"washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by former senator joe lieberman, former >> for the next hour we are joined by joe lieberman former senator from connecticut talking about his brand-new book welcome to "washington journal". >> good morningng and good to be with you. host: your ninth birthday centrist solution how we mean

government work and can make it work again why did you write the book and why now? >> thank you for asking and having me on this is a book i've been thinking about writing for a long time is a strange thing to say but the pandemic working from home they gave me some extra time to write the book and the main point is i am frustrated by the lack of accomplishment and the federal government and i get disappointed and angry and i decided maybeo there's something i can do which is to talk about the way in which the things that i feel the

best all were bipartisan and had been from the center out the wide range of policy availablenm areas to balance national security and human rights and gay rights only because they came to the center to be a centrist is not the same thing t as a moderate the centrist can be a liberal democrat conservative republican are you willing to negotiate and a compromise to settle substantial which is the way and with that constitutional convention. >> you ground your book in the

founding fathers like the nightmares of john adams. so what was that about john adams in particular so that they should think this is the way the country was meant to be?nd and president washington. worried what they called which became political parties would begin not to unite the people that they would have a greater loyalty and i'm afraid too often that is what we would see in washington today stopping things from getting

done but between the dead population states for congress to be reflective of population those to have equal representation i'm proud to say to that connecticut representatives, that came up with the great compromise with the two chambers of the house and the senate one with an equal number ofto senators as it turns out that is the most graphic example to enable the creation of the country much more difficult and painful compromises particularly with the issue of slavery and i can talk about that more if you wantk but that is the immoral

way but that is where they were at that time. host: with your own experience you left parties and had parties leave you with your entire political career is on in search of not necessarily a comfortable place but that center that place of compromise. >> it is true from american government that got me interested as a young man and going into politics but i also got into politics in connecticut where it was rough-and-tumble that the largest number of voters were independent with the balancing effect so at the state

legislature in 1970s was a very young man but to work across party lines and they were good friendships we trusted each other and we got a lot done and i write about that but that was a very devotedbe democrat jfk and my hero as he was for so many in my generation that that got to be less inclusive and more demanding of 100 percent loyalty and i ranwi straight into that with the majority members of thehe democratic party whether we should define

the american military in iraq when things went bad there. and the primary that i lost and was paying for which was painful that i have the right under state law to mine is an independent and god bless the people of connecticut this is one of the most satisfying moments of my career but i never left the democratic party america needs to great parties to reflect the widest array of opinions and there are democrats in congress today that want to do that and try to do that now with the infrastructure bill. host: what you point out with the centrist solution the

problem now is the centrist them both parties may have trouble getting we nominated also have no viable third-party options so changing parts of that political reality is a great challenge for american politics in the years ahead. >> i agree. this has changed over time. so how do we get here? how to the parties become so divided? and that is an important question so figuring out how we got here that we always have differences of opinion

and then try to negotiate a solution we are not doing it as much today but the gerrymandering of districts the house of representatives 435 members the analyst will tell you that in a given election year and those that are contested for the nomination. so democrats are constantly too often living in fear with a challenge from the left and republicans do the same. and make them toe the party line more than they should that is the part of it.

and that's not philanthropy generally speaking and comes with conditions and special interest but also ideological people give you an amount of money they want you to ask you to vote a certain way and to be influenced by that was change the course of my political career is the way the media began with cable news which an operator does businesses to carve out the ideological market and to make more money but with the discourse of politics in our country and with those cable

news networks to get on tv and social media and all sorts of devices and rhetoric on the social media platforms so here we are. and how we can turn it around leaders wanting to get something done and to be leaders like president clinton a few minutes ago. and then for the people who vote the ultimate power but then those it is a priority poll after poll to work across the party line and for them

personally and then to support carepublican and democrat and independent centrist that come to work together for the girded on —- the good of the country 58 in the house equally divided ten and ten and theyre wrote the bipartisan infrastructure reform bill with 69 votes in the senate with chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell that held up in the house with the caucus obviously the president is working hard and i hope and pray that he can. but it would prove to all of us that congress can still work across party lines.

