>> weekends on c-span2 on intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv document america's stories, and on sundays booktv brings you the latest nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 come from these television companies and more including midco. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> midco, along with these television companies, supports c-span2 as a public service. >> now let me conclude my introductory time at the lectern by introducing you all to phil and his tunic interlocutors. he's a senior fellow hit a guy prettily worked as a senior from at the r street institute and

the brookings institution. he also served as the fellow on the house select committee on the modernization of congress back in 2019. he earned earned his doctorate in politics from princeton university and is the author to macbooks, "why congress" and to the edge responses to the 2008 financial crisis. sitting at the far end is daniel lipinski, a distinguished visiting fellow at the hoover institution and the pope leo the 13th fell on social thought at the university of dallas. he represented the third district of illinois ine the u. house of representatives from 2005-2021. his career was quite distinguished. congressman lipinski earnediv a doctorate from political science from duke university and is author of congressional committee tatian, content and consequences. in the middle we have reid ribble, the micro-practitioner and resident in political the university of

wisconsin green bay. he, too, served in congress and served well. he represented the eighth the district of wisconsin in the u.s. house of representatives from 2011-2017, and after retiring from the house congressman ribble served as a seal of the national roofing contractors association for fivi years. with that come witht, a step awy from the lectern and bring up our guest philip wallach. [applause] >> just want to start by thanking everyone who braved the smoke today and is here in person. it's a real honor to have you all gathered together, and to thank the american enterprise institute for providing really such a wonderful professional homess for me where i could wrie this book. i want to start off by reading the epigraph of my book which

seems like a strange thing to do what i really find it pretty inspirational and helps givel a sense of why i'm involved in this project. so it comes from book, in defense of politics, by bernard crick, and goes like this. boredom was established truths is a great enemy of free men. so there are some excuse in troubled times not to be clever and inventive in redefining things or to pretend to academic unconcern or scientific detachment, but somebody tried to make some old platitudes pregnant. politics, like -- in the greek myth, can remain perpetually young, strong and likely so long as it can keep its feet firmly on the ground of mother earth. f as it as its thing and that's

actually the very beginning of his book and not in the next paragraph. he goes on to say something about how we should think of politics. politics is too often regarded as a poor relation, inherently dependent and subsidiary. it is rarely praised as something with the life and character. its own politics is not religion, ethics, law, science, history or economics. it neither solves everything nor. is it present everywhere? and it does not. any one political doctrine such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism or nationalism, though it can contain elements of most of these things. politics is politics to be valued as itself, not. it is like or really is something else more respectable or peculiar politics is politics. politics is often a dirty word in contemporary usage. it's an epithet. if something is political, that means it's bad.

and part of my effort in writing this book is to rehabilitate the idea of politics as something that free people do and the best that we have to keep social peace in a context of profound differences between the people of country. we need to learn how to with difference and manage it and, regulate it and not hope that we can suppress it. pretend that it doesn't exist, and so a big theme of the book is, why congress is the place where we need to deal with difference why in the american constitutional system congress is really the one institution that that allows the many menace of to have its say and to allow these different factions to come against each other and,

hopefully in the process of, figuring out how to accommodate each other, actually produce policies and solutions for the challenges facing our country better than anything that one group would come up with. all on its own. so this is not a new idea. has, as the epigraph said, i don't don't pretend to any inventiveness really. this goes straight back to something most of you were taught in in civics class at some from madison and federalist number. so madison and his of the federalist papers hamilton jay are very with how are we going to make this country hang together because as the constitution was in the balance they were worried that this young project the united states of america was not long for the world and they centrally

concerned with the problem of how can we get this diverse republic full of people divided class interests regional interests creedal differences how can we get them also live together in relative harmony rather than falling to pieces and madison in federalist provides this very famous answer about the extended republic. he talks about having sufficient diversity of factions that they will essentially check each other and keep anyone from predominating and thereby make sure that we cannot have tyranny of the or or tyranny of of any one group. and i won't go into that in detail because you've probably all heard that a million times suffice it to say, i think that

madison's arguments in various ten are really more profound than they're given credit for. i think an awful of people in our current politics believe somehow we can suppress and that we we can deal with the fact that people disagree somehow making us all into one people who agrees on everything. i think madison's route is far more realistic and far more profound. but turning to practicalities, madison, pretty quickly found that it's not simply enough to put these factions in contact with each other and mix it up and hope everything turns out all right. and madison, in the second congress, became concerned. that omits sort factional chaos, the sort of giant special interest of his day was was coming to predominate and.

