and to open the door to that? so much to say about all of this. but that's how i would characterize, cathy, kind of the basics of where we're at. >> the book grew out of an article i grew out of the atlantic magazine a year ago. the title -- the subtitle of the book which is how to turn republicans and democrats into americans is actually the title of the article that i didn't come up with. but the editors did. when that article came out, people would say to me but what can you do about it? it's almost as though nobody in this room is old enough to know any other system. the system we have now is aggressive in the late 1800s and

the early 1900s. it's not the constitution, it's not written in stone. it's a system that grew up pushed by the political parties. one of the things i say is what can you do about it? the revolution has already begun. 40% or more already independent. when people look at what happened in massachusetts when scott brown won the election, it doesn't matter to me whether you would have been for scott brown or martha. i taught at harvard. i lived up there. there are more than democrated or republicans. so you have two things happening simultaneously inside of the beltway. in washington and in state capitals. you have more and more partisan ship and more and more decisions

baesed on what's going to help our party in november. but the country is going in the exact opposite direction. the country is fleeing from the system in which we can't come together as a common people to solve our common problems. the -- there are more and i'm mention a couple additional examples of this. but the real bottom line is it is systemic. it is not who we e leblgt. we throw them out because it doesn't work. i always feel like charlie brown hoping lucy won't pull away the football. and one of the things if you think in terms of economics, what do we know about economics? or social? or cultural issues? incentives work.

incentive systems work. and we have created a system where every incentive, you know, how you have to win a closed party primary. one of the examples that i used in delaware, where, in delaware, there's nearly a million people in delaware. and it doesn't impress people in new york, maybe. but it's not a small place. so, you know, nearly a million people there and people were shocked when mike castle lost the republican primary for the senate. but the woman who beat him, christine o'donnell, and, again, i don't care if you were for o'donnell or castle or whoever. but she only got 30,000 votes. now, what kind of a system is it -- because we have in every

statement form that if you ran in a party primary and lost, you cannot have your name on the ballot in november. so we have a system where 30,000 people could deny the chance for all the other possible candidates. so one of the things i'm trying to do is bring democracy to our democracy. looking at all of you, you know, i never met most of you, but i bit i know one thing about all of you. when you go to buy a phone, you want choice. when you go to buy soap, you want choice. when you go to buy shoes, you want choice. the only place that we don't allow choice is when it comes to the people who make our laws, deciding whether we go to war. when you go to the ballot in november, you go to a or b. and maybe that's five republicans that ought to be considered. maybe there's three democrats. maybe there's a green.

maybe you're a lib ratarian and we don't allow that to happen because the parties don't allow that to happen. but i want to add one more thing because jackie and i both talk a lot about redistrict iing thosef you who are unclose can see i'm wearing loafers with tasles. but i'm a city guy. i'm a city dude. now, maybe in new york city, you don't think of that. but he's a city. and after i won -- i was the first republican elected in my district since 1928. and my district was 74% democrat. and i wasn't supposed to win, but i did. and then i won again. and the oklahoma state legislature at that time was 9 to 1 controlled by the other party. and they were kind of bothered by the fact that i won.

and so they redistricted me because the majority of whichever parties in the majorities of the state legislature in 37 of the states can make that decision, they redrew my district so that it went from the middle of oklahoma all the way up to the kansas line, half way over to arkansas. a big upside down l. and i'm a politician. and self referential. and so when i was teaching, i kept thinking about look what they did to me. and i would tell my students at harvard. look what they did for me. well, they didn't do it to me. because -- and wait a min ut. this is the fundamental thing about our system of government. the most important part of the constitution says that every single senator and rep sentive must be an inhabitant from the state in which they were elected. it was a deliberate repudiation of the parliamentary system.

