more. book tv every sunday on cspan2 or any time online at booktv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's stories and on sundays book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more including a ♪ ♪. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ along with these television companies support cspan2 as a public service.

>> let me conclude my introductory time at the lectern by introducing you all too fill. phil is a senior fellow previously worked as at the institute. he also served as a fellow on the house select committee on modernization of congress. that was back in 2019 earn a doctorate in politics in and princeton university authored two books wyatt congress and to the edge of the gallate legitimacy andse responses to 28 financial crisis. sitting at the far end is daniel lipinski's a distinguished fellow at the hoover institution. in a fellow on social at the university of dallas. hate represents third district of illinois u.s. house of representatives in 2005 until 2021. his career was quite distinguished but congressman trent to doctor for duke university author of

congressional communication, content and consequence. in the middle we w have reid ribble inaugural practitioner resident and political science university of wisconsin green bay. he too served in congress and served well. he represent the eighth district of wisconsin u.s. house of representatives from 2011 until 2017 for it after returning from house congressman served as a ceo of that roofing contractors association for five years. with that let me step away from the lectern bring up our guests. philip wallach. [applause] also to start by thanking everyone who braved the smoke today and is here in person. it is a real honor to have you all gathered together. i do think the american enterprise institute for providing relate such a

wonderful professional home for me c where i could write this book. i want to start off by reading the epigraph of my book which seems like a strange thing to do. but i really find it inspirational and helps give a sense of why i am involved in this project. it comes from this book in the sense politics by bernard crick. and it goes like this. boredom with the establisheded truth is a great enemy of free men. so there's some excuse and troubled times not to be clever and inventive in redefining things or to pretend to academic unconcern or scientific detachment. but simply to try to make some old platitudes pregnant. politics in the greek myth can't

remain perpetually young, strong, lively so long as he can keep its feet firmly on the ground of mother earth. the quick is a great defender of politics as its own thing. that is actually the very beginning of his book and in the next paragraph he goes on to say something about how we should think about politics buted politics is too often regarded as a poor relation inherently dependent and subsidiary. it is rarely to something with the life and character of its own. politics is not religion and ethics law, science, history or economics. another solvesev everything nors it present everywhere and it was not any one political doctorate such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism they can contain elements of most of these things. politics is politics to be valued as itself. not because it is like or really

is something else more respectable or peculiar. politics is politics. x is often a dirty work in contemporary usage. if something is a political that means it is bad. part of my effort in writing this book is to rehabilitate the idea of politics is something that free people do. and the best way that we have to keep social peace in the context of profound differences between the people of our country -- we need how to learn to cope with different management and regulate it i not hope we can suppress it or pretend it doesn't exist. that's a big theme of the book is why congress is the place where we need to tell the difference? why in the american constitutional system congress is the one institution that

allows the many notes of america to have it say and to allow different factions to come up 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 ournt country better than anything or one group could come up with all on its own. this is not a new idea as the epigraph said. i don't pretend any inventiveness. this goes straight back to something truly most of you were taught in civics class at some point from james mattis and federalist number 10. though madison is co- authors of the federalist papers and j are very concerned with how are we

going to make this country hang together? because as the constitution was balance they were this junk project from the united states of america was not long for the world. centrally concerned with the problem of outcome get this diverse republic full of people divided by class interest regional interest, alchemy get them to all live together in relative harmony rather than falling to pieces? madison provides this very famous answer about the extendev republic. he talks about having sufficient diversity of factions they will essentially check each other and keep anyone from predominating

and thereby make sure we cannot have tyranny of the majority or tyranny of any one group. i will not go into that in detail you probably have all heard that a million times. suffice it to say i think of madison's arguments and federalist 10 are more profound than they are given creditt fo. i think an awful lot of people in our current politics believed somehow you s should suppress difference. until the fact people disagree but somehow one people who agrees on everything. i think a madison route is far more realistic and more profound. but turning to practicalities madison it pretty quickly found it's not simply enough to put these factions in contact with each other mix it up and hope everything turns out all right.