he worried about the bank of the united states and its allies specifically. and so madison as a member of congress wrote to his friend thomas jefferson and he said he worried that the stock jobbers were becoming the pretorian band of the government at once, its tool and its tyrant bribed by its largesse as and overdrawing it by clamors and combinations. however, they really had a lot of flair back then. so madison, that if there's not some kind of organization put on this factional interplay in in the congress that he's an active member of a leading member of that. it's going to just sort of open the door to predation by interest. and so madison who worried so much about faction, is sort of a little bit ironically one of the fathers of political parties and

helps to create the republican as a counterbalance to hamilton's party. the federalists in congress. and we shouldn't pretend that just made everything work out smoothly in and of itself. the 1790s were an exceptionally nasty decade of politics in history. but that's not my subject. i'm just going to sort of say we we see a situation where we we need to organize a faction in congress. but partizan organization introduces its own problems. let me fast forward about eight decades to another observer of congress that is the political scientist, wilson woodrow wilson, as a as a doctoral student at johns hopkins university, wrote a book that

became probably the bestselling work of american political science in history and it's called congressional. most people remember it today, a famous pronouncement that congress in committee is congress at work. that's sort of the most famous. but wilson wasn't wasn't just writing a textbook. the book is quite polemical, and he's very concerned that the congress of his day was, again a place where special interests were predating on the american that all of deliberation was happening in committee behind closed doors. there were no open hearings at that time and that the committees would write legislation, which would promptly be signed into law after passing on the on the house and senate floors without much real substantive debate. and we once again, a situation where the parties which will wilson thought were rather

bankrupt in terms of their principles, are sort of running on fumes from the civil war, largely. and he worried that that basically leaving american politics. and wilson articulated very powerfully an alternative vision, very much different from madison's in federalist number ten, where madison was celebrating complexity and the multiple dissatisfaction as a solution to possible tyranny. wilson wants clean lines such that we can have accountability and he believed that what we needed was the can deal with faction in internally and then can present the american people with a clean choice. and at election time, the american will decide they will charge one of these parties which given a clear message with governing the country, and then that that that party should be

given a chance to implement its agenda and pay attention to the to the finer details of administration. it's remarkable the extent to which wilson's prescriptions actually got followed in the decades after he wrote well before he ever emerged as a major political figure in his own right in the 1880s and 1890. as we move toward system of very strong partizan control of of the house under speaker reed known as czar reed and his successor in the in the first decade of the 20th century was one of the most colorful figures american history really who i wish was not such an obscurity today joseph gurney cannon known as boss cannon and he was somebody who was raised in the

sort of wild of western indiana in the 1840s. but here he a dominant figure in the first decade of the 20th century. he always had a cigar hanging out of the corner of his mouth and he sort of played his hayseed nature as a way of dealing with the press. but he was a very shrewd political operator and became the dominant figure in washington for a time. and if i can i need a clicker. there's a clicker somewhere. thank you okay? i've got i'm not showing you a slide show, but have this one political cartoon, which is practically my favorite part of the whole book. and this is a cartoon and the caption of it, i better get it right. the caption says.

uh, the house in session, according the minority point of view, that's what's in the script up at the top there and i'm not sure for those for those viewers online and on c-span in gurney presiding over the chamber of the and he says the gentleman illinois is recognized that's him. the gentleman from illinois is him and the house is full of him it's full of dozens and dozens or scores and scores of carbon copies. joseph gurney cannon such that the house in session consists of doing what mr. cannon wants wants so we followed wilson's advice to a remarkable degree and we ended in this situation where we a dominant party with a pretty clear agenda, very clear differences between the party. after the election of 1896, right where we have william mckinley in and william jennings

and cannon is sort of for the business orthodoxy the day and he's dominant figure but that comes with the problem of sort of stifling orthodoxy. this is the time of the second industrial revolution, very rapid social change and. we congress can't keep up when things are just joseph gurney cannon trying to say how things should be and eventually he faces a seminal moment in. congress, an insurgency from progressive republicans, his party who who bolt and join forces with the democrats, overthrow his dominance. he had been presiding over the rules committee. in addition to being the speaker. and he's stripped of that power and soon enough things are blown open. congress operates on a very different principle for many decades, a sacrosanct seniority principle where committee become

the real power centers rather than the speaker. and that's a decentralized of congress. so the book tries to give a sense that congress is a place with a long history. it's a place where there have been vicissitudes and in trying to deal with this problem of action, trying to make sense of how we can play factions off against each other in productive ways. we sometimes end up in a in a land like this where have stifling orthodoxy. other times we end up feeling like the place has become kind of a decentralized, chaotic mess. and we need to start to re-impose some order, perhaps through centralization. so that's all i wanted to show for my picture show. i'm just going to gesture up really most of the chapters of the book, but i wanted to get that basic concepts idea out there. i'm sure we'll have a lot of time to talk about contemporary