it was that your legislators are supposed to know you, know your concerns, know what matters to you. you're supposed to know them, know their integrity. and that city got destroyed because i didn't know their issues. i didn't know their concerns. they were being represented by somebody who could not articulate. it needed to be done. their most basic economic concern because? why was this done to the people? it was done to the people because the party, the other party, and my party does the same exact thing, the party thought it would be to their advantage to redraw the district. in order to take republican ts out of other districts.

also, a major, major problem that i saw there. but it is, jackie is really good with is this. but we have to change the system. or nothing. >> let e let me pick upright there. i think that for a lot of americans, the last election and the vote to send barack obama to the white house was a hopeful moment and people voted for president obama in the hope that he could be a post partisan president and help lead the country beyond some of these irk shoes. so i want to ask you both to share with us your reflections. here we sit in the middle of the 2012 presidential elections. how do you understand what happened? why wasn't president obama able to do more to materialize a post

partisan government? >> sure, i had a number of thoughts of that to share. but i want to preface them by saying that i think it's very important because what we're talking about here, the majority of the american people voted for barack obama based on many different things. but certainly, one of the motivating factors was the idea that obama was going to be able to, i believe, that the country should usher in a post partisan, political culture. a new way of doing politics in washington and so forth. i think it's important to maybe pause just for a second and to reflect on the fact that

historic change of that magnitu magnitude, and let's face it, that is sa very, very significant transformation that we're talking about here, for all the reasons that you're saying. does not guilty happen in an even line. it moves and fits and starts and things move forward and then they fall back and things get in the way and all kinds of things like that. so just thinking for myself now, before i give my analysis of all of the things that happened to and with president obama i just think for me rkts it's important to remind ourselves that this is salmon yumtal change that is being saulgt off by the people all over the world. so i think that what's happening in this country is part r part

of that broader, international process, which is a complicated and difficult process. that said, i think -- i would point to maybe four things that are worth noting. one is -- and people know that as president obama came to washington, he came there on the heels of, first, having won the democratic primary with the support of independent voters. that's who gave obama the nomination where independents could vote. they broke very substantially for barack obama. so if they would have been closed, ill ri clinton would have become the democratic nominee. by the way, likewise, john

mccain becomes the republican. so by many respects, they were the ar tects of the entire set-up of the 2008 general election and then broke 8 or 9 points for obama. so obama comes to washington vmt he's got the post partisan mandate and really from the broad kros section of americans. their title is democrats, republicans shs americans. again, there's many, many people who are registered democrats and republicans who are also very fearful and upset about the partisan character of the country. but in any event, here are some things that happen. first, the congressional democrats are there.

and you know them better than i do. from where i sit, i think their posture was we got this, we're in control. all the rest of you all, whoever you are who might have voted for our guy, this is our show now and we're going to tell you how it's going to go. number one. number two, the economic situation which was already in very, very serious crisis, even during the campaign, was continuing to deteriorate and this produce d a broad base reaction from a variety of places. it basically became a platform for a pressure from social con s servetive which forced them to put a great deal of heat on the democrats. and one of the things that the republicans figured out very

early on in the game is that if you bring the tea party in and you use that as a battering ram against the democrats, you can make hey with that. after all, and i'll speak frankly here, from my vantage point, obama had some problems going in. it's a historically vulnerable thing to have happened. many people have mixed feelings about that. and while there was great pride, there were also other kinds of things in the mix. he was a progresser. and then he bailed out the banks. so let's face it. we've got a lot of things going

against him. and, i think the republicans figured out very early, and this was very mack ya vmack ya vel yn on their part. they came to understand that if you said no to everything, what that did was it forced obama to become a partisan. and whether or not obama could have played that differently or not, i'm not even going to speculate on. but he played it how he played it in a very strong alliance with the congressional democrats. and he acted as a partisan. and i think that revoked a strong action and response from many americans, but including most americans who felt inpen dense and felt wait a second, that's not what we sent you to