and madison in the second congress became concerned that amid factional chaos is a giant special interest of his day was coming predominant. he worried about the bank of the united states and its las specifically. madison as a member of congress went to his friend thomas jefferson and worried the stock at jobbers were becoming the band of the governments. tyrants are bribedit by the overall glamorous in combination. they really had a lot of flair back then. [laughter] so madison worries that if there is not some kind of organization put on this factional interplay on the congress he is an active member of, a leading member of that it is going to open the

door by interest. and so madison, who worried so much about faction is a little bit ironically one of the fathers of political parties and helps to create the republican party as a counterbalance hamilton's a party essentially e federalist in congress. and we should not pretend that made everything worked out smoothly and in and of itself. the 1790s were in exceptionally nasty decade of politics in american history. i am going to say we see a situation where we need to organize affection and congress. a partisan organization introduces its own problems. let me fast-forward about eight decades to another famous observer of congress that is the

political scientists woodrow wilson. woodrow wilson as it doctorate student at john hopkins university wrote a book that became probably the best selling work of american political science and history it is called congressional government. multiple remember it today for a famous pronouncement congress and committee is congress at work. that is the most famous pronouncement.wr wilson was not just writing a textbook. he is very concerned that the congress of his day was again a place where special interest were predating on the american people that all sorts of deliberation was happening and committee rooms behind closed doors there were no open committee hearings at that time. and the committees would write legislation be promptly signed into law their passing on the

house and senate floors without much real substantive debate. we once again had a situation parties which wilson thoughts were rather bankrupt in terms of theires principles sort of runng on fumes from the civil war largely he worried that was basically leave in american politics adrift. wilson articulated very powerfully in alternativelt visn very much different from madison and federalist number 10. madison was celebrating complexity this multiplicity of faction as a solution to possible tyranny. wilson once clean lines such that we can have accountability. and he believed the parties can tilt with faction internally and

then they can present the american people with a clean choice and at election time the american people will decide. they will charge a one of these parties which is given a clear message with governing theth country and then that party should beha given a chance to implement its agenda and pay attention to the finer details of administration. it is remarkable at the extent to which wilson's prescriptions got followed in the decades after he wrote well before he emerged as a major political figure in his own rights. in the 1880s and 1890s move toward a system of very strong partisan control of the house or speaker read known as art read and his successor in the first decade of the 20th century was one of the most colorful figures

in american history really who i wish was not such an obscurity today, joseph a gurney cannon the gurney cannonknown as boss . he was somebody who was raised in the wilds of western indiana in the 1840s but here he was a dominant figure in the first decade of the 20th century. he always had a cigar hanging out ofan the corner of his mouth and he played up his hayseed nature as a way of dealing with oppressive brit he was a very shrewd political operator became the dominant figure in washington for a time. and if i can i need a clicker. there is a clicker somewhere. thank you. okay i'm not slowing you a slideshow but have this one political cartoon which is practically my favorite part of the whole book.

this is a cartoon the caption of it, i better get it right. the caption says the house in session according to the minority point of view that is the script up at the top there. for those reviewers online and on c-span in case you can't see it i will describe the picture this is joseph gertie cannon presiding over chamber of the house he's is a gentleman from illinois is recognized.im that is him the gentleman from illinois is him the house is full of him. [laughter] it's a dozens and dozens or scores of scores of carbon copy such that the house in session consists of doing what mr. cannon once.

so we followed wilson's advice to a remarkable degree we ended up in the situation we had a dominant party with a pretty clear agenda. very clear differences between the party after the election89 f 1896. we have a william mckinley and williams and jennings o'brien. ken is the business orthodoxy of the day. he is the dominant figure. that comes with the problem of stifling orthodoxy. the time of the second revolution very rapid social change congress cannot keep up when things are just joseph gurney cannon trying to say how things should be. this is a moment in congress and insurgency from progressive republicans who join forces with the democrats, overthrow his

dominance. in addition to be the speaker and is stripped of that power soon enough things are blown open congress operates on a very different principal for many decades. the seniority principle or committee chairman become the power centers let's a decentralized model of congress. the book tries to give a sense that congress is a place with a long history. in trying to deal with this problem affection. trying to make sense of how to play factions off against each other in productive ways. we sometimes end up in a land like this other times we end up feeling like the place has become a decentralized chaotic mess. and we need to reimpose some order perhaps through centralization. that is all they wanted to show for my picture show.

i'm going to gesture at most of that meat chapters of the book. want to get that basic conceptual idea out there. i'm sure will have a lot of time to talk about contemporary politics in the discussion. the main part of the book goes from 1970s to today. i was gotten from a place that was in the 1970s became a radically decentralized chamber to today place dominated by very cannot like figures until very recently maybe things today are changing and we will talk about that. that's a place where a centralized leadership is called the shots to a remarkable degree an' structured the agenda. given the sense we don't have an interesting interplay of factions. we have two clusters of factions

who know how to yell at each other and insult each other. and don't how to work together except for the absolutely have to pay to be fair than they do. the argument of the book is that ifwe are in a moment or the stifling orthodoxy is enforced by the centralized leaders really give our politics eight sense of not being adequate to the challenges of the moment which are very real. they tend to push a policymaking elsewhere in our government. of course is a vacuum the executive branch largely pays up the slack. executive branch is not a good place to represent the many nests of this country. profound legitimacy problems we try to have agency bureaucrats to solve all of our problems. old statutes we need to

