Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 12, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm EDT

10:00 pm
>> yeah. you've been playing james madison on stage. you should really see that. and, you know, the first four presidents disagreed about a lot. you know, washington, adams, jefferson and madison. they disagreed on a lot of things. the founders were not unanimous on a lot of things. the founders doesn't even like each other very much. what was the one thing all four agreed on? don't create political parties. they said it in writings, in speeches, do not create political parties. i don't know if there's any political scientists in the room. political scientists like to come back and say, yes, at that time, madison was part of a political party. there aren't anything like political parties like today. they might have a few issues,
10:01 pm
terrorists, west bank expansion. they had a few things in common. but it wasn't what you have today with the parties marching in lockstep on almost everything. doesn't matter whether it's a stimulus package or a supreme court nomination. all the democrats are on one side. all the republicans are on the other side. actually, if you can bottle this, it's an amazing thing that's been worked here because by some magic, you could have this group of people to be either party. so you have white, black, hispanic, old, young, urban and rural, and yet, somehow, they all think alike. i mean, it's just amazing, isn't it, how you're able to make that happen? so you have the democrats over here, and you have the republicans over here, at war with each other all the time because it's become how can my party win the next election. one example of all of you, if you decided that because this
10:02 pm
university is so good. and has such great facilities and you owe a lot to it. and you want to do something for them, you might say, well, we're going to get together as a big group and we've got a lot of friends and we're going to build a new building for them. and you would get together, all of you in this room, and you would say, well what do we need, what space do we need, where should it be built, what kind of equipment do we need, everything. there's only one thing you would not do. you would not say, okay, all the republicans sit over there, all the democrats sit over there. that's the way we run our government. >> i'm going to open up for your questions. let me just ask you to raise your hand if you want to ask a question, and i'm going to call on you. so wait until we hand you a microphone so the audience can hear you and the c-span audience can hear you. gabrielle.
10:03 pm
the mike is coming. to gabrielle. over here, second -- third row. this side. >> thank you. good evening, thank you for your comments. my question has to do, as you were talking about, mickey, the republicans are over here and the democrats are over here. and some people would say, well, we independents, where we are, is we're in the center. and i think that they put this forward as a way, this is the way that we're going to bring america together. is that we have to be in the center to really, truly be together. and i also, speaking personally, feel that this is a kind of -- kind of an anti-extremist attitude. extremism is bad. it's bad for the country, and so we have to kind of come together in the center. and so i know, jackie, in your book, you talk about this issue of how independents are defined
10:04 pm
often asce centrists. i do not believe in centrists, none of the great advances that we've had have come from the center. i believe that in a democracy, democracy is about a vigorous debate between alternative viewpoints. if you want everybody to kind of be in the same spot, you can have the kremlin, they're pretty good at that. now, a democracy requires vigorous exchange about ideas, but it should not be related to the club that you belong to. it should be that sometimes, you know, jackie's already confessed that she's a progresser, what can i do. you know, but on some things, jackie and i might be far apart. and other things, we might be together. but it wouldn't be because of
10:05 pm
what would happen to our club. it would be because we both thought about what's the right thing for america from our perspective, and we did that. so, i think that at some point, because there are 320 million of us, you know, it puts a whole different thing. so if the first three people over here decided to go to dinner together tonight, they could have a consensus. but if they went two rows back, you can't have a consensus, you have to compromise. that's what 320 million diverse people require. i'm not advocating that we come together in some mushy middle that never pushes for any advances. i'm just saying, let's look at the issues on their merits and come together on principle. you know, that's kind of where i am. >> yes, i would like to tell you, we are very close to
10:06 pm
fascism. you may not believe it but the democracy that we have now, if obama doesn't win, we're boarding on fascism. the other side don't play by the rules, they don't play fair. they're liars, they'll do anything to get in the white house. also -- >> no, no -- >> that's fine. let the gentleman finish. go ahead, sir, do you have a question for us? >> also, i believe that -- this situation that went on in florida where a young boy was just walking along and shot to death, the man who shot him, i am -- and i'll just show you, i'm retired new york city. you don't have a gun unless you see a psychiatrist. you got to go and talk to him first. second, you got to have a mental
10:07 pm
person -- this guy could be in the tenth grade mentally and it could be an out and out psycho. he looked like a psycho. and you want to tell me that if you threaten me, you're lunch, i'm lunch. this is garbage. >> i hear you. >> do you have any question? >> thank you for your comments, sir. >> she carries her own. >> a lot of times -- first of all, thank you both, thank all three of you. it's great to be here. a lot of times when we talk about the impact of partisan, it seems kind of distant from the lives of the american people, it's like regulations, but one of the things that i think
10:08 pm
partisanship has done in this country is to keep black and white people separate. we've done a lot of work as independents to create ways for what we call the overtaxed, which is the right middle class and the underserved which are people of color and poor people in general to come together and have dialogues but this is so human. the democrats think they're representing the african-american country and other people of color, but they don't. in fact, they help to create the antagonisms. so i just -- there's some things so profoundly disturbing about the system from the vantage point of not being able -- it's not just that they can't sit together, but they keep us from sitting together. and i just wanted the two of you to comment. >> yeah.
