their ears. they often vote for candidates who they see beaking their language. this is something again and again that have come up with trump. people like him because he's described as speaking with raw honesty. he's not a scripted politician. i think we have to realize we have a long tradition that has shaped politics in a mass media that is very influential in shaping what people think and how they feel, but i think it's also important because it shows how, even the idea that america is a source of entertainment has a much older tradition. if you go back to the jackson. or the colonial period to get people to come to the polls, they had had to treat them, they had to offer free food and

alcohol. you can imagine what happened after they started eating and drinking. this is another thing i want to highlight today. we know it's easy for politicians and pendants to romanticize american policy and hold up jefferson's declaration of independence that all men are created equal as one of our highest values, but the truth is, throughout history, americans have never really embraced true equality. the so many examples of this, over and over again. as every scholar knows, slavery produced a very combustible political system. the civil war alone proves that we failed to establish a stable democracy and fits into the major crisis of legitimacy. in the aftermath, we know two very different medical cultures emerged in the north and the jim crow south.

to give you an idea of how this creates problems of thinking of democracy, because of poll taxes, the southern states effectively disenfranchise poor blacks and poor whites in the jim crow era. 1900 - 1916, only 32% of the south population voted in presidential election, dropping 20% in the in the period of 1920 and 1924. pull tax as we know were not officially challenged by the supreme court until 1966. that was the passage of the 24th amendment. then there's another wrinkle where we of course know that until 1920 we were denied right to vote as females.

it is important for how our politics are shaped today. part of the problem is that historically, the very definition of stability has often rested on disenfranchising those deserving of full citizenship. on my way up. come on the train, i was talking to a woman from australia who mentioned to me, in australia, voting is compulsory. it's a requirement and a civic duty. in our country, voting is still seen as a privilege, something that's inherited or earned rather than something that everyone must do and that's kind of a symbol of democracy. i also argue that the cold war was hardly a time of stability with the dissent, disloyalty and the culture infused with fears of nuclear annihilation and a witch hunt.

not only were there drills that i did as a child, but the pta in new york city recommend that children be given dog tag so they can be identified after the bomb was dropped. the 1950s rested on an idea of weeding out dangerous subversives which was measured not only that political bully or party identification, but religion, sexual behavior and even demanding civil rights where as we know, in the case of martin luther king, he was called the communist by southern democrats. as i mentioned before, the center has always been contested. there has always been these ways in which politics doesn't just reflect party platforms but reflected how people define themselves. do they define cells as reflecting what the core of

america stands for or an outsider. the emphasis on the category of the disinherited i found to be extremely useful and insightful. i think it does capture the sensibility of a certain class and i'm going to focus on the republican voters or independents who lean republican. it certainly captures jones slogan of make america great again. the usurped democracy is a familiar complaint in the united states. we can see how it has various manifestations. it was part of the language of the moral majority and in the reagan years as part of the language that was associated with the silent majority both of those political groups saw themselves as the backbone of american society. they had been displaced by some

pretender class. the confederacy, as expressed by jefferson david again and again in his numerous speeches argue that the confederacy embodies the true principles of the revolution and they were the rightful heirs of the founding fathers. before that, thomas jefferson argued that his election, which he dubbed the revolution of 1800 was restoring the true and pure principle, the core, the center that can be traced back to the american revolution. now as i argue, american class language has relied heavily on the language of inheritance, pedigree and sorting out the superior and inferior leave of americans. trump supporters like the tea party didn't trust the state.

they see the role democrats as handing over their country to undeserving classes and this includes immigrants, african-americans, lazy welfare freeloaders were obamacare recipients, gay people, angry sentiments demanding equal pay, who all represent people and classes that have failed to play by the rules, who have failed to work their way up the social ladder and have not earned those rights, earned those privileges with which, the disinherited feel the government is granting to them. we know, as the report emphasize, 85% of the disinherited have said they are going to vote for trump. the class culture reflects a series of overlapping divisions that underscore the ideology of the disinherited. i would also add that the division between urban and rule,

cosmopolitan and provincial. i would also say the old division between the north and south is still with us. when studies were done of trump's followers, west virginia was celebrated as the state most likely to go for trump, and we know the way in which the southern primaries laid out that they have had a great deal of influence in slate engine shaping his appeal and popularity. the disinherited also see social elite as creating this rigged system. one which benefits not only themselves, benefits the social elite, but there's also this language of patron and client and they see the elite class is the class that is giving patronage to their undeserving

whether it's immigrants, african-americans, or gays. they see this as again, creating an unfair and rigged system, because it's pushing these people ahead of the true americans, the people who are hard-working, religious and identify with small-town life. now we no, trump supporters are not all working class. in fact, many working-class americans who are unions support clinton for obvious reason because, not only because she's backed by the union but they make higher wages and have benefits. :

a they also see themselves, they describe themselves as anti-global isolationists. that powerful symbolism trump's magical border wall which i believe represents not only the desire to keep or immigrants out to reduce job competition but it's also a very important metaphor and symbol of keeping industrial jobs in the united states. and when we think about the category of thinking of the disinherited as having a more provincial identity, ma talking about a rural identity, this also ties into the way they see themselves as being more nationalistic, more patriotic, more devoted to traditional rituals like standing for the national anthem or traditional marriage. and they are more likely to have

a more worshipful view of the founding fathers and believe in an original interpretation of the constitution. and this sent provincial means protecting the native-born culture. in which real-life this romanticized as more traditional, less corrupted by foreign ideas. and small that america is mythologized ensuring a simpler way of life. this is important. a simpler way of life in which everyone knows their place, and that means women know their place. blacks know their place our orders know their place. those pretenders to political power see them and stealing their respect, stealing the assumed the authority of the rightful heirs of america. and these are white men with jobs, heads of households, the makers not the takers.

this is why trump's birther risen essential to his appeal and the report noted 40% of trump's supporters are birthers come is that when trump attacked president obama and challenged them to produce his birth certificate, he was challenging president obama as an illegitimate president because of his questionable pedigree which was not only racist but was the way to tarnish him as a stranger, a leader totally incapable of understanding and authenticate of american heritage and identity. finally when we think about the tribalism that so prevalent in our class ideology, i also want to stress that part of american history has not only measured class identity through working hard, that's the rhetoric we hear over and over again,

working hard, you will get ahead. this is a measure of class identity. it's also tied to think for the disinherited cannot only working hard but being tied to being routed to the land, having roots. class in the united states today is defined by where you live, the kind of home and neighborhood you grew up in. and the values that are associated with that since the place. the disinherited distrust groups that they see as rootless as i've written in my book this goes all the way back to a long-standing english hatred of vagrants. the mobile poor. but for the disinherited, ruthlessness applies to the top and the bottom. because they resent the actual poor whom they dismissed as either being lazy, failing to get a stable job, failing to