politics in the discussion, but the the main part of the book sort of goes from. the 1970s to today and looks how we've gotten from a place that was in the 1970s became a radically decentralized chamber to today it's a place dominated by very cannon like figures at least very recently maybe things today are changing and we'll talk about that. but it's a place where centralized leadership has called the shots to remarkable degree and structured the agenda and a sense that we don't really have a very interesting interplay of factions. we have to clusters of factions who know how to yell at each other and insult each other and always know how to work together, except when they absolutely have to when to be fair then and then they do. the argument of the book is that we're in a moment the stifling

orthodoxies are enforced by these centralized leaders. really give our politics a sense of not being adequate to the challenges of the moment, which are very real, and they tend to push elsewhere in our government, power abhors a vacuum. and if congress doesn't act, the executive branch largely picks up the slack and. unfortunately, the executive branch is not a good place to represent the men of this country. we end up with profound problems when we try to have agency bureaucrats solve all our problems through creative interpretation of old statutes. we really need to continue to renew our sense of self-government, take ownership for happens what the federal government does and the best way for us to do that is to feel like we trust the members that we send to congress and we believe in the process by which they mix it up with each other

and work out accommodation and find solutions they won't always be pretty solutions. they won't even always be good laws. my argument is not that if we empowered congress and got it to be a more assertive branch, it would always do the right thing that would be a crazy argument make. i don't believe that, but overall, why? because by investing in the political process, by investing in this ideal of self-government, that's how we renew our commitment. being a free people. that's how we secure social peace better than any other way know. and that's really how our system is meant to function, how, you know, we need to make the choice for madisonian politics once again in order. i to keep our country from falling to pieces. so i'll leave it at that and look forward to the discussion. thanks.

well, thank you, phil. for start with congressman lipinski. phil spoke of congress and i think we could say especially the house as being a place supposed be a bunch of diverse interests being piled into the same forum and then having to work things out amongst themselves, which, as phil hinted, can go two basic ways, either they cancel each other out and nothing happens, or they somehow bargain out a compromise that enough of them can live with. it can then move on to the next chamber. was that happening when? you were in congress. was that happening much a lot? not much at all. what was your experience? well, let me let me start with

phil read the wrap. let me read this from distinguish academic and public servant. what the blurb on the back of the book. well, few would claim that the contemporary congress is uniting the nation, solving our most vexing problems. why congress lays out a convincing case that this is exactly what the institution was designed to do, has done in the past and do once again. and let me tell you, as we all know, it's not doing that right. i was so many different thoughts come to mind as as it's filled with speaking. and i unfortunately way, way too many when i was thinking they wouldn't ever that we do that cartoon they sure do with nancy pelosi now that would have been that would have been absolutely perfect perfect but i've i've said the biggest change that i've seen i studied congress

before. i ran for congress as a political scientist in the biggest change that think has happened over the last few decades. it used to be after every election, federal election, every two years, everyone in washington house members, senators would look around, say, okay, who has majority the house? who is the majority in the senate? who controls white house? what can we do over next year and a half together? what can we work on the betterment of the country before we fight it out in the next next election? today after the election, every two years, what happens? everyone looks around who controls what and says, what can we do in next two years? so our party can get control of everything in shoved down the throats the other side exactly what we what this is how congress is supposed to operate.

congress is as i was coming over here, i saw a tweet representing scott perry was asked today about have they resolve impasse right now the house is stuck freedom some members freedom blocked the rule on some bill that all the republicans wanted us out there. scott perry has that been resolved and he says it doesn't matter that much that was that was just a messaging bill and the person tweeted a steak sherman's said well that's all the house is doing right now i've argued that's what the house done since 2011. the house has taken itself out of two large extent, legislating and big problem is, is phil is we're really congress is supposed to take all these ideas from the diverse country and i mean this book is just really incredible.

it's the book i wish i have written. i'm glad phil had to put all of the work in to do it. he did a better job than i probably would have, but this is why it's so important. but i think so few people understand this what the role of congress is supposed to it's supposed to be representative who, come in, bring the views of their constituents to washington, the constitution set up congress to debate, deliberate come to some conciliation. and it is not doing that. now, some may say, well, that's just because the country is so split. that's part of the reason. but congress was meant to end. it can as phil says in this book, it could help bring the country together if we actually represent and as founders do their job of having just it's either a red way or a blue and

there's no choices. individual members don't get to have too much of a say in it. we're just trying to if if we're in the minority we don't want to we're not trying to have a say want to shame the other side so we can win the next election. i remember i'll tell one story and then i'll, i'll let reed give it. the two of us could go for a long time, so i shut myself up here. best illustration of this one of the best 2013 government shutdown october of 2013. there is a group of that was a member of the bipartisan problem solvers caucus we were there's a group of us getting together democrats republicans throwing what can we possibly put forward that helped get us out of, you know, get the government funded again? are are and you know, we understood that the republicans that sort of painted themselves in a corner this house republicans said, get rid of affordable care act or, you

know, government doesn't get funded and we're trying to figure out some way through this and some of the democratic members, not me, because leadership knew they couldn't really sway as to independent back story here from my democratic. yeah i got a call from leadership that stopped trying to do this. we don't want the government essentially message we don't want the government because this makes republicans look really bad. and we don't want to help them get of this problem. and that was just the illustrative of the way things are now. what happened? republicans finally got something done open government. they did look bad, but then affordable care act, obamacare website crashed and then it all it all flipped to the other side. but that's so much of what the house, especially senate works a little bit. but that's what the house is about.