host: we will open our phone lines to hear from viewers and listeners. so i went to ask you about a report the headline says dark many reconciliation bill can still be killed the no labels remains optimistic to dealing with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and that includes the bulk of the biden agenda and still in play with the executive director what is your understanding of that

situation? >> . >> i have not seen that note there is no question we totally support ofth the 2 trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure reform bill and it is written with policy help and as well. and those in the no labels group with the points of view what that reconciliation with the programs created i think of no labels is a group primarily focused on a strategy of government in the process for people that negotiate and compromise to get something done.

host: why is the focus on compromise focusing on these two senators that's just a couple of numbers? when compromise and discussion is not more broadly accepted in other parts of the body people are not participating in thaty compromise. >> it all comes down to numbers and you have a very evenly divided congress right now the senate is 50/50 and then it takes the people to move so i remember when i first came into the senate in 1989 i got to know the senator

from louisiana. we got to be close and he said to me y one day everybody says to get anything done you need 60 votesr for the filibuster and then you need 51 to pass the legislation sometimes depending on where people are it takes to. you and me. that's the truth because every vote counts so i must say that i found your mansion who is thent leading centrist democrat today always be willing sit down with people who disagree and negotiate and compromise to get something done and president biden oversees and pushes right now and is

happening only within the democratic party and said they would support the reconciliation package and then toll be supportive of the one.2 trillion dollars bipartisan and then as a major accomplishment and i don't feel myself there is any position on the reconciliation bill as chairman of no labels and with that compromise and the rule of reason and affordability. but that is up to the members of congress and

of course i wish republicans are at the table but that's not happening. host: that quick flashback from mcclatchy newspaper on your retirement senator lieberman made history but will retire withoutrt a party any regrets on how and when you left the party in 2013? >> again, i ran as an e independent because i always felt i had a responsibility and ien was lucky enough to run as an independent and i got support to help me get reelected but one friend who

is pretty clever that said your membership in the democratic party is like my appendix it's they are but not doing much for me. [laughter] may be so maybe not but iat believe the country needs big policy parties working with each other to get something done. so i see things along the way that made sense to me for my state and my country and were consistent within my conscience and unfortunately and it would get more and more partisan. i was quite left on some things but also quite right on other things but it won't

tolerate much so i ended being challenged in the primary so iy always have great friendships of my democratic colleagues i appreciate each other even though we disagree. host: the new book is the centrist solution. louisville kentucky on the democratic line go ahead. >>caller: good morning. a few weeks ago andrew yang was on the show talking about based around having the republican party and the democratic party and bringing them together to create a new party do you see that getting traction joe liebermann or case think ticket is one i

would have supported or vice versa. >> that would be an honor. i think my running days are over but that is kind of you to say. but not surprisingly i admire andrew yang and i give them a lot of credit to do what he is trying to do to create a new forward party and i went a lot of other were doing which is yes you areti a member of a political party but really you have an obligation to do what you think is right if they are doing something you don't believe is right for the country or your constituents so the average voter not so long ago and then to say i am

the way i got to go. >> so doing something that could only be constructed so with that realism if you look at american history there is not much of a track record of success or third-party movements to elect people the third-party that was created in america nationally was the republican party in 1856 and then elected abraham lincoln we are a two-party country incidentally they are not ordained in the constitution they use the law to protect

what one economist called the duopoly of the two parties but one thing that has happened effective for the third-party movement the most recent words ross perot and had a little effect on trade policy that a bigger effect on the balance budget and not in part because of the ross perot pressure getting 19 percent of the vote which is significant and i give credit for that so only good can come out of what andrew yang is doing i wish him well as a two-party candidates are nominated yes

he can in a constructive way i wish him well. host: ray on the republican line go ahead. >>caller: good morning gentlemen thank you are the best democrat around i have a quick question biden seems to besq caving so why is the disrespect for senator manchin? excuse me why is president biden acting more like a vice president or senator? i wish he was more like you. >> thank you. i have known joe biden forever. we met so long ago we had a mutual friend and we served together 23 years. a wonderful person honorable

and likable always working across party lines he will conservative republicans warren hatch and stromit thurmond. and productively with both of them on major bills were passed incidentally that is a big part of the reason why joe biden was elected president because there are self-described moderates he said i voted for president trump and liking some of the things they did that they were upset by others. and then to minimize the

