>> theo won the grand prize on documentary about trust and government and political division. >> the american experiment is one in both successes and failures. in order to get out of this pandemic to achieve racial justice to reunite a fractured nation, we need to hear the truth even when, especially when that truth is the path ahead is going to being long and full of struggle. once we come to expect the truth, even hard truth. we the people can place our trust in a better future. >> thanks to all the students who participated in this year's student cam documentary contest. the top 21 entries will air on c-span starting april 1st and you can watch the winning student cam documentaries anytime on-line at student cam.org. and with us next, an amy walter, national editor of the

cook political report and the piece that we're talking about in this segment is titled volatility is the new normal. this feels like it's something we all knew about reading your article it puts it into focus, it's been a volatile couple of decades, not just years. >> yeah, we tend to think-- i'm of a certain age that i've been in washington now, oh, it hurts a little to say how old i am, but i've been in washington almost 30 years. so when i came it washington, you know, politics had been-- it's always been volatile, but there's been a certain level of stability there. democrats had control, the house of the representatives for 40 years, since 1950's, democrats had uninterrupted control of the house. for much of that time, democrats had uninterrupted control of the senate and republicans would win the white house with a brief, you know, interspersal there by democrats, so while you would see members come and go, the

stability is something that we got used to and after 1994 and actually i'd argue really since the turn of the 21st century we've known nothing, but volatility. obviously in our own, you know, what's been happening outside of politics, 9/11, the financial crash in 2009, covid, and politics has sort of followed suit, control of congress has flipped now just in 20 years, the house has flipped three times the senate four times, just in 20 years. it took 40 years for the house to flip once, and i think what we're also seeing is, you know, the toll it's taking on bipartisanship because where we're-- what we're entering into now is more of a parltarian government where people vote party rather than person. and back at the turn of the 21st century, we had 30

senators who represented states that the presidential candidate of their party did not win. so you had blue senators in red states and red senators in blue states, now we only have six of those and one of them of course gets a lot of outside attention, joe manchin from west virginia, as did susan collins from maine because they're such an anomaly. >> volatility is the new normal. there's a lot of really interesting information in terms. flips in the house and senate and the white house, but one they think i wanted to point out, is particularly in house, you write the democrats controlled the house for 40 straight years from 1954 until 1994. democratic control of the senate lasted uninterrupted for 25 years, 1955 to 1980. 1952 until 1998. 1988 republicans won 7 of 10 presidential elections and today, most of those who work in politics don't know of a time when control of the house, senate, or white house wasn't

up for grabs and those are the people i wanted to ask you about, amy, the people that are not necessarily elected officials, but people who work in offices and k street and lobbying. those people know nothing, but volatility. >> this is a really interesting point because i think there's a combination of those of us who grew up in that moment, right, who grew up in the 80's and 90's of the relatives and political stability and those who came to washington or came of age post 2000 and know nothing other than that. and it's really the members to me that have been the biggest change, right? you have very few members in the house or the senate. in the house, i think it's something like 80% have been there since just 2006. have been elected since 2006. so most folks don't remember, not just what it was like in the early, late 90's, but even in that relatively calm period politically, when republicans had the house to are five

straight terms, five straight years in the early 2000's and so what you have is kind of a bifurcation, right? which is where this tension is between, you know, folks who are saying, well, gosh, joe biden, he's been part of washington for 50 years, he knew of this era. he loved, at least he talked about how much he loved this era of working across the aisle, friendships with republicans, he was going to bring this unity back and yet, structurally, washington is so much different than the place he came to when he first was elected, but even the place that he came to when he was vice-president in 2009 or, you know, when the state was the last time the senate was 50-50 in 2000, you have just such a different makeup of senators and sort of the time they were raised in. and so, you have those kinds of

folks and then the new members who are coming in, who are saying, what is this that you talk of that is is bipartisanship? what is this that you talk of, this era before 2006? it's a little bit like, you know, when you were a kid and your parents would talk to you about, well, in my day, we wouldn't do x, y, z. that's what it probably feels like to many of the members. like you're talking about a totally different time that just doesn't exist anymore, stop trying to put us back into that box. we're not going back. >> amy is our guest. 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001 all all others, 202-748-8002. and you write on the federal