continually renew our self of sense self-government. take ownership of the federal government does this to send to congress we believe in the process by which they mix it up with each other and work out accommodations. and find solutions though not always be pretty solutions they won't always be good laws. my argument is not that we empowered congress better and got it to be a more assertive branch we would always do the right thing. that would be a crazy argument to make. i don't believe that. but overall, why congress? byti investing in the political process, by investing in this ideal of self-government that is how we renew our commitment to being a free people. that's always secure social peace better than any other weight we know. that's really how our constitutional system is meant

to function. we need to make the choice once again in order to keep our country fromec falling to piece. so i will leave it at that and look forward to the discussion, thanks. [applause] x thank you felt. we will first start with congressman daniel lipinski. phil spoke of congress and especially the house as being a place that is supposed to be a bunch of diverse interest beingg piled into the same form and then having to work things out amongst themselves so we can go to basic ways. either they cancel each other out and nothing happens.

are they bargain out a compromise most can live with tand move on to the next chambe. was h that happening when you ae in congress? wasn't having much, a lot, not much at all? what was your experience? we start because phil read -- let me read this from a distinguished academic on a public servant. the blurb on the back of the book. while few claimants contemporary congress is uniting the nation are solving are most vaccine problems, why congress lays out a convincing case is exactly with the institution was designed to do, has done in the past, and can do once again. let me tell you as we all know it's not doing that right now. so many different thoughts come to mind as phil was speaking did

anyone ever do that we do the cartoon i shared with nancy pelosi? that would've been absolutely perfect. i had said the biggest change i have seen. i said here congress the biggest change i've seen happen over the last few decades is it used to be after every election federal election every two years. house members, senators would look around and say who has the majority of the house? who has the majority in the senate customer who controls the white house? what can we do over the next year end a half together? what can we work on for the betterment of the country before we fight it out in the next election? today after the election every two years everyone looks around who controls what? what can we do in the next two

years so our party can get control of everything and shoved down the throats of the other side exactly what we want. this is not how congress is supposed to operate. as i was coming over here i saw a tweet of scott perry was asked today have they resolve the impasse? right now the house is stock. some members of the freedom caucus blocked a a rule and some built republicans wanted. they asked ifnd it had been resolved he said it doesn't matter as a messaging belt. that is all the house is doing rightat now. i have argued that is all the houses done since 2011. the house has taken it self out of to a large extent

legislating. the big problem is -- as phil said we are not really -- congress is supposed to take all of these ideas of the country this book is really incredible. it's a book i wish i would have written. i'm glad phil has to put all the work into do it. did a better job than i would have it. thisis is so important but so fw people understand this, with the role of congress is supposed to be. it's mostly representative who come and bring the views of their constituents to washington. c congress to debat, 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 instead of having a red way or blue way and there's no other choices. individual members don't get to have too much of a say in it. we are just trying to -- if we are in the minority, we are not trying to have a say, we want to shame the other side so we can win the next election. i remember -- i will tell you one story. the two of us can go for a long time i will shut myself up here. that's illustration. 2013, government shutdown. october 2013, a group of us. i was a member of the bipartisan probleme solve solver's caucus

and what can we get the government funded again and, you know, we understood that the republicans that sort of paint themselves in the corner, house republicans said get rid of affordable care act or the government doesn't get funded and we are trying to figure out some way through this. some of the democratic members, not me because leadership knew they couldn't persuade me, i was too independent. yeah, i got a call from leadership to stop trying to do this. we don't want the government we don't want the government reopened because this make republicans look really bad and so we don't want to help them get out of this problem and that is just -- the way things are. what happened, republicans finally got something done, they did look bad but then the affordable caree act, obamacare

website crashed and then it all flipped to the other side but that'sle the house is about messaging and that takes away people's voice. that certainly my experience. >> how about you, reid, in your experience did you see diverse things out, did they have the space to do that or primarily kind of a red shirt versus blue shirt scrum? >> it depends on who in the congress we areak speaking of. dan and i spoke quickly and became good friends when i was there but i will tell you -- there was something very i guess informed a lot of my thinking in congress. i was there for about four months and i never served in any political office before getting elected even though my buddy

tossed the group that were elected a second ago, that was me. the reality was i was sitting with scott rich, a car dealer. we were both business people and we were sitting in the chamber for votes and scott leaned over to me and said, hey, have you met anyre democrats yet and we d been 3 months. republicans go in their room while democrats go in their room. there's no discussion between the two and i said, no. i haven't met any. he said, well, why don't we go meet some and i said i think that's a goodnk idea. you go over there. they're all sitting over there. just pick one and we will pick one and go out to dinner and that's what we did. i went over there and introduced to congressman jim cooper and scott introduced and went to dinner label. i wanted to figure out how