messaging that just takes away the people's voice and that's that that my certainly my my experience. how about you read your experience, did you see these diverse interests working out things one another? did they have the space to do that or was it primarily of a red shirt versus blue shirts scrum? it depends on who in the congress were speaking. dan and spoke frequently, became very good friends when i was there, but i tell you, it was something very, i guess, informed a lot of my thinking in congress. i was there for four months and i had never served in political office before being elected, even though my good buddy here tossed group of they were elected in 2011 under the bus a second ago that was me. but the reality was i was sitting with scott rachel who was a car dealer. i was a roofing contractor by trade. we were both business people and we're sitting in the chamber for

votes and. scott leaned over me and said, hey, have you met any democrats yet? we've been there three months and committee meetings. you go and you get sequestered all the republicans go in their room. all the democrats go in their room, and there's no discussion between the and i said. no, i haven't met any. he said, well, why don't we go meet some? and i said, i think a good idea. you go over they're all sitting over there. so just pick one and i'll pick one and we'll go out to dinner. and that's what we did and i went over there, i introduce to congressman jim cooper and scott introduced himself, congressman kurt schrader went out to dinner and it was curious about the dinner. i want to figure out how liberals. think i just didn't understand it. we turned out we picked two of the most moderate members in the chamber. you. and so it was a total fluke that that happened. but but we became we became really friends. congress functioned in what a good friend of mine another

member of congress told me, called it a pyramid of power. and everybody is working to climb up on top of the pyramid at the very top of that pyramid is the speaker of the house. and right below the speaker of the house are the majority leaders and in majority, minority whip. they're there and then directly below them are the committee chairmen. but i would i would even say directly below the whip, the majority and minority leaders. it's really the staff directors of the committees. then below them, the committee, then below them are the legislative directors on your and then at the bottom of the pyramid is everybody else, all the members. we had no power whatsoever. everything was driven from the top and i was in the majority the whole time. speaker john boehner was the speaker and he he basically governed the republican using the hastert rule and the hastert rule was nothing will come to the floor of the house unless he's got the majority of the majority supporting it at that point, it can move forward. however, when brian became

speaker, i don't think this was deliberate. i think it was nature of what had happened in in the members that were sent there. it pretty much got to a point where. nothing came to the floor unless we could pass it on our so unless we had 218 republican votes, we didn't want to basically get anybody mad. and so nothing nothing could have happened without that. so what that meant then was that everything was directed from the top and we had less power in that case. and so i'm struck by the congress unwillingness to jealously invite, guard their authority. article one of the constitution, they are very willing to that authority off to a president. and two recent examples would be the the us senate under president trump controlled by republicans and. they just all kind of rolled over when when president trump didn't want us bothered going through the process. advise and consent for cabinet

positions. so trump just made up a bunch of acting secretaries and the senate just kind of rolled over on their back like puppies and waited trump to pat him there. the tommy and they just let him do whatever he wanted. and today you've got the similar things going on with president biden just, you know, deciding, well, we're going to issue $20 billion of of credits to student. i'm just going to forget it. and the congress got all the power, the purse, but they just refuse to hold on to and protect and guard their power. and it damages institution. and so i think to to get back where the congress was actually a representative body doing the work the american people want. they're going to have to see that power back from the from the executive branch, even when it's their guy or gal in the white house, they've got to be able to say no, it's nice that nice. nice. mr. president or madam president, that you've got this opinion. but we'll let you know when we send legislation, if you like it signed, if you don't veto it and we'll we'll take it from there.

but they're just to protect their own authority. it's a it's discouraging to to be there watching unfold. yeah. i should say that, you know i'm old enough to remember the carter presidency. i mean you had a democratic congress, you had a democratic president. but congress would often just openly contemptuous of the white house and was contemptuous of it. and they fought amongst themselves frequently with the republicans sitting on the side, kind of watching the whole the spectacle, and that these days rare. and that's what i would turn to you felt because this issue of congress giving up authority, the constitution says it has james madison probably be a bit perplexed by this. you know, much of his to some degree involves the kind of low motives of human beings wanting to hold and wield as part of what the separation of power

system, you know, working is. people want to guard the power that they have by virtue of being in the branch. yeah, that's as we all know delegation giving away a power to wield power has become allies. what why do members do that i mean, isn't power fun like why would they want to use it? yeah, the ambition counteracting ambition depends on sort of this individual sense of drive. and it has to be drive to do something, thus take the responsibility onto yourself than just ambition to be seen. that's where a lot of ambitions are channeled these days and it can't just be ambition to help your party win the next election. right. that's that's that's really the thing that dominates our our current political moment is the sense that oh, well, it really is so important for my party to win the next election. the ambition.