level. is that name validity happening down ballot in the states? >> i think that's exactly what we're start to go see, the states are acting much like the federal where more and more of these members are being elected, again, really on the basis of their party affiliation more than just, you know, on their individual merits and so as we see fewer and fewer voters split their tickets at the federal level, all right, very few people now vote for a presidential candidate of one party and down ballot candidate of another party. it's changed the makeup of the delegations at the state level and the expectations at the state level. i remember, you know, states were the place that they were called the laboratories of democracy, you could do things at the state level you couldn't at the federal level because people were more willing to be,

i guess, it was more after probing parochial politics. and now all politics is national and that's true down the ballot. we're seeing county commission races that you get the national sort of influence, sort of shadowing over it. and i remember even back in 2010, many state legislative races, the issue was obamacare. obviously, that's a federal law. these state legislators had nothing to do with it, but it was being used as a cudgel by republicans against democrats in states, really, as a signaling, right, as a way to say if you don't like barack obama, vote for me. don't vote for this democrat, even though this democrat has absolutely no influence at all on what's going on in washington. >> it felt like for a moment

after january 6th, that january 6th could have been to use your term, peak volatility, let's say. like there could have been-- that was a moment where all of that volatility came to a head and after that, sort of bipartisanship may begin to come together. what's your thought on that? >> it sure felt that way. i absolutely agree. there was this window where it felt as if you finally had republicans and democrats coming to the same conclusion. this was absolutely terrifying, outrageous, fill in the blanks, and a deep frustration the way the president acted that day and the next day with the tweeting and encouraging. it looked like this was maybe the breaking point and then we got to the reality of the moment which is that the

president, president trump really had sort of set this new standard that there was no going back. there was no apologizing. there would be no-- there would be no moment where-- it was okay to acknowledge that your own party or the leader of your party was wrong. ... then talking to staff on the hill, and i'm sure you're hearing this, the environment there, especially among members and staff is more toxic than it was before january 6, because -- especially among democrats. because you have especially among democrats many of them saying i don't feel safe, not just because people came and tried to come actually physically broke into the

capital, tried to abduct or kill or do things violent things to those people who work here, but that my republican colleagues were complicit in that, or condoned it in some way. and then my republican colleagues came back to the chamber after this violation and continue to support these baseless allegations that the election was somehow stolen orud fraudulent. the irony is this moment that could've been exactly, if you had written a political science paper you would say okay, a moment like this is where the fever breaks, but instead it only makes the toxicity deeper. >> host: we have calls waiting but let me ask you about potential uncertainty if not volatility inn the 2022 senate race with the announcement that roy blunt of missouri one of the senior leaders and a close ally of mitch mcconnell will not be running for reelection.

he makes the fifth republic and not to be run in 2022. how much, much uncertainty does it add to mitch mcconnell? >> guest: absolutely. this is now the fifth republican retirement which in some ways you would say gosh, what is that saying? republicans are very close to take control of the senate. they just need to pick up a seat '02 in the next cycle and they're good to go to get a majority. and yet what you see are, as you pointed out, the sordid senior republicans, the more establishment republicans, the ones were allied with mcconnell, who came of age in a different era during this era we discussed earlier, the '80s and the '90s, many of them served either in congress or in the senate when george w. bush was the the president, not t since either obama or trump was president. you are losing the

institutionalist, and the real question, you're right volatility question is, who replaces them? many of these are red states your misery will be really tough. that was a time when missouri was considered a swing state. it's not a swing state anymore. there's not a very deep bench on democrats in that state. alabama another place where you losing and institutionalist in senator shelby, another very deep red state. even ohio, i know you were talking ohio in the previous segment. that was a swing state. it's more of a red state now but the question is what kind of republicans come out of the primaries? how engaged will former president be in those primaries? what's the likelihood and it seems more likely you're going to get more of a trump like replacement to these establishments. republicans, meaning that this and it becomes much more -- the republican side of the senate, is much more in

president trump's image than one thatat we had before he came ino office. >> host: let's hear from viewers and listeners. ed in georgia on the republican line, welcome. >> caller: good morning. do you hear me? >> guest: i i should do. >> caller: thank you very much. amy, you and charlie with "the cook report" are i think our national voices as it relates to an objective review that has gone on for years and appreciate you very much. you have kept her honor in that regard, and charlie as well. the peak volatility of bipartisanship that you speak of, and a read the article being lost but also i think being a lost two of realignment, as you stated, but it's also a