liberals think. we chose the two most moderate. we became really good friends. congress functions in what good friend of mine, another member of mine told me, everybody is working to climb up on the pyramid. at the very top of the pyramid there's the speaker of the house and right below are the majority leaders and majority minority whips, they are there and thin directly below them are committee chairman and i would even say directly below the -- the whips and the majority and minority leaders the committee and then below them are committee chairman and then below legislator directors on your staff and then at the bottom of the pyramid is everybody else. 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 basically governed republican caucus using the house trick rule, nothing will come unless it has the majority supportingt it. that point it can move forward. however, when ryan became speaker, it was the nature of what had happened and the members that were sent there. it pretty much nothing came to the familiar unless we could pass it on our own. unless we had 218 votes, nothing could happen without that. what that meant that everything was directed from the top and we even had less power in that case and so i -- i'm struck by the congress' unwilling to jealously and vigorously guard their authority under article 1 of the constitution. they are very willing to pass that authority off to a

president and two recent examples would be the -- the u.s. senate under president trump was controlled by republicans and they just all kind of rolled over when president trump didn't want going throughet advising and senate. and today, you've got similar things going on with president biden just, you know, deciding, well, we are going to issue $20 billion of credits to student loans and we are going to forget it. and congress got power of the purse but they just refuse to hold onto and protect and guard their power and it damages the institution and so i think to get back to where the congress is actually a representative body doing the work that the american people want, they are going to have to seize that part back from thefr executive branch

enwhen it's their guy or gal at the white house. they have to say no. nice that you have this opinion but we will let you know when we send legislation over. if you like it sign it, if you don't veto it. we will take it from there. they are unwilling to protect authority. it's discouraging to be there and watch it unfold. >> yeah, i should say that, you know, old enough to remember carter presidency. i mean, you had a democratic congress, a democratic president but congress was openly contemptuous of the white house and it was contemptuous of it and they fought amongst themselves frequently republicans sitting on the side watching the spectacle. that is rare. the issue of congress giving up authority. the constitution says it has. james madison probably would be a bit perplexed by this, you

know, a o bench of his scheme to some degree low motives of human beings wanting to hold and wheel power as part of what keeps the separation of power system, you know, working is people want to guard the power that they have by virtue of beingav in the branch. as we all know delegation giving away power refusal of the wheel power has become regularized. why do members do that? isn't power fun? why wouldn't they want to use it? >> the whole ambition, counteractive ambition is individual sense of drive and it has to be drive to do something and thus take the responsibility onto yourself rather than just ambition to beit seen. that's why a lot of ambitions are channeled this days.

it aren't be ambition to help your party win the next election. that's really the thing that dominates our current political moment, the sense, it is so important for my party to win the next election. the ambition is let's get our party in the white house where they're exercising the real power in the system and we will take it from there and we will cheer -- cheer them on when they -- when we have the real power and we will slow the other guys when they have it. and, yeah, i guess it's a source of hope for me because i do think that dan and reid are not so unusual in feeling a lot of frustrations with just how useless members of congress can feel sometimes. i think it's a very widely shared sense and the people that get elected to congress are

talented business people. something morally or in any other way defective about them, so i think people do feel y frustrated and they wish they could be moree involved in a meaningful legislative process where they are helping to find strange fellows across the aisle but their willingness at the same time to sit back and listen to their leaders when their leaders tell them, no, that's really not so helpful for the really important thing of winning the next election and so part of the point of this book is a plea to the members themselves and the bookends with an open letter to members of congress. pretty much just says, hey, ant you -- aren't you ambitious and don't want get something done for the country? haven't we had enough of the current political moment in the sense that we haveit exhausted s possibility?

don't you want to be a part of mixing it up and solving the country's problemem in, you kno, active way, you know, don't you want to be something more than floor fied telemarketer as i met one of yourr former colleagues describe the job. and i do think that members really do want that the and so i'm hopeful that they can -- i'm hopeful that they can draw some inspiration from the history of their own institution to know that congress has functioned on very different operative principles and organized in different ways to help law the past and in certainly couldul at this points well. >> so i want to go back to the congressman lapenski, the image of the house not being the place where interests are able to work out amongst themselves thes being very driven from the top down. is that a structural issueim

primarily that can be fixed by altering the rules and structure of the chamber, is that a partisanship issue? what is it? >> it is driven bipartisanship. it was driven by the drive in the country but it is reinforced by the rules. the committee on modernization of congress, that's one of the things that i originally had the bill to create, hoping open things up at the beginning of this congress some of the freedom caucus members i had an op-ed w in the washington post saying, they're talking about we need to open the process up, we want to say more of a say in what's goingwh on. we don't want this to be topdown and i said this is good, this is something that -- it's