let's get our party in the white house where there exercise having the sort of real power in the system and we'll take it from there and we'll will cheer cheer them on they when we have the real power and we'll try to slow the other guys down, they have it and yeah, i guess it's a source of hope for me because i think that, you know, dan and reed are not so unusual in feeling a lot of frustrations. just how useless members congress can feel sometimes. right. i think it's a very widely shared sense and the who get elected to congress are talented people. i don't think it's just a matter of we have all the wrong people to office and there are some something morally or in any other way defect of about them. so i think people do feel frustrate it and they wish they could be more involved in a meaningful legislate process

where they are helping to find sort of strange bedfellows across aisle and making things happen. but they're willing at the same time to sit back and listen their leaders, when their leaders tell them no that's really not so helpful for really important thing of winning the next election. and so part of the point of this book is just a plea to the members themselves. the book ends with with an open letter to members of congress and pretty much just says, hey, aren't you ambitious? don't don't you want to get something done for this country? isn't isn't this trend of kind of played out? haven't we had enough of the current political moment and a sense that kind of exhausted its possibilities? don't you want to be a part of mixing it up and solving the country's problems in a more, you know, active way? you know, don't you want to be something more than a glorified telemarketer as was i know one of your former colleagues

described the job and i do think a lot of members really do want that. and so i'm hopeful that they can you know, i'm hopeful that they can draw some inspiration from the history of their own institution to know that the congress has on very different operative principles has been organized in different ways to help that kind of lawmaking happen in the past and certainly could at this point as well. so i want to go back to congressman lipinski. this image of the house not being the place where interests are able to work out themselves, of being very driven from the top down is a structural issue primarily can be fixed by altering the internal rules and structure of the chamber. is that a partizanship? what it it is driven by partizanship? it's driven by the divide in in

country. but it is reinforce by the rules and the committee and modernization of congress. one of the things that i'd actually originally had the bill to create that were hoping to open things up at the beginning of this congress of some the freedom caucus members. i had an op in washington post saying you know they're talking about we need to open this up. we want to say more of a say in what's going on. we don't want just this to be top down. and i said, this is good. this is something that is interesting that they felt that, well, they want more of a say and somehow they're going to have more control. i don't think quite understand that. but i'm all for opening up in the problem solvers caucus.

we were always trying to do that. we in 20 after 2018 election, democrats got the majority in the house and problem solvers caucus had agreed on some rule changes that we were going to demand. whoever whichever party had won the majority in 2018 election, there's going to be a new no matter what paul ryan was said he was going to step down and we said we're going to demand that are some rule changes. open it up to more bipartisan to change the rules, open up to more bipartisan and lawmaking and unfortunately, our we didn't we made a few small changes but it's tough it's really tough at that time almost everyone knew what nancy pelosi was eventually going to be speaker. i don't want to upset nancy. so we got some small things out. so let's partially the the rules lot of it is look i'm sure i

would assume those members that this past week said we're not going to pass a rule you need in order to consider legislation on the floor you need to pass a rule generally majority party votes for the rule it's it says know this bill will come up. this is how much debate time itself many amendments if any normally a majority vote all votes for minority vote against it. 11 republicans said we're not going to vote for this. we're upset that we that we didn't have enough input on the debt ceiling. and so that they stopped that from from moving forward. so and i forgot my point where i was going, that one. well, can i pick it up? yeah, go ahead. i'm glad you had a look in your eye. you ready? i just want to say, you know, it's there's this point about, the freedom caucus folks, and the kind of blowing the chamber open. i agree.

liked an awful lot of of the rhetoric from some of those folks back january. but it has to be in service of coalition building and the principle has to be persuasion. you actually have to imagine reaching out to your colleagues and meeting them where they stand and convincing them that they won't they should do business with. you i think that the strange of these folks want to blow the floor open, have more of a chance, have their say on the floor to offer amendments on the floor. and i'm all for but really for congress to sort of get its mojo back, it needs to embrace its role. the legislation legislature that makes laws and you make laws by assembling majority laws. and so, you know, i think the question i've had is, you know, how do we get the moderate to feel more organized such that they're the ones making demands and assembling in the service,

assembling these coalitions? whether the speaker is so happy about it or not. and, you know, whether the speaker is a happy about it or not. the problem solvers caulk assistance in very good were in that regard but in some ways i find the group less assertive than i wish it was. >> there less willing to yield their votes in opposition to stop something, for sure, because most of the problem solvers are more pragmatics n ideologues. just a different group of people. one of my favorite words in the entire u.s. constitution is also one of the smallest ones, the word all. it's the first word of the first article, the first section of they constitution, all. pretty inclusive word. all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested or interested in the congress of the united states which will consist of a senate and house of representatives. so all the legislative power that our founders bestowed, that