washington to do. so you saw that play out in 2010 not because they had become republicans, no. buzz baa they wanted to send a message about partisan ship. and i think that continues to be the case. so i think just briefly to sum this up, i think the challenge for the president, now, is that i think it's important for the president to take a pause and to reflect, again, on who independents are. why is it that 40% of the country now identifies themselves as independents? as non-aligned voters? as not a part of the party system. that is meaningful. the american people are making a statement about the system and the need to restructure and reform it. and i think the president has to find a way to come to terms with

that. i understand that he's president and i understand that hi's a democrat. but this is sa comply kalted country. and i think he has to find a way to reach out to independents in a way that reck nice e niezs who independents are and that takes a stand and makes the move in the direction of eliminating the structural partisan ship that reinforces the kind of negative culture that has our country in a stronghold. >> let me add a couple of additional things. when george w. bush was president, he was going overseas on a trip somewhere. i don't remember what about or where he was going. but there was an article in the washington post and he wrote a column about the president going or seas and what he said was

that for the next period, however long it was, the president was going to step out of his role as head of government to be functioning, instead, in his other role as head of state. and so i was teaching at the time. and i asked my students, well, what jumps out at you about that? and i got the answers, you mielgt expect. if he eets going to be functioning not wearing his one hat where he's head of government, but the other hat as the head of state, he'll be talking to people about basing rights, flyover rights, trade gremts and so forth. and i said no, that's not the answer. the president's not the head of government. we don't have a head of government in america. we have three separate independent equal branchs of government. and, in fact, most of the major powers of government, whether it's going to war or raising taxes or creating programs or

deciding how much to spend are all congressional powers. and i think that this president, like every other president, you know, in recent memory forgot that. he -- whatever obama did, whenever -- and i think he has enormous talent and i think he's an exceptional human being. he was elected as part of a system that as it was constitutionally designed, should have retired him to reach out not to lecture, you know, and that's on both sides because democrats and republicans alike, as you pointed out, nancy is a friend. but this is when obama was trying to say bring the republicans in. lelt's work out something jointly on health care. no, we won the election. we'll write the bills.

and then, ofblg, mitch mcconnel trumped that by saying his priority was to beat obama. so, yeah, that's part of it. obama had to op ralt within the system that existed. it was that existed. it was the system in which most of the power was not in the presidency, and therefore, he had to be able to work with congress in a -- in a system of equals. of peers. and how do you not achieve that? you don't achieve that because the congress operates in precisely this partisan system, you know, that we're talking about. well, let me give you a couple of examples. how many -- how many of you here have been to washington, been to the house chamber? have actually seen the house of representatives? well, it's kind of an interest, thing to observe, first, let me say, before i talk about the chamber because i have a chapter in the book called "rearranging the furniture" which i think we

need to do. but one of the things that happens, i happen to be on a committee, because i was in the top ranks in leadership. i was on the committee that chose who got to sit on what committees, you know, ways and means. or appropriations or whatever. and one of the things that the party leaders do in both parties is to say, you know, jackie, you're very smart, you have -- you know economics. you know tax policy. you would be really great on ways and means, and we'll put you on ways and means, if you promise us in advance that before you see the bill, before you hear the testimony, you know, these are our positions. and if you promise that you're going to be with the party, loyal to the party on these issues, we'll put you on the committee. and we're not going to put you on the committee unless you have previously committed that you're going to be a loyal team player. that's the way it actually works. that's why you see in the commit structure, that where the committees used to be a place

where you would sit together and you would reason together, and you would take witnesses hearings, you would think about what needed to be done, now, it's a constant war. you use the committee structure was a means for winning the next election. but some of it is even nutty. >> that's not? >> oh, no, that's not even the beginning of nutty. those of you who have been to the house chamber, and you look at it, one of the first dumb things, i did a whole lot of dumb things. but one of them was so was so convinced i could be so persuasive to the democrats as a republican. there's two electrlecterns, one front of the republicans and democrats. i went in front to tell them how smart i was. and there was a gasp that came up. people came occupy, republicans, both, it's no, you have to stand