10:09 pm
>> interestingly enough, that division that you talk about, you may remember a number of years ago, when there was -- it was a much hotter issue than it has been since, about creating the minority -- the majority/minority districts. and i was teaching at harvard at the time. and there was a meeting, of faculty members, and it was very interesting because people are looking for what they -- what they think will serve their advantage. so this was not something that involved republicans too much. so the white liberals on the faculty were very much in favor of keeping districts the way they had been. not majority, minority, they said if we create a majority, district it is, voters of minorities, that that will take them out of other districts and increase the number of republicans, so don't worry
10:10 pm
about it. we'll take care of you. you know, we'll watch out for your interests. and the african-american members of the faculty said well, thank you for taking care of our interests, we appreciate it, but we'd kind of like a seat at the table, too. so there has been historically this -- there's a great new book out, you're going to be shocked, i read a very good review of it. very positive review by eric alterman who is quite a well-known liberal writer. and he has a new book out called "the cause" making the case for liberal politics. and one of the things that he brought up is the tension that existed for so long between white liberals and african-americans. you know, about, you know, how do you resolve -- one wants political advantage, the other says, we want to be full players in this democracy. really tough. that was a good point.
10:11 pm
>> yeah, just a couple of thoughts about this, and in my mind, what you're raising the doctor also connects to the question centrism that gabrielle brought up. of course, you've been an outspoken movement in that, and our c-span audience should know you ran for president in 1988 and as as an independent and became the first african-american and woman to access the ballot in all 50 states. but more than that, your message in that campaign and since then, and certainly, in all of our work in the independent political movement is constantly trying to find ways to build new bridges between communities and constituencies and groups of americans who are divided and separated from one another.
10:12 pm
and surely, we've been very excited and very gratified, i think, over the year, when we've seen a particular coalition which we sometimes call the black and independent alliance come together, which happened in 2008 with the election of barack obama. surely, and which we've also seen happen in new york city here in some of the mayoral races in the election of michael bloomberg. big stuff. very important coalition. one point about -- one thing, and i agree completely, mickey, with all of what you said politically and historically about the mushy center and it also has an unmushy side which is a divisive side, and we've seen that. centrism is often presented as the thing to draw people
10:13 pm
together but it's also the thing that draws people apart. we saw that in the early states when perrot was running for the presidency, and a broad coalition came together after that run to try to create a new national political party which ultimately became the reform party. and there were terrible fights, tremendous fights that went on about whether this party was going to be a centrist party which some of the intellectual types were advocating for or what we call the populist party to create a new kind of politic. so i think for people who have been involved in the independent movement for many years, that fight between centrism and populism, between purity and new
10:14 pm
coalitions and new alliances has been a very defining fight in the movement. and one that is certainly going to continue. i think it's very important for people to be educated about that. and this is something that i write about, as you said, in my book, i deal a lot with the history of this fight. because historically, it's a very, very important fight. after all, some of the people who are advocating for a centrism national political party were basically saying and this connects to your story will bring the more conservative democrats who are white and the more liberal republicans who are white, together in a centrist party, oh and the black party, they'll stay behind in the democratic party but they'll be happy because the party will be smaller then and then they'll have more power within this party. and this is actually -- by the way -- i'm not making this up, people have written books articulating this as a thesis or as a blueprint for how to build
10:15 pm
the independent movement. well, many of us who have been in independent politics for a long time fought tooth and nail against that. and i think it's important as a part of that history. >> before we take our next question, i have a commercial interruption. actually, i have two invitations for everyone here tonight on may 5th, the new york city independent party is hosting a theater night at new york city's premiere political theater. we'll be seeing a wonderful musical written by fred newman, entitled "sally and tom" the american play. and examines the inhumane compromise our founding fathers made. as mickey edwards said, jackie salit plays james madison in her production in her theatrical debut. >> mickey asked me if i was