political problem but intel the last few days frankly seeing them trying to negotiate a compromise with the 5 trillion-dollar package of big new programs down to some affordable amount negotiating with the centrist not the centerleft democrats in the senate and the house have a disproportionate influence on the president and i think this is leadership and justn the way lyndon johnson and ronald reagan the way they did it across party lines it's time to pull the democrats together for the sake of the country but also the sake of the party. i that is what we will see. if not i fear democrats will

suffer next year in the congressional elections and probably also in the presidential election two years later. host: the democratic line is next. medford oregon go ahead. >>caller: good morning joe, your idea hasn't worked for the working class nor the poor. i think your ideas are pretty archaic what is going on in the world today. your opinion during the situation where you think the left needs to move to the center it should be the other

way around you right people should move to the left because your policies have done nothing for the poor and the working class you have allowed ronald reagan's policies to destroy the union to continue and you are one of the reasons that happened because you were willing to go and talk to ronald reagan as if he was a good individual when he was proven to be a liar and a cheat against the united states and then fairness is not involved in that. you allow that to happen. >> so first when reagan was president did not come in and tell george bush 31 was

president since we are talking about me i have a very pro- worker record in support over the 24 years and before that in connecticut government. thing i'm saying. both sides have to come to the center and negotiate otherwiseo nothing will happen so as you say b things are terrible people are the center say that will work but unless they come to the center and treat each other's civilly with good conversation and then try to get something done in which it takes two to tango to bridge

gridlock. host: on the democratic side where do youea agree that it appears that the progressive caucus and those who represent that point ifav you have a much larger share of that view in the house ofta representatives than they did in the past quick. >> i'm sorry? >> the share to have a larger share of the view than the moderates of the old blue dog democrat coalition. >> no question that the center of the democratic party generally is liberally democratic but the agenda that is driven to have a problem-solving compromises

being driven by the further left not the centerleft but the left left of the democratic party there is some good parts that can we afford that all? the whole business of the three.5 trillion-dollar reconciliation ball on —- bill now talking about 2 trillion most of us only talk about the price tag these bills in their original form have big programs is almost working back medicare medicaid children's health insurance program and the a clean air act and you put it all in one bill and say so that is a process question but i plead not guilty to the charges mike

bill clinton who was a centrist created an economic situation that eight years as president had 22 million new jobs a lot of them filled with lowerr income and lower income people so with their jfk line. host: back to her democratic line moses. >>caller: good morning senator.my i am from new york add democrat and candidate for the u.s. senate i strongly believe we need those bills to bring the immediate relief

especially the poor people. i strongly believe we can afford this is extremely rich what iss lacking is that not too much gets done for the reach and the corporations. so how do we get that out of politics they do so much for the corporations but to go through communities across the nation and housing as a crisis but regarding the limits and

does that reduce the corruption and then to get and trenched into politics. host: there is a couple of items there term limits and getting the money out of politics. >> i will respond to both the term limits is something that i change my position sometimes you have to be honest enough to say your opinion is change when i first came to the senate term limits did not make sense, we have term limits senators are six years and the house has two and that's the way terms are limited but then as time went on to feel that most incumbents that run again but some that don't but then they

get reelected and the place needs to be shaken up because it is so unproductive so then to support term limits that i actually think it would be helpful so on a question of money and politics there are some things that happened and in the federal, government so to have a pretty good idea for candidates are getting their money from but the supreme court knocked off most of the limits some of the states have adopted public financing laws that essentially the amount of atmoney raised from private individuals the state

government will find your campaign it isth controversial people that went there many years with the political campaigns because it cuts the dependence of elected officials of people who have the agenda for the most part so i suppose support both term limits and the best answer of money and politics is public financing of think it is worth it. host: "the new york times" writes about that as a reference more than 4000 lobbyists working on budget and spending issues they say ten major industries spent $700 million this year on lobbying and i write to the us

chambere of commerce because of the tax increases have already spent $30 million this year on lobbyist hearing from george and jacksonville florida good morning your honor with joe lieberman. >> once upon a time and then the republicans they are doing a pretty good job in south carolinana but i want to point out something that china was doing some things and to

democrats that we need to change the infrastructure with those travel objects by the chinese and washington state and while you are talking to people many need to go to the fiber are on —- with the fiber-optic system but you need to go and stop this. host: you serve as the former chair of the senate homeland security committee and from that perspective and the