they granted here in in the constitution was given to this body, the congress. they had to wrestle between the states and thehe people, the hoe of representatives and the senate, to come up with some type of agreement. there never was this idea that the president is going to write legislation and say because i got voted by all the people you have to do this. it's not even remotely where the founders were out intellectually or fitted with the country to run that way because the revolution itself was in opposition to monarchy, to power. in fact, john quincy adams after he served president went back and certainly house of representatives. can you imagine a president today lowering himself to serve and house of representatives? but that's where theys power resided in the earliest days. and congress, they've not embraced this at all. i agree with what you two to said regarding some of the rules changes. but the one rule change that they needed they didn't push

for, and that is that you needed to rest power away from committee chairman. because if they don't rest power away from committee chairman and committee chairman are subject to the speaker, the speaker still has got too much power. and the way you rest power away from committeeir chairman is by having committee chairman selected by the members of the committee. because then that chairman would be beholden to the members of the committee. rather than the speaker who selects them. and the most significant thing they could have done is that and then you would begin to devolved power back to the members and that great wisdom of the crowd that you speak of in your book could emerge. but right now the citizens that are represented by kevin mccarthy in california, those citizens, the wisdom of that crowd has way more say, and the wisdom of the crowd in northeast wisconsin has none.

and that's what this alleges the wisdom of the crowd breaks down. because those members with the proxy. they are the boat, we are to say here's what northeast wisconsin or here's what illinois feels about this or that. this is what the citizen say about this or that, then they place their card information and photo. that's the only way the wisdom of the crowd can emerge through this elected body and begin to be heard again. but that couldhi stop because everything is being driven by the top. >> one thing i say, anyone who is in this room watches this, if there's one thing the sightreading phil's book that want to stake out a discount, if you don't know it, congress is article one of the constitution. we start out all legislative power. i don't think most americans know that you understand that. they think the president is the leader of everything.

the president is supposed to make policies for the country, supposed to make laws for the policy. i mean, the wisdom of, i've gone back in the last couple of years and looked at the federalist papers, just the wisdom of the men who wrote the constitution, and this idea is a vast, very diverse country even at the time of the founding, was a diverse country. how do we keep people together? well, everyone needs to feel like that they have a voice through the representative. and they go back to you are not just two ways of thinking. there's not a red way and a blue wave. there's a lot of diversityty across the country, and we need those voices to come in here this is a diversity. i mean, i think you could paint this as a diversity issue is we are not hearing all the

different voices across the country, and that's the way it was meant to be. >> i would teach classes at the high school level, you know, schools would invite you to come in as a member of congress to talk about how congress works. i would take his high school class and i would say today we're going to create house and senate and we're going to vote on where we're l going to lunch. we would divide the room up and then they would have to deliberate and come to a conclusion about whether going to gore to lunch that day. except as they were deliberating upper quadrant and a bit give somebody a card and the card would say i'mnd shellfish allergic. another card might say i have an allergy to peanuts. i go around and i would basically sabotage it to try to show that the diversity, the diversity all had to be brought into consideration to get to a conclusion. and in the strength of that diversity that actually if congress is allowed to let it emerge could actually c be something extraordinarily

powerful today. but it got too loud. that means they must give up power themselves and give it back to you all. >> so i want to double back to this issue that everyone has had upon about recent speakers being so powerful. in fact, we got an audience question that came in on this very topic. a speaker is just a single person in the chamber of 435. how is this person so powerful? what's the source of the power? who would like to take that one? who wants to start? >> who wants to start on that one? you want to -- >> i can tell you my take on it, sure. i think members like it that way. so when you observe continue dysfunction in anyan organizati, and the business, in the congress come in a marriage, if you continuee to observe dysfunction, you have to ask the

question who was winning as a result of this dysfunction? and then you can identify why the dysfunction exists here when you relinquish how to somebody else, , when the congress relinquishes it to the president, when members really push it to the speaker to have someone to blame when they go home. they can sayas man, i was fightg against it but i got stopped by the speaker. i was fightings, for this but president wouldn't let us but are still going to be there fighting for you tomorrow. you got somebody to blame. they get to carry the weight of any bad decision. i think members like that. i think they want to be protected as opposed to wanting to actually hold the power that was t their rightful, the right, they are the rightful heirs of that are based on electric that sent them there. >> i don't think you want it. >> the old observation about legislative politics is that politicians either want too clm credit or the want to shift the