interesting that they felt that while they want more to say and somehow they're going to have more control. i don't quite understand that. but i'm all for opening things up. in the problem solver's caucus we are always trying to do that. in -- in 2018 elections, democrats got the majority in the house and the problem solver's caucus had agreed on some rule changes that we were going to demand whoever, whichever party had won, a new speaker no matter what paul ryan was going to step down and said we are going to demand that there are rule changes, open it up to more bipartisan, change the rules and change to bipartisan lawmaking and unfortunately we didn't -- we made a a few small changes but it's really tough at that time

and almost nancy pelosi would be speaker, i don't want to upset nancy. so we got some small -- so it's partially the rules. a lot of it is -- i'm sure -- i would assume those members that this past week said we are not going to pass a rule. in order to consider legislation on the floor you need to pass a rule. generally theal majority party votes for the rule. it says this bill will come up, amendments if any, normally the majority votee for it and minority against it and we are upset that we feel that we didn't have enoughh input on the debt cieling and they stopped from moving forward. and so -- and i forgot my point

where i was going with that one. >> can i take it up there? >> i'm glad that you had a look in your eye. >> i just want to say the point about the freedom caucus folks and the kind of chamber open, i agree, i often like a lot of the rhetoric from some of the folks back in january but it has to be in service of coalition building and the operative principle has to be persuasion. you actually have to imagine reaching out to your colleagues dand meeting them where they standd and convincing them they that's they should do business with you. the strange part of these folks want to blow the floor open have more of a chance to have their say on the floor and offer amendments on the floor and i'm all for that but really for congress to sort of get its mojo back, it needs to embrace its role as legislature that makes laws and you make laws by

assembling majorities and so, youd know, i think the question is i've always had is how do we get the moderates to the feel more organized such that they are the ones making demands and assembling, assembling the coalitions whether the speaker is so happy about it or not. and, you know, the problem-solver's caucus has done good work in that regard but in some ways i find the group less assertive than i wish it was. >> less willing to yield their votes in opposition to stop something for sure because most of the problem solvers are pragmatists than idealogues, just different group of people. rione of my favorite words in te antiu.s. constitution is one of the smallest word. all, the first word of the constitution, all. pretty inclusive word. all legislative powers herein

granted shall be vested and entrusted in the congress of the united states which should consist of the house ofiv representatives. all of the legislative power that ourth founders bestowed, tt they granted herein in the constitution was given to this body, the congress and they had to wrestle between the states and the people, the house 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 at intellectually or they didn't want the country to run that way because the revolution itself was in opposition to power. in fact, john quincy adams after he served president went back to house ofto representatives. can you imagine a president of the united states lowering

himself in the house of representatives. the congress did not embrace this at all and i agree both with what you two just 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 arrest power to committee chairman and committee airplane are subject to the speaker, the speaker still has too much power thand the way you rest power awy from committee chairman is by having committee chairman selected by the members of the committee because then the chairman would be beholding to the members of the committee rather the speaker that selects thing. and then you would begin to devolve power back to the members and with the crowd that you speakr of in your book could emerge but right now the -- 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 where this whole idea, thef wisdom of the crowd breaks down because those members were the proxy, they are the vote. they are the say. here isat what northeast wisconsin, here is what dan in illinois feels about this or that. this is what the citizens say about this or that and play the card in the machine and vote. that's the only wayay that the wisdom of the crowd can emerge through this elected body and e begin to be heard again. but that could stop because everything is being drivenn by the top. >> one thing i say, anyone who is in this room watching this, if there's one thing besides reading phil's book that i want you to take out of this, if you don't know it, congress is article 1 of the constitution.

we start out all legislative power there. i don't think most americans know that or understand that. they think the president is the leader of everything. the president is supposed to make policies for the country, supposed to makepo laws for the policy and i think the wisdom -- i've gone back in the last couple of years and looked at the papers, just the wisdom of the men who wrote the constitutionon and this idea isa vast, very diverse country even as the times of the founding was a diverse country. how do we keep people together. well, everyone needs to feel that they have a voice through their representative and i go back to there are not just two ways of thinking, there's not a red way and blue way. there's a lot of diversity across the country and we need

those voices to come in and this is adversity. i think you can paint this as a diversity issue if 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 invite members of congress to talk about how congress works and i would take a high school class and today we uswill create house and senate n here and we are going to vote on where we are going to lunch and we would divide the room up and then they wouldth have to deliberate and come to a conclusion about where they were going to go to lunch that day. as they were deliberating i would give somebody card, i'm shellfish allergic and another might say i haveut allergy to peanuts and i would sabotage it to try s 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 be something extraordinarily powerful today but they've got to allow it. they must give up power themselves and giver it back to you all. >> so i want to double back to this issue that everyone has hit upon recent speakers being so powerful. in fact, we have and audience question that came in on this issue topic. speaker is just a single person in a 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 in that one? oh. >> i can tell you my take on it. >> sure.