response? >> i get the general topic that if you could rephrase the question. host: he why is talking about china's efforts of radio frequencies i do here injustice to paraphrase that question. but let me ask you this on that in terms of where we are with issues that the biden administration is facing if you look at the china withdraw from afghanistan for the past nine or ten months of the biden presidency how would you rate how we on —- you we are now from the presidency quick. >> that's a great question hard to answer quickly but i will try to put it mildly

president trump was unconventional his form policy was strong in some places the lot were unsettled and in president biden's case chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and then that is to affirm policy and the president is trying to rebuild those relationships so you mention afghanistan but that was a very serious mistake. and that is the counterterrorism.

and i countries have gone to hell since then. and then joe biden has friendship and support in the new government wants very much to restore a bipartisanship. --t is kind of interesting. president trump took a very strong stance on chinese position. contrary to what a lot of us have believed, and really joe biden changes the way of the living standard for millions in

china and make the country open and free, it didn't work. they are doing better economically over the years, but leaders have an effect in china just like they do, and more, in the united states. president xi has made the conch -- the government more centralized and less free, although more economically positive and full of growth. this is a great challenge for our future. i think really, president biden, but members of congress, there is a bipartisan -- but both can create a strong position united for china from the u.s., but in a way that does not stumble us into a hot war in china, which we don't want and the chinese don't want. host: law -- vaughn on the

independence line from missouri. caller: i will try to make this quick, mr. lieberman. you are famous in my mind because of your work that you did against obama and the obamacare. that's how i remember you. i'm having a problem with this left and right label that y'all talk about. democrats on the left, republicans on the right, i thought that was just the side of the room that they sat on, but it seems like it is more like the lord to the left that used in the room, the more -- the more to the left used -- you sit in the room, the more you care about the people and the more right, the less you care about people.

i thought the government was supposed to be the entity of balance between the people, the issue of peace and harmony to prevent the tyranny of the rich and powerful on the poor and the workers. you know, supposed to balance things out, making sure no one takes advantage of anybody else. now here's my solution for the democrats, if you are listening. why don't you guys, since they don't want these new programs, just raise the minimum wage, call it a day? raise it to $25 an hour, call it a day, go home, and let it be. then we can do our own stuff. host: vaughn in missouri. guest: that was really an interesting statement. i want to go back quickly to the obamacare, because i really feel i get an unfair wrap on this. i supported health care reform from the day i came into the senate in 1989. always worked with different

parties, president clinton, to try to get it done. president obama called me in early in his term and i went into the oval office with him alone. he said, joe, i need your help. i said, mr. president, you've got it. you can get this done. i had a disagreement with people in the democratic party -- democratic caucus about the so-called public option, which i thought was a way to try to get to a national health care system in our country, which i don't think the country was ready for that time, but also what was going to bust the budget and create a tremendous debt. i thought the bill was strong enough particularly because it was going to enable millions of people who didn't have health insurance to get it and it was going to beg your -- better regulate insurance companies who were treating consumers unfairly. i don't like this public option

part and i am enthusiastic for everything else. basically, they needed 60 votes so the white house, the obama white house took that up and said, will you support the bill if the so-called public option is out? i said, of course i will. it's a major accomplishment, and i did. instead of saying i opposed obamacare, i opposed one part of it. it came out and i am proud to think i was the 60th vote that broke the filibuster against obamacare and enabled us to pass it. i would like to go on with what was said, but the vision of where people sit in congress and the senate of determining everything is really a good one. i will tell you, when i came into the senate in 1980 nine, there was 100 senators. at the end of sessions, some of

the journals in washington sort of measured votes, liberal conservative. it was always true at the beginning, roughly speaking, that there were 40 of the 100 were conservative, 40 were liberal, and there was the 20 in the middle, democrats and republicans that were mixed up. by the end of my time in the senate, you could not find a democrat who had a more conservative voting record than any republican or republican who had a more liberal voting record than any democrat. so unfortunately what the caller said, where used begins to determine -- where you sit begins to determine where you are. host: what about the current senate? are there any centrists left?