up here. it's like you're going to get cooties if you talk to someone of the other party. you have coat rooms, that's where you get a coke, read the newspaper. republicans have to sit in that cloak room and democrats in this cloak room. that's the way it's structured. it's kind of like if you went to a therapist for family treatment, you know, because you were arguing all the time with your mate. what you need to do, you have to have two sofas facing the opposite directions with opposite television sets. you know, instead of creating a circle where you talk to each other. so the system inside the congress is just as bad as the election system, just as bad as the redistricting system. we have a system inside the congress where it's designed to make evident fiing with team. and identifying the other team as the ones to be vanquished. so we have to change a lot of

stuff. not just elections. not just redistricting. you have to change -- did you all know that you don't have to be a member of congress to be speaker? you don't. did you know that in britain and in canada, that you need to have support of people from another party besides your own in order to get elected speaker? you can do that here, too. there's a lot of changes we can make. >> yeah. >> can i -- >> yes, you can. >> you can feel free to -- [ applause ] >> just one thought, when you were talking about the three coequal branchs of government and so forth. and obviously, you know, that's a very important thing to observe. and an important part of the way our democracy is designed. however, one thing i was thinking about, since we were talking about the president and we were talking about what happened off of the 2008

election. and all of the -- the way the issues that were in the air and on the table, as a part of that. i was thinking, though, and tell me how you think about this, while the three branches of government are the three branches of government, and we don't have a head of government, the president is the branch that is elected by the whole of the american people. and the electoral college, notwithstanding, and you know, and all of that. and so when i think about this, and surely, when i think about obama and the issue of trying to move the political culture forward in a post partisan direction, that that is true, that the president, and in this case, obama, has this very unique and special relationship to the american people as a whole. seems important.

and in some ways since, at least one of the ways that i think about the opportunities that exist now, in some respects i think that relationship has to be manifest, shall we say, in ways that go beyond just the ordinary activity of governing. >> absolutely. the founders talked about energy in the executive. and the president is not in terms of authority and hierarchy is not the head of government. but he is a national leader. >> yes. >> and he has a pulpit that no other person has. >> yes. >> and the constitution requires him to report to congress, but in the modern age with modern communications, that gives him the ability to reach out over the heads of congress to talk to

the american people directly and to lay out an agenda. and so the president has an enormous leadership responsibility to talk about what needs to be done, and he can do it in a way that nobody else could match. and so one of the questions that people, you know, who are asking about what happened with obama, is to ask how effectively or ineffectively he did that. it is a matter of a president cannot simply say i don't have the authority to do this. okay. i'm constrained by the constitutional system from doing this. what other means do i have to try to persuade the congress? to persuade the constituents to talk to members of congress? that's what the power of the presidency is. >> yeah. >> and some presidents do it better than others. >> yeah. i just -- i think that's so important because i think that

as i think -- as i see it, i think the american people -- it's interesting, isn't it? because the system is so partisan and it's so structurally partisan in all the ways that we're saying. and yet, on the day that america elects the president, it's the american people who are speaking. >> okay. >> and i think that maybe one thing that's happening in the country is that the value of that, and the importance of that is becoming greater. or more -- the potential of what can get created off of that is becoming more visible. you know, when i -- i was thinking also about this phrase "the parties versus the people," which is the subtitle of your book and i love that. it's actually the title of a chapter in my book.

let's not sue each other over there. but i was also thinking -- i was thinking about that phrase "the parties versus the people." and i was thinking that it embodies maybe a deeper truth within that, which is that the parties aren't the people. the people are the people. >> yeah. >> the constitution, of course, recognizes the people. and not the parties. as we well know. but i don't even think that's just a technical issue. and in some ways i think maybe part of where we've come to as a country is that it's a time to remind ourselves that the parties are not the people. and we have to find ways to take action politically, that reflect that. and that express that.