blame here to claim credit you at least have to engage in a credible amount of action to be able to say that you've achieved something, were as you're suggesting blame shifting things a lot easier. you just sit back and say well, i tried but the forces -- >> the easiest vote in congress to take his the no vote. you can win an election of year and vote no one everything. >> i i want to add to that becae i think there's some truth in that. a lot of people who lay that as a primary reason why members of congress give up power. they can't get blamed, , they cn shift blame. i also think that, maybe especially because i'm kind of a democratic party, it's just the idea, reid talked about how democrats in and both consul. this idea that we have our party has all the answers, and members come in. for saw a lot of members who come in, new members now get

elected, they don't know anything different. it's been this way for many years. they don't know how to legislate. they don't even think of the idea that i'm going to come in and actually be able to participate in this legislative process. they are thinking i get elected, i'm here for the team. and there so much of that. i'm here for the team. and if the leader of the team says you've got to follow along, you say okay, all right, i'm here, we got, we need to defeat the evil other side, and you were told, well, if you don't go along, that evil other side can win. we all need to stay together or else the evil other side could win. and that's a part of it. some members don't even know what they could possibly do it because legislator, and some of it is speakers are given a heck of a lot of power, and when you get the idea that if i want

anything done here, i need to, it's like, i got to go to the king or queen and if they will grant, if they will do something that i want to get done, i can go home and take credit for, i need to go to them. i need to win, get them to make it happen and, therefore, i can't cross him in anyway. any way. i better u follow along until i get my chance to ask for my favor from the monarch. i think that's also part of what's going on. >> i think both of your answers explain a lot about sort of the stickiness of the current moment. it i guess again i take some hope from the longer history of the place because i think to some extent those forces are always at work. .. of possibilities for members to sort of feel like this threat is played out to at some point feel like being the

good partizan team player is just not worth it anymore because your own party has gotten so twisted up in its own sort, self-defense rather than actually solving the people's and doing the people's work. and doing the people's work so i do think politics have gotten kind of boring you know how to watch, it's pretty unpredictable and boring. >> it happens one 100% of the time. >> media does it just to do a good story but it's so pretty civil and sterile. it's not going to solve our problems or produce anything industry.

if you feel it is important to come up with a novel solution to the problems in the country, congress can be an engine of in a better place to be an engine, it's not cut out for creativity, asked executing the laws. congress think of an issue like immigration which is one of the chapters in my book, the sense that immigration is broken in different ways and common sense billing to be able to let's and immigration words something for all these people in this legal

great world really upset will work. ages and ways to correct in the statutory powers. is there a chance to break the solutions we need to show bravery and often with supper the consequences think is people

doing the people's work were born doing anything any of the with the others who allow you to put in things is magic on each side can get something when you narrow will, it makes it

impossible and think my question no flowers and there will be a lot to do with it. speaker will have a lot of power from other legislatures thinking of giving her away. my last question is to ask, congress, what can be done to fix it? dan, then read the. >> you should never that with me on a question like that. i spent many years thinking this

has to get better, has to return to work. i came in 2005 and the second term saying some things still got done in a bipartisan way. after 2008 election, obama gets elected, or much more. hate the other side, can't even talk to them much less compromise. 2016 president trump gets elected and democrats go off in that same direction. i wondered in 2013, 14 i said i keep saying things have to get better and i finally quit saying that. i'm glad i said that before donald trump was selected.

activists the campaigns come from small donors. they learned how could you let this happen? you need to do is there we show now we are not going to go along, we are not going to play along and will go you will cost. we need to show it among the people who are listening to this. when does itt change? i remember december of 2020 in writing to certify, i remember the call from the carcass in the

public and members were playing the phone doesn't ring, people are protesting outside my office and they'll say to vote no and they felt the pressure and i wouldev never see my 16 years suggest to another member what they should do but i said is the time you have to be willing to stand up and say i'm willing to lose my job over this because this is so important. i thought all i felt like as soon as i did that but they were so -- i quote for the certified letters, that's it they are listening of local minority that has this weight and that's the thing how -- human nature to

willing to say i think this is -- what they are saying this, by into the answer, my party has the answer does her broken and i don't have the answer to that. >> i don't think there's a good answer. i have never been more republican million this time. i thoughtht typically crisis moment where susie congress function whether it civil war, so congress emerge. i thought only fix and not in the history of ourur country, te first time we lack is transferred, that would be

called people pause that the speed in which disinformation can move to the internet today is shocking and profoundly damaging. i best to you and wish it wasn't this writer congress is nickel. i ran because i was cynical and i left congress more cynical than when i went in. the challenge we have right now is the americanpl people must da better job selecting and promoting leaders and then holding the feet to the fire and we need a president willing to use long house or to force to relinquish its own force congress to do work that will be what it will take it will be triggered by a crisis moment in the country but i will say

comedian modernization was a good first step and senate didn't do it but if we can get the house to function normally again, that would be hopeful. i've spoken frequently asking them how many of you would give the congress and approval rating ago above 40%? i hardlyy ever handcuff and the d striking disconnect and dissidents, they keep reelecting their own member and they hate congress but love their person. >> the book closes three scenarios which i think are better chapters of the book,