realignment due to a complicity to an ideology based on a fealty versus a policy agenda. i am a suburban upper middle income postgraduate and medical doctor. my husband theth same. my children the same. i also am an african american woman and and i was a part a traditional republican bridge from the 1800s until the 1960s. i live in a community, actually i'm visiting my 90-year-old georgia in here to care for her but i but i live in middleburg virginia so i know the region and i have family all over the country in canada's. we have reunions in kansas. i think we're having a

realignment of a demographics as opposed to policy and it intersects with policy because we have, as we are retiring, '60s and '70s, my children are their 30s and 40s for now up-and-coming physicians so they are part of a larger society deals with healthge and educatin as i did. my husband and i and my mother was a library and a 6500 town. i'm talking about demographics and the make up of how our politics brings together people. i and a part of the suburbia women. i voted and see educated women like myself. this is about my perspective of who it is that i look up to, right? people who are a part of my lifestyle. i meant episcopalian so i'm a part of that bush episcopalian, presbyterian kind of republican policy and social construct that

we thought of back in the day that wenk no longer think of. republicans say they're working for class and yet the reason why i changed over to voting for democrats after the daddy bush was because i saw the party, ane i have friends who are democrats. women like ourselves come when with choices like you who are educated andun well rounded and well traveled, well-versed weer make choices based on a different thought pattern, i think. i support thet ideology of pubc education. my parents sent me and i set my children harvard, columbia, duke, those are private schools but we paid for it and now we have a republican party that is wanting private schools to get our public dollars. >> host: you have a lot of point and appreciate your call and amy walter feel free to respond. >> guest: i think she's making some really good points about a

realignment. this is what i love covering sort of what i i find so interesting about it is that coalitions of the two parties are not permanent. they change.e. sometimes they change based on big events here sometimes they change because of personalities, ideologies. it does feel as if our identity is much more of an issue that it's been ideology in terms of how voters are picking their party. this has been going on for some time. i remember looking back at the 2000 election, and you had al gore winning in some of the wealthiest counties in america and george w. bush winning in some of the least wealthy parts of america. so this idea that economics is the driver for everybody, you vote your pocketbook. that's been something of a myth for some time.

that voters and use their values, voters use cues about what they want america to be, as the driver for their vote. it's not as simple as they pick a policy or go through a checklist and safe which is the party that fits all of my top issues, i'm going to go pick that one. what happened in the air of trump, he made it very clear that you could only pick one side.. this wasn't a malleable thing. you would either on my site or you were on the enemies inside. here with me or you're against me. there's no way you can be both. you can't beat that bridge come talk about being a bridge between, there's something to agree with me, something should've come the city, under investing for all americans. no, with a very clear path forward. if you believe these things you're a real american. if you don't believe those things you're not a real american. that divide has gotten deeper. it's not just zero it's gotten

lighter but it definitely has gotten deeper so the question is what happened? is any bridge between that divide? in the next two years when next election. we are seeing that divide driven as you also pointed out by where you live, the density divide is what some folks are calling it. the inner suburbs, suburbs closer to big metro areas for republican now becoming much more democratic.fe the fewer people that live in a region, small-town rural america which for years were represented by democrats, now almost entirely republican. >> host: let's hear from louisville, kentucky, bernie on the democrat's line. >> caller: good morning here january 6 just seems like they cannot be talked about enough. i was watching c-span that morning with pedro, and had a veryha busy day because i was

already to in action. he suggested i get the radio app. i went to work, listen to the radio, and everything is going to plan, people are doing to speeches and then all at once something broke. at that point i had to rush home because it felt like a 9/11 moment. it was just, had to get home. i felt like add to be with my wife to watch what was happening. it was terrifying. but it seems like back in 2010 with the tea party and newt gingrich that we had some of the same volatility that was going on. i didn't know, i wonder what you think about that. plus when you think and act to ask real quick. i see a picture of when i fall behind you. you the new host for washington week? i i understand this is a softbal question but we want you all the time. we've been through a lot of

different folks in you were fantastic. >> guest: that's so kind of you, thank you. yes, i have behind me, that is a postage stamp that was put out last year in her honor for black history month, and that is blown up, that postage stamp, and a friend gave it to me. it's always sitting behind as ao reminder she still sits on my shoulder. she was my mentor and my friend, and i still continue to think of her every day, every moment, and tried to how should be processing this era we're in. january 6, i was in something of the same boat. i had c-span on and backup you when is the big day in terms of quantity listen to the speeches. one to hear how republicans were sort of processing, again this