you've been critical about chuck grassley. what about friends and allies of john mccain? are there republican centrists? guest: chuck grassley, really i was more disappointed that he felt seeking reelection that he had to be so supportive of president trump. i believe he said he would square -- support him for president. chuck grassley, i disagreed with him a lot, but a wonderful man, honorable man, willing to compromise. and here he is at this stage of the career under pressure to do that. i'm sorry, i got focused. centrists in the republican party sure. the number one now is susan collins. and lisa murkowski. and take a look at the 10 republicans who cosponsored the

bipartisan infrastructure bill and helped to write it in the senate, and you've got a great new group, mitt romney, bill cassidy of louisiana, todd of indiana, -- taught -- and lindsey graham came on at the end. lindsay is sometimes -- and this is ok with me -- people will be party line on one thing, which lindsay is, conservative, and there is not a better -- i say this positively -- dealmaker, bipartisan dealmaker when he wants to be, on the senate, then lindsey graham. he's done it in different ways over the years and he is still prepared to do it now. so it's there. we've just got to let it live and let it come to this senate in a way that serves our country. host: we've got a caller from netiquette, gregory in

wilmington -- connecticut, gregory in wilmington, democratic line. you are on the air. caller: hello, joe, how are you? guest: good morning, gregory. i can see wilmington. i had some good visits there. host: go ahead, gregory. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: joe, i'm one of the democrats that voted for lamont and mostly because i was terribly unhappy with nafta, terrible for the working class, terrible, terrible. it has made china a powerhouse. holy cow. you voted for bankruptcy -- the student loan debt should not be allowed as part of bankruptcy. again, that's terrible. you deregulated wall street,

which has led to incalculable loss for the american working class. and the crime bill, you put so many black and brown people in this country in jail. we are the number one jailer in the world. thank you very much. the thing that broke the camels back for me was iraq and afghanistan. you should never have allowed him to go to iraq and our footprint in afghanistan should've have been a couple of years. host: gregory, you put several topics on the table. senator lieberman. guest: gregory, i expect your right to disagree and vote for lamont. on all the bills you mentioned, the only one on iraq and afghanistan, because i was on the armed services community, -- committee, the only other one is nafta which doesn't have so much to do with china but about prude

-- improving trade with our neighbors to the north and south. it has proven to be a net job gaynor in the u.s. as well as most countries. not everybody gained, that's true. overall, that was a compromise negotiated with labor unions as well as others. so i'm not sure how to answer the rest. you know, this is our system, and i understood, it was no fun to be challenged in the primary in 2006 by ned lamont and opposed by people who supported me before, but that's everybody's right. ned lamont won the primary fair and square and thanks to the laws of connecticut, i had a chance to go on as an independent, and thanks to the voters in connecticut, i won that one fair and square support from all three parties. i was privileged to have a final term in the u.s. senate.

long live the debate. not all of us are going to agree. i think my point in this book is when we disagree, we've got to remember that we are fellow citizens of the same great country and it is much better to sit down at the table together, talk, and try to find a way to make some progress, listen to each other, instead of standing back and throwing blocks at each other. it doesn't do anything. host: the u.s. house will be coming in momentarily and so will the senate on c-span two, with a key vote coming up on a voting rights measure, procedural vote, likely won't get the 60 votes needed. you think the democrats should break the filibuster in the u.s. senate? guest: let me say two things quickly. i support the voting rights act from what i know about it. i don't know as much in detail

as i would if i was in the senate, but it sounds right and consistent with our values, the constitution, etc. i'm reluctant to break the filibuster. i have altered my position on that over the decades. i use to work with tom harkin to reduce the 60 down to a lower number. today i think the 60 vote requirement is one of the last remaining incentives to bipartisanship, because you rarely get to 60 with members of one party, so you've got to reach out to the other and compromise. it is always better when something is adopted by both parties, because it lasts, unlike the iran nuclear deal, which president trump withdrew when he came in. obamacare, the republicans fought like hell to try to repeal it but fortunately they were denied by my friend, john mccain, stopped not from happening toward the end of his life -- stopped that from happening toward the end of his

life in an act of courage. it was about getting us to work together across party lines, that's the key. host: we appreciate you being on. the new book is called "the centrist solution: how we made government work and how we can make it work again."

post hosts this 30 minute event. >> good afternoon i am an opinion writer for the washington post. welcome to washington post live.