they start with dispatches from the future written by observers in pretty 39, 250th birthday of congress looking back in about where the institution has gone by then. carpeted, rubberstamped and revival. the first tutor it doesn't require too much imagination to imagine congress getting called out, congress is not completely walk in place by any stretch of the imagination. it seems like a shock to the

system to cause is kind of revolt and willingness to shake things up because as long as things stay within the lines we are familiar with, they will keep making the same choices so it's a hard reality to face. i would offer reforms on the margin which i am willing to do, devolving power to the committees an important thing to do and i like the idea before members elect their own chairman and the idea of guaranteeing committees and part of the problem is if you make yourself a diligent workforce and the committee to make yourself a policy expert and work on writing the bills let alone have the chance to become laws if

you're willing to put in the time and legislation on a hard subject you will have a chance to get it passed into law and that would be changed and make something of those ambitions not just as performers who use their purchase to get attention. >> thes time we have left, go o audience questions. the judgment in the front row. >> the microphone is coming to you. >> i worked in the senate for ten years since 1970 and then worked around both houses leading different organizations. i am a product of the cold war and vietnam war and i saw things

comingap apart in front of our eyes when members didn't want to harm the executives to push the button if they had two. incoming missiles or whatever it requires. in doing so i washed particularly in the senate because i spent ten years there, the authorizing committees giving up power and appropriators starting with the house became king makers. at least that's how i led to the organization to deal with members so i look forward to reading to you because it goes, steer opening but then again 74, the vietnam war, gingrich will,

can you expand? >> that's chapter four and five of the book. crack it open and i should member mentioned to the members here, please help yourselves when we break. i will say in that era you mentioned when there was a profound loss of trust in government, there's a chance for the legislature to rise in people's estimation to a famous book i like written in 1980 calleded decline in resurgence f congress so the time of resurgence for the institution in large part because of watergate and the ways vietnam led people to be suspicious of executive so that your when you

worked on the senate, it was an exciting time in terms of ambition and reshaping the place, a lot of energy in the halls of congressna but they didn't succeed in settling on a model thatt would take advantage of congress is institutional capacity specifically you saw a shiftn from legislation to oversight in the 70s in the sense that it wasn't always so important whether you passed laws because you hold a subcommittee hearing and a huge proliferation of subcommittees with staff and they did -- exactly, yeah. they created a sense that congress was a big mess so i was

a problem but we didn't try to solve it with logic. we turned to with sony and logic and people were frustrated congress like a young newt gingrich, they had a sensibility to american politics. they did not believe in rehabilitating congress as a place of competition. gingrich from the first campaign in the mid- 70s was saying congress is a corrupt terrible place. we need to take the bruise and clean out the stables and relentlessly campaigned against the institution and even when he became speaker of the house, he was orientedit against the coalition logic and came in

saying we have a mandate from the people, we won the midterms and president clinton only one because of ross, time to do what republicans want after all those decades doing democratic way and he didn't have legislative sensibility is my argument in the book. he was not a coalition builder by disposition so he tried to smash a lot of things through without regard for what the senate would think of it let alone how he would get president clinton on board. he sort of expected this moments arrived and everything would work out. the puzzle to me is that model was really not that successful. republicans in the mid- 90s did not rollback society, that was there ambition and they failed. it is the exception really got something important past but their agenda failed but

nevertheless, the gingrich model has stuck and if you look at the idea of centralized house leadership for running things from their pocket, it was the idea of jim wright who owned it out of office 1988 and we need to get away from this way of thinking. part of the books ambition is there is another way of inking about this institution, we need to get away from everything is going to be divided in the electionss because elections can't carry that much weight. >> thirty-seven committees and subcommittees have authority at some.over healthcare. the rules and legislation and healthcare, they were all in their own silence so it's no

wonder think unglued so i said the radical thing republican's are in the rules for the 115 congress, i offered a rule change for healthcare but that would remove the ability of 37 other committees in the industry, he would have thought world war would come unglued. it's missing is the single biggest expense and health and medicare and medicaid va benefits and no source or place for experts can reside deal with one of the most important issues for the american people today. >> i regret to inform you we picked the 75th minute so for those of you who braved the small, feel free to stick around "afterwards". everyone will be here and we are happy to chat for those of you

watching out there, thank you for tuning in and could we please get a round of applause? [applause] ♪♪ >> nonfiction book lovers sees that has a number of podcasts for you to pop q&a, wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others making things happen. no plus our weekly hour-long conversations that feature destiny office, nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics and see about books podcast 60 behind the scenes of the nonfiction industry with insider interviews, industry updates and bestsellers list. find out podcast by downloading the free c-span now up or wherever you get your podcast and on our website