is before the attack on the capital but how republicans were making the argument about overturning the electoral college votes. i wanted to see him and republicans are going to be supported by that. i wanted to see if democrats want to counter that. also really dumb if i'm being honest here, focusing much money election that happen the day before which was the january,, the runoffs for the senate race. trying to make sense of that. just out of the corner of my eye looking at what was going on on the hill, and like you i was just drawn to it in a way that felt very similar to september 11, in hearing from friends and staff who were there at that moment. the amount of trauma and terror that they felt was quite remarkable. so i do think it has had an impact. i do think that for americans outside of washington they didic

see that as a really critical moment and do think it is impacting the way folks our data with each other. the difference between say 2010 and now is the feeling that these forces are out of control now. when you saw that tea party and the sort of we are going to take washington back, it was rhetorical. now you hear those things and you see people coming to state capitals with c machine guns or other weapons. they are not actual machine guns, but a good guns that can do a lot of damage. you see more and more threats against members. just listening to the hearings about january sixth from both the fbi director who is saying we are just seeing unbelievable

explosion in domestic terrorism threats, especially white supremacist groups. you hear from the chief of the capitol police saying the number threats against individual lawmakers went through the roof. this feels like a very scary time. again, i am here in washington. i live close to the capital. these things are very personal for me, but i think for even folks who don't live in and aroundth this region, the idea that our people now who do believeso so firmly that the ony way to succeed is through a level of violence, that makes its way to other places. and gets out of just washington focus. that is a very worrisome trend. i'm hoping that because the fbi has been really focused on this,

other law enforcement, that it gets tamped down. but when you saw kidnapping plot against the governor of michigan, i'm worried that this could be not just an outlier. >> host: we are w talking about the volatility in politics with our guest amy walter, national editor of the cook political report. nelson is next in pembroke pines, florida, republican line. >> caller: good morning. i give her taking my call. ms. walter, i listen to you every monday on "the pbs newshour." i know you try to be objective. you do a pretty good job of that overall, but did you also have your diocese. one of your comments was essentially blaming president trump for the scenario that

exists today and the hostility of the different political parties and the way people think. yet i remember in 2016 -- by the way come in 2016 i was a never trumper and i voted for gary johnson, but in 2020 i voted for gtrump. in 2016 they were already talked about impeaching him before he was even sworn into office. a lotot of what's going on today regarding the right-wing aspect of the movements that you're talking about is in direct reaction to the left-wing movements that have been taking place for the lasthe five years, particularly antifa and blackic lives matter, and their continuing right even to this day and portland, oregon, and other regions of the country.

all of the law enforcement should be used in order to prosecute those individuals who invaded the capital, but the same should be done for those individuals who attack public buildings in those other states. that is not being talked about and that is not being emphasized on the part of the government, particularly the democratic party. >> host: okay, nelson. amy: walter. >> guest: nelson, appreciate your comments. the first is yes, i , yesh you donald trump didn't inventld this polarization. this has beenee around for a lo, long time, or this volatility. as i said this really i think can go back to the turn of the 21st century. but i do think that the deepening of it, he played aed role in that in encouraging this

divide and in encouraging the sort of way in which he approached politicshe was a zero-sum game, all or none. so if it wasn't, he didn't invent but he also didn't camp that down. he helped to keep that flame brewing. a big difference between what happened at the capital and what is happening in portland or in other cities with antifa, joe biden as president joe biden as candidate never encouraged, supported anything that suggested that people should go and sort of take over, take things into their own hands. when you're the president of the united states it is your obligation to go defend every one of those institutions and defend the united states capital. the events of january 6 wasn't

just the language that the president used that day. it was the language leading up for the entire fault that this entire election was a fraud, baseless claims that have eroded faith of the public in our votingt institutions. that is very difficult to get back to when you lose faith in our democratic institutions, that leads us to a very, very dark place. i think we are now moving into a new presidency. we will see continued polarization. we are going to see the parties divided, but i'm hoping what we see at least is that it's not encouraged, the flames at least are tamped to a much more level, on voting rights let me use text or within madison, wisconsin, to ask about a couple of things. he says ms. walter deeply h.r. one, the bill passed in the house voting rights bill, will affect local politics?