10:16 pm
going to sing tonight but i'm not. >> i tried. >> come see the show, i will. >> you understand the debut means there's going to be more to come. >> i hope so. i definitely hope so. but the play is wonderful. the music is just totally engrossing. it's very thought-provoking. jackie is dynamite. and we have tickets on sale as you leave this evening, you can check in at the registration table. i hope you'll come join us. my next invitation is to join me in taking politics for the people national. i began politics for the people over a decade ago to bring these kinds of dialogues to independent-minded new yorkers. in january of this year, i took the enterprise national, i launched a blog and an online book club and discussion group so that independents across the country could be part of creating these cutting-edge conversations. a very important project.
10:17 pm
i want to invite all of you limping in the c-span audience. and all of the audience in new york to sign up yourself and refer friends and colleagues from around the country. you can find us at www.politics4thepeop www.politics4thepeople.wordpress .com. i'll tell you where to go. harry? >> one of the -- when we're talking about obama and the 2008 election, i was thinking, well, he got some of the cultural aspects right, but he didn't address the structural issues. we've talked a lot tonight and elsewhere about open primaries, predistricting and reform which
10:18 pm
addressed some of the structural impediments to democracy. and structural reform that was supposed to cure rooms but the appears quickly figured out how to turn that to their own advantage. i'm a '60s person so a little bit find it odd to be advocating for structural reform. how do we get it right, the historical aspect of it, the mobilization aspect of it and the to run the show that it works? >> the power in this country rests with the people, if they exercise it. democracy is not a spectator sport. one of the things, as the people in washington state and california found, as they went to truly open primaries, there are 24 states that have
10:19 pm
provisions in their constitution for initiative petitions where, you know, the voters can just take control. you know, they get -- they come up with changes in the law. in this case, what they did was reare districting and the primaries. they get the signatures. they run a campaign, and they change the laws. the other part of it, i'm not going to ask how many of you have been to a meeting where your member of congress or your house or senate member was present. but it's important at the state legislative level, a lot of states that don't have initiatives or petitions do have referendum where the state can be pressured to submit the issue to the voters. in addition when your member of congress, house or senate comes to meet with constituents, you ought to be there. senator, so-and-so, i'm not going to name any names or house
10:20 pm
member, if you vote 95% of the time with your party, you don't belong in congress. because, you know, you're obviously not representing us. because we aren't all in agreement 95% of the time. you say to house members, we want you to support a provision that requires a speaker of the house to act in a nonpartisan way. change the rules so that you can't be elected speaker unless you get 60% of the vote of the members. whatever. you know, come up with the changes that are required. and this requires confrontation. it requires confrontation either when your member of congress is back and you can talk to them. or you go to washington or to the state or to albany and you talk to them. or you get an initiative petition going. we're in the mess we're in because the american people haven't said stop it. and it's time to say stop it.
10:21 pm
>> yeah. just to add a couple of things to that, i was thinking about -- when you asked your question, harry, i was thinking about fred newman, a founder of this movement who passed away a year ago, and he wrote a book, a number of years back called "the end of knowing." which is a wonderful book. and has so many important ideas in it. one of the things that he wrote about in that book and not just in the book but which he practiced very much in his organizing was the idea that cultural transformation doesn't happen in an orderly fashion, if that's what you're talking about, it actually occurs out of chaos and out of all kinds of new things happening in the context of chaos. and i feel very close to this, and i was thinking about open primaries and talking to mickey, you know, so many of the
10:22 pm
discussion about this particular structural political reform which we're very much in favor of and which independents all across the country support. and you know, people will often say, well, you know, but if you have are independents voting in the primaries, them this is what the outcome is going to be. or it will help the republicans. or it will help the democrats. or it will help that one, that one. what's going to happen. what's the impact going to be. i've become very fond of saying i've done so many of these debates and i've become very fond of saying, i have no idea. i really don't know but here's what i know, 40% of the under are independents today. they need the right to vote. they need the opportunity to vote in the first round of voting and we'll take it from there. and i'm willing to say i trust in the american people to go with that.