>> i think members like it that way. so when you observe continued dysfunction in any organization in a business, in a congress, in a marriage, if you continue to observe dysfunction, you have to ask thee question, who is winng as a result of this dysfunction? and then you can identify why the dysfunction exists. when you relinquish power to somebody else. when the congress relinquish. i was fighting for this but the president wouldn't leter us buti am still going to be fighting for you tomorrow. you get somebody to blame. they get to carry the weight of any bad decision and i think members like that. i think they want to be protected as opposed to wanting to actually hold the power that was the rightful heirs of the

power based on the electorate that send them there. i don't think they want it. >> the old observation about legislative politics is that politicians either want to claim credit or want to shift blame and to claim credit you least have to claim in credible amount of action that you achieve something as you're suggesting blame shifting seems a lot easier. you just say, well, i tried. >> the no vote. you could win reelection every single year and vote no on everything. >> dan, you want in? >> i want to add to that because there are some truth to that and a lot of people lay as primary reason why members of the congress give up power, they can't get blame, shift blame. i also think that -- maybe especially because i'm coming out of the democratic party. it's just the idea -- reid

talked about howic republicans d democrats don't mix. members come in, first of all, a lot of members who come, new members now get elected, 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 and they are thinking, i got elected. i'mor here for the team and there's so much that. i'm herere for the team and if e leader of the team says, well, you've got to follow along, you say, okay. all right, i'm here -- we got to -- we have to defeat the evil on the other side and you're told if you don't go along the evil other side can win. we all need to stay together or else the evil other side could -- could win and that's a part

-- some of it members don't even know what they could possibly do in being a legislator and some of it, speaker 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 have 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 and i need to win -- get them to make it happen and therefore i can't cross them in anyway. i better follow along until i get my chance to ask for my favor from -- 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, but i guess, again i take hope from the longer history of the place because i think to some extent those

forces are always at work and i think it's still within the realm of serious possibilities for members to sort of feel like this thread is played out, at some point feel like being the good partisan team player is just not worth it anymore because your own party has gotten so twisted up in its own sort of self-defense rather than actually solving the people's problems and doing the people's workd and so i do think, you know, politics, congressional politics has gotten kind of boring, right? the debt cieling is exciting in a kind of way but if you know how to watch it was pretty darn predictable and pretty boring and -- >> happens 100% of the time likely to happen. >> yeah, the media does its

darndest to turn into a good story but it's so predictable and it's sterile. it's not going -- it's not going to solve our problems, it's not going to produce anything interesting. if you really feel like it's important that we come up with some novel solutions to the problems facing the country, congress can be an engine of that. it really is a better place to be an engine of that than the executive branch. the executive branch is not really cut out for creativity. it's cut out for executing the laws that are already on the books and so congress, you know, think of an issue like immigration which is one of the chapters, sort of case study in my book. there's such a widespread sense that our immigration system is broken in so many different ways and an awful lot of common sense people feeling that we ought to make a deal, right, we ought to make a deal that does something

about the border and the problem -- the problem with our immigration courts being so blocked up and there's something for all the people stuck and we all kind of know that but we have all given up on it. and we are hoping that somehow the president can use some covid statute to make it all work out. .. and that come up with the solus in congress is therere. we need some people to show some bravery. to show some willingness to

realize holding onto their office is not the most important thing. someone who had the courage of his convictions and suffered the consequences for it unfortunately. i don't think you feel all that much regret about that. >> note. we need people actually doing the people's work is more important than having a sense of being an obedient team player. >> it is strategic on immigration. republicans are basically taking the posture they will not do anything on immigration until they do border security. don't talk about any of this wother stuff until the board is secure and then we will talk about these other things. the problem of that from a tactical standpoint there's nothing to trade at the other side. they get comprehensive bills allow you to put in things that both sides hates that is the

magic and writing legislation you've got to have enough to each side gives up something's up each side can get something. you narrow in on one single thing like border security are not going to get anythingma else. let makes it virtually impossible. cothey need to be more comprehensive and how they think so tactically they can just think big like immigration reform. >> my question about the speaker i won't pivot away from that. it is very interesting and part partly know the speakerr has formal powers was going to get voted upon. the speakers going to have a lot to do that whoho is on the rules committee? the speakers going to have a lot of sway there. but a lot of the power comes from other legislators thinking the speaker has a power or are giving that power away. now my last question before the do the audience question is to ask each of you, talked about the state of congress.