you also have a number of states passing tougher voting laws.st george is one of them just passed a couple of bills yesterday, and the efforts by the biden administration, executive orders coming down from the president on voting. what is your view of all this? >> guest: we know the federal government involvement in voting is not a significant as the states. the state set so many of the rules for everything from the times that the polls are open to who can voteby by mail and you can't and the requirement for voter id. those are the thing set by the state. we have a federal system and that's not goinge anywhere. the bill the past the house is unlikely to make its way through the s senate. filibuster gauntlet. i think thes laws that are goig to be no significant in 2022 and beyond are the ones that are passing right now as you said in places like georgia.

the real question in my mind though is that these are laws that are basically a reaction to the left election where democrats did much better come they voted much more frequently by mail. what happens when we're not independent? what happens when it's republican voters who said i want towh vote by mail but it's gotten a lot more complicated, or the art minima rules now that had to follow. i guess i'm just not going to vote. they may end up hurting their own voting base more so than they think. >> host: let's get one morest coffee. alesia in columbia, maryland, good morning. >> caller: good morning, bill, and good morning, ms. walters, and good morning, america. bill, before i i say one of wt you say, let me thank you and also would you kindly answer a question? maybe i misunderstood. did you say that when you have

any airing of the hearings and other things in the white house -- not white house, from the house, that they approve or they ask you what to write on c-span, or that c-span has its own -- >> host: we make our own editorial decisions, if that's what you'ree asking. we are committed to running the house and senate apple to gavel coverage of both the house and the senate. everything else, every other hearing or white house briefing, our editorial team makes that decision on a day by day come sometimes hour byea hour basis. >> caller: allay right. let me finish with you, with this, and then i will leave my comment. >> host: why don't you ask amy walter a question?

i don't like to keep her hanging too long so go ahead and ask amy walter. >> caller: i have senior moments, so you have to forgive me for my long pauses. there was a hearing on the sixth about the sixth, and you ran multiple stuff however, when the defense came on on friday, you didn't show the tape of that. in other words, you showed most of what the democrats had said, or the -- >> host: i'm not familiar with what we rant or not that day. everything recovered will be on her website, and if you would move tor your question for amy walter, we would appreciate it. you can find everything there@c-span.org, that we covered anyway, anyway, i want to make a comment. if you don't mind my calling you and me because you are young enough to be my granddaughter.

you talked about -- i came through washington the first time in 1960. president eisenhower had invited me for children and youth conference. that was the first time i had seen the big city, and i'm telling you, that being from a reservation, my eyes were big everywhere. but anyway, and -- because of the influence that washington and the way they influence, i went to the capital and so forth. the senator showed us around, and i got very interested in politics. and as soon as i got out of college, i started writing to

the senators and representatives. they would always respond. i have gotten some things from my own way, and --, i will let you go different i do want to keep our guest to long but amy walter, some final thoughts. you have been in washington do doing what you been doing since 1991. other than the volatility that you write about at the cook political report, what are some of your observations? >> guest: i appreciate what she is saying about sort of being in awe by this place. that's what keeps me going is this is still a really inspiring place, and it's a lot bigger and busier than it was when it first came you get . it felt a little sleepier back then. you are surrounded by incredibly talented people, all of whom come here because they believe they're going to make a difference. you may not agree with the issues they want to make a

difference on, but you should have some support and encouragement for people who think they can make a difference. that theyy can still, and have a role in our democracy. and so that i appreciate. just a final thing, one reason i also really love covering campaigns as a gift to meet these folks as candidates, , and again it keeps you humble and keeps you really in touch with how diverse america is. the folks who come in to run for congress look a lot like america, and to understand and appreciate that, come here and meet some of these members, don't just read the reports about the two or three who get all the attention. let the movers come because they believe they would get something done. they don't get at whole lot of attention. they don't get a whole lot the fame or instagram followers. they are just here doing their

job. >> host: amy walter is a national editor for the cook political report. as always great to have you on with us this morning trekkie thanks a lot, bill. >> be with us that when president biden speaks to the nation in his first primetime address. he's expected to mark the one-year anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic in the u.s. live coverage at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, watch online at c-span.org or c-span.org or listen with our free c-span radio app. >> booktv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend.

>> watch booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start today's session. more work as expected on president biden's nominees. they will begin with the debate on hobby of this there has been chosen to be the next health and human services secretary. a vote to advance his nomination is set for noon eastern. later lawmakers will debate president biden's choice to lead the interior department congresswoman deb haaland a vote to advance her nomination is expected at about 1:30 p.m. eastern. now live to the