10:23 pm
we don't know what that's going to produce. but that's a good thing. and that's the important that we're organizing in. >> hi, thanks. you mentioned ---i was glad that you said that the women's movement, the civil rights movement, the black civil rights movement -- i don't think you said that -- all these movements were not -- they were not centrist movements and moreover, they were not party movements, they were movements of independent people. and i'm glad that you just said, jackie, what you said about cultural transformation. because that truly is how things change. and so i'm a little bit kind of perturbed that people all over the country, some black people, all kinds of people, white
10:24 pm
people, saying that president obama didn't do this, president obama didn't do that. i think about what fred newman said about this cultural transformation, when ross perot got 20 million votes. he's saying that shook up the establishment because 20 million americans voted in this populist fashion. jesse ventura, a wrestler got elected governor. and fred said it was more a defection. so i think of obama that way, too. really, the cultural thing that happened, an african-american was elected president of the united states, and that was the change. and i'd like to know your comments on this because you both have eloquently addressed the whole bipartisan gridlock,
10:25 pm
the whole chokehold on the system by the american parties, by the two-party system. so could you address further what like that cultural impact would be based on what we've seen from perot, jesse ventura and now barack obama. >> i appreciate your question. i think a couple things i would say about it is, one is i think one of the effects of that very dramatic event that took place, that cultural turning point or that historic turning point in the country, is that what you then saw subsequently was the extraordinary resistance of the existing institution. to be able to manifest that or to respond to that or to create
10:26 pm
a new political process off of that. in some ways, you have to say, well, the election of barack obama should have set off a huge chain of events in which there was a broad reconsideration of the way institutions and this society functioned politically. but that's not what happened. in fact, arguably, what happened is is that those institutions began to perform more and more as caricatures of themselves, and as i see it, this is part of what i was referencing before about the unevenness of the process. the country takes a huge step forward in this way. and then you start to see these incredible behemoth institutions which are dead. it's the dead hand of political parties continuing to control the political process, even though the american people have spoken out and said we want to go do something different.
10:27 pm
and that's the fight. that's what we're doing. and i think that's also why, as us were saying, we're making the revolution. yes, we'll say, oh, you know, open primaries? what happened to storming the barricades. you know, you're a '60s person -- you know. you know, all this kind of stuff but i think it's important for people to appreciate how extraordinarily revolutionary it is to restructure the ruling institutions of a society in the way that we're talking about. >> i can't add to that except, i just -- i would just underline what you said by saying that changing the system and doing away with party control of the election process, the governing process, the redistricting process is storming the barricades.
10:28 pm
>> right there. >> in the majority take all system, in our majority-take-all system, it seems like that's part of the problem. it reminded me of when lanny gwenneer, i don't know if she teaches at harvard, she wrote a book about different ways to do democracy, weighted voting, things like that. is any of that relevant to this discussion, is it possible to get headway on different ways of actually representing the plurality, if not the majority? >> you know, there are a lot of reforms that are out there --
10:29 pm
i'll just give my own bias. there's a lot of reforms that don't make any sense. i talk to americans to elect and they keep asking me to support them. they've come up with this brilliant idea that's going to solve the problem. that is, that you'll have a presidential candidate in one party and the vice presidential candidate in the other party. well, since vice presidents have no more influence than this glass, it doesn't make any difference at all. there's another one, and a friend of mine is pushing this and other people, and it sounds good at first, instant run-off voting. here's what's wrong with that -- if any of you -- i don't know new york laws, but if you're familiar with a state that has runoff primaries, as my state did, you would actually find that in a great many of the cases that whoever finished second in the first round wins the n

106 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on