what can be done to fix it? i want to start with you dan, then read, then fill. >> should never start with me on a question like that. looking for hope. i spent many years thinking this has to get better. this has to return. i came in 2005. i think the second bush term was started. some things still a got done soe got done and a w bipartisan way. after the 2008 election present obama gets elected the republicans to me at that point the republicans became much more partisan i call it sectarian partisanship it is the team and we just hate the other side. we cannot talk to them much less compromise with themm than 2016 president trump kits elected and democrats go off in the same direction.

i wondered, there was a time in 2013 and 2014 i keep saying things have to get better i finally quit saying things have to get better i'm glad i said that -- finishing that before fr donald trump was elected. we have seen historically there have been revolts. members get tired of this and there is a revolts. the problem now that i see is memberss are more concerned losing a primary than losing an election. who has the power and the primary is the more extreme members. more extreme voters in your party i certainly know this myself. that is where the activists are that's where the workers in the primary campaigns come from. small donor donations. that's how you try getting small

dollar donations when you're not saying the world is going to end if you don't send me 5 cents donald trump mate raised more fromom small dollar donors and anyone else has. that's a major problem. i would guess these members a lot of republican members vote against the rule this week. i would guess, i don't know if it is true that they went home and heard from their activist how did you let this happen? hundreds let this terrible deal happen? you need to t do something. what can you do? we will show now we are not going to go along. we are not going to play along this is what were going to do on a bill we want pastor. the activists the people who we are really listening to our calling for this. when does it change?

very quick i remember and december of 2020. all that's talked about his voting to certify the electors. i remember there is a call to the caucus and republicann members the phone doesn't stop ringing. people are protesting outside of mymy office. you have to vote no. they felt that pressure. height usually would never ever in my 16 years suggested to a nether member what they should do. ie said look, there's a 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 sort of felt like when i did that. they were just so, this is

probably it if i vote for to certify electors and they are listening to this very vocal minority but they have a sway. how do we get away from that? how do we get -- make human nature doesn't change but how do we get members who are willing to say i think this is. they are saving themselves you buy into we have the answers. my party has the answers. i don't have the answer so i'm hoping one of the two of you do. >> i don't think i've been more fearful for the republic then i am this time. i thought typically it is a crisis moment when you see congress begin to function whether it civil war, world war

i or two he saw congress really emerge and become very, very effective. i thought generally sixth what it been a triggering event in the history of the country. the first time we lacked a peaceful transfer of power that would've been an event that caused people to pause at the speed at which misinformation and disinformation can move to the internet today is shocking. and profoundly damaging. i confess to you i wish it wasn't this way i went into congress a bit cynical iran because i was cynical and i left a congress more cynical than when i went in. the challenge that we have a right now is the american people must do a better job at selecting and promoting leaders and then holding their feet to the fire to lead. we need a president who is willing to actually use moral hazard to force congress the

present must relinquish its own power force congress to do their work. i think that's ultimately what it will take the probably triggered by some crisis moment in the country. wiif i had a solution i will sey this the committee on modernization was a really good first step. it only works in the house the senate did not do it. if we could get the house to function normally again that would be helpful. i think they came up with some really good ideas. i have spoken to hundreds of audits if i left congress. i will frequently asked the question how would you give the congress of the night states of an approval rating above 25%? i will tell you i hardly ever see a hand go up. that tells you people are dismayed by congress paid the striking disconnect however the dissidents in at all. the fact they keep reelecting their own members of the hate that congress but they love their person.

now fill the professional what you say? what's the book closes with three scenarios which are i think some of the more fun chapters of the book they start with dispatches from the future written by observers in 2039 the 250th birthday of congress. looking back and thinking about where the institution is got toy by then. decrepitude, rubberstamp and revival. and i have to admit the first two chapters of that set a of three were a lot easier to write. veand the third one. and does not require too much imagination to imagine congress get hollowed out for even more than it is today we should emphasize commerce is not a completely broken place by any stretch of the imagination. some good things still happen

there. those things can get more screwed up than they are today. so the revival chapter id agree we need a shock to the system. to cause this kind of revolt to cause this willingness to shake things up. as long as things stay within the lines we are familiar today members are going to keep making the same choices. that is a hard reality to face it. if i was going to offer reforms on the margin which i'm certainly willing to do i do think devolving power to the committee is an important thing to do and i like the idea of having members elected their own chairman.om i also like the idea of guaranteeing committees floor time. part of the problem is today if you make yourself a diligent work course in the committee.

and make yourself a policy expert writing good bills with your fellow committee members they may not go anywhere. they may not be considered by your own chamber let alone have a chance to become laws. the more we can do to guarantee if you are willing to be a workhorse in congress, if you are willing to put in the time it right good legislation on hard subjects are going to have a chance to get passed into law. that was a very healthy change to get people with ambition to realize they can make something of those ambitions as legislators and not just performers who use to get attention. >> the type we have left good audience questions of judgment in the front row. >> thank you very much provokes the microphones coming to you excellent. >> thank you very much. my name is tom i worked in the senate for 10 years in the

1970s. and then worked around both houses leading different organizations after words. i am a product of the cold war and the vietnam war. i saw things coming apart right in front of our eyes when members did not want to harm the executive to push the button if they had too. incoming missiles whatever was required to stave off the soviet union. in doing so i also watch particular in the senate because i spent 10 years there the authorizing committees giving up power. appropriators particularly started with the house therefore became king makers after words. at least that is how i lead different organizations if you will to deal with members. so i look forward to reading you

because i agreed so much to your opening.al we all love madison. but then again 74, the vietnam war, gingrich's role, you expand? lexus chapter four and five of the book so crack it open. books are on the table for you to take. so please help yourselves when we break. it will say that in that era that you mentioned when there is such a profound loss of trust and government there was a chance i think for the legislature to rise in people's estimation. so a famous book i like very much was written in 1980: the decline and resurgence of

congress. think 70s is a time of resurgence in large part because of the watergate and the ways of vietnam lead people to be suspicious of the executive. looking back on the era when you worked in the senate it was a very exciting time in terms of ambition and reshaping the place really a lot of energy in the halls of congress. unfortunately they did not succeedd and settling on a model that would take advantage of congress distinctive institutional capacities. specifically you saw a shift from legislation to oversight in the 70s. and a sense that it was not always so important where the pass the laws you could hold the subcommittee hearings there is a huge proliferation of subcommittees with staff at this

time. and so i think there created by the carter administration kind of a sense congress was just a big mess. that left a problem to be solved but unfortunately did not try to solve it with the madisonian logic. we turn to the wilsonian logic more for the bid 1980s onward. people who were frustrated with congress like a young newt gingrich bought a sense of to politics they did not believe in rehabilitating the congress as a place of factual competition. newt gingrich was very first campaign in the mid- 70s was think congress is a corrupted terrible place. we need to take the broom comments clean out the stables

and heat relentlessly campaigned against the institution. even when he became speaker of the house he was not oriented against the coalition building a logic of congress and very much came in and ate wilsonian always and we have a mandate from the people we give them the contract for america we won the midterm. president clinton only run because of row splits time to get what the republicans want after the decades of doing the democratic way. he did not have legislative sensibilities is my argument in the book. he was not up coalition builder by disposition. s he tried to smash a lot of things through without much regard for even with the senate would think of it. let alone how he would get president clinton on board he just expected this moment had arrived and everything would work out. the puzzle to me is that model was not that successful.

republicans in the mid- 90s did not rollback the greatest society. that was their ambition and they failed. welfare reform is a signal exception where they got something important a past. by in large their agenda just failed. butt nevertheless the gingrich model has stuck. if you look at the idea of centralize house leadership running things from her hip pocket that was gingrich idea it was the idea of jim wright he relentlessly hounded out of office in 1988. i think we need to get away from this way of thinking. part of the books ambition is to try to say there is another way of thinking about this institution. we need to get away from everything is going to be decided in the election mentality. because frankly elections cannot carry that much weight. >> when i was in congress there

37 committees and subcommittees that had authority in some way over healthcare. thirty-seven. they can write rules and offer legislation on healthcare but they were all in their own silos. it is no wonder this thing all comes unglued. i did the radical thing republicans were in control i was republican so we were the rules for the 115th congress i offered a rule trained to try to commit to healthcare that would remove the ability of the 37 other committees due to to do fundraising in the healthcare industry. you would've thought the whole world was going to come unglued. at the single biggest expense the federal government has a very fit and medicare, medicaid the va benefits and everything under healthcare and there's no single source or single place where experts can reside on deal with what are important issues for the american people today.y. quick i regret to inform you all

week have hit the 75th minute. but let me say this for those of you who braved the smog feel free to stick run after words. everyone is going to be here and we are happy to y chat. for those ofhi you who are watching out there, thank you for tuning in. and if we can can we get a round of applause? [applause] ♪ nonfiction book lovers c-span has a number podcast for you. what's in the best-selling nonfiction authors and influential influencers on the afterward podcast on cue at q aa here wide-ranging conversations nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book notes plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations regularly featured fastening authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of